Every episode of Hamilton's Pharmacopeia opens with Hamilton narrating the intent of the show based on his lifelong fascination with psychoactive compounds. I enjoy the show for a number of reasons, but one of those reasons is a sort of fascination with Hamilton himself's fascination with psychoactive substances.

I, too, am very fascinated by these naturally-occurring (in most cases but synthetic in some) compounds. I'm also a chemist, technically, and while the synthetic and organic chemistry is wonderful to me as well, I'm a bit more intellectually curious about the way all of these apparently disparate subjects intertwine and dovetail with one another.

The gist of the show, streaming on Hulu, is Hamilton Morris, a curious chemist, travels to places around the world where psychoactive substances are an integrated part of the culture of these locales. The show explores the connections between spirituality, religion, government, politics, nature, psychedelics, science, ethics, and morality as Hamilton travels to these places to understand the history and origins of the compounds, what these compounds have come to mean to people who consume them, the mechanisms of synthesis and action and also the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the compounds. Hamilton Morris not only has the natural skill of Bill Nye or Mr. Wizard in explaining the reactions, he also has the integrity to treat these subjects in a gentle, genuinely curious and not exploitive manner. That is not at all separated from why this show works.

It's unfortunate to me that as we grow older we lose a sense of curiosity, and maybe even more unfortunately, this adverse relationship with curiosity seems to be exacerbated by the education system and its strategies in the US. This is probably best expounded upon in a different blog or essay, but what it comes down to is that we effectively force kids to transform their inherent curiosity into a way to measure, grade, and punish them. Some may argue that grades are necessary to establish checkpoints by which we can gauge a child's development, but I don't fully understand why we need to "gauge" a child's development anyhow. This does not invalidate the need for education; it does possibly invalidate the point of exams and maybe grades. Kids learn differently from one another so neurodivergent kids are already held to standards that were not designed for them; school is also not very accessible or equitable for disabled children, attendance policies are ableist, and we do need to have an honest discussion about how our curricula is a major problem too. Development is arbitrary, especially it comes to the knowledge we teach children in school. Of course there are alternatives such as private schools and Montessori, but as always is the case in the US, the vast majority of alternative options are egregiously expensive and only accessible to a certain swath of the population. This is a digression but the gist of this point is that humans are innately curious; curiosity and intelligence are probably why we excelled so well compared to our hominid ancestors. It seems likely that we lose that curious part of ourselves because we push kids away from inherent curiosity — an intrinsic motivator — to pursuing good grades — an extrinsic motivator — which results in us growing up and forever associating learning with something that was a major stressor, and maybe even traumatic, for us. I think Hamilton’s Pharmacopeia is not only great for the actual content of the show, but it also works as an exercise in curiosity both by the host and the viewer. It's also important to mention that as we grow older, we are also saddled with the Difficulties of Adulthood, such as depression, anxiety, financial struggles, the struggles that come with dating and getting married, and the struggles of child-rearing. Most of us might really not have the time or energy to be curious. Figuring how to restore our curiosity while also understanding that people don’t choose not to be curious is a difficult challenge.

I think recovering that curious part of ourselves is not only realistic, but necessary for our development as adult human beings. Curiosity breeds positive emotions and growth; through curiosity, we open our minds, we become less critical, less self-righteous, less reactionary and judgmental, less assured in our assumptions while also being more self-assured in our open-mindedness and all-around approach to life and the world. Curiosity also helps us make the world a better place; it is through curiosity we can combat our personal weaknesses and societal blindspots. Curiosity helps us to recognize that our weaknesses may not be weaknesses but opportunities for us to see growth in certain places better. After all, honing something we are already good at will result in diminishing returns.

Hamilton's Pharmacopeia is effectively about the curiosity and ingenuity of human beings and nature, all at the same time. One of the longest criticisms of any type of prohibition is that humans will always skirt the rules to satiate our curiosity. For some things, legal regulations may be effective at curbing a problem, but so often, legal regulations are human-invented, ignorantly-devised reactions to something that is not fully understood by those in power enacting the laws. The same is fundamentally true of psychoactive substances. In a future essay, I plan on delving deeper into the history of psychedelics and how the criminalization of them has probably harmed us for generations.

There is a long history of people indirectly controlling others through the use of stigmas; whether these are artificial stereotypes used to rationalize racial inequities or wrong, harmful stereotypes about drugs perpetuated by the Reagan administration, and ineffective and also wrong and harmful programs like DARE, these stigmas are effective mostly because we tend to judge things that we don't fully understand. In the case of capital-D Drugs, this effect is pronounced. Negative stigmas abound for everything from natural substances like cannabis to synthetic clinically-effective ketamine. But so often, these negative stigmas are promulgated because of legal regulations. Substances like ∆9-THC (the psychoactive compound in cannabis that produces the high in users) and psilocybin (the psychoactive compound in "magic" mushrooms, or "shrooms") are naturally-occurring compounds that have a long history of use in humans. By most accounts, these substances are safe, even safer than other legal mind-altering substances like alcohol and the combination of tobacco and nicotine, and yet they are regulated as feverishly as heroin, a Schedule I drug.

America has many issues with its criminal justice system. This is not a stretch to say; in 2017, 91% of Americans supported criminal justice reform according to a report from the ACLU. Because the criminal justice system is so ingratiated into American life, using laws to govern from behind the scenes is a powerful way to reframe the conversation and bend society in the direction the lawmakers would like it to go. This concept of passing laws once in power while not really being held accountable by constituents is further integrated by the close relationship between news organizations and American politics. Other factors are also part of this recipe; think tanks and lobbying organizations fund politicians while also funding research that supports their proposed regulations, media organizations publish news about the research, this becomes an "issue" that average Americans demand "something to be done about this!!!!!!" which then grants politicians the license to push laws that regulate this newfound crisis.

We have seen this done relentlessly to drugs. Consider the term "drug." You likely associate "drug" with illicit compounds like fentanyl or cannabis, while it may seem strange to call caffeine or a "drug." Caffeine itself is even a psychoactive drug, yet hundreds of millions of Americans drink caffeine every single day. To be clear, none of what I am saying is intended to dismiss the need to clinically and deeply understand how these substances affect our bodies; in fact, controlling these substances often has the reverse effect.

When governments control substances and actively promote harmful notions of what these drugs do, especially anti-drug campaigns, it prevents the people who would treat the subject with the care it needs from doing the real, needed research. Then, since institutions cannot study the chemistry and synthesis of the compounds nor study the effects on consenting human subjects for clinical and recreational uses through clinical trials, the only people mostly synthesizing the drugs are clandestine networks, where they often cut corners by cutting the substances with other materials to increase their margins. (Capitalism runs so deep that even illicit drug networks are bound by their ever-increasing desire to maximize margins.) Then, since we've so heavily stigmatized and criminalized the compounds, those who use them are unaware of the most appropriate uses and ways of using them, thus leading to addiction, abuse, misuse, overdose, and death. And since these issues all overlap, there are other considerations as well: Often, the people who gravitate toward illicit drug use are in the midst of serious financial trouble, they have chronic pain, they don't insurance or they can't afford the prescribed medications (as is the case with the opioid epidemic), their doctors don't believe them so they refuse to prescribe, or any other number of reasons that cause people to fall into difficult circumstances, frequently not by their own fault. And then, there are folks who are trying to get back on their feet, but then may not be able to find a job or shelter or help because they are withdrawing or unable to get a job out of fear of failing a drug test which may measure substances in their system more than months after last use.

I can understand why people want substances like heroin, fentanyl, and cocaine controlled! I don't believe the majority of everyday people want this stuff to be regulated with the express intent of cruelty or anything else; I think the majority of people are genuinely concerned about what they believe is a real issue. I don't feel the same about the lawmakers who enact these policies, however. I have a pretty intense distrust of people in power because so rarely can they articulate a legitimate reason for their beliefs or stances, either regurgitating some nothing statement like an NFL coach who doesn't want to assign any blame, or worse, regurgitating propaganda laundered by lobbyists or others who have vested interests in the passing of the specific policy. So, what ends up happening, as I explained above with how lobbyists, politicians, and news organizations are so interconnected, is that politicians promote some idea, then news organizations run with it since it’s “newsworthy,” then everyday people see that perspective and believe this is a serious issue. Not only do they believe it is now a serious issue, but they've been told there is already a solution in place, which is the solution promoted by the politician. Usually, in the case of drugs, the solution has been a carceral and criminalized solution. This solution routinely results in over-policing (in mostly Black and brown neighborhoods), racist drug penalties, stigmas around drugs that could be potentially useful in a clinical or medical sense, and also stigmas around those who use drugs.

You know how every year there are these rumors about cops finding candy laced with illicit drugs or razors around Halloween? The evidence suggests that this is either incredibly rare with a couple dozen cases since 1959 or possibly entirely non-existent since many of the cases are either retracted or eventually attributed to something that wasn't tainted Halloween candy. And yet you have heard of this issue, probably every single year! Our opinions are shaped by the society in which we live, where this version of society has a deep and pronounced relationship with news organizations, the criminal justice system, and horserace, always vying-for-power American politics.

The gist of what all of this scatter-brained diatribe is trying to convey is that there are many parts of the world that we can end up having strongly-held opinions where the knowledge we have about that given subject is entirely false or at the very least, light-years away from the truth. A realm within the American discourse where that misunderstanding is more prominent than accurate, nuanced understanding is related to drugs. It might seem logical that criminalizing drugs might deter somebody from using drugs, but whether or not it seems logical does not matter in the face of the evidence. Criminalization essentially proliferates the crime it is trying to prevent when the criminalization is not supported or replaced by a full-scale approach that actively and accurately investigates and understands the root cause of the now-illegal crime. It seems that in all the news reports about overdoses that there are no experts about drug use and etiquette interviewed to counteract the voices of those with a vested interest in the policing of the crimes. Nor are there ever really interviews with those who use the drugs to communicate their perspective on them. Everybody is biased; a narcotics officer discussing drug use has just as much bias as somebody who uses drugs. The notion of objectivity ubiquitously benefits the person or institution with more inherent power; in the case of drugs this is truer than ever. Perceived objectivity obscures the discussion by positioning one person or perspective as being arbiters of the truth and "just saying the facts!" while the other side is perceived to be villains rationalizing their lack of reason or integrity. There's a false American belief that something being legal corresponds with good or acceptable and something being illegal corresponds with bad, unethical, or immoral. At one point, slavery was legal and there were plenty of abolitionists revolting and screaming about how fucked up it was, legal or not.

We have a long way to go in so many ways before we can have a good, honest discussion about the many potential benefits of controlled substances and psychoactive drugs. Societies have been using these substances for hundreds of years, and while I'm a strong believer that humans, in our endless and insatiable pursuit of progress through curiosity, will continue developing better and more effective medications and drugs for plenty of uses, the criminalization and lack of genuine understanding around natural substances is a grave injustice that has disproportionately hurt indigenous cultures and people who could see genuine benefit from them.

Hamilton's Pharmacopeia doesn't solve this problem by itself, but Hamilton and the people graciously featured in the show provide a remarkably effective, honest, and beautiful portrayal of the world of psychoactive compounds. To conclude, a few pieces of ongoing research about the potential of some of the most of the stigmatized psychoactive drugs.

• "Psilocybin Therapy May Work as Well as Common Antidepressant" — Scientific America

• "How Psychedelic Drugs [LSD, MDMA, psilocybin, DMT, ketamine, ayahuasca brew] Are Helping Veterans and Others with PTSD, Depression" — Healthline

• "Study: Mixing CBD With Ketamine Might Be Great For Depression" — Forbes

See y’all next time.
tl