TLDR: claims to be factual, scientific, and non-judgmental, but fails to be any of those things consistently.

Buzzed is meant to be a factual, neutral handbook describing legal and illegal drugs, and seems targeted towards teens and young adults who are being misinformed in health class. It's a noble effort, but fails in a couple of key ways.

The first is that there are extremely few cited sources. I think the authors would argue that this is meant for a general audience, and that readers wouldn't be interested in reading the actual scientific studies referenced. First of all, I think many readers would do exactly that, especially high school and college students who have access to academic databases. Second of all, even if readers are indifferent, it's just good science practice to cite everything for transparency. This book was originally published in the 90s and I read the 2019 Fifth Edition - I have no idea which parts of the book were updated in 2019 and which have not changed in 25 years. It's possible that many of their sources are very outdated, but I would have no way of knowing.

The authors spend a lot of time describing studies in detail, both animal and human studies. Sometimes the level of detail is actually unhelpful. Some chapters have so much content describing the exact living conditions of drug-addicted lab rats that the main point is lost. This seemed especially obvious in the chapter on marijuana. My understanding is that the science is still out on how much marijuana permanently affects memory and mental health; instead of just saying so, they describe a lot of studies in detail, I guess to let the reader come to their own conclusions? But authors of pop science books have a responsibility to honestly interpret scientific findings for a general audience. An average reader is not going to know exactly how much faith to put in studies on rats. Also, a lot of time describing studies could be avoided if they just cited the paper and let interested readers look it up for themselves!

Third, the chapters are grouped by type of drug, which kind of makes sense because part of each chapter is dedicated to describing exactly how each category of drug affects the brain. It gets weird though because drugs with totally different degrees of danger are grouped together, and I think that can obscure the risk levels. For example, Ritalin and meth are discussed in the same chapter just because they're both stimulants - even though they obviously have very different consequences!

The authors make some statements that are outright false:
- They frequently compare addiction to obesity, which is really weird, as if obesity is simply an "addiction" to food? They attempt to relate the dopamine hit people get from some drugs to the dopamine hit people get from food, but it is an extremely unscientific way of looking at obesity. They can't be like "JUST THE FACTS, MA'AM" about drugs and then spread misinformation about obesity. They also list weight loss as a positive effect of many of the drugs listed, which is dumb.
- Their chapter on alcohol reports the association between light/moderate drinking and positive health outcomes like longer life expectancy. To my understanding, this is true, but they seem to suggest this is a causal relationship, like the alcohol itself is good for you, when there are many other possible explanations for the relationship between alcohol and better health. For example, that former alcoholics who report complete sobriety still suffer the negative health effects of excessive drinking, and that sober people miss out on social opportunities and have less social support.
- In a section about police and the 4th amendment, "Think of how seldom someone who is innocent of any law violation is stopped in a car or interdicted at a concert. By and large, the legal community does its job." This year the Minnesota Department of Human Rights found that the Minneapolis Police Department is more likely to stop drivers of color and search their vehicles compared to white drivers under similar circumstances, even though they are actually less likely to find drugs and weapons on drivers of color. I suspect most police departments in the US operate similarly. Again, "police rarely search drivers who haven't broken the law" is the kind of statement that requires a citation, but it seems the authors just opined instead.
- "Use [of ketamine] in humans is limited to situations in which it is essential to avoid depression of heart function with an anesthetic, or in children." Paramedics routinely use ketamine to incapacitate uncooperative people or people they think have "excited delirium", which may or may not be a real thing. Google Elijah McClain. The Minneapolis Office of Police Conduct Review reported in 2021 that Minneapolis police frequently ask paramedics to sedate people with ketamine specifically, and restrain people while paramedics administer ketamine.

In the chapter about solvent/propellant inhalants, the authors write in bold, "We take the position that these compounds are so toxic to both the first-time user and the long-term user that they should never be used under any circumstances." I tend to agree, but that goes against the stated intention of the book, which is to be a neutral and non-stigmatizing source of information. The authors warning readers specifically against solvent/propellant inhalants reveals that they assume readers have never used them, and this could further stigmatize people who do use inhalants. (also, though this statement refers to inhalants like paint and computer cleaner, it's in the same chapter as poppers, and I sincerely hope no readers walk away thinking poppers are as dangerous as inhaling computer cleaner)

Finally, they occasionally mention naloxone as a quick and effective way to reverse an opioid overdose, which is great! BUT they do not actually instruct readers how to get naloxone from local organizations, to carry for safety. That seems like a crucial piece of information for anyone considering using opioids for any reason, and it's frustrating that they left that out.