Why focusing only on risks is a bias
Classic substance-use prevention is usually built on a single message: harm. This installment of Sustainable Hedonism starts from an uncomfortable but difficult-to-refute idea: those who choose to use drugs are not just looking to avoid problems, but also to gain something—relaxation, sociability, intensity, or exploration. If a campaign completely ignores that dimension, it loses credibility with its audience and, with it, the ability to influence how substances are consumed.
The analogy proposed by the original author is eloquent: sex education that only mentioned unwanted pregnancies, infections, and abuse, without saying anything about desire, pleasure, or mutual care, would be incomplete and counterproductive. The same would happen, he argues, with a discourse on psychoactives reduced to “this could kill you.” Not because the risk doesn’t exist—it does—but because a message perceived as biased deactivates itself: the recipient who knows the other side firsthand stops believing the messenger.
Pleasure and Risk Management as a framework
The approach underpinning this proposal assumes that the user regulates their behavior by seeking a balance—dependent on personal factors and context—between maximizing gratification and minimizing harm. From there, the text suggests offering adult users who decide to start a service of honest information and advice that hides neither the problematic nor the pleasurable components. The measures listed in the original are, in summary:
- Truthful information associated with the product. Every substance should come with verified information adapted to the user, rather than the current mix of generic pamphlets and alarmist messages distributed without criteria.
- Professional retraining. Reorienting part of the workforce currently working in “drug dependency” toward an area specialized in information and advice, based on evidence and best practices.
- Public advisory services. In-person, telephone, and online support, along with educational and scientific publications on safety and risk management.
- More sober media treatment. Asking the media to abandon sensationalist reporting and reflect the phenomenon with less stigma and more precision.
- Training for consumption. Theoretical-practical courses—voluntary or mandatory depending on the risk of the route, such as injections—inspired by the certifications that reduce accidents in activities like scuba diving or hunting.
It is worth reading this catalog with some distance. The original article uses satire—academies and degrees with invented, cheeky names—to ridicule the contrast between current rigidity and a hypothetical future. It is a rhetorical device, not a closed program: we include it here as an intellectual provocation, not as an articulated plan ready for implementation.
Rationalizing clinical treatment
The text argues that different regulation would allow for the effective incorporation of certain substances into the pharmacopeia and expand the range of therapeutic programs: from “drug-free” approaches to supervised prescription, including established maintenance programs. The argument is supported by real, verifiable experience: opioid substitution maintenance programs improved outcomes compared to the single abstinence model and reduced the harms associated with marginalization.
To this, it adds two therapeutic fronts unrelated to dependency. On one hand, research into psychedelics and MDMA as adjuncts in psychotherapy for conditions like anxiety, depression, or trauma—a field that in recent years has moved from the margins to formal clinical trials. On the other, the underutilization of opioids in pain treatment: an access problem recognized by international organizations, which clashes with restrictive policies and leaves many patients without adequate analgesia. These are plausible and largely documented claims, but the reader should remember that “promising” does not equal “approved”: much of psychedelic research remains in trial phases, and its results coexist with methodological limitations.
Rationalizing science and research
The final section argues that better understanding the real dimensions of consumption—currently distorted by clandestinity—would allow for more reliable epidemiological studies and more honest health records. The author ventures a counterintuitive hypothesis: if we measured correctly, drug use might prove less problematic than we assume by default, although we might also discover complications that are more frequent or severe than perceived. It is, precisely, a hypothesis: its value lies in opening the question, not in providing a settled answer.
The text also calls for human research that is not limited to toxicity measured with extreme doses in animals, but rather studies lower-risk usage patterns and potential beneficial effects, similar to what was once researched with alcohol. A significant caution is necessary here: the example of “heart-healthy” alcohol has been strongly questioned by subsequent research, which suggests that there is no risk-free level of consumption. It serves, therefore, as a warning about how easy it is to turn a preliminary finding into a slogan.
Critical reading
The strength of this proposal lies in its diagnosis: unilateral information loses credibility, and prohibition hinders knowledge. Its weak point is that many measures are stated in the conditional, without addressing the practical problems of any regulation—inequality of access, commercial interests, pressure on vulnerable populations, or the risk of normalizing consumption among minors. Recognizing pleasure is not the same as minimizing harm, and the boundary between informing and promoting is real.
In accordance with the editorial line of Psiconáutica, this article does not offer guidelines on doses, routes of administration, or consumption instructions. If you are interested in harm reduction, turn to specialized sources and accredited health and drug-checking services. And, if you have any clinical doubts or signs of a problem, consult with professionals: no reading replaces a personalized assessment.
