Stuff You Should KnowWhat if science could create a drug that made you connect with people more deeply, let your emotions flow more openly, and sparked love and attachment in you for other people? Would you take it? Better hurry and decide because they might be on their way.
Welcome to Stuff You Should Know, a production of iHeartRadio. Hey, and welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh, and there's Chuck and Jerry's here too, and this is stuff you should know. I got no little MOONI joke for this to start.
Right, let's dive into love drugs.
Okay, well, Chuck, would you ever take a love drug if they were available? No?
But based on the couple of people that were sort of highlighting on who have been researching this kind of thing, it's definitely something I think has more merit than when you just think about quote unquote love drug.
Yeah, I saw. I think it was a new scientist, even some very legitimate science magazine source was saying like, these things are going to be around in ten years. So there's a group of philosophers, especially an ethicist named Julian Savilesque from oh I think he's from Oxford, and then another guy named Brian Erp who I also believe is from Oxford. They have kind of been hitting this hard and actually came out with the book called Love Drugs, colon the Chemical Future of Relationships. I think in Europe it's called Love is the Drug, which is a roxy music reference. If I'm not mistaken, and they're at the center of this whole talk. But one of the cool things about when a philosopher puts a book out there's other philosophers that critique it and interesting like alternative thoughts and explanations and stuff like that. And this is no different from anything else. But what Sevillesque and Erp are basically saying is these things are coming and here's how they could work, and here's what to look out for and how they can help. And that's essentially the basis of this episode.
Yeah, for sure, this comes with some caveats at the beginning, chiefly because they use the word love drug, and that's a that's a term that means a lot of things to everybody that you might ask across different cultures, even within the same culture Situationally, love can mean something different to to to anybody. So the first thing to kind of know is that there's not anyone out there saying like, hey, love is just a phenomenon. That's because of the chemicals in your brain. Like I think even the most hard hearted philosopher will say, or chemists will say, like, yeah, there are chemicals that work in the brain that that you know, release all kinds of hormones and things that make us feel certain ways, and it factors in, but like there's also this indefinable thing that will never be able to like understand and control through a medication.
Yeah, I think what they're what they're getting at. Then, from that point on, so they're saying, yes, we agreed, love is not just biochemical, but there are a lot of biochemicals involved in the feeling of love, and whatever love is, it's associated with these chemicals. So if we can manipulate these chemicals, perhaps we can jack the feelings of love up or create love, or strengthen love. That's kind of like the position they're coming from. And so from that point on, just accepting that love has some sort of biochemical basis to it or signature to it. They then moved on to the work of an anthropologist named Helen Fisher, who had dedicated essentially her career to love basically, and she divided love into essentially three parts. And this sounds really familiar to me. There's no way we haven't talked about this before, have we did? It seem familiar to you.
Just feeling that way about you and Jerry and my wife and my daughter.
Okay, well let's get to it. Lust. Oh well, never mind, clearly you felt about me and Jerry. Romantic attraction sometimes and then attachment, I think is the one you're talking about.
For sure, those are the three stages. A lot of people will say that those occur in that order. Fisher is like, no, it can occur in really any order and then fall back out of order and back into order, which, you know, I kind of agree with that notion, but she does say that, you know, these are the things that package together as what we would look around the world at and agree on as romantic love, like a long term love relationship.
Yeah, and when you look around the world, it's expressed in different ways, sometimes very privately, sometimes there's PDA, like it's just different culturally. But if you strip all that stuff away, you're going to find those three stages essentially, or those three parts of that package. Not everybody agrees with that. A psychologist named Lisa Diamond from the UNI University of Utah, which by the way, if you're ever bored and you want to learn about epigenetics, go to the University of Utah site. I think I've mentioned this before. They have a world class, user friendly epigenetics website. It's amazing. But anyway, Lisa Diamond believes in more of a split attraction model, and she says sex and romantic attraction they are independent biologically, they're functionally independent. They don't depend on one another, and therefore Helen Fisher's wrong about this whole thing being a single package.
Yeah, and she's got some points, and she can point to some studies that seem to back this up. One of which that she cites on the RAG is that sixty one percent of women and thirty five percent of men have reported that they've experienced infatuation without a need for sex. So that certainly makes sense. But if you look at sex and romance and love in the way that the culture of a lot of the world looks at it, at least that three part chemical formula from Fisher carries a lot of common sense weight, I think. And we're going to look at some of these chemicals now, including at first testosterone and estrogen, of course, which drive the libido.
That's sort of the first bucket.
Yeah, that's the last part right right. The next one, Chuck, would be the attraction part, or the romantic attraction and that that's associated with a bunch of different ones, dopamine, nouropenephrine, which increases arousal and attention, cortisol, which is interesting, but it totally makes sense when you think about it. Cortisol stress symptoms include things like racing heart and sweating palms. Another one serotonin. Serotonin regulates mood and keeps out intrusive thoughts. So when there's a dysregulation of serotonin, those things can kind of weep in and you can feel intense, intense feelings and think about nothing else but the person you're romantically attracted to. And you put all those things together, and you've got the chemistry, the brain chemistry essentially of romantic attraction, the thing that's beyond just lost the thing or you want to be with that person.
Yeah, for sure.
And when you have that initial attraction and then it settles in to just sort of normal relationship status, I guess that puppy love sort of wears off. Those are chemical reactions as well. That cortisol that shot up and the lack of serotonin, those kind of level off, and that's why you level off.
It's very sad, but it happens.
So what about attachment.
Attachment is oxytocin. That is one that we've talked about a lot on the show. Also one of this very closely related vasopressin, which is the one that males and male mammals at least is most important for bonding. And this is you know, when you have sexual intercourse or maybe some other kind of intimate contact. Hugs, even a good hug, can release some oxytocin, so well other things that you can do like hugging kissing other people, and that's when your empathy and your trust and your feelings of safety are really going to ramp up.
And that's a big deal. That's how you become attached.
Right And so evolutionarily speaking, caring for offspring is facilitated by oxytocin in a lot of ways. There's a tremendous amount. Remember, oxytocin is like in part responsible for breast milk production, Like there's a huge increase of it during labor and delivery. It's a big deal. But it also has to do with pair bonding with mates, the people who come together and reproduce to create that offspring. To put it really biologically, so there's a question it's not just granted science that humans are pair bonding mammals like say prairie boles, which we'll talk about in a minute, but as insofar as we are, the oxytocin has a lot to do with that, I think, is what I'm trying to say. So much so that people call that the love drug.
Yeah, for sure, Like if you google love drug, you'll probably run across that pretty quickly.
That or ecstasy, yeah, which we'll also get to. So one of the other big caveats.
And I imagine like every lecture that Sabilesque and Erp probably give start off with them saying, by the way, when we're talking about a love drug or a love potion, we're not talking about what you've seen in movies and stories and fairy tales. When like some losers attracted to like the hottest person in their class and so they spike their drink and all of a sudden that person thinks they're gorgeous and that you have a winning person sonality.
They were like, we're not talking about that at all.
There's not a way to do that, and even if there was, that's ethically not it's dangerous to even talk about something like that. But what we're talking about is people that are in relationships, who are in long term partnerships or marriages to use, potentially use these drugs to give them some boosts when they need it to and increase those feelings, not necessarily take them back to like the puppy love stage, but not not do that, right.
I say, we take a break and we'll come back and talk a little more about that. How about that.
Yes, it's great, We'll be right back.
Okay, Chuck. So where we left off, we're basically saying that savillsqu and ERP and all of them are like, we're not. You can't create love out of nothing at all, as air supply would have put it for these love drugs. These again generally hypothetical theoretical love drugs, but you could use them to help people who want to stay together but for one reason or another have lost the attachment that they once had that could help people a lot. And that's kind of what they're pointing to, is like the main use of something like a love drug if we ever come up with one.
Yeah, And they'll also say things like, hey, if you think we sound like human monsters for trying to sort of regulate or increase these good time feelings by the use of drugs. Like, what do you think happens when a married couple this been married for twenty five years and are a little sick of each other they go on a sweet, awesome vacation or go out and have a couple of drinks together and at a nice dinner. It's basically the same thing that we're talking about, is like, those are things that people are accepting as a way to do that in your marriage, and we're just talking about doing it in a way that's just a little more dialed in and scientific.
Exactly. You can take a love drug or you can go to PF Chang's your choice, but the result's gonna be the same. You're gonna fall right back in love, right Yeah, sure, so yeah, that is a question. Though it's kind of like, Okay, well wait a minute, what if we're not if humans aren't actually pair bonded, if we're not evolutionarily meant to be monogamous, then it does kind of seem to be at least counter evolutionary to take a drug to stay together. I mean, what if that's like, you know, that's a signal that boredom is a signal that you need to find a different relationship or move on from the other one. I mean that might be true in some cases, but there's also plenty of cases too where people are not functionally able to be attached as they want to be to their mates in a relationship, say people with autism, people with ADHD. They might want to be in that relationship, but they're not bringing it like they need to. That's a good example of how of supporting a monogamous relationship essentially, rather than just forcing somebody to stay in by drugging them.
Yeah, for sure.
And also like, even though this might fly in the face of evolution, because I think they even say that, you know, it seems like evolutionarily, we're supposed to get together, have a kid, and stick around together for about four years to get that kid going in life, and then that's it, evolutionarily speaking. But they're quick to point out like, there are a lot of benefits to long term coupling. You know, it's good for your mental health. You know that studies have shown that it can be good for your mental health and physical health and overall well being. So and people are doing it anyway, you know, they're not like trying to rewrite this. People are staying married anyway, So they're saying, why don't we give people better tools in a clinical setting is like part of couple's therapy, so they can connect on a level that they haven't in a while.
Yeah, you can make a case like, evolutionarily speaking, we should be beating up people who have different hair color than us, but we don't do that because we've agreed as modern society that's in the past. Evolutionarily speaking, you can make the same thing for monogamous relationships even if we didn't evolve to. Socially speaking, we've decided as humans we're kind of into that kind of thing, So why not use a drug to support that when needed? That's what they're saying. That's what they're saying.
And also they're pointing out things. These guys make a lot of good points, Yeah, have to say.
And also so does Livia by the way, who helped us out with this one.
Yeah, Lyvia weight in on some stuff and I thought it was all like super valid and smart. But they also point out things like, hey, you know, we're on a bunch of anti love drugs, Like a lot of these SSRIs that people are taking are lowering their sex drive, maybe dampening their feelings and sort of dulling their feelings, which is going to affect their partner. And the medical community is like prescribing this stuff to individuals when people aren't just individuals. They're in partnerships and marriages where the whole family needs to be considered with stuff like this, and the medical community doesn't look at it that way, and they should.
Yeah, And they're using the opportunity and discussing love drugs to point out that we should be doing this with other drugs that are already in wide use, like you said, SSRIs, like drugs that impact the way that you interact with other people for good or ill. This has to be considered and it should be considered as part of the love drug too, right. I think that's essentially what they're saying.
Yeah, Yeah, as well as like, hey, you don't just have to use these drugs to treat a disease, Like why not use these drugs for people that don't have any disease to actually enhance their life in their romantic life.
That's a huge one too, because what they're essentially saying. I watched a couple of lectures by Brian Erp and he kind of really hit on this in one of them. He was basically saying, like, we have this a society, at least American society, we have this really weird dichotomous view of drugs. Right, drugs that are made by pharmaceutical companies, that are prescribed by doctors aoka, but we only use those to treat maladies. When you start to use those same drugs that are pharmaceuticals and prescribed to improve something that we've already agreed is a good enough baseline, now you're entering into the realm of recreational drugs, and we as a society are basically like, we're not cool with recreational drugs. And that's what Sevillski and one of the other points they're taking the opportunity to point. I was like, that doesn't make any sense morally ethically. Why would you not use something that can improve something that to make you happier, to make you feel closer to your mate, even if you're already doing good enough. And I think that's a really good point too. But the other part of that point is there's a concern that we would if we start creating love drugs. Then, as a society, we would expect pharmaceutical companies to come up with some malady that these need to treat or else they're not going to go anywhere, So we need to come up with something like hypo lovia or something like that, where we're just not that good at loving, so we need these pills. And now all of a sudden we have late like you're not very good at loving. There's a new label for somebody, just because we can't be like this in and of itself is a good thing. We don't have to medicalize it.
Yeah, don't take love a cell if you have a bad reaction to love a cell.
That's right.
That's a little inside joke for our live show fans, right.
Yeah, for sure, which we'll be releasing that not too far from now, I would guess.
Right, Yeah, probably end of the year ish fall, late.
Fall, let's see, let's see yeah, late fall.
All right, So you know what kind of drugs are we talking about? You know, who knows what's coming down the line. If we're looking at what's in front of us right now, we can talk about a few things we've already talked about. Booze alcohol is a drug, and alcohol is a drug that has already used for this. They use this, Sabelescu and you know, and use this as an example of like the potential, like, hey, someone, it's fine if someone goes out and has a couple of drinks on a first date to sort of relax them and make them a little more socially maybe less awkward, if that's how they might feel. And you know, again they're saying, like this is what we're talking about.
We're already doing it with booze.
Yeah, I mean that. Yeah, that's a great smart thing to point out, because it's like, oh, okay, well you just disarmed me, savillsqu that's a point to you. They also point out that we have sex drugs in rock and roll, like viagra is a sex drug taking testosterone low t Ask Frank what's his name, He'll tell you the ladies are gonna like it too. These are libido boosting chemicals or erection producing chemicals, and the point of them is to have more or better sex. Right, And so Savillsque and ERP and their ilk aren't saying like that's a love drug. They're saying these drugs can help facilitate the things that produce feelings of love, say, like the release of oxytocin that comes from sex, so indirectly tho, those are already love drugs that are on the market.
Wait, who's Frank so and so.
Frank he's a Hall of Fame MLB slugger from the nineties maybe early two thousands.
Oh oh, Frank Thomas.
Yes, he does those ads with Doug Flutie.
Yeah, yeah, I've seen those. I forgot about those.
And he does that creepy like she's gonna love it too.
Yeah, it's a little creepy, but also like, well they got paid for those.
Never mind. Yeah, I was gonna say good for them for like, you know, for taking the mantle of men with low TI, but uh.
So, good for them. So you mentioned prairie vols earlier. Prairie vols are are great little rascals. They're good comps for human behaviors when it comes to mating and bonding and stuff like that. They bond in ways that are kind of like us in our marriages. So they bond initially too because of sex, because that oxytocin is released, kind of like we do. When they're bonded, they like to spend time with one another. They nest and make homes together, they care for their offspring together, they work together.
They go to the farmers market together.
Yeah, they go to the farmer's market.
They buy those light up roses at traffic stops, people buy those.
Sure, I thought it was just some sort of ploy for something else.
Like there's you know, a kilo of cocaine in the bottom of that bucket, right, or.
They want you to like come meet their friend the leader.
Right, Yeah, exactly.
Well maybe this I've never bought them, but they've done lab experiments where they have been ministered oxytocin to females and then the vasopressin for the males, and it caused them to bond just like they would if they had mate. It without mating, and if they block those chemicals, they don't form the bonds. So it's kind of you know, it's not direct, but it's kind of like sitting right there saying hello, this works.
Yeah, And I mean again, prairie rolls are definitely pair bonded species, and humans aren't necessarily, But the fact that all of those brain chemicals do the same things to them that they appear to do to us, that's pretty it is a useful model for sure. And oxytocin again, we're going to keep hitting that because there's a good reason why people call it the love drug. And there's already available on the market intra nasally taken like one of those nasal sprays that you squeeze. It's oxytocin. It's available in that form, and it shouldn't cross the blood brain barrier, but it does something. It actually does have an effect. Studies have shown like this actually has an oxytocin like effect on the people who use it. They think maybe if it doesn't actually cross the blood brain barrier, just raises the general level of the oxytocin in your system. Who knows. But from that people have proposed uses of this stuff that's already on the market in ways that are not quite love but more kind of tap into the idea that you can build trust with somebody through oxytocin and that if you dose them with that, they will have to trust you.
And here's the other thing about oxytocin is there have been a lot of studies on this stuff, kind of like the early two thousands is when all this got heavily researched. You know, the early beginning of it, and a lot of those results were, you know, pretty astounding, but a lot of those studies also can't be replicated now, so you know, experts are now saying, like, hey, all those all those early studies about oxytocin, we really need to kind of pump our brakes a little bit, not saying completely discount it, but like let's just do more research.
Yeah, and like some of those some of those uses that were proposed that go beyond love. There was an Air Force major named David Dethiths who in two thousand and seven roe to Master's thesis on using oxytocin spray for things like hostage negotiation and riot control to establish immediate like trust with the police or the military or whatever. And of course all of this is theoretical, but that's exactly what Savelesque and ERP and the people that are with them are trying to do. They're saying, like, this stuff could be coming and we need to talk about like how it's fraught and how it could be useful. And that's a good example of how it's fraught. You don't want people controlling you or making you trust them, even though you probably shouldn't just because they've dosed you with oxytocin, if that ever really becomes possible.
Yeah, And you know, sablesco will also say, like, you know, it seems to help out in some positive ways, but also some negative ways, and experts will chime in and say, well, yeah, but in a very limited way, like introducing this, you know, in a not a fake way. But I guess what would it be called x genous way to your body. Just go out and take a hike and do some exercising, or give someone a hug. And that's about the same effect that you're you're going to be getting by introducing it, you know, exogenous genously.
Yeah, exogynously.
I like that. I like it the first time.
I kind of do too, actually, But the great thing about a intrannasal oxytocin sprays you don't have to give somebody.
A hug, right exactly.
And then also MDMA we said, is something that comes up a lot when you search love drug and for good reason too. I mean, it does some wacky stuff to your brain chemistry, including massive releases of oxytocin, dopamine, neuropinephrine, cortisol, serotonin, all the stuff that Helen Fisher was hammering, create lust, romantic love, attachment, all that stuff gets released to varying degrees when you take MDMA. It also makes you grow your teeth like crazy. And so people have said, okay, this could conceivably be used therapeutically in some form, and especially before it was outlawed in nineteen eighty five, people were already studying it like that. They were using it in therapeutic settings like couple's therapy.
Yeah, for sure.
And then when studies come out to say, you know, when you take MDNA, you're more connected, you're more loving to people, There's a greater bond when it comes to even like casual conversations. They it seemed like everything seems more meaningful. Someone might also say, yeah, but the same thing happens when you take methmphetamine. It's just impacting instead of oxytocin, it's impacting dopamine and nora epinephrine. And like you said, since eighty five, DNA MDMA sorry, has been banned for study in therapeutics, but it is It is still used in different countries a lot of times with people at PTSD diagnoses and in couple's therapy to pretty great effect.
Yeah, I was reading there's some couple's therapists, kind of rogue couples therapists who are like, I can't tell you to go buy MDMA, and I certainly can't tell you where to go buy it, but I can tell you that if you have it on you and you show up to this particular place, we're going to be having a retreat where you and your wife would be able to take this in a therapeutic setting. So people are still trying it, and anecdotally they report, especially compared to methamphetamine, there's a lasting effect of like the attachment that can be produced by MDMA that lasts beyond, you know, the experience of being on MDMA. So it could conceivably be used as such. But I think if there's you know, if we can isolate oxytocin and you can use that, I would guess we were probably going to go more in that direction than MDMA.
And if you have cash, you might see my office manager in the parking lot.
Yeah, I don't know anything about it.
Right, Sharky was that the office manager? Yeah, with loads of m d m A. Let's take our second break and we'll come back and talk about the opposite of this. How about that?
Let's do it all right?
So back to Sabelescu and herb It's fun to say, what kind of singing do are they?
Oh, let's see.
I think one of them plays the organ and the other one plays the saxophone. Really low key, mellow stuff.
Okay, that sounds pretty good. Okay, all right.
So another thing that they propose, like you mentioned before, the break is the opposite of that. Maybe some drugs that help you get away from the feeling of love. Let's say you're in a relationship that is toxic or complicated, or even abusive, and you have a hard time leaving because you have this attachment that you just can't let go of to your abuser or to your toxic friend or loved one. And maybe if you are stuck in that loop, we can design drugs to give you the.
Courage to get out of that.
Yeah. I also saw in one of those lectures that gave some other examples of how this could be useful anti love drug. Essentially, if you're a pedophile seeking help achievement, it could be useful for that. If you are involved in an incestuous relationship, you don't want to be it could be helpful for that. If you're committing adultery and you love the person, but you really love your spouse even more, it could be useful for that. And then lastly, if you are selling those electric roses on the side of the road, it can help you stop loving your cult leader as well. So there's a lot of other uses for it too that you just wouldn't think of, But when you do think of it, you're like, actually, it would be great to have a drug for those people that need that kind of help. And one of the other great things about this is that there's no real downside to that. Like there's a there's a lot of objections as we'll see to the idea of creating love, but how can you object to breaking harmful love? There's really no problem with that. That's kind of like, that's probably the best or least objectionable use of a drug that has to do with an effect on love, you.
Know, Yeah, for sure, it's probably no surprise that there's been a lot of criticism about all of this stuff. That was a German ethicist named Savin Niom in twenty fourteen that got wind of what Sabellascu and urp're doing.
And they said, you know.
What, I don't even know if this counts if it's essentially synthetic, Like, it's not, it's not real. It's not these innate characteristics that people develop in a natural, organic way. It's it's a chemically mediated sort of thing that you're designing.
Yeah, and you could see him being like, Okay, that's a that's a pretty obvious objection, but he laid it out pretty well and essentially said, like what this focus is on is you know all of the things that a loving attachment can produce, like health and lower depression, and you know, a stable environment for the kids, Like those are the goods that you guys are focusing on. What if we stop looking at love like that and look at it as love is intrance good in and of itself. It doesn't matter what other great effects it has. Love itself is good enough. Then if you're producing that chemically, even though you're creating all of these great side effects like stability in the house or you know, just good times, it's still it's not love. You can't say that it's it's love. That's that's ultimately what his objection is.
Yeah, there's another guy from cal State, a guy named Jacob Blair, another philosopher who talk about you know, he just imagines two people in a relationship, and he's saying, well, here's the thing, though, is one's love for the other doesn't depend on the actual true characteristics of that person and like who they really are. And like, I hear what you're saying, urb and sablesco about like, yeah, but you know, romantic dinners it's the same thing, and alcohol is the same thing. But he argues back that, like, yeah, but you can't go to romantic dinners every night and just have three or four drinks every night to keep that you know, quote unquote genuine love going.
It's not like a good comp.
Who can afford to go to PF Chang's every single night. Not me, man, nobody, not even the owner PF Chang himself couldn't afford that. So there's another objection to what Jacob Blair and saven Niholm were saying in defense of Sevillscue and by a Montreal ethicist named Heishim or Heikim Narr Hichim Narr. Hei Chim Narr argues that even if you're just producing something that's not actual love, those side effects that are good are could be enough to keep you around so that you are still experiencing all the stuff that that love produces. And so if it's not actual love, you could still conceivably appreciate the other person and characteristics that make you love them. And so the whole thing kind of becomes hurly burley at that point. And really, what's the problem. Are you guys just being philosophers being philosophers, I think is what Nar was saying.
Yeah, there's there's definitely a lot of that for everybody who is a philosopher, you know.
Yeah, sure, that's just the nature of the beast.
So really they love to argue and put up weird situations to prove their point.
Yeah, I mean, that's just the deal.
There's a bioethicist named Peter Harrison Kelly who went about it and arguing it in a little bit different way, which is the notion of something like oxytocin being a love drug. You know, it all depends on this notion that that attachment is a feeling, like it's a drive that you have. And he said, I don't think it's that that that that's the case. Actually, it's not like, Uh, you don't had this drive to constantly feel this way toward a person, Like you have these hormones that may encourage that, but you already have to have that attachment in place to begin with. But I mean, it seems like that's kind of what RB and Sabelescu are saying though, right.
Yeah, I didn't one hundred percent understand what the issue that Harrison Kelly was raising was that Urp and sablesk you didn't agree with like you were saying, like they're saying like, yeah, you can't create this out of the blue, but you can support it. I guess what he was saying is more he disagrees with Helen Fisher's idea, like you were saying that it's a drive, like you can't compare attachment to hunger, Like attachment is its own thing, it's separate from all that. So you're not boosting attachment. You're boosting the trappings of attachment. The feelings that you get from attachment are being boosted, But don't make any mistake that you're actually boosting attachment itself. Yeah, is what he's saying, That it's it's more than just some sort of biochemical dribe so yeah, in a way, he's certainly arguing and at the same time supporting their point.
I think, yeah, I think, I think I agree, that's exactly what you're saying. And then you know, of course we have to talk finally about the fact that you know, these kind of things in the wrong hands. You know, we've talked about spiking a drink or something like that being just an awful thing to do.
Conversion therapy.
I could definitely see this getting into the hands of people who think they could use it to convert lg BTQ people like, you know, hey, let's just go put.
Two people in a room.
Together of you know, put a man and a woman there together and give them this drug and see if that cures them.
That kind of thing exactly. Yeah, there's a lot of ways that it can be misused, and I think Erp and Seveleski were criticized as basically saying, like, no, you just make sure that you regulate them and make sure that the that they're prescribed correctly, and they were definitely called out as naive for suggesting that that's the only way that they would be used. So, yeah, that is definitely something that makes it fraud for sure, I agree, fraud. You got anything else about love drugs coming soon? Now?
It seems like it's coming soon in some way or another.
Yep, for sure. And if you want to know more about love drugs, just wait, I guess, and see what happens and see if you can get your doctor to prescribe them. And in the meantime, it's time for listener mail.
Yeah, I'm gonna call this.
I'm glad I got this email because I've been getting this wrong all these years. What with this song title?
Okay?
Or I guess the singer?
Hey, guys, listen to the episode on Share one of you mentioned and it was me Chuck working at retail at Christmas. It was at the gap and repeatedly hearing the song Santa's Got a brand New Bag by James Taylor, which you know you corrected me in the moment. Obviously it's James Brown, he said. James Brown is also incorrect. The song is clear and homage to James Brown. It is actually by a bunch of white kids from Detroit called Bob Seger, and the last heard, Oh wow, yes that Bob Seger.
He says.
The title is socket to me Sanna, and it was released in nineteen sixty six on the Cameo Parkway Records label, Probably my favorite Christmas song. In twenty eighteen, in anthology of Last Heard Singles from sixty six to sixty seven was released I believe the first time they've been compiled in one place. This is also an unrelated R and B funk song. Oh, there is also an unrelated R and B funk song called Socket to Him Sanna by Joe Chanal circus sixty eight. That's worth a listen. And of course James Brown does have a Christmas album with some pretty great tunes, and he died on Christmas Day.
I didn't know thousand and six. Yeah, yeah, wow, that are some deep cuts. Who is that?
I didn't even bother looking at any of this stuff up, So I hope Kevin Schneider is right. He certainly comes across as confidence, so I believed every word.
Yep, same here, Kevin. Thank you for mesmerizing us with your musical novel. And if you want to be like Kevin and mesmerize us, take your best shot. You can send it off to Stuff Podcast at iHeartRadio dot com.
Stuff you Should Know is a production of iHeartRadio for more podcasts my heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
