Chasing the Scream

In 2011, Hari was caught plagiarising quotes and misrepresenting them as direct speech from interviews he conducted.[12][13][14][15] This raised questions about the credibility of his writing.[16][17] An introductory page of Chasing the Scream states that audio files of all quotes in the book from Hari's interviews are available online at the book's official website.[18] On the site, it states that there are more than 400 quotes spoken to Hari appearing in the book: "To be as transparent as possible, they are posted on this website – so as you read the book, you can listen the voices of the people in it, as they tell their stories for themselves."[19] The book also includes 60 pages of explanatory notes on sources and interviews.[20]

The website includes a section for questions and corrections, with a note from Hari asking readers to submit any factual errors in the book to be corrected "for future editions and for the record". This section includes a few transcription errors from recorded interviews that were not noticed until after publication; for example, a quote from Bruce K. Alexander saying "learning to deal with the modern age” was incorrectly transcribed and printed in the book as "learning to live with the modern age".[21]

Author and anti-plagiarism campaigner Jeremy Duns criticised instances where quotes were inaccurately transcribed or misrepresented, stating that out of a sample of dozens of clips, "in almost all cases, words in quotes had been changed or omitted without being noted, often for no apparent purpose, but in several cases to subtly change the narrative."[22][23]

In a review for New Matilda, Michael Brull expressed reservations about Hari's citational practices and highlighted contradictions between the book's narrative and a 2009 article by Hari.[16]

Chasing the Scream has received mostly positive reviews from critics and journalists.

Kate Tuttle of the Boston Globe called it a "passionate, timely book" and that through reading the stories of Hari's interview subjects, including drug addicts, drug dealers, scientists and politicians, "their combined testimony forms a convincing brief that drug prohibition may have spawned as much crime, violence, and heartache as drug use ever did".[9]

Reviewer Nick Romeo of The Christian Science Monitor wrote a lengthy synopsis on Chasing the Scream, analysing the book's presentation of the history of drug criminalisation, its racial aspects, and scientific data concerning addiction. Romeo wrote of Hari, "His reporting is balanced and comprehensive; he interviews police and prisoners, addicts and dealers, politicians and activists. He also delves into different historical periods as case studies on the costs and benefits of the drug war. His book should be required reading for anyone involved in the drug war, and a glance at the national budget shows that anyone who pays taxes is involved in the drug war."[24]

Ed Vulliamy called the book a "righteous assault" and a "long-awaited history" on the war on drugs, "which imprisons millions and persecutes more". He was critical that the book omitted two crucial aspects of the situation – the first being how the "war" is in reality one waged against addicts and not those who financially profit from drugs, and the second concerning details of how legalisation of drugs would work in practicality. Vulliamy concluded that omission of these aspects does not detract "from the book’s argument, or the righteous movement of which Hari is an estimable spokesman". He noted the author's 2011 scandal, writing that a "shamed" Hari left to dedicate himself to documenting the war on drugs and that Chasing the Scream "is the prodigal fruit of that work, and with it redemption, if that was needed."[25]

In his review for The Guardian, John Harris praised parts of the book but was negative overall. He wrote that although the work is a "powerful contribution to an urgent debate" on drug policy, Hari employs a "gauche journalistic equivalent of the narrative voice found in Mills & Boon novels". Harris also questioned why "a mere 52 words" are printed from Hari's interview with Dr. Robert DuPont, the first director of the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse and the keynote speaker at a World Federation Against Drugs conference Hari attended.[20] Harris also admitted Hari's past record presents a challenge to reviewers, and made him more skeptical over things such as the DuPont interview, writing, "though it might be nice to set aside the events of 2011 and allow him a fresh start, his misdemeanours inevitably colour your experience of the book".[20]

Hugo Rifkind wrote in his review for The Times that it is "tempting, albeit petty, to read Chasing the Scream less as a book and more as an act of rehabilitation". Rifkind ultimately called it "thoughtful, thorough and questing, and full of fresh and genuine reportage about aspects of the drug economy".[26]

Kirkus Reviews praised the book, calling Hari "a sharp judge of character" and that the book is "a compassionate and humane argument to overturn draconian drug policies".[8]

David Nutt, an English psychiatrist and neuropsychopharmacologist specialising in drug research, wrote a positive review of Chasing the Scream for The Evening Standard. He praised Hari's research into the early events of anti-drug laws, some of which, Nutt noted, he himself had forgotten ever occurred. He called the personal stories of those affected the most "horrific", writing "The lack of evidence of the war having worked, alongside massive evidence of failure, are detailed with a frightening clarity". Nutt, the former chief scientific advisor on drugs to the British government, concluded, "Read it and demand our politicians take note!"[27]

Seth Mnookin, professor of science writing at MIT, wrote in his New York Times review that Hari is "in over his head" when writing about the current science of addiction: "[H]is misunderstanding of some of the basic principles of scientific research — that anecdotes are not data; that a conclusion is not a fact — transforms what had been an affecting jeremiad into a partisan polemic". Mnookin also characterises Hari's historical account of the early prohibition of drugs as "forced". In contrast, Mnookin's assessment of Hari's discussions of current events is generally quite positive.[28]