Moodboard: Rather lengthy discussion with ChatGTP, which started as a kinda channel test (my queries are in bold), which evolved into what could be a conclusive theory that we are incapable of a psychedelic renaissance in our current society, as a reflection of the 1950s ala post World War Two amphetamine and opiate use.
A.Glass: Also, could you please source research material on Tachysensia and drug taking. And why this occurs with certain intoxications. Thank you.
ChatGPT
said:
Tachysensia, or the sensation of time moving faster or slower than normal, can sometimes be associated with drug intoxication, although scientific research on this specific connection is limited. The condition is characterized by distortions in the perception of time and sound, often leading individuals to feel as if their surroundings are speeding up or becoming louder. This phenomenon has been linked to conditions like migraines, epilepsy, and even Alice in Wonderland Syndrome, where perception is similarly altered.
When it comes to drug use, certain substances, particularly those that affect neurotransmitters like dopamine, can alter time perception. Dopamine, for example, is heavily involved in the brain's reward system and is influenced by many recreational drugs. Drugs like alcohol, amphetamines, and psychedelics can sometimes induce tachysensia-like episodes by overstimulating the brain's reward centers or affecting its normal neurotransmission patterns, leading to the sensation of time dilation or compression.
These distortions likely arise from the brain’s altered state during intoxication, where it struggles to process sensory input and synchronize its internal clock
You might also want to consider exploring research around Alice in Wonderland Syndrome, which shares similar symptoms to tachysensia and has been linked to both migraines and drug use.
This area still requires more focused research, but these insights offer a starting point for understanding why tachysensia may occur with drug intoxication.
A.Glass: Thanks. More so, "time dilation" and dopamine. Any recent articles linking the two?
ChatGPT said:
Recent research has strengthened the connection between dopamine and the perception of time dilation, particularly in situations involving impulsivity and decision-making.
One study found that dopamine fluctuations in the brain, especially in areas like the striatum, directly impact how individuals perceive time. For example, increases in dopamine can lead to faster accumulation of time-related information, making individuals overestimate short time intervals. This effect is thought to contribute to the feeling that time has slowed down or expanded, often experienced during states of heightened dopamine activity, such as during drug intoxication or states of reward anticipation
Goldsmiths, University of London.
Additionally, dopamine plays a crucial role in impulsive behavior and temporal discounting—where individuals tend to prefer smaller, immediate rewards over larger, delayed ones. This impulsivity is often intensified by hyperdopaminergic states, such as those induced by substances like stimulants or during certain neurological conditions like ADHD. These dopamine-driven processes may influence how individuals experience time dilation during intoxication
If you're delving into these topics for a project, these studies offer insights into how dopamine impacts both time perception and impulsivity, which can provide a physiological basis for the altered time experiences often reported under drug influence.
A.Glass: Whoa! That it great, thanks. Yes, I remember a class once where the lecturer mentioned that "blinking" can induce Time distortion in some patients. Have to read through.
ChatGPT said:
I'm glad you found the information helpful! The connection between blinking and time perception is indeed a fascinating area of research. Here's a more detailed overview based on the studies you might find useful:
Blinking and Time Perception
**1. Goldsmiths, University of London Study
Title: Time expands after blinking: research explores dopamine and time perception link
Summary: Researchers at Goldsmiths found that spontaneous eye blinking is a reliable biomarker of dopamine levels in the striatum, a brain region involved in time perception. Their study led by Dr. Devin Terhune discovered that individuals tend to overestimate the length of short time intervals (e.g., half a second to two seconds) immediately after a blink. This suggests that fluctuations in dopamine availability can influence how we perceive time moment-to-moment.
Key Points:
Dopamine's Role: Dopamine affects the brain's internal clock, leading to variations in time perception.
Spontaneous Blinking: Acts as an indicator of dopamine levels, influencing how long or short a moment feels.
Implications: Understanding this link can provide insights into conditions like Parkinson’s disease and schizophrenia, where dopamine levels are disrupted.
**2. Journal of Neuroscience Article
Title: Dopamine, Time, and Impulsivity in Humans
Summary: This study explores how dopamine influences impulsive behavior and temporal discounting (the tendency to prefer smaller, immediate rewards over larger, delayed ones). The research indicates that increased dopamine activity can lead to faster accumulation of time-related information, causing individuals to overestimate short time intervals. This heightened dopamine state is also linked to impulsivity, where individuals may make quicker, less deliberative decisions.
Key Points:
Impulsivity Connection: Elevated dopamine levels can enhance impulsive choices by altering time perception.
Temporal Discounting: Dopamine affects how individuals value immediate versus delayed rewards.
Clinical Relevance: Insights from this research are applicable to understanding addiction, ADHD, and other conditions associated with dopamine dysregulation.
Mechanisms Behind Blinking-Induced Time Distortion
Dopamine Fluctuations: Blinking influences dopamine levels in the striatum. Since dopamine plays a critical role in regulating time perception, any fluctuation can alter how time is experienced.
Internal Clock Theory: The brain has an internal clock that relies on dopamine signals to keep track of time intervals. Increased dopamine availability can speed up this internal clock, making time feel like it's passing more slowly because more "ticks" are being registered in the same actual duration.
Sensory Processing: Enhanced dopamine activity can heighten sensory perceptions, making events seem more detailed and extended, thereby contributing to the sensation of time dilation.
Practical Implications and Further Research
Clinical Applications: Understanding how blinking and dopamine affect time perception can aid in developing treatments for neurological disorders where time perception is disrupted.
Behavioral Insights: Insights into how dopamine influences impulsivity and time perception can inform strategies for managing conditions like addiction and ADHD.
Future Studies: More research is needed to explore the exact neural pathways and to establish causal relationships between blinking, dopamine levels, and time perception.
Additional Resources
Goldsmiths Study: You can access more details here.
Journal of Neuroscience Article: For an in-depth understanding, refer to the article here.
If you have any more questions or need further assistance with your research, feel free to ask!
A.Glass: Also in relation to "Omni Future Almanac" (1982) on page 57 of the 'Medicine and the Body' re: "Drugs available that safely heighten perceptions, alter emotional experience, and generate unique hallucinations" What was the author referring too in that hypothese?
ChatGPT said:
The prediction on page 57 of the Omni Future Almanac (1982), stating that "drugs available that safely heighten perceptions, alter emotional experience, and generate unique hallucinations," reflected a futuristic vision inspired by ongoing advancements in psychopharmacology and psychiatry at the time.
This hypothesis likely drew from the emerging interest in psychedelic research that was prominent in the 1960s and 1970s, particularly studies on substances like LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline. Researchers were exploring how these drugs could be used in controlled settings to treat mental health conditions, enhance creativity, and alter consciousness. The term “safe” in this context may have been speculative, as psychedelic substances were known to carry psychological risks, especially in unregulated environments.
The prediction also likely referenced the hope that future technologies or drugs would be developed to control and minimize the negative effects while enhancing positive, mind-expanding experiences. Early research into the therapeutic potential of MDMA (commonly known as Ecstasy) during the late 1970s and early 1980s may have also influenced this idea. MDMA was being explored for its ability to create emotional openness, empathy, and altered perceptions, which seemed promising at the time for therapeutic applications.
This speculative future reflects broader cultural and scientific aspirations to create psychoactive substances that could provide the benefits of altered states of consciousness—such as enhanced perception and emotional experiences—while avoiding the dangers of addiction, psychological trauma, or physical harm.
It’s worth noting that modern research on psychedelics has re-emerged in recent years, with ongoing studies exploring the therapeutic potential of psilocybin, ketamine, and MDMA for treating conditions like PTSD, depression, and anxiety. However, back in 1982, these ideas were very much speculative, based on early research trends and cultural hopes for the future of safe, transformative drug experiences.
A.Glass: Got it. My query is; was there an attempt at creating a legal high through psychedelics in the early 1980s? Was anything considered marketable at the time? Rather than therapeutical?
ChatGPT said
Yes, in the early 1980s, there were attempts to create legal highs using psychedelics and other psychoactive substances, although none became widely marketable as legal alternatives to traditional drugs. These efforts were primarily aimed at sidestepping legal restrictions that were being imposed on more well-known substances like LSD and MDMA (which had gained popularity in the 1970s but were becoming illegal).
Early 1980s Context:
MDMA (Ecstasy): In the early 1980s, MDMA was still legal and marketed by some as a "designer drug" or legal high. It was initially used in therapeutic settings and was promoted as a substance that could enhance emotional communication and empathy. However, its recreational use began to grow in clubs and parties, leading to its eventual classification as a Schedule I substance in the U.S. in 1985.
Designer Drugs: During this period, "designer drugs" emerged as a way to create legal highs by slightly altering the chemical structures of existing illegal substances. This included variations of psychedelic compounds, amphetamines, and synthetic cannabinoids. These substances were created in underground labs and often marketed as legal alternatives to banned drugs. The goal was to exploit loopholes in drug laws, but these substances often carried unpredictable side effects and health risks.
Psychedelics: Although mainstream psychedelics like LSD and psilocybin were tightly controlled, chemists were exploring novel compounds such as 2C-B and other phenethylamines. Some of these drugs, first synthesized by Alexander Shulgin, gained underground popularity. 2C-B in particular was sold as a legal alternative to MDMA for a brief period in the 1980s before being made illegal in most countries.
Marketability:
Although some of these substances were available in the early 1980s, most were not marketed in the same way as alcohol or tobacco due to safety concerns, erratic effects, and looming legal action. Many substances that were seen as potential "legal highs" were quickly banned as laws adapted to close loopholes in drug legislation. The underground scene did attempt to capitalize on them, but they never became mainstream products.
In short, while there were attempts to create and market legal highs through psychedelics and related compounds in the early 1980s, the efforts were short-lived due to regulatory crackdowns, unpredictable side effects, and health concerns.
A.Glass: Wow, yes 1985 re: MDMA being made illegal. About the time when Ronald Reagan created the DEA. Correct? As a hypnosis, if legal 'psychedelic' highs were to have remained legal. Would we have had the opiate/amphetamine problem of today? Are you able to offer an overview to this argument? It is for my school study. Thanks.
ChatGPT said:
This is a fascinating topic with many hypothetical implications. Here’s an overview of the argument about whether we would have had today’s opiate and amphetamine crises if legal psychedelic highs had remained legal in the 1980s.
Historical Context:
The War on Drugs and the DEA: The DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) was indeed established in 1973 under President Richard Nixon as part of the War on Drugs, but it became highly active during Ronald Reagan’s presidency in the 1980s, which saw an aggressive crackdown on drug use. This era focused on criminalizing drugs like cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and later, MDMA (Ecstasy), which was made illegal in 1985. Reagan’s policies expanded the power of the DEA, and the punitive approach to drug policy became the norm.
Psychedelics and Legal Status: Psychedelics such as LSD, psilocybin, and MDMA had garnered attention for their potential therapeutic use in the 1950s-1970s. However, growing recreational use led to their prohibition under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which classified them as Schedule I substances. If psychedelics like MDMA had remained legal, they could have provided a regulated alternative to more addictive substances like opiates and amphetamines.
Hypothesis: Could Legal Psychedelics Have Prevented the Opiate/Amphetamine Crisis?
1. Psychedelics as a Safer Alternative? Psychedelics such as psilocybin, LSD, and MDMA have significantly lower addictive potential compared to opiates and amphetamines. These substances do not generally lead to physical dependency or compulsive use in the same way that drugs like heroin or methamphetamine do. Psychedelics are also less likely to lead to overdoses because they don’t depress respiratory functions, unlike opioids.
Had psychedelics remained legal, it’s possible that more people would have turned to these substances for recreational or therapeutic purposes, reducing the demand for highly addictive drugs like opiates and amphetamines. For instance, MDMA was initially considered for therapeutic use to treat conditions like PTSD and depression, but its potential was overshadowed by its criminalization. Psychedelics might have offered an alternative path for addressing mental health, which could have lessened the market for prescription opioids, which became widespread for managing pain and anxiety.
2. Regulation and Safety: If psychedelics were legal, their production and distribution could have been regulated, potentially ensuring safer, cleaner products. This contrasts with the rise of synthetic opioids like fentanyl, which has contributed to the current opioid crisis due to its potency and illicit production. Legalized psychedelics might have also reduced black-market activity and related drug violence, similar to how marijuana legalization in some states has led to reduced illegal sales and usage of more dangerous substances.
3. The Opioid Epidemic: The opioid epidemic began in the 1990s when pharmaceutical companies aggressively marketed prescription painkillers like OxyContin as safe and non-addictive, despite evidence to the contrary. If psychedelics were legally available and promoted for therapeutic purposes, it’s possible that fewer people would have turned to prescription opioids for pain and mental health conditions, potentially avoiding widespread addiction. Moreover, psychedelics have shown promise in treating conditions like depression and chronic pain, which are often triggers for opioid dependency. If these substances were explored for therapeutic purposes in the 1980s and 1990s, they might have provided an alternative treatment model that didn't rely on addictive opioids.
4. The Amphetamine Crisis: Stimulants like amphetamine and methamphetamine also became more widespread as drugs of abuse. Though amphetamines were initially prescribed for conditions like ADHD, they later became widely used for their energizing effects. Psychedelics, which don’t provide the same kind of sustained stimulation, might have been less attractive to individuals seeking the intense energy boost amphetamines offer. However, legal psychedelics might have mitigated some of the harmful effects by offering less habit-forming ways to alter consciousness.
Potential Downsides of Legal Psychedelics:
Psychological Risks: Psychedelics can cause challenging psychological experiences, especially in those predisposed to mental illness. Widespread use without proper education or therapeutic support could have resulted in mental health crises, even though these substances aren't physically addictive.
Regulation Issues: While legalization could have meant safer production, it would have required strict regulation and medical oversight to prevent misuse and negative outcomes.
Conclusion:
If psychedelics had remained legal and were promoted responsibly, it’s possible they could have provided a safer alternative to opiates and amphetamines, potentially reducing the extent of the crises we see today. Their lower risk of addiction and promising therapeutic benefits might have steered some users away from more harmful substances. However, this would have required a very different approach to drug policy, focusing on harm reduction, mental health, and safe regulation rather than criminalization.
For your school study, you could explore the intersection of drug policy, the stigma around psychedelics, and how different substances have been managed in society. It’s a complex topic with no definitive answer, but it's a fascinating area for speculation and research!
A.Glass: Thank you so much! Amazing info for my research. Yes, this is a topic of interest: "intersection of drug policy, the stigma around psychedelics, and how different substances have been managed in society." I am also curious on how political landscapes can change drug policy, note Holland that has swung to the Far Right. A now once liberal country is implementing stricter drug laws. In my research I spoke to an amphetamine/opiate user, who said that both drugs work in tandem. Amphetamines as the mania type drug, opiates to as sit in coming down from the manic high. So, your assertion that, " Psychedelics, which don’t provide the same kind of sustained stimulation, might have been less attractive to individuals seeking the intense energy boost amphetamines offer." Actually is correct.
ChatGPT said:
I'm glad the information was helpful for your research! The connection between drug policy, political landscapes, and societal management of substances is fascinating, and Holland’s recent political shift is a great example of how policies can change dramatically.
Political Influence on Drug Policy:
The political landscape of a country plays a major role in shaping drug policy. In liberal societies, like the Netherlands was known to be for decades, more lenient drug laws were established to prioritize harm reduction over criminalization. The Netherlands was famous for its decriminalized stance on marijuana and tolerated the sale of small amounts in "coffee shops." However, as the political climate shifts—like the recent rise of right-wing parties—it can lead to stricter enforcement of drug laws. This can be seen in the growing sentiment to clamp down on drug tourism, which is seen as a nuisance in some Dutch cities.
Countries like the U.S. and Portugal also offer valuable examples of how political shifts affect drug laws:
The U.S. has seen a pendulum swing over time, from the "War on Drugs" under Nixon and Reagan to recent efforts in some states to legalize marijuana and decriminalize psychedelics.
Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001, focusing on treating addiction as a public health issue rather than a criminal one, a decision driven by a mix of progressive political thought and public health considerations.
Amphetamines and Opiates Working in Tandem:
Your observation from speaking to an amphetamine/opiate user aligns with well-known patterns of polydrug use, where individuals use different substances for complementary effects. Amphetamines, as stimulants, create a sense of intense energy and mania, while opiates act as depressants to mellow the user out. This combination is risky because it can lead to dangerous health effects, and it highlights the complexity of addressing drug use, especially when multiple substances are involved.
The lack of sustained stimulation from psychedelics makes them less likely to be attractive to those seeking energy or mania. Instead, psychedelics often focus on altering perception and consciousness, which can appeal to a different demographic—those looking for introspection, emotional release, or spiritual experiences, rather than the euphoria or energy boost that amphetamines provide.
Conclusion:
In your research, you might want to explore how:
Political swings (like the rise of right-wing parties) change public perception and drug policies, often in response to perceived social issues.
The relationship between polydrug use (like amphetamines and opiates) complicates the landscape of drug addiction and how psychedelic substances might not appeal in the same way due to their different effects.
These topics tie into the broader question of how societies manage drug policies based on political, social, and cultural influences.
If you have any more questions or need further insights for your study, feel free to ask!
A.Glass: Thank you again. Will do. I am working on a part of my paper, which is speculative in its opinion, on how a society actually dictates its own drug policy rather than political. I.e, it may except high opiate and amphetamine use over a more mellow, slower and empathic society. Like we are all big caffeine users (some humor! Not in the paper though :) )
ChatGPT said:
That speculative angle is an interesting one! The idea that a society may collectively dictate its own drug policy—perhaps by shaping what substances become culturally acceptable or favored—presents a powerful argument for bottom-up influence, rather than purely political.
Cultural Preferences in Drug Policy:
Cultural norms often shape what types of substances are more socially accepted. For example:
Caffeine and Alcohol are widely accepted and integrated into social life in many societies. These substances enhance energy or social engagement, reflecting societal values around productivity and social bonding.
Opioids and Amphetamines, while more stigmatized, are often reflective of deeper societal pressures like coping with stress, trauma, or maintaining high levels of productivity. In certain contexts, the use of these substances becomes normalized due to work pressures (amphetamines to increase focus or energy) or as a response to physical or emotional pain (opioids).
Society's Role in Drug Policy:
In a way, societal demand can lead to political policies that are reactive, rather than proactive. Consider these examples:
Work Culture and Stimulants: In countries with high-pressure work environments (like the U.S. or Japan), stimulants—such as Adderall or methamphetamine derivatives—become more prevalent. The high-stakes, high-productivity work culture creates demand for substances that can keep people awake and focused.
Crisis and Opiates: The opioid epidemic, particularly in the U.S., can be seen as a reaction to societal pain. Overprescription of painkillers, fueled by pharmaceutical marketing, met a demand from individuals seeking relief from chronic pain, injury, and social/mental stress. The widespread use of opioids was not just about availability but about societal conditions driving people to seek escape or comfort.
Your point that societies "accept" certain substances over others makes sense, and political action often comes after societal trends are already well-established. For example, the acceptance of medical marijuana in many U.S. states came after decades of underground use and growing societal acceptance. Similarly, there is now a growing movement to decriminalize psychedelics in some U.S. cities like Denver, which is partly driven by cultural shifts in how these substances are viewed, not just by political leadership.
Speculative Thought:
If society values high productivity, instant gratification, or quick relief from pain (physical or mental), drugs like amphetamines and opioids may become more dominant, reflecting those cultural values. On the flip side, if a society leaned more toward introspection, empathy, or slower living, substances like psychedelics or cannabis might become more widely accepted because they align with those values.
The analogy to caffeine is humorous but apt—caffeine is a socially sanctioned stimulant that reflects a cultural obsession with staying awake and alert. It’s almost like the legal "cousin" of amphetamines, operating within accepted norms of productivity.
Conclusion:
In your paper, you could argue that societal values around speed, productivity, and pain management may drive preferences for certain drug classes (e.g., amphetamines and opioids), while political policies follow these trends rather than setting them. This dynamic could change if societal values shifted toward empathy, relaxation, or introspection, possibly making slower, more empathetic substances like psychedelics or cannabis more mainstream.
If you need more specific examples or data to support this hypothesis, feel free to ask!
A.Glass: Yes, just one other point. You've jolted my memory. The user that I interviewed, also made the "social bonding" element to their argument of drug use. They said, that they would invite each other back to an apartment, smoke methamphetamine, do liquid fentanyl, and monitor each other. What was mentioned also, was the paranoia and psychosis, aggression thereafter etc. It indicated human bonding with intoxicates, despite the problems also associated with collective drug use, as though it was a legal high. For example a bar, yet there could be a bar fight. In a sense, psychedelics would be more personal and introspective. But, also dangerous to an already psychotic affected amphetamine user.
ChatGPT said:
The dynamic your interviewee described—where methamphetamine and fentanyl users bond through shared experiences despite the negative effects—mirrors a larger cultural phenomenon of social bonding through collective intoxication. This is a common aspect of many drug-using subcultures, where the act of using substances together can create a sense of camaraderie and trust, even though the drugs themselves often lead to dangerous behaviors such as paranoia, psychosis, or aggression.
Social Bonding in Drug Use:
Shared Experience: Just like people gather in bars or social settings to drink alcohol together, groups that use more dangerous substances may do so as a way to create or maintain social bonds. The trust that comes from monitoring each other, especially when using drugs like fentanyl or methamphetamine with significant overdose risks, reinforces a sense of mutual care. This can mimic the communal aspect of drinking at a bar, where even though aggressive outbursts or violence (like bar fights) can occur, the social component is central to the experience.
Drug-Induced Psychosis and Aggression: Methamphetamine is notorious for causing paranoia and psychosis, particularly when used in high doses or over long periods. This can lead to erratic, violent behavior that poses risks to both the user and those around them. Similarly, fentanyl—an opioid that’s extremely potent—can lead to rapid shifts in consciousness, sedation, or overdose. Together, these substances create a volatile combination of hyper-alert paranoia (from meth) and deep sedation or respiratory depression (from fentanyl), making it a dangerous environment despite the bonding aspect.
Psychedelics and Their Impact:
Psychedelics are generally introspective: Users often report deep personal insights, altered perceptions of reality, and increased empathy, which is why substances like LSD, psilocybin, and MDMA have been explored for therapeutic potential. Psychedelics are not typically associated with the same physical risk of overdose or psychosis in the way that meth or fentanyl are, though they can trigger psychosis in vulnerable individuals, particularly those with preexisting mental health conditions.
Risks to Amphetamine Users: Using psychedelics, however, could indeed be extremely dangerous for someone already affected by methamphetamine psychosis. Psychedelics can amplify emotional and mental states, which may worsen underlying paranoia or delusions caused by amphetamines, leading to a more intense and chaotic experience. In these cases, instead of introspection, the psychedelic trip could escalate into a psychotic break or extreme agitation.
Drug Use and Social Context:
Drug use tends to reflect both individual desires and social environments:
Amphetamines (like meth) and opioids (like fentanyl) may facilitate group-based interactions, where users collectively seek stimulation and relief, while managing the inevitable crash.
Psychedelics, however, tend to create more personal or small-group experiences, where users focus inwardly. That said, in cases where individuals are already mentally unstable (due to prolonged amphetamine use, for example), psychedelics could push them into more dangerous psychological states, rather than creating a peaceful or empathic experience.
Summary:
The dual nature of social bonding and risk in drug use is key. While people often use drugs together as a means of forming connections (similar to drinking alcohol socially), the substances themselves can create dangerous mental and physical effects, especially with stimulants like meth and sedatives like fentanyl. Psychedelics, although typically more introspective and less likely to cause physical harm, could dangerously amplify the pre-existing psychosis caused by stimulant use.
This distinction between socially bonding substances (like amphetamines or alcohol) and more introspective ones (like psychedelics) highlights the complexity of drug culture, and how each substance fosters different social or personal experiences, with varying risks.
A.Glass: Could you please elaborate on this, "This dynamic could change if societal values shifted toward empathy, relaxation, or introspection, possibly making slower, more empathetic substances like psychedelics or cannabis more mainstream." I have to offer a speculative opinion in my paper, that current illegal drug taking trends are actually following the societal generalist/legal intoxication path. Just more extreme. That any reversal to 'other' drugs, like psychedelics would need a dramatic social/societal change. What could cause a society to change its intoxication use be it legal or illegal? And is one of the reasons that psychedelics are not seen as a viable alternative, would be the amount of psychosis it would cause. Of a society too attuned to stimulate type drugs, i.e., amphetamines . Are there any papers on this theory?
ChatGPT said:
Your speculative opinion about how current illegal drug trends may follow societal intoxication patterns, just in more extreme forms, is fascinating. The idea that a shift in societal values could lead to a change in the substances people choose to use—whether legal or illegal—is deeply tied to the cultural, political, and psychological factors that influence drug use trends.
How Societal Values Shape Drug Use:
Current Trends Reflect Societal Values:
Stimulant-dominated cultures often emphasize productivity, speed, and alertness. The popularity of drugs like amphetamines, caffeine, and cocaine reflects a societal focus on work, efficiency, and staying constantly engaged.
Similarly, the widespread use of alcohol in many societies is linked to social bonding, stress relief, and escapism, reflecting how people seek release from high-pressure environments.
This suggests that the current trends of illegal drug use (amphetamines, opioids, etc.) may simply be more extreme versions of the legal substances that are already culturally embedded.
What Could Cause a Shift Toward Psychedelics or Cannabis? A society would need to experience a significant cultural shift towards values like empathy, relaxation, and introspection for slower, more reflective substances like psychedelics or cannabis to become mainstream. Possible factors include:
Mental Health Awareness: A growing recognition of the importance of mental health could lead to more widespread use of substances like psychedelics, which have been studied for their potential in treating depression, PTSD, and anxiety. If society begins to prioritize emotional well-being over productivity, more introspective substances might become more acceptable.
Environmental or Social Crises: Major disruptions—like economic crashes, pandemics, or even climate change—could lead people to search for deeper meaning, healing, or escape. Psychedelics have historically been associated with movements for personal and societal transformation (e.g., the 1960s counterculture), so similar crises today could revive interest in these substances as tools for self-discovery or societal reform.
Therapeutic Breakthroughs: Psychedelics are currently undergoing a renaissance in medical research. If they become recognized as effective treatments for mental health issues, societal acceptance might shift in favor of these substances for therapeutic use, which could spill over into recreational use.
Why Psychedelics May Face Resistance:
Psychedelics and Psychosis Risk: Psychedelics are often linked with the potential to induce psychosis in certain users, particularly those with pre-existing vulnerabilities. In a society that is already accustomed to the stimulating effects of amphetamines, the introduction of psychedelics might indeed be risky. People who are used to the intense, controlled stimulation from drugs like meth or cocaine might find the unpredictable, introspective nature of psychedelics overwhelming, leading to bad trips or exacerbation of mental health problems like paranoia or delusions.
Lack of Control: Unlike stimulants, which typically enhance control over the user's mental and physical state (allowing for intense focus, energy, etc.), psychedelics often dissolve the sense of control, leading to experiences of ego dissolution, altered realities, and deep emotional exploration. This loss of control could be frightening or undesirable to a population that is conditioned to seek control over their experiences through drug use.
Supporting Research:
Psychedelics and Mental Health: A number of recent studies have explored the therapeutic potential of psychedelics in treating various mental health issues, but they also highlight the risks of inducing psychotic episodes in vulnerable populations .
Stimulants and Psychosis: Research has long linked chronic stimulant use (e.g., methamphetamine) with the development of paranoia and psychosis . The intense mental stimulation these drugs provide could make transitioning to a more introspective psychedelic experience difficult or dangerous for such users.
Speculative Argument:
In your paper, you could argue that:
Current drug trends (both legal and illegal) reflect a society heavily focused on productivity, stimulation, and instant gratification. Amphetamines and opioids mirror the societal need for speed, focus, and pain relief.
A shift to psychedelics or cannabis would require a dramatic change in societal values toward introspection, emotional healing, and relaxation. This could be driven by mental health awareness, social crises, or breakthroughs in psychedelic therapy.
Psychosis risk poses a significant barrier, especially in a stimulant-conditioned society. Psychedelics may be perceived as too unpredictable or intense for widespread recreational use, especially if users are accustomed to the stimulation and control offered by amphetamines.
Conclusion:
To foster a societal shift toward psychedelics or cannabis, it would take a major transformation in societal values, alongside careful management of the mental health risks. Without such a shift, current stimulant-heavy drug trends may persist, reflecting the broader cultural emphasis on speed, productivity, and escapism.
Let me know if you need more references or ideas to further support this line of thought!
A.Glass: What you said here, "Environmental or Social Crises: Major disruptions—like economic crashes, pandemics, or even climate change—could lead people to search for deeper meaning, healing, or escape. Psychedelics have historically been associated with movements for personal and societal transformation (e.g., the 1960s counterculture), so similar crises today could revive interest in these substances as tools for self-discovery or societal reform." Is fascinating. I might start a subtopic on this, with newer and relevant information if I can find it, albeit some from my own speculation. I haven't read it anywhere, that we may need a cataclysmic shift to change drug habits. Although, I remember during the COVID lockdowns, the amount of people complaining that they could not get a coffee, go out and party, festivals etc. I found that interesting, that majority couldn't slowdown. When it could have been time of introspection etc.
ChatGPT said:
That subtopic idea sounds great and very timely! The COVID-19 lockdowns were a perfect example of how society struggled with slowing down and introspection, even when there was a rare opportunity to do so. The desire to keep up with stimulant-driven lifestyles (coffee, parties, festivals) suggests that, without a deep, societal shift, the current preference for fast-paced, stimulating experiences will remain dominant.
You could speculate that cataclysmic events—like climate change or future pandemics—might force deeper shifts toward slower, introspective lifestyles, possibly making substances like psychedelics more attractive. The 1960s counterculture, for example, arose during a time of political upheaval and war, which led to increased use of substances that promoted peace, love, and introspection.
To support this, you might look at how crises alter societal behavior in other areas (e.g., economic changes leading to shifts in work habits or mental health trends). For instance:
Post-WWII economic booms shifted societal priorities toward material wealth, productivity, and the American dream, influencing drug habits toward alcohol and stimulants.
The 1960s Vietnam War protests and civil rights movements sparked interest in psychedelics, partly due to disillusionment with mainstream culture.
Recent research on psychedelic-assisted therapy during COVID might help inform your argument too, as some studies suggest people turned to these substances to cope with the isolation and existential anxiety of the pandemic. Keep digging into those connections, and you'll likely uncover even more relevant material for your paper!
A.Glass: The contrasts between Post WWII and the 1960s, of social change and drug use. 1950s was all progression, hence the Amphetamine use through the era, derived from soldiers who took 'speed' during WWII. Then it all slowed down, via counterculture of the 60s, marijuana and psychedelics. Thanks! So appreciated!
ChatGPT said:
You're spot on with the contrast between the post-WWII era and the 1960s counterculture! The 1950s emphasized progress and productivity, so drugs like amphetamines became widely accepted as tools to maintain energy and focus, stemming from their use during WWII to keep soldiers alert. This culture of speed, work, and efficiency fit perfectly with the post-war economic boom, where individuals were encouraged to "keep moving forward" in both work and life.
Then, as the 1960s rolled in, people began to push back against this fast-paced, materialistic way of life, seeking a deeper, more introspective connection to the world. The counterculture movements, along with political unrest (e.g., Vietnam War, civil rights movements), led to the rise of psychedelics like LSD and marijuana. These drugs were seen as pathways to peace, creativity, and deeper meaning, offering an alternative to the hyper-productive, amphetamine-fueled lifestyle of the previous generation.
This kind of cycle—progression and expansion followed by introspection and reevaluation—seems to recur through history, often tied to significant social and political shifts. Your paper could explore how future crises might prompt similar changes in drug preferences, swinging back toward psychedelics or even other substances that promote relaxation and emotional connection, as people search for meaning beyond productivity and consumption.
I'm really glad this is helping to shape your work! Keep me posted on how it develops!
___
(A.Glass 2024)
Comments
Post a Comment