Why are drugs so popular?
I live in the US, specifically California, not too far away from Hollywood. Not so long ago California legalized marijuana, and is on track to passing legislation in the state senate assembly for the decriminalization of MDMA, LSD, that are Schedule I drugs, federally.
Now, I have been mostly observing this with a keen eye and have been observing these shifts in public attitude coming from grassroots movements. Seemingly, as I have concluded, many people like marijuana. The Biden administration recently made marijuana a Schedule III drug, alongside cocaine. Now, I've never done cocaine; but, Wall Street is constantly fascinated with this drug. Some people call it a rich man's drug, because it makes you artificially feel successful.
Again, then there's the research and science being done on certain other drugs, such as magic mushrooms, for PTSD and depression and alcoholism done by certain non-profit organizations. What I see happening here is that the people want drugs, and the US government is trying to regulate them for use. Seems like a good thing, in my opinion.
Seemingly, there's more to drugs than just an addiction, since Americans are buying into what they can offer.
So, what are your thoughts about this situation? Why are drugs so alluring to some and growing in popularity amongst (quite a few) Americans?
Now, I have been mostly observing this with a keen eye and have been observing these shifts in public attitude coming from grassroots movements. Seemingly, as I have concluded, many people like marijuana. The Biden administration recently made marijuana a Schedule III drug, alongside cocaine. Now, I've never done cocaine; but, Wall Street is constantly fascinated with this drug. Some people call it a rich man's drug, because it makes you artificially feel successful.
Again, then there's the research and science being done on certain other drugs, such as magic mushrooms, for PTSD and depression and alcoholism done by certain non-profit organizations. What I see happening here is that the people want drugs, and the US government is trying to regulate them for use. Seems like a good thing, in my opinion.
Seemingly, there's more to drugs than just an addiction, since Americans are buying into what they can offer.
So, what are your thoughts about this situation? Why are drugs so alluring to some and growing in popularity amongst (quite a few) Americans?
Comments (120)
My thoughts on the "situation" are exactly this. If I was tasked with overthrowing a nation state, or fighting an army, if I could have one condition granted to bestow upon my enemy or targeted population, it would be for them all to be high. Very high. From there it'd be a walk in the park. That's an underlying concern I feel many miss but fortunately the government does not miss the mark on.
Quoting Shawn
But more generally speaking, it's basically the only "instant mood change" available to man. Bills too high? Wife got you down? Dog ran away? Wife ran away with your dog and left you with a bill? Don't worry, get high! Heh, something like that.
All drugs are different of course, except for the fact they fundamentally (some more than others) alter your mind state. People want escape from their mundane often dreary lives, and what quicker way then to get high for a spell. Sure, rational men know it doesn't really solve anything, in fact can amount to problems piling up, but for the average folk, if it feels good, it solves a problem, and that is good enough.
I'm hesitant to consider the listed reasons as rationalizations; but, regarding psychologizing the issue, I would like to know why people seek mood alteration? What's the reason why people want to alter their mood?
It brought in a nice revenue from licenses (instead of the money-sink that policing users had been for many years) as well as boosting the legitimate economy. License holders make a decent living as well as paying taxes. Most people take their pot home or to a party and enjoy it in private. If I see somebody driving erratically or weaving as they walk, they're far and away more likely to be drunk than high.
Quoting Outlander
I wouldn't be quite so confident. List of psychoactive drugs used by militaries
Quoting Shawn
Because The Establishment made such a huge to-do about forbidding it. And people wanted to explore their subconscious, their creative and spiritual side. To see deeper into the universe, or the void, or the soul... or something. And it was fun.
Quoting Shawn
Most commonly, because they are unhappy or anxious. Most of the unhappy people have good reason to escape the reality in which they live. Most anxious people feel more in control when they change perspective.
Why do men seek pleasure and not misery? To keep on track with psychoanalyzing, well, because a happy life is a good one, no? Other than that, it's simply the way man is wired. Historically, if it makes you go "ouch" you avoid it and if it makes you go "ooh" or "ahh" or "yum", you go for it. Not much philosophy involved, really. Perhaps I'm being dense. There's also an aspect of discovery and "having lived", I guess you could even say not being "afraid" or "too mild-mannered and boring", something men fear to be looked upon as by their peers.
What I view this, to-be, is a normalizing in relations between the desire for people to medicate themselves through mood-altering substances. It's a fickle game for the pharmaceutical industry who probably oppose self-medication, so the government is responding by regulating the use of drugs and not simply legalizing drugs like states did.
Quoting Vera Mont
The US government made $20 billion dollars since marijuana became legalized.
Quoting Vera Mont
Have you heard about the book, Dopamine Nation: Finding Balance in the Age of Indulgence? I mean, I think the mood-alteration is associated, as you say, with anxiety. But, what a strange way to treat anxiety, with dopamine, really?
Quoting Shawn
Well, at least with regard to psychedelics, for some they help to catalyze higher states of enlightenment. Heres Timothy Learys account of his acid acid trip:
Some people find some kind-of 'truth' to those psychedelic experiences; yet it seems like a shortcut for desired revelations about one's inner-life. An interesting side-note, namely, is there any 'truth' to LSD or psychedelics, in general?
Are you kidding?!! How many ads do you see on mainstream tv for over-the-counter remedies for everything from indigestion to allergies to every kind of pain? (Maybe not as many as i do, since they target old people and sponsor the kinds of program old people are likely to watch.) How many emails do you get for detox, vitamins and m.a.l.e enhancement products? The pharmaceuticals love self-diagnosis and medication. And they want in on the cannabis market.
Quoting Shawn
When legalizing a drug, the government also undertakes to regulate its sales and monitor its safety. So do states that legalized it: they license the distributors, restrict the age at which people can buy it, and how much they're allowed to have.
Quoting Shawn
Not so out of-the-box!
In any case, I didn't mean clinical anxiety, for which they would have prescription drugs (for better or worse). I meant feelings of fear, dread, apprehension, insecurity. Coke is supposed to be good for that. Pot lets you relax and see the lighter side. I don't know much about the effects of other street drugs: in the 60's, it was mainly pot - for casual use - and LSD for a special experience.
They provided different experiences from those on the unaltered menu.
The Timothey Leary and Casteneda versions were treating them as gates to realms not yet explored. I do not view that as negated by objections on the basis of limited functional consciousness seen in all addictions.
I like the way a friend put it. It is good to have windows but too many undermine the structure.
I think it's one of those subjects if you have to ask, it may not be possible to readily explain.
Obviously drugs are fun. They are enjoyable. They offer experiences you can't easily get straight. I know from personal experience that a bottle of Chivas can make almost any event seem interesting and enjoyable. People too.
And there are numerous other reasons for substance use - which does not always lead to substance misuse. Not everyone becomes dependent on substances, licit or illicit.
People also take drugs to self-medicate, do assist in managing trauma and abuse, to deal with chronic boredom and feelings of emptiness, as a way to relax and find hope and joy in an otherwise bleak world. Taking the rough edges off neoliberalism and bullshit jobs might be a good reason to smoke weed, for instance.
Humans are always looking to find ways to augment or enhance daily life, whether through sport or the arts or substances. We don't as a rule like sitting in our room alone just thinking.
The correlation between alcohol and sexual behavior is obvious. We limit its use to adults and create specific areas for its consumption, where we gyrate to rhythmic beats around scantily dressed members of the opposite sex.
Sex, drugs, and rock and roll as they say.
If a substance lowers one's inhibitions and that results in reproduction, those best affected by it will do better to spread their genes.
We are the descendants of drunk fuckers. Literally.
Because they're awesome. In the short term.
Do you think perhaps you might have inverted this? It was about the drugs, then peace, love, and political activism was the result of the drug taking.
This is an excellent philosophical intuition, and it's amazing how psychedelics reveal this so clearly.
Quoting Hanover
The thing is, that the human body, and brain particularly, is such a finely tuned, delicately balanced, piece of equipment, that even a microdose of the right (or wrong) chemicals will throw off that balance. And when one finds that this tiny bit of chemicals can make me perceive the whole world in a completely different way, it is revealed what T.L. says above, "everything I perceive, everything within and around me, is a creation of my own consciousness".
That insight is what is gained. Whether or not this produces an increased survival is another question. "Survival" in the context of evolutionary theory is reproductive, not personal. Maybe sex drugs and rock and roll, is a by-product of the resulting euphoria.
It didn't result in increased survival; it resulted in increased enjoyment. Other animals get drunk or high on purpose, too, so the craving may well have preceded sapience.
Have you seen the movie, Pleasantville? It explains the '60's rather well. There was a desperate need to escape from the American Dream, because it was covering up the American Nightmare of Vietnam and became the prison of suburban convention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleasantville_(film)
One self medicates because one is in a state of such confinement in one's own mind, and such alienation from reality, that intoxication actually brings one closer to reality for a short while. It is not a new thing, though the particular drugs were new; "In vino, veritas." the Romans used to say. Unfortunately, the conventions of drug-culture and self-indulgence quickly become as grey and confining, (if not more so), as the dreamworld they seek to escape.
Here is a pig singing about it for you.
According to Wikipedia, Dr Hofmann described his interest in chemistry, in a speech at a conference in 1996, this way:
"Moreover, an artistic career was tempting. In the end, however, it was a problem of theoretical knowledge which induced me to study chemistry, which was a great surprise to all who knew me. Mystical experiences in childhood, in which Nature was altered in magical ways, had provoked questions concerning the essence of the external, material world, and chemistry was the scientific field which might afford insights into this."
*Edit: removed "delusional", replaced with "delirious" as a better word in the context.
It didn't seem to do him any harm - lived to 102.
I only tried it twice and didn't particularly enjoy the experience.
Drugs have been a part of societies and civilization since the very beginning. Societies sanction specific drugs which, for one reason or another, facilitate or mediate certain aspects in that society. For example coffee facilitates work, and alcohol mediates stress in many individuals usually tied to work or personal economic issues, etc.
Since society is right now in the middle of a state change, reconfiguring and adapting itself to new and novel conditions elicited mostly by new technologies, new drugs will be sanctioned and accepted as the new normal.
I think that as AI begins to take over more jobs and more and more people lose their jobs to AI, the allure of drugs will increase to cope with the feelings of purposelessness and meaninglessness resulting in their lives. This will be especially true for people who identify strongly with their job or career. Most of humanity has grown up in survival mode; in modern times, that means work, and when that is gone, it leaves a vacuum that i suspect many will fill with some drug or other (traditionally alcohol). For the same reason Universal Basic Income (UBI) will need to be implemented, drugs will also need to be legalized in order to mediate potential societal uprisings, and facilitate new modes of being.
It is critically important to understand that there are many different kinds of drugs that do very, very different things. And people use them for many different reasons. Different people also use some of the same drugs for very different reasons.
I did a lot of exploration with psychedelics when I was younger. But I would never touch addictive hard "pleasure" drugs like heroin, meth, or cocaine. I have always known better than to go there. My use of psychedelics was mostly about a search, a drive to explore what's possible in consciousness, an attempt to better understand what I am and what the world is. It was also a kind of adventure. It was very much an expression of my curious nature to do that. Sure, sometimes it was also a way to puncture the boredom of mundane everyday life. Mostly though, I was trying to see further, both outside and inside, like using a telescope to look at the night sky or a microscope to look at what is to be found in a drop of pond water.
Psychedelics are very, very different from "pleasure" drugs. They can be terrifying at times, ecstatic at other times. They can be unpredictable. And they are generally not addictive. They can even be quite counter-addictive. They can lead you to even quit the other substances you are addicted to. For me, and I think for most, it wasn't about pleasure or escape. Quite the opposite. Psychedelics can make you profoundly uncomfortable. They can force you to look at things you'd rather avoid looking at. You are often confronted with your own shit in a big way. Many times, after coming down, I was "kissing the ground" so to speak, relieved to be back to the mundane.
I found out though that psychedelics are not without their dangers. I flew too close to the sun and got burned. And I have had some life struggles that I am not sure aren't partly a result of my use of psychedelics. It's hard to test the counterfactual though. I can't know how my life would have gone without them.
Certainly some of the most amazing experiences of my life were on psychedelics. Some of the most horrible too. I had a three-day psychotic episode once after an LSD session. I've been very cautious about such drugs ever since. It is pretty disconcerting to discover how tenuous our grasp of "reality" really is.
Why are these drugs growing in popularity and acceptance? Many reasons. The Internet. Joe Rogan and his ultra-popular podcast. The interesting nature of the drugs themselves and growing knowledge of them, combined with the dying off of the old generations that were so frightened of them. Society is also slowly coming to realize that some of these drugs can have very positive impacts when used skillfully. They can facilitate the healing of trauma, for example, or death anxiety in terminal cancer patients.
Frankly, the effects are so interesting and powerful and so unlike what you could possibly expect prior to experiencing them, that I think people who have been there compared to people who haven't are qualitatively different in some sense. You're never quite the same afterward. You don't just see pretty patterns. It's the effects on the mind and your sense of self and what it means to be conscious and human that are most interesting. One person I know called those who have really been there "cracked eggs". I like that characterization. It implies that you are somehow both more aware/awake and also a little broken, never to be fully put back together in your safe enclosure again.
Psychedelics are not without danger. They are very powerful and can exacerbate or cause mental illness. They can also do some really, really wonderful things. I've experienced both aspects and feel ambivalent about them. I generally don't recommend them to people. If you are inclined to explore such territories, you will go there of your own accord. I suppose it's like scuba diving or mountaineering. There are amazing things to see, but some people drown or crash on the rocks. Others find much of value.
Very interesting question, indeed.
Quoting Hanover
I don't think it is a matter of greater survivability. I mean, I don't know if shamans were the norm for every primordial group of humans living together; but, nearly every continent has one or another kind of hallucinogen out there.
Quoting Hanover
Food for thought, I guess. Thanks for commenting!
No, I think the issue is an impoverished spiritual life. But, Marx could have been right about the substitution of drugs for religion...
Quoting Vera Mont
It's interesting to note, that nowadays we call the use of drugs as a recreational thing. I suppose this means that the behavior is an outlet...
This is perplexing to me. I say that because the use of hallucinogens or psychedelics are associated with psychotic states of the mind. Psychosis is by definition a break from reality. How can a break from reality bring one closer to reality?
I agree; but, I am somewhat hesitant to believe that any government will want its population to start taking drugs to remedy boredom.
Quoting Shawn
This I admire most about this thread; I wonder the exact same. Turned out great btw, very highly intellectual and compelling non-biased descriptions of psychedelics here. Primarily by the quoted poster and @Joshs, IMO.
I guess to springboard off your question, if not add to it, particularly for those who have experienced psychedelics, is the profoundness really something that can't be experienced by reading or watching a really really good book or reading a good piece of detailed writing (something Nietzsche-level the average writer cannot convey in words)? I feel any physical experience is exactly that, a physical experience. Sure it's "crazy", surreal, mind-bending all that. But at the end of the day it's just a sensation overlaid by irregular thoughts overlaid by visuals. I'm sure I'll get the "no bro you gotta try it, I left my body and became God. I could hear colors and see sounds, bro" kind of verbal kitsch, but really, as an intellectual, if you can't put it into words you simply felt really weird and your making a big deal out of it because its something you never felt before.
So while I don't think its necessarily a "psychotic break" that perhaps is transient in nature altering your identity and concept of self, no different than a first time vacation or sightseeing trip would do if you lived in a small village your whole life, I think its a bit overblown simply based on the facts. People exciting themselves over a temporary period of irregular brain activity leading to a very base level change in perception that just so happens to barely constitute a "changed life perspective". Nothing a movie, in theory, couldn't replicate, if you truly immerse yourself into it.
Regarding counterfactuals, and the doubt in your mind about these or some of these experiences, why is there so much glamourization of psychedelics? I mentioned this in another comment; but, people think there is some kind of 'truth' to these experiences; but is there really any truth to them?
We don't call all drugs recreational. Most drugs are therapeutic (prescribed for specific symptoms of illness) and many are remedial (to correct minor malfunctions, like a headache, upset stomach or allergy). Most psychotropic drugs are also used in the treatment of mental illness; marijuana is medicinal when relieving the side effects of cancer treatment or overcoming some of the lesser anxiety disorders.
They're called recreational when people use them like alcohol, to make themselves feel good.
Brave New World.
Quoting Shawn
Why is there so much glamouraziation of overpriced cars, film performers, football players and Rocket launchings? People get excited about some really dumb stuff.
If what you're saying is true, then is there any truth to gleaning into one's inner life through a drug? Based on what I am reading, I think these deeply personal experiences, may have significant meaning if not truth. Is this correct?
Later in life I abandoned intoxicants generally - but not entirely. When I stayed in the US in 2022, there was a legal cannabis store nearby which sold edibles. Same old feeling. But I recognise the downsides. I know people who's maturity and development were adversely affected by cannabis, and I think it probably interfered with my own in some ways.
As regards LSD, I also had experiences with that in my youth - in fact, at the time it hadn't yet been made illegal. LSD can have massive downsides - bad trips and psychotic episodes are real dangers. But (and here I add I do not condone the taking of illegal substances) it also opens windows to dimensions of existence that will likely never otherwise be seen (although it's generally futile to try and explain it.)
Here's a never-quite-finished instrumental of mine, created in honor of Albert Hoffman, who first synthesised LSD in the 1940's, and who lived until aged 106 (good advertisement, I would have thought.) He had first-ever acid trip when he took a large dose of LSD in 1943 and then rode his bicycle through the streets of Basel.
Clarify what you mean by this.
Wtf, dude... :lol:
That book was banned, as is this website, @Wayfarer...
What I mean is that since a very long time, monotheistic religions and other religious folk have dissuaded the lotus eaters or other drug users from gaining a voice about the aspect that drugs present to any person. Drugs, especially those in charge of their administration (such as shamans), have been in opposition to the clergy and priests narrative of a good life to be found in service of their creator and further salvation from the pains of the material world by worship of their creator and savior.
What more can I say?
As a baby-boomer, later in life I realised that the whole 60's thing had completely bypassed the next generations. It was like this window was briefly opened to a completely other dimension of existence/experience ('But first, are you experienced? Have you ever been experienced?'), but then closing again.
A great retro on many of the social issues:
Cults and Cosmic Consciousness, Camille Paglia
Also Storming Heaven: LSD and the American Dream, Jay Stevens - an excellent social history of LSD in American culture (circa late 1980's).
And if you never read them at the time, Theodore Roszak's The Making of a Counterculture and Where the Wasteland Ends (although they're a bit dated now.)
Thanks for the links. For quite a while I became interested in psychotronics, which the United States military was interested in for a while. The Army became interested in parascience and parapsychology for quite a while under the behest of the CIA, which did extensive studies into the practical applications of LSD and other psychedelics. MK-ULTRA is something you may have heard about. There are some chilling reports on YouTube about human experimentation under the Church Committee. Crazy times, the 60's.
There was a pretty good movie about psychotronics and all that other stuff the hippies were interested in:
Yes. Instead of going to mass on Sundays, some people might prefer to smoke a joint or do whatever recreational stuff certain drugs have to offer.
Quoting 180 Proof
It seems like one of those existential questions, that only experiences endowed with significance and meaning can address.
Quoting 180 Proof
I don't think it is futile. Seems to me to be more in line with hard to understand or attain. Not everyone can become a guru or saint.
What this means in my opinion, is that people routinely fail at their own quest for purpose and edification in everyday living. Where this follows in my mind, is a life concerned with virtue and eudaimonia, which philosophy addresses the best. Drugs, seem like a distraction in this view.
While I agree that there are definitely 'doors of perception' that can be opened, they don't all lead upwards.
So we agree on (this 'recreational' path of least effort) after all ...
Quoting 180 Proof
¹'ritual' path of least effort :sparkle:
Yes; mostly. But, to every person there is a unique identifier to be held about what or even why (which psychology addresses) some things are desired to be distracted from. Non-trivial to address.
It's a chance, a risk to take. An experienced guide lessens the risk.
How should I know? They're not my experiences.
For those with the blues, then the blues matter. :cool:
I never had one. In fact right up until the moment of my first experience with 'entheogens' (the polite name for hallucinogens) I swore I'd never do it. But, you know, impressionable teen.
The high point came many sessions later. Standing outside in a crisp but not cold dawn, marvelling at the exquisite beauty of young saplings and mossy rocks. Suddenly I had this sense of everything being imbued with life, of everything striving towards realisation of tree-ness and rock-ness in their own ways. It was definitely an experience of the sacred, a glimpse of something beautiful. And the thought was - why isn't life always like this? Why don't I see this, every moment?
Of course, I and many others realised you couldn't rely on artifice to really reach that kind of state with any kind of permanency (although there were also many who pursued it into addiction and destruction*.) But the accepted wisdom seemed to be, this is the state that can be actualised through meditative experience. That's why all those hippies hit the hash trail through Asia in the 1960's and 70's. Be Here Now, by Leary's sidekick, Richard Alpert, who became Ram Dass. Of course, sitting perfectly still in uncomfortable yoga postures for hours on end turns out to be nothing at all like an acid trip......
//
*Actually, I re-discovered the late great David Crosby in 2022, a few months before he died. Awesome songwriter. Anyway he said that the reason he got addicted to heroin, which damn near killed him, and did get him incarcerated at one point, was the attempt to re-create the experience of his first hit. He only really kicked the habit when he realised, many years later, and after many bad experiences, that it was never going to happen.
I thought that would be clear, sorry. The worst feature of insanity is lack of insight. Most people think that sanity is normality and so they like what the neighbours like, believe what the television tells them, do what the priest tells them, and so on.
To be amenable and flexible is part of sanity when it is a conscious choice, but when it becomes unconscious and rigid conformism, it is a madness of false identification and leads to horrors. Magas, Nazis, cultists, fanatics and zealots of all persuasions all suffer from the loss of reality in favour of ideology. This is sadly the mental condition of normality, that confers on the sufferer a complete confidence in their distorted thinking. Psychodelics in particular serve to break down the identification somewhat - with luck, the cracks that are made in the psycho-ceramic's everyday insane certainty will allow a glimpse of reality to reach the sufferer.
To take the acid test is to made aware of one's insanity; to make a habit of it is the exact same insanity.
I wonder if that's what he thought or if he was paraphrasing conventional AoD discourse. My background is in counselling and support for people with addiction issues. It's commonly held that people with heroin dependence are generally those chasing the remarkable experience of their first use. I tired heroin a couple times and while I find opiates remarkable (feelings of wellbeing) I had no reason to use regularly. The question remains why do some people become dependent and others do not? I suspect it is the same reason some people become dependent on food or shopping while others don't. Some people seem to have holes to fill.
Surely genetics must play some role, if not the occasional cameo. Not to suggest willpower or simple availability of the thing (convenience meets opportunity) isn't a factor, however.
I've always felt this point needs sharpening. Why is it that some people seem to need substance use as a substitute for all other things? In talking to 'addicts' over the years, a common observation is that they would have suicided if it hadn't been for drugs. Their downfall is also their redemption.
Quoting Outlander
I don't know. I doubt willpower or the alternative, the AA cult, 'disease model' are the answer. 'Genetics' often seems like the catch all explanation that explains nothing. I suspect it has more to do with how life experiences (generally the traumatic) can rewire people's brains and make them uniquely susceptible. But I am no expert in addiction theory.
And there are some holes that need fillin'! I should add, I've never tasted any opiate, save possibly if any used to be in Panadeine Forté. Nor cocaine. My dabbling was very much oriented around the possibility of higher states, or so I liked to think. Enthoegens, as mentioned, and cannabis, for which I retain an affection (perhaps unfortunately :yikes: )
:up: :clap: :100:
And to the rest of the post, also.
My most memorable trip was with amanita muscaria, the fly agaric. I did much research into this mushroom before trying it, but probably took a little too much. I lost consciousness and through some kind of dreaming, took a trip to the edge of the world. Afterwards, I actually thought I almost died. Anyway it was an eye-opening experience.
Amanita muscaria is a very interesting mushroom. The deep red ones have the best psychoactive effect over the paler orange, and it seems best to dry them thoroughly in the sun. Fly agaric differs significantly from psilocybin because the trip ends with a heaviness in the head which tends to cause a few hours of sleep. Extensive research into the use of fly agaric was carried out by Gordon Wasson, who argued strongly that it is the mythical "Soma".
Another interesting intoxicant, for those who like the more risky 'road less traveled', is datura, the infamous "jimson weed". This one causes all sorts of far out dreams, but is actually quite dangerous, because the flower buds have the toxin, but it's quite strong. It derives the name "jimson" from an incident in the seventeenth century in Jamestown Virginia. At that time, British soldiers were fed the weed and went hilariously delirious for a number of days. Reference to the use of this weed is found in the books of Carlos Castaneda, especially "The Teachings of Don Juan". For those interested in the constructive use of hallucinogens, Castaneda has some very good material. Peyote remains my favourite, but overuse might be leading to endangerment of the species.
Genetics does play a part in the tendency to some kinds of addiction, just as it does in how a particular chemical affects each individual. Additionally, we don't start life on the mythical level playing field; some babies are at a disadvantage long before they hear the word 'willpower'. Lives are lived in very conditions; they contain different proportions of pain, sorrow, fear and revulsion. Some people have more to escape from; some have less to stay grounded for. Some are well enough off to indulge their choice of stress-relief in a competitive arena. Many are just young, curious, reckless and persuadable.
I suppose it's natural to not want to believe that, but governments have done a lot worse than that. Besides, we have historical examples such as during World War II when the U.S. military issued amphetamines (Benzedrine) to pilots and other personnel to combat fatigue and increase alertness on long missions. Nazi Germany extensively used methamphetamine, known as Pervitin, distributed in the form of chocolate bars called "Panzerschokolade", to enhance the performance and endurance of soldiers and military pilots during the war.
A bored population is a dangerous population, and an idle mind is the Devil's playground. The social "energies" become chaotic and unpredictable. If it were just boredom, then it would probably not be a significant problem, but boredom leads to all kinds of issues such as increasing impulsivity and risky behaviors, aggression, and hostility; fertile ground for "bad" ideas from the perspective of the social engineers and social managers. This is especially true if the evolutionary drive (energy) to survive or work is not structurally supported. That social energy, or that drive will be directed towards something, and if not checked can potentially result in a civilizational catastrophe.
Also, governments would only promote drugs in specific situations, but what they mostly do is restrict (make illegal) the availability of certain drugs to the population. When the prevailing social pressures reach a certain threshold, then a social state change occurs, and governments are forced to adapt. Part of this adaptation is not necessarily the promotion of certain drugs but the legalization of those specific drugs that have a capacity to mitigate those pressures. Governments have no other option than to deal with human nature and the tendency of humans to use drugs, sanctioned or otherwise.
Governments or politics are not the only determining factors in this complex dynamic; economic, and industry factors are also at play among others.
One person's drug is another person's medicine, and vice versa. An interesting rhetorical question to wonder about: What is the difference between a "drug" and a "medicine"?
In my mind, what this means is that a good college education is of greater value for becoming open-minded and non-conformist. Then again, some people also take some drugs while at college. :victory:
You may be right, but my experience is not that at all. I learned much at college but almost nothing of any use from the courses. On the contrary all my formal education seemed designed to create the "ideal" conforming angst-ridden robot, that is all governments can cope with.
My uni attendance was delayed, following a terrible senior-school performance. As noted, late 60s, there was a lot of social turmoil, I escaped a stuffy private boys school for an alternative-culture experimental school, at which I spend considerably more time socialising than working. A consequence of which being that I got into uni about five years later as an adult entrant on the basis of a comprehension test. And the major part of that text was a large slab of Bertrand Russells Mysticism and Logic, which was right up my street, and pretty well set the parameters of my subsequent course of study. It eventually culminated in a BA with Honours in Comparative Religion (emphatically not divinity!) Not that it has yielded much of use professionally, although on returning to complete my belated Honours year in 1989, I wound up working in the Uni computer shop, which turned out to be the basis of the modest career Ive enjoyed in the tech industry since then.
But Ive been studying more or less the same curriculum since, and still pursue it here.
I can see the antipsychiatry sentiments here. Drugs have a purpose; but, not the ones you would prescribe.
When paychologists and psychiatrists turn into modern day shamans, things usually go downhill.
Witchdoctors and stuff.
A good college education would result in open-minded, nonconformist graduates.
Regarding which, do you know how many college students drop out by distracting themselves with drugs? Too many...
I wouldn't blame the drugs. If a student is intelligent enough and focused enough, then drugs are not an issue. However, if the so-called student is simply looking to party the whole time, then that's the college lesson they get to learn. On the other hand, some students are using drugs to study and focus harder. Drugs are not inherently bad, but their effects depend on the way and the purpose for which they are used. There is a certain measure of skill and sophistication necessary to effectively take a drug for constructive purposes.
I personally categorize drugs into two main categories i like to call "demonic" and "angelic", where one tends to contract consciousness in some way, and the other expands consciousness in some way respectively. Both categories have beneficial utility in the right or appropriate set and setting.
Drugs can make you more of what you already are, or drugs can make you less than what you already are... it all depends.
I wonder how many of those students don't pay their own tuition fees. I wonder how many distract themselves - whether with recreational drugs (including alcohol) or sports or social activities - because they should not have been there in the first place. Many young people embark on higher education simply because it is expected of them.
And, too, pressure to succeed, to compete, to excel may drive many others to the performance enhancing drugs that have a whole other set of side- and long-term effects.
Some of that dropping out may be due, not to the drug-use but to the initial reason for drug use.
Who cares why students who going to drop out of college, choose to spend their time while in the process of dropping out? Getting high, getting drunk, playing video games, romancing everyone in sight, getting overly involved in intramural sports, staring at YouTube videos... It doesn't matter.
Quoting Shawn
I can adequately respond to this one. As a precursor, though, all the data in this area is preliminary and you can't particularly take seriously un-replicated results that are experimental rather than reportage or observational. Therefore, all claims in this area need a pinch of salt. However, the overwhelming academic position is that its all 'leaning positive' rather than negative, when controlled and overseen.
In short, that claim is wrong:
https://psychedelics.berkeley.edu/challenging-old-assumptions-twin-study-reveals-surprising-connection-between-psychedelics-and-psychosis/
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.16968
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-link-found-between-psychedelics-and-psychosis1/ (its the same report, essentially)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0269881115596156 Krebs and Johanssen reply here if you scroll
Largely, that association is a media-driven one. What Psychedelics (though, this is more 'on-point' for MDMA as a conceptual description) tend to really do is reduce bloodflow in areas of the brain like the Thalamus and anterior cingulate cortex that help process emotional data and manifest "thoughts" with valences. Thus, you 'receive' thoughts without the (usually) highly-entrenched valence you have pre-recorded. This is why MDMA users in controlled environments can, for instance, process war trauma without the 'shell shock' reaction. It's a reason why Mescaline tends to be something that heals generational/family episodes of disconnection.
For these other psychedelics, the action is a little bit more ambiguous(mesc, particularly), but hte effect appears to be roughly the same. This can be applied to whatever psychology has caused an addiction or other self-destructive behaviour. This is also why the experiences tend to have a noetic (truer than true) quality to them. People have experiences of (real) clarity and insight into their own behaviour and psychology that (at least they believe) could not have been accessed another way. Arguable, its the experience per se, not the access point that matters, but in any case, the 'truth' of the experience seems to be far more to do with its practicable element.
Most psychedelics have a very different historical milieu and the overall experiences differ - but the detail, in terms of specific psycho-spiritual (as they say) outcomes is fairly uniform in these controlled environments. That can be expected when they're all roughly in the same two families (serotonergics and phenethylamines).
I think the problem is that people having these subjective experiences that result in objectively 'good' outcomes in their life find it hard to assign that as arbitrarily access as part of the drug experience. But, that's tough luck IMO. Its a drug experience.
This has been a rant, but it's also been a significant and important part of my personal and professional life for going on 20 years.
As a side note, which I think even the enquiry is, the 'glamorization' I think is a result of two things:
Psychedelics present one with novel psychology; colours, shapes, feelings, experiences you've never even conceived of before (in the best cases). They are extreme in terms of metaphysical thought. Its all bright, shiny, spectacular stuff - it's hard not to rave. Second, I think that the fact people are spending 20, 30, 50 years suffering heinously from a debilitating mental anguish that nothing has had any effect on - and within six hours you're 'healed' and on a path to true functionality gives reason enough to allow for some evangelising. But, salt to be taken: the risks are real too.
Quoting Shawn
I don't think this is true. Psychology is largely nonsense anyway, but that aside, psychiatry has clearly failed in its endeavours. Shamanism, in general, seems to be doing a better job when syncretized with modern medicinal practices like control groups and mental support. In that environment, the results are rigorously outstanding.
It's a very good question, "Why are drug so popular?"
I did not use drugs very often during the 1960s and 70s; I did not try mescaline when the rest of the group tried it. Never did magic mushrooms, LSD, or any thing else aside of tobacco and alcohol, and pot, once in a while, when somebody offered it. Clearly, many people find drug use a rewarding experience, for pleasure, for novel mental experiences, and so on. People who become addicted (opiates, cocaine, meth...) experience the pleasure of the drug and the pleasure of quelling the unpleasantness of the drug wearing off. That goes for alcohol and tobacco, too.
Today the German Federal Government announced that last year they had seized a shipment of something like 9 tons of cocaine valued at more than 2 billion dollars. That's a lot.
It's true now, it has been true for quite a long time, that drug production is an organized activity. The large quantities of drugs produced, be it big bales of weed or barrels of Fentanyl, demonstrate production prowess. Drugs are produced, distributed, packaged, sold, and promoted. Not saying there are hawkers on the street crying out that they have cocaine laced with fentanyl. But promotion takes place, none the less--a lot of it by and among users. Where a drug is legalized (be it tobacco, alcohol, cannabis...) promotion becomes overt.
Quoting Outlander
I think one could make a case for foreign actors attacking the United States through the smuggling/importation of addictive and toxic substances, like fentanyl. I have never might a frequent drug user (cannabis, cocaine, meth...) who demonstrated societal benefit from their drug use.
I wanted to bring into the discussion the concept of homeostasis. Namely, that human beings tend to gravitate or naturally exist in a normalizing relationship with their natural tendencies to seek out homeostasis in their lives. Homeostasis is a state where a human being is in a stable state functioning. This state is commonly known as 'sobriety.'
Now, it might seem perplexing that a person seeks out a high or mind alteration by the administration of already mentioned substances to one's homeostatic state. Based on what has been discussed already in this discussion, people want new experiences or better mood in their daily functioning. Sometimes a person will drink alcohol, a commonly known substance, to improve their mood or alter their mood or even suppress some mood. So, because having a mood is in response to our memories and environment, then do other members think that altering one's mood reflects something about how our nature is susceptible to a dysregulated state of homeostasis. If so, what are your thoughts about the matter?
Hmmm. As I wrote earlier:
Quoting Tom Storm
Human beings in most cultures throughout history have used substances and had roles for mind altering experiences. We relish and build lives around exhilarating activities, risk taking, extreme sports, adrenalin inducing movies, etc, etc. Kids often go around in circles in order to spin out and fall over. We seem to be hard wired to try and mix things up with thrills, euphoria, elation and other similar sensations. Unless someone is on the spectrum, boredom and routine are often experienced as 'soul' destroying. Particularly when younger.
Sure, but, how do you explain the negative image that the government presents of drug users, as you say? Most governments around the world and the United Nations have a negative view on drugs.
To me, its interesting since, as you say, most cultures in human history have had some experiences with one mind altering or mood altering drug or the other.
To put this more succinctly, if I want drugs and the government doesn't allow it, then what gives?
In countries with more reflective governments (Holland, for instance) drugs are decriminalized. I don't really care what government's say. Not that long ago they criminalized homosexuality. Some governments still do.
What you are pointing to is that many activities come with risks. Drug use can lead to addiction and can cause death. Driving cars can lead to fatal collisions. Most things people do have a shadow side.
Quoting Shawn
Really an entirely separate issue to what we have been discussing. I'm only talking about what people do and why. I have made no comment thus far about whether it is safe.
Homeostasis is a technical term from biology. Stasis is a more accurate description of the normal state. Which leads us to the etymological root of ecstacy, that is based on the same root word:
But then apart from the etymology, the meaning is:
[quote] 1. an overwhelming feeling of great happiness or joyful excitement.
"there was a look of ecstasy on his face"
Similar:
rapture
bliss
elation
euphoria
Opposite:
misery
2. an emotional or religious frenzy or trance-like state, originally one involving an experience of mystic self-transcendence.
So perhaps the interesting philosophical question would be, why would being outside oneself result in great happiness or joyful excitement? And, do intoxicants or hallucinogens genuinely induce such states?
I know one thing I won't do anymore. . . drink. Hell of a distraction on those free weekends. A drain on your expenses and an ever present potential spiral into a violent irrationalism.
Excellent start to figuring things out. Looks as if you have a lot of re-evaluation and planning to do. You'll need your clearest head. I wish you all the luck!
What you are expected to do, and most likely what you can, you must, you shall, and you will do (after you get it over with) is find a job; inhabit hopefully decent housing; pay your bills; gradually pay off loans; shop for groceries; do laundry; establish a short/medium/long term relationship; and more! It's called LIFE. Most people are reasonably happy doing this stuff a good share of the time.
Does this sound bleak and unsatisfying? It might be dreary at times, but another task waiting to be done is finding ways of making your life meaningful and interesting as an adult.
Based on my 77 years of experience, I recommend that anyone NOT expect life to be meaningful and exciting all or most of the time. Life doesn't work that way because maintenance is necessary, time consuming, and is not all that exciting. Meaning and interesting experiences ARE possible, though. Look for the opportunities as you go along.
Does this help?
Quoting BC I already do those things. In the two year hiatus I've taken I got a job and worked up to being an assistant manager with a few assorted retirement/medical benefits. I've indulged in some high amount of spending as one does when they get a growing bank account but still can support myself and leave enough aside for a new car, medical emergencies, in case I get laid off for 2-3 months, food, car payments, insurance, etc.
Its nothing glamorous at times and perhaps I work too much to my own detriment.
Course, its the existential element that is not fulfilled. Philosophy and the uncovering of the wonders of this world via physics insights are meant to serve that purpose. . . or so I thought. Now even that has become neglected and dusty as I struggle to find any worth in its conventional or arbitrary pursuits. Meta-philosophy especially has ruined my view of it all and now I'm beginning to see every academic in a similar lights as the occasional raving lunatic on vixra.org. I reject these dissidents only out of laziness as I've found I lack much of any foundation or what foundation I possess is so mundane as to not spark the same fascination I possessed when I was younger.
So I've waited for an article on some journal, a post here, or some paragraph in the books I have in my possession to yield an excuse to feel the way I did before. To sort of return to a more blissful state of mind.
Of course governments, as deliberative, law/regulation/rule making, data-gathering, society managing agencies, have a negative view of drugs. Agents within the government see large numbers of people very negatively affected by their use of meth, cocaine, heroin, fentanyl, cannabis, alcohol, and tobacco. They see large amounts of money going down the drain on untaxed products, and they see the costs of medical care for alcoholism, lung cancer, addiction, and general dysfunction. (Yeah, cannabis fits in there in various ways.).
Magic mushrooms might be useful as a means of therapy or enlightenment. But nobody thinks that narcotics are therapeutic or enlightening. They are essentially cash cows by means of rapid and strong addiction. Tobacco and alcohol are also addicting, of course, Neither of them are "healthful" in any way, but people can get away using these drugs without immediate severe consequences (which arrive decades later).
Do people find relief in using tobacco, cocaine, heroin, meth, fentanyl...? Sure -- they get "relief" from the addictive craving. Tobacco smokers swear that smoking is relaxing, It isn't. Nicotine is a strong stimulant. But when one's body is due for another dose 10 to 30 minutes after the last dose, it feels good. The craving is relieved, but the CNS is not relaxed.
So, an addict overdue for the next dose is not in a state of homeostasis. The next snort, injection, pill, glass, smoke, dose, etc. brings them back to their normal state, but It is NOT NORMAL to require cocaine, meth, or heroin to feel OK.
We need not judge addicts as immoral, and we need not call their need for a drug normal.
That's off the table, once you've lost your illusions. You need to push on through the fug and find a new source of satisfaction. Go take a hike. Or sailing trip. Or join a volunteer group to renovate old ships or save abused donkeys.... Something completely different, in a new environment, among strangers. You never know where your personal inspiration waits unless you go exploring.
Great. So you get that part.
Quoting substantivalism
"Management of the mind" is a critical part of finding interest, meaning, or bliss in life. It is quite possible to think/read/talk one's way into a dead end of unsatisfying, unfulfilling, and depressing ideas. Sometimes we have to give our books notice that they just aren't being very helpful, and go look elsewhere for inspiration.
Yes, but some people need that spice in their lives. There is an astonishing amount of money spent on drugs every year that supports organized crime.
I suppose the follow up question to this thread is to the point in asking, why do people want or need drugs? Is it curiosity or a need derived out of a sense of emotional poverty or boredom in ones life?
Thanks for the post BC!
Why not? It worked for Farley Mowat
I'm only suggesting that if you want to get a different perspective, you have to go looking somewhere new.
You asked this from the beginning and it seems to me this has been answered. Is it that you don't agree or do you not like the answer?
And as I've said a couple of times -
Quoting Tom Storm
I've often wondered why there are not more people who are substance dependent.
I don't know what you mean with 'emotional poverty' - this sounds judgemental, but perhaps you don't mean it like this.
People who have had experiences of trauma are more likely to use substances and become dependent on them. I don't consider this emotional poverty. Drugs in these cases are self-medication for dysregulation and anxiety.
But mostly drugs are fun. That's the key. They are enjoyable. As someone who has abused alcohol over many years I can only say that I enjoyed it very much and getting drunk was almost always a highlight.
I don't think it's really an answer to be honest. In my deepest contemplation, I think the reasons for substance abuse can vary widely but almost always appeal to an emotional imbalance or ennui. I mostly think the majority of people on one drug or another have a hard time feeling loved or appreciated by anyone including those with or without close one's to talk to or reciprocate empathy or sympathy for their situation.
I live in California and we really have a high homelessness population...
I thought so. I wonder why you think this way? Care to elaborate?
Quoting Tom Storm
That's the good part. "Being drunk" is a somewhat different, less pleasant experience. Full disclosure: "flat out drunk" is something I have not achieved frequently. It usually ended poorly. Sociability is enhanced while one is getting drunk. One is livelier, wittier, more easily amused, etc. Once one is drunk enough to fall off the bar stool, lively wit is down the toilet (literally and figuratively).
Trauma does seem to be a factor -- trauma from childhood, trauma in battle, trauma in one's life... And some people (a fairly small percentage of the population) seem to be predisposed to addiction. For most people, though, I think you are correct in naming "fun" as the primary driver. Escape from the unpleasant realities of life (apart from trauma) is also a driver.
I doubt there's any fundamental all encompassing truth as to why people take drugs or what motivates them to do so as there are quite a few drugs out there...
But, it seems to me that part of the reason is emotional regulation through substances. Another would be simply thrill seeking through drugs. And then there's pure hedonism which seems like a non significant population of drug users, paradoxically. Does that make any sense?
For you perhaps. I could never get enough and almost always enjoyed it. Even the stumbling, falling down parts.
Quoting BC
Indeed. There are several well understood causal factors. I think even this -
Quoting Shawn
- is sometimes true and generally a by-product of trauma. If you are sexually or physically abused by a care giver, or brought up in the care of the state, it can be hard to feel loved.
Yep, that's reasonable.
I'm not quite sure what an "emotional imbalance" is. Say more.
Ennui does not seem like a sufficient cause. Ennui -- listlessness and dissatisfaction arising from a lack of occupation or excitement.[/I]. [i]"he succumbed to ennui and despair". The definition (and many synonyms) don't seem to be sufficient to cause a flight to hard drugs for escape: boredom, tedium, listlessness, lethargy, lassitude, languor, restlessness, weariness, sluggishness, enervation, malaise, dissatisfaction, and so on. Someone who is "sluggish" would be more likely to resort to coffee than meth, wouldn't they? (They would if they were good Methodists, but I suppose a lot addicts are not Methodist.)
Despair, though, that seems like a sufficient cause. Despair, anomie, untreated major depression, extreme poverty (not by itself, but in conjunction with other factors), intense loneliness, feeling abandoned, the sense of not having a future worth living for (but not leading to suicide), and so on.
Quoting Shawn
So yes, emotional regulation as you say.
Thrill seeking is probably a driver too -- one that can trap the thrill seeker into coming back rather regularly for more thrills.
Let's not overlook the fact that drugs are not only sought out, they are also pushed. Methamphetamine wasn't called into common usage by thrill seekers always whining about there just not being any exciting drugs around. Meth was introduced to communities across the country by motorcycle gangs (Hells Angels) who had an interest in developing a market. Same thing goes for cocaine and heroin. People in small towns didn't wake up one day and say, "You know, we need heavy duty uppers and downers here in this fine small town. Let's help our good neighbors out by setting up contacts with a Mexican drug cartel and start a business here."
No. It was the other way around.
Indeed, one could almost say that hard drug producing countries (Myanmar, Afghanistan (opiates), Columbia (cocaine), China and Mexico (fentanyl) are engaged in biowarfare by flooding the United States and Europe (and other places) with drugs whose long term (or in the case of fentanyl--short term) use may result in death or disability.
Well, I think it appeals to those with mental disorders who seek out self medication. Just take the example of ADHD, they have a much higher statistical likelihood of trying marijuana for their diagnosis, whether it was labeled or not. Again, trauma seems like a high confounding factor as it was to Vietnam veterans who needed to feel comfortably numb after the horrors of war.
I have something to say alongside this topic, America was once very liberal about drugs in the early days. Some people sold snake oil laced with opium, Coca Cola used to provide cocaine once upon a time in their drinks and bennies with amphetamine salts were once popular. Then there were quaaludes and barbiturates people took. Only after the establishment of a Federal Drugs Administration all these excitements were limited to even eliminated by the Drug Enforcement Agency.
America is complex to say the least in what it allows and disallows.
I always thought there was some kind of government nefariousness in supplying America with drugs. Those South American narcodollars are always utilized to subvert the aims and ambitions of South American politicians and politics.
There's so much to say on this topic but am limiting myself to only analyzing the reasons people take drugs. I find it an edifying discussion.
The version I read, he wasnt an abuse victim, hed been hiking with his family in California and something frightened him and he ran away. They said they were thrilled to see that hed been found (although it seems far from certain its the same donkey.)
Might also be useful to recognise the distinction between narcotics and hallucinogens. Theyre very different. I dont know where cannabis fits in the scheme.
Yes, the distinction only makes sense for the purpose those respective drugs are utilized for. So, when it comes to thrill seeking of otherworldly experiences, I think hallucinogens might fit the bill...
Emotional 'imbalance' is not an isolated, personal failing. Ennui may come into it with the upper wage earners, but the general malaise of modern society affects everyone in one way or another. We have a deeply dysfunctional civilization, in all kinds of denial about all kinds of reality, wherein people are required to cope with a hundred contradictions every day. We don't all cope equally well.
Is escapism and the distractions some drugs offer a coping mechanism? I think we're getting into the discussion about reasons why people take drugs as a coping mechanism...
That's how bicyclists feel when they get rained on a lot -- "It always rains on the unloved!"
Most notably alcohol, the Ur treatment for stress and anxiety.
To a lesser degree, some intense group activities also help mitigate the malaise of disjointed societies. Religious zealotry, sports fanaticism, celebrity worship, political jingoism all provide a sense of social belonging and security. Of course, they, too, can be enhanced by some drugs.
The maddening nothingness that others attempt to intellectually obscure with manufactured certainty and the absurdness of continuing on. To play chess with death rather than give in to his beckoning call.
You probably shouldn't be alone. It sounds as if you're in a state of mind that, if you can't think of a way to change it, you should get help with. At least support from someone you trust.
I love The Seventh Seal, and several other Bergman films, but he's not your go-to director for sunny up-lift.
Quoting substantivalism
Gloom and doom can be as manufactured as certainty and absurdity. I don't know whether you are clinically depressed or are just doom-looping. If it's the latter, well... stop doing that. Depression gets tossed around too much. IS someone really clinically depressed, or are they lonely and angry? Tired? Isolated? Frustrated? Burdened with too many problems to deal with? Antidepressants will not help those sorts of things.
Meaning and satisfaction in life (as opposed to meaninglessness and nothingness) comes out of relationship with others. The deeper and more complex the relationships, the ore meaning and satisfaction. There are many ways to relate beside the primary love/sex connection. Friendship, co-workers, colleagues engaged in common cause: politics, the environment, participation in sport, religious activity... whatever.
Just for reference, how old are you now? What kind of connections do you have with other people, at work and outside of work? Family? Friends? Romantic partner?
Many of my 77 years have been shadowed by what was diagnosed as depression. Looking back, I'd say some of the depression was self-inflicted by ignorance and bad decisions about life, work and romance. I was at times too stupid to figure out how to live a more satisfying life. Now that I'm an old man, it's much clearer what I should have done -- 20/20 hindsight about 50 years too late.
I don't know if this helps. Does it?
Something about the conversation that the knight has with what he thought to be at first a nameless servant of the faith, really in fact death, struck a great cord with me. Especially when he say,
Showcasing such deepened worries about whether the ground of thought we lay upon is as certain to hold our weight as we entertain ourselves. A trouble I have had for months if not years now as I've bounced from one ideological attractor to another in pursuit of certainty only to step back in undecisive worry.
A desperate barrage of questions about the desire for meaningful searching and why, if it cannot be satiated, does it remain.
My most favorite line of all. I've even posted something similar somewhere on this forum. That desire for the unexpected and beautifully strange to muddy our mundane daily lives.
Quoting BC I would say I've never been clinically depressed. . . melancholy for sure.
Quoting BC I'm 23 and have a rather nonexistent collection of social relationships. Workaholic coworkers who are rightfully preoccupied with there own lives. Friends who I've ostracized or they have moved on. Family members who are stretched across countries now and those I have immediate access to are troubled in ways I cannot solve nor can a pouring out of my own troubles satiate their own.
So I have searched for acquaintances but have had no long reprieve between awkward work schedules, losing track of time until months roll by, or just finding such events as few to far between.
In the coming months I will have greater changes roll by which might change this or merely compound upon it.
Glad to read that! Loneliness, unless one prefers solitude, is usually a temporary condition. Even if you don't actively seek out companionship, chance meetings happen all the time.
Disillusionment with the civilized world, however, once it's happened, is almost impossible to undo.
I say almost, because some people nevertheless manage it.
A possibly useful idea I can share: It takes time to become a person situated securely 'in the world'. 23 is too soon to arrive. You've had some immediate success in school and work, and that's good. But don't be too impatient. Our brains aren't even fully formed till around 25 or 26. After that, it's a slow process to build a good life--one in which we know where we are going, we know what we desire to achieve, we have some kind of plan, and we are on our way. There are no guarantees that one will be successful.
It took me quite a while to figure all this out--I have had just the last few years to enjoy knowing who I am, understanding where I have been, what's coming up (at 77, one is into the last few chapters (maybe pages) of the book). I'm not complaining; my life was, over all, good. I had good friends; I loved and was loved; I had pretty good health; I was reasonably happy much of the time. Regrets? Sure. Mistakes? Absolutely.
So, good luck to you.
I'm pretty sure you're doing well health wise. I haven't heard of elderly putting drugs on their bucket list, have you?
Well, just the one...
Wait until Philip Morris and Budweiser put the stuff into their products, laws permitting in select states...
Most Western countries got it wrong when it comes to drugs. Alcohol is among the most dangerous drugs while it is legal. This website provides a list of the top ten dangerous drugs which alcohol sits on the top while marijuana, LSD, and the like are absent in this list!
Typically societally overlooked is that intense addiction usually doesnt originate from a bout of boredom, where a person consumed recreationally but became heavily hooked on a self-medicating substance that eventually destroyed their life and even those of loved-ones.
More accurately: the greater the drug-induced euphoria or escape one attains from its use, the more one wants to repeat the experience; and the more intolerable one finds their sober reality, the more pleasurable that escape will likely be perceived. In other words: the greater ones mental pain or trauma while sober, the greater the need for escape from reality, thus the more addictive the euphoric escape-form will likely be.
Especially when the substance abuse is due to past formidable mental trauma, the lasting solitarily-suffered turmoil can readily make each day an ordeal unless the mind is medicated.
Meantime, neglecting and therefor failing people struggling with debilitating addiction should not be an acceptable or preferable political, economic or religious/morality option. But the more callous politics and politicians that are typically involved with lacking addiction funding/services tend to reflect conservative electorate and representatives opposition, however irrational, against making proper treatment available to low- and no-income addicts.
Meanwhile, western pharmaceutical corporations had intentionally pushed their own very addictive and profitable opiate resulting in immense suffering and overdose death numbers yet got off relatively lightly and only through civil litigation.
But seriously, something about society (or governments specifically) prohibiting us something which is not justified, is always going to be alluring.
Kind of like that image of a person in a room next to a red button which has a sign reading DO NOT PRESS. What do you think most people would do?
Yep.
A lot of the current elderly took a 5hit ton of drugs in their day.
They are trying to find in drugs what they could also find in spirituality, if at least they tried.
Like any aspect of this universe, it is all about free will, the only thing in existence. Within that limitless limit, the most interesting aspect that is primal to all truth is the order/chaos balance. As Leary mentioned, and even as @Shawn inferred as well partially, this experience now is limited to the physical realm. But the inference is weak, not Leary's comments. Sorry but here is the reason why:
Are we wizards, or jedi? We imagine such. But can we, physically, do it? No. Some accounts vary, but, let's say the scale of wizardry and jedi mind tricks is rather steep from almost 0 in 99.9% of the populace to MAYBE some in the tiny remaining percentage. And these possibly just presumed as wizardry effects are easily doubted as even their enactors have great trouble with any application of the scientific method, repeating the successes.
So, how is it any surprise that what drugs affect is what we CAN do, can choose to experience? It is no surprise at all. The limits are still respected in many ways. But altered awareness is a simple enough sidestep, an easier, lower threshold, of change. Thus, OF COURSE, sensory experiences are changed. But what precisely is changed?
Leary said it in a way that is certainly poetic and yet he is a fairly erudite communicator and successful in other walks of life. So, he is higher on that scale I previously mentioned, despite his unabashed hedonism, that just a self-indulgent type. I ask in all candor, how is an expert or professional in the realm of drug use qualified? Certainly, the people speaking about this experience from the external virginal point of view have not much credibility. But then oddly, especially those same people, feel compelled to judge what they see as erratic or incomprehensible behavior. This is nothing more than again the order/chaos balance.
Orderly people stay within their restraint limits more regularly. That is almost a definition for an orderly type of person. Science is indeed an orderly profession and skepticism itself is an ism born of restraint and prudence, all facets of a scaled order from the simple coward all the way through the rigorous academic skeptic.
Chaotic people, desire driven, do not stay within limits as a pattern. Their pattern is the anti-pattern, born of desire. This freedom is JUST AS critical to real wisdom as is order and restraint. Wisdom is in fact best defined as a perfect and maximal balance of both order and chaos. Both aspects of this definition are relevant and critical to wisdom. That is balance is the obvious part. But the unobvious part is the amplitude, the maximalization.
Maximal freedom means that any and every choice has been experienced and balanced. If you have not had the experience you are trapped on the fear and order side, the coward's side. It is a tautology that experience IS NEVER best had from one side or the other. All emotive paths lead objectively to objective moral truth. And that is balanced and maximized order and chaos. Therefore, one MUST, to be wise, risk experience.
If you wish for a defense of any and all chaotic and self-indulgent behavior, then I just gave it. It matters not whether you understand or admit to the truth I detailed in the above paragraph; it remains the truth. Of course, many will assert that is only my opinion, and I agree. Yes, it is my belief and opinion.
But remember the scale. Some choosers of these acts are not just engaging in them for pure self-indulgence. Like Leary they are instead intrepid explorers of a new realm. That realm may not yet be understood well and the insights gained from it are almost incomprehensible to the ... fool ... that has never left his own village and yet is quite majestically orderly in character. Orderly people tend to stay put in all ways, and all branches of conservatism and skepticism lean quite heavily towards stagnation and death as entirely stable. Likewise, and contra oppositely, chaos types tend to flame out, testing EVERY whim too often and becoming by turns restrained to certain patterns of freedom, then a hilarious ironical representative of restraint, as in trapped into their specific indulgences (addiction). EVERYTHING is only the order/chaos balance.
But remember that wisdom is the only goal here. Are we philosophers or not? Define wisdom. I did. If you are too afraid to try or too stable to try, you are too afraid to be wise. This DOES NOT denigrate the order types any more than the chaos types of people. We need as a whole species, some people to stay ashore in fear and hold the fort. But there is no moral way that such people are allowed to denigrate the intrepid explorers either. Such desire must be supported and especially the priesthood of that effort a la Leary and others. Even a casual observation of say alcoholics reveals a scale of 'functioning' along with even an addictive pattern. Nothing is not on a scale.
But order rises then as awareness is grown by DOING. And that DOING includes the doers, the merely self-indulgent, and the priesthood of experts, as well as the self-restrained orderly observers who abstain as their DO. In such cases all aspects of experience are covered. In such cases the whole of the species reaches with its meta tentacles into the new realms.
This is not at all the same thing as saying 'let's explore wanton murder' for example. The wisdom restraining us from that choice has long been earned (mostly). That is a subject for another thread maybe. There is still some room to explore that seemingly deeply immoral path also. No, drug use clearly has some valuable parts to it that do relate to advancement of awareness and wisdom.
I speak as one who has explored almost every type of experience in that realm to some small degree. I am a counter-addictive type of personality. Some part of me refuses to be ruled or demanded of by any experience. That tendency is brought on by the 'hidden' emotion in the order/chaos balance, anger. It is my belief that anger causes all of what we refer to as physical reality to spring into being. The tension between the fear/order emotion and the desire/chaos emotion is resisted by anger. Anger DEMANDS that fear abate and that the self is large or capable enough to bravely move forward by right of existence. Anger DEMANDS that desires are quenched and unnecessary as the self is sufficient as ALL to begin with. And anger is right. All rights stem from these demands of anger. But that is my faith, my belief system. It defines my approach to solving any philosophical issue. And this paragraph is only about me, my relation to this topic, so people know where I am coming from.
Awareness precedes most action, certainly understood or 'successful' action. Succes and 'right' are the same. These pertain to the objective moral truth, perfection, and the GOOD. So, we MUST explore the realm of drugs with awareness before the frequency of vibrations can extend into mind over matter type interactions more safely. That is my assertion.
There is always this mundane and entrapped derision of drugs by those engaged in religious practices. This is understandable. The revelations or epiphanies that drug users experience are sometimes similar in aspect to the religious experiences. After all I describe some of the high-end occupation of drug use scale as a 'priesthood'. This merely means a fairly high order/chaos balance. It means that the people engaged at such a skill level are able to order their experiences despite the chaos. They can do so precisely because they are wiser in most cases. They have the order skill to balance the chaos skill. But each path, religion and drugs is AN APPROACH from opposed sides of the SAME objective wisdom. Drugs are a chaos side approach and religion is an order side approach. They are effectively equals in some ways. One IS NOT ALLOWED morally to merely denigrate the other wholesale.
I may add more to all of this if people deign to respond to my points.