Drugs are "bad", mmmkay???
The more I read heron61's LJ, the more I love his posts. Today I came across a little gem that links to a study refuting the 60's rat studies that are widely used to justify laws against addictive drugs. Some context for those of you unaware from heron61:
"I assume everyone reading this has heard stories about how tests of various addictive drugs like heroin or cocaine have shown that rats provided with the means to obtain these drugs will choose drugs over food and will both rapidly get themselves addicted and never voluntarily stop using these drugs. These studies are widely used to justify laws against addictive drugs. These studies were first performed in the 1960s and have often been repeated. They have produced the current model of addiction as something inescapable, either to all users of various substances, or at minimum to people with genetic susceptibilities to various substances."
As a Psych major, I never heard about Alexander's experiments, even though we all got more than an earful about Skinner's experiments. Apparently, this is just that much more information that the idiots promoting the "War on (Some) Drugs" don't want to get out. As Alexander's Rat Park seems to show, drug use is more about "environment" than "addiction". Read the two links--they're short and well worth it.
On a similar and quite Synchronistic note, I just finished the chapter on "Psychedelics and Entheogens" from my current favorite book I was mentioning the other day, "The World of Shamanism" by Dr. Roger Walsh. In particular, I was impressed to see a short section that I'd like to summarize (whilst giving all credit to Dr. Walsh) addressing the five major objections religious/spiritual people have against using Drugs for Sacred purposes:
Arguments Against the Validity of Drug-Induced Religious Experiences
1. "Some drug experiences are clearly anything but mystical and beneficial"
2. "The experiences induced by drugs may actually be different from those of genuine mystics."
3. Mystical rapture is a "gift from God" than can never be brought under mere human control.
4. "Drug-induced experiences are too quick and easy and could therefore hardly be identical to those hard-won by years of contemplative discipline."
5. "Aftereffects of drug-induced experiences may be different, less beneficial, and less long-lasting than those of contemplatives."
He then gives some possible answers to each of these in turn:
1. Whilst no one would argue that not all drug experiences are religious, this does not in any way prove that no drug experiences are religious (I'm slightly paraphrasing Huston Smith here).
2. Phenomenologically (i.e., experientially), both natural and drug-induced mystical experiences can be indistinguishable. He brings up the Marsh Chapel Experiment, which I first came across last year whilst watching the BBC's 2 part documentary on LSD, called "The Beyond Within".
3. This third argument rests upon very specific theological beLIEfs, which don't hold any water in belief systems that don't believe in an all-powerful Creator God with very specific attributes. Buddhism is one such example.
4. "The complaint that drug experiences are too easy to be genuine is readily understandable. After all, it hardly seems fair that a contemplative should labor for decades for a sip of what the drug user may effortlessly swim in for hours. However, unfair or not, if the states are experientially identical, then the fact that they are due to different causes may be irrelevant. Technically, this is called 'the principle of causal indifference.' Simply stated, this means that subjectively identical experiences can be produced by multiple causes."
5. This one is harder to summarize quickly, but he definitely addresses it with many notable examples of how these types of Experiences can (though aren't necessarily "always") be the most impactful events in individuals' lives. He then goes on to talk about "the problem of stabilization", which I also see everyday in people trying to make major overhauls in how they eat. This is one of the biggest problems in psychological and spiritual growth, which is to bring newfound revelations into the day-to-day Practice of Living one's Life, overcoming a lifetime's worth of conditioning with a smaller number of numinous experiences.
Damn, I'm loving this book. Hopefully this will give you a few more arguments in your arsenal next time some supporter of the "War on (Some) Drugs" who's never even tried Entheogens starts spouting off about their "many eveeels".
Hail ChemoGnosis!
"I assume everyone reading this has heard stories about how tests of various addictive drugs like heroin or cocaine have shown that rats provided with the means to obtain these drugs will choose drugs over food and will both rapidly get themselves addicted and never voluntarily stop using these drugs. These studies are widely used to justify laws against addictive drugs. These studies were first performed in the 1960s and have often been repeated. They have produced the current model of addiction as something inescapable, either to all users of various substances, or at minimum to people with genetic susceptibilities to various substances."
As a Psych major, I never heard about Alexander's experiments, even though we all got more than an earful about Skinner's experiments. Apparently, this is just that much more information that the idiots promoting the "War on (Some) Drugs" don't want to get out. As Alexander's Rat Park seems to show, drug use is more about "environment" than "addiction". Read the two links--they're short and well worth it.
On a similar and quite Synchronistic note, I just finished the chapter on "Psychedelics and Entheogens" from my current favorite book I was mentioning the other day, "The World of Shamanism" by Dr. Roger Walsh. In particular, I was impressed to see a short section that I'd like to summarize (whilst giving all credit to Dr. Walsh) addressing the five major objections religious/spiritual people have against using Drugs for Sacred purposes:
Arguments Against the Validity of Drug-Induced Religious Experiences
1. "Some drug experiences are clearly anything but mystical and beneficial"
2. "The experiences induced by drugs may actually be different from those of genuine mystics."
3. Mystical rapture is a "gift from God" than can never be brought under mere human control.
4. "Drug-induced experiences are too quick and easy and could therefore hardly be identical to those hard-won by years of contemplative discipline."
5. "Aftereffects of drug-induced experiences may be different, less beneficial, and less long-lasting than those of contemplatives."
He then gives some possible answers to each of these in turn:
1. Whilst no one would argue that not all drug experiences are religious, this does not in any way prove that no drug experiences are religious (I'm slightly paraphrasing Huston Smith here).
2. Phenomenologically (i.e., experientially), both natural and drug-induced mystical experiences can be indistinguishable. He brings up the Marsh Chapel Experiment, which I first came across last year whilst watching the BBC's 2 part documentary on LSD, called "The Beyond Within".
3. This third argument rests upon very specific theological beLIEfs, which don't hold any water in belief systems that don't believe in an all-powerful Creator God with very specific attributes. Buddhism is one such example.
4. "The complaint that drug experiences are too easy to be genuine is readily understandable. After all, it hardly seems fair that a contemplative should labor for decades for a sip of what the drug user may effortlessly swim in for hours. However, unfair or not, if the states are experientially identical, then the fact that they are due to different causes may be irrelevant. Technically, this is called 'the principle of causal indifference.' Simply stated, this means that subjectively identical experiences can be produced by multiple causes."
5. This one is harder to summarize quickly, but he definitely addresses it with many notable examples of how these types of Experiences can (though aren't necessarily "always") be the most impactful events in individuals' lives. He then goes on to talk about "the problem of stabilization", which I also see everyday in people trying to make major overhauls in how they eat. This is one of the biggest problems in psychological and spiritual growth, which is to bring newfound revelations into the day-to-day Practice of Living one's Life, overcoming a lifetime's worth of conditioning with a smaller number of numinous experiences.
Damn, I'm loving this book. Hopefully this will give you a few more arguments in your arsenal next time some supporter of the "War on (Some) Drugs" who's never even tried Entheogens starts spouting off about their "many eveeels".
Hail ChemoGnosis!