Time To Stop Accepting Mind Alteration?

[andy-hughes]

I have been considering the effects of drugs - all drugs - and the reason people use them.

The conclusion I have reached is that every single person who uses any kind of drug - tobacco, cannabis, alcohol, cocaine, heroin, does so in pursuit of a level of mind alteration.

Only the amount consumed, and the desired effect vary, the initial reason is identical throughout - to alter the mind's perception of the present.

Now this can vary from a glass or two of wine at the end of the day, or at a party, or a cigarette to 'calm the nerves' right through to the desired temporary oblivion of a large dose of heroin.

Of course, as a culture, we have absorbed the first examples as simply cultural norms, accepted and even encouraged, less so the last one which remains illegal.

But my point is, the subliminal desire to alter the mind to whatever degree is present in all of them.

Now the first argument would be - 'I drink because I enjoy the taste ...'.

Fine, then you can drink non-alcoholic wine or beer and not notice any difference can't you.

But no, we persist with 'acceptable' drugs because we, as a culture, accept that mind alteration is an acceptable thing to have in our society.

My question is - is it acceptable?

Should we not look at educating children and young people - the adults of tomorrow - that mind alteration is actually not a good thing at all, and is in fact creating a false reality, and leading to death through dangerous driving, liver damage, psychosis, and all the other results of ingesting drugs.

Drugs are not good, and we should be looking at getting rid of them as acceptable in society.

Thoughts please?

[fcc]

A good catholic boy no doubt.

[gness]

I don’t have a glass of red, a cigarette or an early morning run to alter my mind. My mind is just fine as it is. It’s a good way from needing altering.
Anyway you’re supposed to be avoiding interaction with me. :-)

[andy-hughes]

jno - // what's artificial about smoking a plant that may grow in your garden? //

Not sure if you are actually serious - let's assume you are -

The act of ingestion is artificial.

[ToraToraTora]

crikey andy you sound like you've been on something me old china!

[Neveracrossword]

A-H, your conclusion that 'every single person... does so in pursuit of a level of mind alteration' is flawed, so it's hard to give any credence to the rest. Perhaps experiences have led you to think that way, but I would be very surprised if it was a viewpoint shared by many others.

[andy-hughes]

gness - // I don’t have a glass of red, a cigarette or an early morning run to alter my mind. My mind is just fine as it is. It’s a good way from needing altering. //

I suggest that as far as the wine and cigarette arfe concerned - running doesn't count - than you are not being entirely honest with yourself.

// Anyway you’re supposed to be avoiding interaction with me. :-) //

I'm not 'supposed' to be doing anything.

[Hopkirk]

If by 'mind altering' you mean having an effect on the brain, then yes that is why people take these substances.
You should however add tea, coffee and Coca Cola to the list. They are are also 'mind altering'.

[andy-hughes]

Never - // A-H, your conclusion that 'every single person... does so in pursuit of a level of mind alteration' is flawed, so it's hard to give any credence to the rest. //

Why is it flawed? Do explain, I am interested.

// Perhaps experiences have led you to think that way, but I would be very surprised if it was a viewpoint shared by many others. //

No, observation has led me to think this way.

I fully expect almost no-one to agree with me because these activities, and what I perceive to be the actual reasons for them, are woven into cultural normality, to the point where no-one actually thinks about why they smoke or drink or take drugs.

That's why I am raising the point - maybe as a society, it's time we did.

[jno]

andy, you said the substances themselves were artificial, not the ingesting.

ingesting one or more artificial substances

(So no, not joking, responding seriously to what you actually wrote.)

[andy-hughes]

Hopkirk - // If by 'mind altering' you mean having an effect on the brain, then yes that is why people take these substances.
You should however add tea, coffee and Coca Cola to the list. They are are also 'mind altering'. //

Happy to add them in, although I think you'd have to ingest far more of those than a few cigs or pints, to have a comparable effect.

[Buenchico]

'Mind altering' can be good for creative processes. Without alcohol we probably wouldn't have the works of countless writers, from James Joyce to Truman Capote and Ernest Hemingway, along with many others. Without cocaine we wouldn't have many of the writings of Stephen King, Robert Louis Stevenson, etc. Without opium we'd have nothing from Graham Greene, etc.

[andy-hughes]

jno - // andy, you said the substances themselves were artificial, not the ingesting.

ingesting one or more artificial substances

(So no, not joking, responding seriously to what you actually wrote.) //

Then I am happy to reiterate my point - the plant growing in your garden is natural.

Harvesting it, curing it, shredding it, rolling it in paper, lighting it and inhaling the smoke, is not natural.

[andy-hughes]

Buenchoco - // 'Mind altering' can be good for creative processes. Without alcohol we probably wouldn't have the works of countless writers, from James Joyce to Truman Capote and Ernest Hemingway, along with many others. Without cocaine we wouldn't have many of the writings of Stephen King, Robert Louis Stevenson, etc. Without opium we'd have nothing from Graham Greene, etc. //

I entirely agree - but none of that gainsays my point, does it.

[jno]

Buenchico, no, but De Quincey's "Confessions of a Carrot Eater" might be a good read.

[gness]

Spot on, Chris. And there are one or two AB minds that would benefit from a little mind altering.

[andy-hughes]

Buenchico - To be absolutely clear, I am not making this case as a criticism, I spend my working life mixing with people who create art as a result of external stimuli, I am simply pointing out that if we can eliminate drunk driving and deaths for cancer by cigarettes, I would take the alteration in artistic output as a fair price to pay.

Yes, artists have and do and will rely on drugs to create, not all, but it's there and a fair point - but that does not mean that artistic creation would cease if the stimulants were absent, it would simply evolve down a different path.

[Neveracrossword]

A-H, it's flawed in that I know no-one who takes a glass of wine or smokes a cigarette to 'alter the mind's perception of their present'. You're entitled to your opinion, of course - but as it's backed up only by your 'observations', it's not a particularly robust argument.

[andy-hughes]

gness - // Spot on, Chris. And there are one or two AB minds that would benefit from a little mind altering. //

I refer you to my posts at 20.20, and 20.2, for a wider explanation of my position.

[andy-hughes]

Sorry - and 20.23.

[andy-hughes]

Never - // A-H, it's flawed in that I know no-one who takes a glass of wine or smokes a cigarette to 'alter the mind's perception of their present'. //

I suggest that, more accurately, no-one you know would actually admit that as the reason why they do it, but in my view, it is still the reason, acknowledged or not.