Lay off the drugs. When I say that, I mean, lay off! Stop giving a small category of physiologically altering substances such a bad rap. I'm sick of hearing people condemn those who have died of drug overdoses for being addicts, and I'm sick of hearing that individuals who use drugs cannot be role models or worthy of admiration
And what of the 10% of Americans who are prescribed antidepressants every year? What of the millions of children who manage their ADHD with a stimulant? What of the 50% of commercials that advertise prescription drugs? America is not drug free, you Nancy Reagan induced dumbass, and neither are you. You hypocrites.
I repudiate this notion that altering the physiological substrate in order to enhance the organism's perceived state of wellness is a sin. Because to some degree, everyone seeks respite from unpleasant symptoms. They do what they can to alleviate their discomfort, assuage their anxiety, and take the edge off. Their methods exert an effect on their biology and chemistry. Why are some coping mechanisms more socially acceptable than others? What of the people who escape into video games and reality television?
Studies have shown that, in stark contrast to the activity of reading, watching television produces slow alpha brain waves in a fashion that is similar to the threshold of sleep. This preponderance of slow wave activity suggests that watching television demands minimal effort. The t.v. is, quite literally, an idiot box. And yet people come home and drown themselves in the stupor of someone else's lives for hours on end, and this is alright. You view with disdain the people who turn to the bottle, but what of the people who are dispelled by the doldrums of everyday life, who go through the motions and get old, who expend the minimal amount of existence? Do they deserve a medal?
I'm simply looking for some consistency. I'm tired of hearing, "Oh, he was a drug user, he did it to himself." Why do you condemn the drug user when they die, but not the tanner who developed skin cancer, the smoker who developed lung cancer, or the overweight person with the sedentary lifestyle who died of a heart attack? I thought that sympathy is supposed to be allotted to all individuals who are suffering, within the context of any illness, be it mental or physical. I don't understand the stigma associated with destruction that is self-inflicted. Do these actions not arise from despair and pain? Do these emotions fail to produce victims, to produce patients that are worthy of care and respect?
Why do you approve of the naturally occurring chemicals involved in the sensation of pleasure and love, but not of their synthetically produced counterparts that mimic not only the molecular formulas found in the body, but their actions on the brain?
And why do we accept the intentions of one business man over another? Are pharmaceutical companies driven by honesty, and not by greed? Is the aim of any given transaction going to be something other than profit?
I do not understand why illicit drugs are denounced when the drugs that are legal are just as capable of ruining lives, and under the pretense of being therapeutic! In my opinion, this affront to our trust is more despicable than the overt dishonesty of the dealer. Even when taken at the recommended dosage, a psychotropic drug such as an antidepressant is associated with serious dangers. Studies have suggested that in many cases, not only are the healing properties of these drugs largely unsubstantiated, but they can also incite violent behavior, produce a myriad of undesirable side effects, and most importantly, increase an individual's risk of suicide. Additionally, these drugs can trigger extremely unpleasant withdrawal symptoms when the prescription is lifted.
I am not going to pass judgment on or withhold compassion from people who seek relief in chemical form from a condition that can be debilitating and life threatening. The point is that neither should you, whether the medication is ingested under the supervision of a doctor or administered by the self. All of these drugs are habit forming, and we rely on them in one way or another in order to restore our ability to function and return to our former fully capable selves.
Besides, I don't adhere to the blanket statement that all drugs kill, that all drugs are deleterious to our health, and that all drug use is pathological. On the contrary, I agree with psychologists who argue that experimentation is the norm. In his book THE NATURAL MIND - An Investigation of Drugs and the Higher Consciousness, Dr. Andrew Weil claims that “The desire to alter consciousness periodically is an innate, normal drive analogous to hunger or the sexual drive...” I couldn't agree more.
And what if the ambition to trigger the untapped potential of intense emotion, to be moved and to be admitted access to an even higher level of cerebral creativity, is not just a biological need, but a by-product of evolutionary advancement, a signal that civilization has been achieved and people can afford the luxury of being moved and inspired, as they would be by art, music, and literature? Much as Socrates stated that "The unexamined life is not worth living," I will say the same of the unexpanded mind.
It seems to me that drugs need to be viewed on a continuum of individual risk, and, more importantly, we need to view individuals as individuals, not drug users vs. non drug users. It's not about what you are, it's about what you do with what you are. There is nothing that prevents people who dabble in drug use from being productive, and good, and kind, and intelligent! These categories are not mutually exclusive.
