Scan barcode
lemmyrose's review against another edition
4.0
I really enjoyed this book, it was quite informative, and I learned a lot from it. Though, I think I'm going to read the newest edition as there were a lot of holes that I know have been filled since this edition was published. This book does a good job of giving you the straight up facts in a way that even college students such as myself can understand. It gives everything a fair outlook without any bias, telling you exactly what drugs do to your brain and body, the differences between the drugs, and etc. I'd definitely recommend this book to anyone. There are a lot of misconceptions about drugs that this book easily clears up.
lily1304's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
1.0
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 It's possible that many of their sources are very outdated, but I would have no way of knowing.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.
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.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Drug abuse and Drug use
jack_reid's review
3.0
A no-nonsense, scientific presentation of the facts of the United State's most used and abused drugs. These include heroin, caffeine, cocaine, and melatonin, to name a few. Frankly, a lot went over my head, given the in-depth scientific nature of the commentary. However, I found the brief takeaways incredibly crucial for each drug. I also found the more detailed discussion fascinating for the drugs I found more interesting. The authors' aimed to circumvent the dark web misinformed discussions around drugs by providing hard science for the interested bystander and the hardened addict. While trying to read all at once, I'd recommend checking out Buzzed for anyone partaking in popular substances. If anything, it'll serve as a reference for later times.
morgan_blackledge's review against another edition
4.0
This is a rock solid, systematic, encyclopedia style primer on drugs of abuse. The coverage (for each drug) includes; the "Buzz", essentially a brief description of the subjective effects, and other important psychological, social, biological and psychopharmacological information.
The idea is to provide essential information without the hype and scare tactics usually employed in educational materials of this ilk. It is one of the stated objectives of the book to dispel unsupported (i.e. bogus) myths often employed by traditional DARE type educational programs. This ostensibly makes the information regarding the negative ramifications of the drugs quite a bit more effective for dissuading use due to its high credibility.
The last 3 chapters on 1: the Brain, 2: Addiction, and 3: Legal issues were the best of the book and in my opinion, should have come first. But I'm sure the authors and editors had their reasons for leading with the information on the drugs themselves.
As you can imagine, the reading can get a little dull. As is the case with any encyclopedic exposition. When taken cover to cover the experience can become more of a chore than the passionate journey of discovery elicited by other styles of nonfiction. But this format definitely has it's advantages, e.g. as a reference manual, and is actually quite actually engaging at times.
I highly recommend this book for curious users, concerned parents and significant others, clinicians and educators alike. It's a one-of-a-kind truly sober (just the facts ma'am) handling of a subject that is unfortunately plagued with histrionic, transparently manipulative nonsense.
The world needed this information compiled in this straightforward and affordable fashion. Bravo!
The idea is to provide essential information without the hype and scare tactics usually employed in educational materials of this ilk. It is one of the stated objectives of the book to dispel unsupported (i.e. bogus) myths often employed by traditional DARE type educational programs. This ostensibly makes the information regarding the negative ramifications of the drugs quite a bit more effective for dissuading use due to its high credibility.
The last 3 chapters on 1: the Brain, 2: Addiction, and 3: Legal issues were the best of the book and in my opinion, should have come first. But I'm sure the authors and editors had their reasons for leading with the information on the drugs themselves.
As you can imagine, the reading can get a little dull. As is the case with any encyclopedic exposition. When taken cover to cover the experience can become more of a chore than the passionate journey of discovery elicited by other styles of nonfiction. But this format definitely has it's advantages, e.g. as a reference manual, and is actually quite actually engaging at times.
I highly recommend this book for curious users, concerned parents and significant others, clinicians and educators alike. It's a one-of-a-kind truly sober (just the facts ma'am) handling of a subject that is unfortunately plagued with histrionic, transparently manipulative nonsense.
The world needed this information compiled in this straightforward and affordable fashion. Bravo!
miniaturephilosopher's review against another edition
5.0
I’m not sure why I never marked this as read. Just came across it on my to-read list. I definitely read it. In October? I think? Very informative and easy to understand.
cscallen's review
4.0
really informative and interesting. i liked it all the way up until the end, where they got rather fatphobic and a little too forgiving of drug-related legal interactions.
theghostreader's review against another edition
3.0
Really interesting, and just as detailed and informative as it needs to be. It gives a slightly more than general overview of almost every drug you can think of. I like that it is split into sections based on what class of drug they are discussing (opiates, stimulants, sedatives, etc.). I am someone who is super interested in this topic and (kind of) researching for a book. So, this is incredibly helpful if you want basic information about every drug out there, legal or not.
One thing I need to point out, however, is the horrible paragraph summing up the cultivation of Coca leaves in South America. Specifically in Bolivia, where I lived and studied for a short time, it is not called “Cocaine leaves” and most people I met didn’t like how tied the plant is to illegal cocaine. Even though cocaine is derived from the coca plant, coca leaves themselves do not cause the same effects as cocaine. During my time there, I was given Coca leaves and used them almost everyday. They promote wellbeing, mental clarity, a healthy immune system, and help with altitude sickness. Very different from the chemical substance that is actually “cocaine.” (Indigenous peoples of south america certainly weren’t soaking their coca leaves in gasoline!)
The sentence, “The Natives of South America used cocaine as an important part of their daily life” is really bad misinterpretation of their use of the coca plant
This insinuates (to me) that Coca consumers in South America were and are always high on coke, which couldn’t be farther from the truth.
That could have and really should have been researched better. (Or researched at all really).
One thing I need to point out, however, is the horrible paragraph summing up the cultivation of Coca leaves in South America. Specifically in Bolivia, where I lived and studied for a short time, it is not called “Cocaine leaves” and most people I met didn’t like how tied the plant is to illegal cocaine. Even though cocaine is derived from the coca plant, coca leaves themselves do not cause the same effects as cocaine. During my time there, I was given Coca leaves and used them almost everyday. They promote wellbeing, mental clarity, a healthy immune system, and help with altitude sickness. Very different from the chemical substance that is actually “cocaine.” (Indigenous peoples of south america certainly weren’t soaking their coca leaves in gasoline!)
The sentence, “The Natives of South America used cocaine as an important part of their daily life” is really bad misinterpretation of their use of the coca plant
This insinuates (to me) that Coca consumers in South America were and are always high on coke, which couldn’t be farther from the truth.
That could have and really should have been researched better. (Or researched at all really).