DMTrott

Those are really difficult questions, phrased as they are, but I'll do my best.

Unusable in moderation? That depends entirely upon what you mean by unusable. All drugs can be taken in low enough doses to experience a psychoactive effect, without dying, so in that respect the answer is no. However....

For some drugs, for example deliriants (e.g. datura, nutmeg), I would question whether the benefit, or fun, or whatever the objective, is ever worth the risk or potential harm. Is it ever enjoyable to be delirious? It is an extremely high risk venture, and for what? A dysphoric hell? The subsequent physical discomfort? If you do reach the goal and survive, the goal isn't likely to be something you actually want to experience at all. This is surely a case of potential users being made aware of the nature of the drug and its payload by a credible source.

I could answer the "inevitable blame people will place on you" part of your question in many ways, but I think it is important to understand what is in the book and balance risk.

I provide information, I don't tell people to take drugs, nor do I glorify or promote them.

I thought long and hard about this, for example with respect to my own kids. If they were going to take drugs (and no-one can say with certainty that their kids won't) would I prefer them to navigate the drug world without the information in the book, or with it? On every count the answer was with it.

Equally, when I took the 157 drugs myself I had that same choice: with or without the information. However, there was no chance that I was going to embark without thorough research and investigation, collating the data I documented. I didn't want to die on this project. Damn right I wanted to know what the general doses where, onset times, etc. I wanted to know what to expect, how long it would last, would my judgement be flawed under the influence. It goes on of course, but hopefully you get my point: the choice is between ignorance and potentially life-saving knowledge.

Will people blame me if someone dies regardless? Probably, but that doesn't make the blame justified: it possibly makes me an easier target than other more realistic issues.

I do feel strongly about this because I look around and see pain, misery and death, and in far too many cases this stems from a lack of awareness, or knowledge, or data.

Drugs don't kill per se: the erroneous use of drugs kills. The void in understanding and information kills. All I have sought to do is to fill some of that void, as well as I could.

Methamphetamine invoked the most intense cravings and was the hardest to resist. Had I more than the 100mg available (and I made sure beforehand that I didn't), I would have continued to binge.

Regarding your second question, take a look around and see the misery, pain and death across the world, and then tell me that after 50 years of a brutal drug war that prohibition works. I think drugs should be legal, and regulated to ensure quality of supply, hand in hand with a real awareness and education program. People don't overdose or become addicted intentionally: they make mistakes, usually caused by ignorance and lack of education.

Ideally, my book shouldn't be necessary. It is trying to paper the cracks caused by a counterproductive and anti-human drug policy.

This is a really good question and a really difficult one to answer.

For psychedelics I largely feel benefits, but for others, which one might assume could bestow negatives, it is really hard to be objective. For example, how can I measure my own memory loss? Also, how do I differentiate between the negative effects of drug use and the deterioration that comes with age?

I don't experience obvious issues, and I don't have any known medical conditions. Beyond this I feel fit and healthy, touch wood. I am probably considered to be a little weird in a social or cultural sense, but that may have been a prerequiste to embark upon this exercise in the first place. Do I look normal or generally okay in the video: Don't answer!

I don't use then regularly, no, but I will smoke weed in Amsterdam, and I will explore the local psychoactive when I am travelling for research. For example, I recently engaged bhang lassi whilst visiting Varanasi in India. But generally, do I sit at home and use drugs, or even go to the pub every week to use alcohol? No.

For my favourite, I'll copy paste from the Q&A at the back of the book: ===>

Q. Which drugs have you found to be the most interesting and the most beneficial to your personal development?

A. As a class, psychedelics, without question. For me, in the following order, as influenced by set and setting: Ayahuasca; 1p-LSD; San Pedro Cactus; Mushrooms; DMT. I feel that these were of enormous benefit, in much the same way as is already articulated by others. They bestowed a wider perspective, a greater understanding of the nature of consciousness, an awareness of oneness and connectedness, and so forth. I think they made me a kinder and better person.

Q. Which drugs have you enjoyed most recreationally?

A. In terms of basic physical stimulation and high, amphetamine. It comes at a high cost, however, which is why I only used it twice. My brain subsequently felt like a car which had had all the oil sucked out of it. I felt drained, for days.

Ephenidine is worth a reference too, because at a low dose it delivered both recreation and insight. Ketamine, cannabis, kava, and mephedrone are also worthy of honourable mentions, although it‘s difficult to be exclusive.

Q. What was the best drug for chemsex?

The experience differs significantly from class to class. I would suggest that certain stims (particularly amphetamines) produce the most prolonged intensive orgasmic pleasure. Cannabis helps you to get lost in the moment and flow with it. At lower doses some psychedelics can take you to a different place, and enhance sensitivity. Empathogens tend to take a similar path, with a more muted headspace, but hardly surprisingly attach to empathy.

I would offer some caution though. It is important to bear in mind that judgement is often impaired, and that events can develop quickly and potentially without due consideration. If applicable it is probably not the best idea for a single party to heavily engage whilst the other(s) doesn't. Equally, parameters should be agreed beforehand.

I would again re-enforce the commentary I make under the entry for methamphetamine, including with respect to relationships and addiction. Finally, the compound stress of sex and drugs on the body should also be contemplated.

From the start I was well aware of the general risks of addiction: I had been subjected to the same media and propaganda as everyone else. What was missing from my perspective was an accurate differentiation between different drugs. The official message, as you imply, is general, and amounts to all drugs are bad.

Obviously, some drugs already had social frighteners attached: heroin, meth, etc, so I was especially nervous about these. However, it was these which I used to formulate an approach used with every drug.

A lot of the information I document is drug specific, and reflects the nature of the tendencies of the individual drug. However, I also adopted a set of general rules, which are embedded in the first section (covering The 10 Commandments Of Safer Drug Use). These are basic, and for example recommend appropriate gaps between use of drugs from the same class (assisted, for example, via marking on a calendar).

This entire area has been tarnished with misinformation in the public arena (e.g. 'use heroin once and you are addicted'). This is part of the problem, and it feeds ignorance. If you are going to lie once, and exaggerate, why would anyone believe you subsequently when you are telling the truth? This is why missives from government carry no credibility.

I tried to cut through this via honesty: it isn't the establishment telling you to be careful in this respect, with this particular drug, it is a guy who has used it on himself. That's crudely put, but hopefully you see where I am coming from.