BOOK REVIEW:
------------
BETTER LIVING THROUGH CHEMISTRY
The chemistry of mind-altering drugs: history, pharmacology and cultural
context
Daniel M Perrine
Washington: American Chemical Society 1996
Ppx+480, $39.95, ISBN 0 8412 3253 9

One of the many badges popular in the late 1960s reproduced a well-known
motto of E I DuPont: 'Better things for better living through chemistry'.
Although the actual chemicals the hippies referred to were quite different
from those intended by the old industrialist, their basic philosophy was
the same. All human problems, whether material or internal, could be solved
by the appliance of science.

Mind-altering, or psychoactive, drugs are many and varied in both effect
and social standing. But whether legal and freely available, legal but at
least nominally controlled by prescription, or damned as having little or
no medicinal use and subject to tight legal control, they are generally
used for the same fundamental purpose - to provide a quick-fix solution to
problems physical, spiritual or emotional. In a technological society, what
is there to object to in that?

The defining factor in judging which psychoactive drugs are made illegal is
their tendency or potential for abuse. It would perhaps be cynical to say
that the drugs which are prohibited are the ones that people actually want
to take, but the scheduling or classification of psychoactive substances
can barely withstand rational scrutiny. It is a well-worn argument that the
three most commonly used drugs, alcohol, caffeine and nicotine, are only
legal by historical precedent and current economics. Nicotine is the most
addictive drug known, more so than smoked methamphetamine or crack cocaine,
while caffeine is the only known drug that causes laboratory rats to attack
each other or mutilate themselves.

Marijuana, the most commonly used illegal drug, compares favourably with
alcohol in terms of health, and would certainly have fewer disruptive
social effects. However, its association with perceived 'undesirables'
means that it is generally forbidden even for medical use, despite proven
results against nausea, glaucoma and spasticity. In the US, marijuana is a
Schedule I drug with no accepted medical use, although its active
ingredient, Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol, is available as the Schedule II
Marinol. Meanwhile, the use of marijuana in the UK at least is so common,
indeed almost ubiquitous, that its decriminalisation seems only a matter of
time.

Aldous Huxley's Brave new world postulated the ultimate technological
society, where all personal problems could be solved by a dose of 'Soma', a
visionary chemical to produce 'sane men, obedient men, stable in their
contentment'. Legal, socially-accepted marijuana could be one step towards
that world, for better or for worse, but any further steps would have to be
led by the pharmaceutical industry.

The industry has certainly been responsible for the synthesis and initial
promotion of many of the 'recreational' psychoactives. Heroin was marketed
by Bayer in the 1890s as a 'heroic' non-addictive alternative to morphine;
amphetamine was popularised by Smith Kline and Frencinitial promotion of
many of the 'recreational' psychoactives. Heroin was marketed by Bayer in
the 1890s as a 'heroic' non-addictive alternative to morphine; amphetamine
was popularised by Smith Kline and French in the 1920s; LSD was famously
isolated by Albert Hofmann of Sandoz; MDMA, or ecstasy, was patented by
Merck in 1912; PCP and ketamine, both of which can have deeply grim
consequences when used recklessly, were developed by Parke-Davis as
anaesthetics. Of course, these companies are

But if a perfect Soma-like drug, delivering instant harmless bliss in
tablet form, were developed, would and should the pharmaceutical industry
get involved? If the drug was medically harmless, it would be hard to
justify banning it on grounds of potential for abuse. And, in a free
market, the profits could be staggering.

Dave Nicholls, professor of medicinal chemistry at Purdue University, has
said that most pharmaceutical companies would be quite willing to market
LSD-like psychedelic drugs, if only they were sure of a market of at least
USD300M/a. Professor Marshall Marinker, a leading healthcare consultant,
recently looked forward to pharmaceutical companies developing 'safe and
highly targeted psychotropics', noting that 'these may be not only
therapeutic, but recreational.'

But what of the human effect of the widespread use of mind-altering
substances, approved and controlled by the highest social powers? As the
logical extension of the quest for a technological solution to every human
problem, it would certainly not be the end of society as we now it. Whether
or not a total dependence on quick-fix technological solutions to deeper
human problems would be a good thing or not is a matter for politics or
philosophy rather than science.

Anyone involved in the continuing debate about the use and effects of
mind-altering drugs, whatever position they may take, would do well to read
Perrine's excellent book. It belongs to the currently unfashionable genre
of descriptive chemistry, grouping its subjects into six loose categories:
opium and the opiates; depressants; stimulants; antipsychotics and
antidepressants; psychedelics; and dissociatives and cannabinoids. The
molecular structure and pharmacolmind-altering drugs, whatever position
they may take, would do well to read Perrine's excellent book. It belongs
to the currently unfashionable genre of descriptive chemistry, grouping its
subjects into six loose categories: opium and the opiates; depressants;
stimulants; antipsychotics and antidepressants; psychedelics; and dissociative

This cornucopia of often arcane information, combined with a lucid writing
style, makes the book a delight to read. This would be the perfect book to
interest the intelligent but reluctant student in many areas of organic
chemistry. The first chapter introduces concepts of neurology and
pharmacology, and there is a lengthy appendix detailing the basics of
organic structure. Synthesis methods are given for many of the drugs, but
not in enough detail to allow the average student to start his own
production line.

My only criticism would be of the small bias towards patterns of drug abuse
in the US. While there are full details of the dextromethorphan-slurping
'Robo weekends' popular in US college circles, for example, there is
nothing on the abuse of the short-acting benzodiazepine temazepam in mainly
Scottish heroin users - a phenomenon that has led some observers to dub
temazepam 'the cure for being Glaswegian'. Such quibbles aside, I would
unreservedly recommend this book to anyone interested in psychoactive
substances, whether researcher, legislator, student or user. And please
note that none of those categories are necessarily exclusive.