Drugs, Psychosis and Philosophy...

[grobelaar]

Follow on from the 'weed' topic, I've had a long running argument/debate with a colleague at work in which we've been at total loggerheads. Partly because she refuses to even accept even the germ of what I'm trying to say.

But essentially what it comes down to is this and its a bit of philosophical one (which is the bit my friend appears to have difficulty with) and I wanted to see what people around here think.

Do drugs induce psychosis, or does the society that a drug user has been bought up and lives in cause the psychosis?

Personally I don't think there's a black and white answer, howver, I am more inclined to think that the latter should take more blame that it currently does.

But my personal opinion is that a person grows up in a particular society or environment, the entire development of their brain, thought processes, their self-image and perceptions is governed entirely by the society that they live in.

I don't think that drugs cause psychosis, drugs (or anything ingested) simply change the chemical conditions within a person body and particularly their brain. How they translate those chemical changes into their own personal world is governed by the programming that society has placed upon their cortex.

Does anyone agree or disagree with this, or think this is some accepted theory that I've not heard of, or just me get pedantic on a philosophical front?

I'd be interested to hear, because my workmate simply refuses to accept that any of this might be true and that quite simply drugs ARE the cause of a users psychosis or mental illness.

[Weishaupt]

Is it not the truth, that drugs make psychosis.
Ii think, if drugs have a positive side, they show you things, who was there before you take drugs.

With drugs you can learn to better hear by yourself.
With drugs you can learn to hear nothing.
It always a tightrope walk.

Anybody lies, who say, the psychologic problems are coming with drugs.

[owain_k]

You certainly make a very interesting point.....like anything, there is no plain black and white answer but you're certainly opening an interesting debate........

Guess I don't know enough about 'Medical Definitions' of psychosis and its causes (socially ascribed phenomenon at any rate) to say much more but......I'm sure this would genuinely make an interesting PHD topic and there is certainly an element of truth in what you are saying, as to whether the medical profession would agree is another thing (challenge to their authority over the matter).

Food for thought, cheers !

[a.rodin]

Originally posted by grobelaar

Do drugs induce psychosis, or does the society that a drug user has been bought up and lives in cause the psychosis?

Personally I don't think there's a black and white answer, howver, I am more inclined to think that the latter should take more blame that it currently does.

But my personal opinion is that a person grows up in a particular society or environment, the entire development of their brain, thought processes, their self-image and perceptions is governed entirely by the society that they live in.



...psychosis can be brought on without drugs. Perhaps drugs can be a catalyst but then again not all drug users are disassociated from reality. There can be NO correlation between drug use and psychosis.
...let's try empirically to analyze this. Let's say you are raised on a desert island and started ingesting, inhaling, injecting various types of dope. Are you guaranteed to be psychotic at the end of the day?

...drugs do alter perceptions, but not ALL the time to ALL the people regardless of where you live.

(I recently watched Requiem for a Dream. Ugggh. Blecch.)

[pille'ocheoni]

well this is a tough issue.your right there are two fine lines and 6.8 billion others,but the two defining arguments that are presented are valid,but i do agree to a degree that psychosis is part of the enviroment that one is brought up in.but my only argument that your co-worker probally has,is that each human has the choice to make that choice...and the choice being drugs and doing them is deffinetly up to the person.

now when psychosis is considered a mental defect and a person is segregated from that enviroment that caused this psychosis. then i have to say that yes, drugs do cause a degree of mental instability.and yes they can cause immune system,brain,bone,nervious system and many other severe damages!....

i think that the agurment is to broad for a couple of reasons.you could argue all day about the effects of ones enviroment but when it comes down to the effects,the pysical effects, then that is a seperate issue, very seperate!for now your talking about, actless,mindless,unconditional attributes that govern the body. and those attibutes are a dictating blue print of how we process and operate, whether your in a ghetto smoking crack in compton, or in the rainforest eating psycadelics.theres one defining source that defines it all and that is we are all human.and drugs do cause psychosis what ever enviroment you are in.now the choice and the act is a whole other moral influencial subject/p

[jerm]

good debate

if you were to give someone a ridiculous amount of, say, psychadelics, then stick them in a beautiful surrounding of nature and like-minded folk, the effects would obviously be quite different than if that same person were to be in a boxy, stressful environment
with close-minded people.

I feel the effects from both are at a 50/50 level, rather than drugs being the larger problem.

Think of the Native North and South Americans who have been using
extremely potent "drugs" for millenia without what we call phsycosis.

There is such thing as an intelligent drug user.

[Yer_Maw]

a couple of weeks ago i witnessed 3 physcotic episodes releated to lsd use. I have never seen anything like seeing the look of complete INSANITY in someones eyes i was talking to 4 hours earlier. Anyway i was totally freaked out (i didnt do it that day anyway) so being the good little neuroscience student that i am i did a bit of reaserch.

First thing i found was the complete lack of any credible information on lsd use. Most of the well written papers were done in the 60's and even then they are exeptionally biased and obviously out of date. Fact is nobody knows how this thing really works. We dont even know how the 5-HT receptor fully works! Nobody has a clue because nobody is allowed to reaserch iillegal drugs... except for a bit in switzerland Psycholytic Therapy (http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v05n3/05303psy.html) this seemed fairly credible and grobelaar tell your freind it could even cure mental illness (however it was 'printed' in the Newsletter of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, so again caution advised). One other thing i plucked out the nonsense on the net was that apparently shizophrenics (i cant be bothered spellin it correctly) are less likely to have phsycotic episodes on drugs than ordinary people because the are used to more instable brain chemistry which seemed possible to me.

Anyway the people that went seriously mad are fine now and the authorities (i am not joking) let the go ok, so as far as i can see no real lasting damage has occured in these people.

My point is (from a science angle at least) that nobody has the slightest clue what these drugs really do. philosophicaly but personally i think ive got a good idea though but i couldnt put it into words.

[invisibleplanet]

my sis tells me that if a person admits to having taken 3 tabs of lsd, this is enough for them to be sectioned, should some authority wish to do so.

[emef]

what , 3 tabs in your lifetime or 3 tabs 30 minutes ago lol

[pille'ocheoni]

its seven here in the states.and you are considered medically insane.i think im insane oh i say about 90 peoples life times.i did alot when i was young.but i talked with a doctor that informed me that if you never had the chance to have lsd25 by the late 70's than you have never done lsd.its chemically inhanced speed!...i dont know but it kind of makes sense under the original rules of what lsd is.sort of./p

[Moncki]

Yeah thats an interesting one -
Im of the persuasion that thinks that drugs bring to the surface what is already inside of a person i.e. a catalyst .But it would be oversimplification to say society is to blame and drugs are harmless.I don't think drugs are good or bad(don't most of them just encourage or inhibit chemicals that already exist in our brains?) -it depends on the guinea pig and the way in which they are used.Taking drugs is experimenting with your own brain...
The ridiculous nature of our existence has encouraged us as a species since forever to ingest perception altering substances to think,achieve new(hopefully enlightening) perspectives or simply escape .However we live in a non negotiable reality be it in a the jungle or in a city and that reality(i.e. the reality shared by the other humans around us - the collective halucination) must always be returned to and engaged on pedetermined terms.The prolonged usage of mind altering substances will in my opinion make it more difficult to returned to that shared concrete reality manifesting itself in extreme cases in psychosis.What am I trying to say...
The very nature of our lives means life becomes more complicated if we're always off our heads.Don't blame society ,don,t blame drugs blame GOD!
by the way hello
excuse the waffle I'm new here...

[pille'ocheoni]

blame god?i never saw any blame being put here>:)

[filthydave]

still returning to that reality!

i agree grob a more open society would prevent a certain amount of neurosies being passed down from parent/peer group to the child/individual and that in turn would alleviate so much of the 'you'll go mad if you take that' syndrome

has no-one entertained the idea it might become a self fulfilling prophecy?

or is that part of the domminator culture that Terence McKenna talks about?

'we must make a certain proportion of society nuts in order to maintain the idea that we know whats best for them and the rest' ?

it makes you wonder as has already been pointed out in cultures where drug taking is encouraged there are no reports of psychotic illness

it has to be pointed out though that in these cultures it's usually taken as a religious sacrement so the adage 'set and setting' still applies

[bitch one]

psychosis occurs when a person deviates from accepted norms of behaviour, which are governed by society. therefore, by definition, society causes psychosis. if we lived in a society where hearing voices and such like was considered to make a person special, and they were elevated to high social status because of it - one could then argue that schizophrenia might not be an illness at all, but merely a different way of perceiving reality. indeed there are some who argue that this was the case in ancient societies, and that genetic causes of 'psychosis' have been actively selected for , for these very reasons. expectations play an important part in the manifestations of psychosis too. once a person receives a diagnosis, they are likely to have preconceptions of what their diagnosis means, and may actually conform to the behaviour the clinician expects, especially in the setting of an institution. so these are 2 different ways in which we can say for sure that society plays a part in causing what we call psychosis.

as to the drugs question - i have often wondered whether LSd-related paranoia and 'bad trips' existed before the drug was made illegal and all the accompanying propaganda. the effects of a drug like LSD are so critically dependent on what you expect to happen to you - once the 'meme' of the bad trip spread, it was inevitable that people would begin to experience whatever they imagined a bad trip might be.

further, psychedelics open doors into parts of your mind that are not normally opened so easily. there are obvious problems with this. eg - mdma removes inhibitions. is it not possible that inhibitions are there to protect you? thus messing about with them in such uncontrolled and regular ways could have unforeseen psychological consequences, negative as well as positive. if you have demons lurking in your mind, they might come out as a direct result of taking something. this could be a GOOD thing, if you are doing it in some kind of controlled way, with a professional to help you understand what is going on - but it could be a very BAD thing, if you are in some hideous squat surrounded by evil hippies spouting new age gibberish and playing trance at you. or vice versa...and i think it is also possible that the effort involved in opening these doors by meditation, or performing elaborate religious rituals, could prepare the mind for the experience and make it less likely to make you insane. then again, every individual is different - so for some it might make you MORE likely to go bonkers.

finally, genetic variation means that a proportion of people are bound to have some neurology that predisposes them to psychosis in response to certain chemical stimulants. and of course, any drug taken repeatedly to excess is probably gonna fuck you up, that's just common sense.

[invisibleplanet]

this discussion is also going on in http://www.overloadmedia.co.uk/ppBB/viewtopic.php?t=3118

btw, well said, bitchone, although the common misconception that schizophrenics hear voices is not strictly true....

[bitch one]

i realise that - i was using this example for illustration of my point only.

[arar]

I have an interetsing article on bi polar disorders and drug use (including things like alcohol) I will try and digitize this and post it...I used to run a welfare rights service at a psychiatric hospital so I kind of developed an interest in this area..anyway Ill post the article as soon as...

[Lady E]

its a very thorny issue and encompasses so much. the anti-psychiatry movement (RD Laing, Ken Kesey etc) were big on social class, gender and ethnicity being instrumental in the labelling of people as mentally ill. how people cope with their psychosis as far as the outside world is concerned is very different depending on who you are.
in western society there is a great deal of division, competition, alienation, depression, anxiety...which will take its toll on a human being. as bitch one says in a lot of ways, internalising issues is a coping mechanism and if the floodgates are opened through substance use be that alcohol or lsd or weed then you are dealing with some deep rooted shit and it can be totally scary.

there is a side salad that some people are born with the wiring different and it might take drug use to trigger or exacerbate that. again it comes dwon to how society views mental health. the Enlightenment figures the mind over everything and its about rationalism, logic and order..anything that deviates from that is demonised ...but then you've got the massive contradiction that within rationalism, some of its heroes were quite clearly barking ...jesus, blake, da vinci, shakespear.i think within the pluralist rational western democracies competing strands of thought allow for totally non-rational appreciation of the god like genii who after 100 years are allowed to have been mad because they were visionaries but when it comes down to person to person contact, if that weird eyed guy stands too close to me in the supermarket he is nuts and i move away

there's an extremely ambivalent attitude to the mind because no-one really knows anything about it, we're making it up as we go along. and drugs just add to that messy mix

[bitch one]

i must be missing being a scientist. look at that big essay i just spewed out...

[wheezer]

some stuff on lsd:

I have long had the theory that lsd in the us is weaker on average than the stuff you get here - my reason for believing this is because in any american trip reports, people constantly talk about 4+ tabs ingested, and that just seems pretty damm high by the standards I am used to around here - the observations by ip & pille in this thread strengthen that case.

around here, drugs like lsd are a pretty smooth way to get out of the army - get drafted, go there, say you want to see the doctor, tell the doctor you've used lsd, and bam!, you're let go for "medical reasons" as it will read on your paper.

and about the lsd/insanity business - back when sandoz was still trying to actively market lsd in the us to the psychological community, one of their first descriptions basically noted that lsd causes temporary schizophrenia in a sane person, and schizophrenic subjects to "act sane"...

[invisibleplanet]

Originally posted by bitch one
i must be missing being a scientist. look at that big essay i just spewed out...

yeah :) i truly enjoyed your essay @bitchone/emma
my sis is a psychiatrist and we always debate about issues of the psyche and drugs (of any nature: prescription and non-presecription) I'm in the RDLaing/anthropology/humanist camp, and she's in the highly trained medical/psychiatry/BNF (British National Forumulary) Camp. We often disagree, but I find her very open minded on the whole.

I think we haven't begun to touch upon the dangers/benefits/reasons for self-prescriptions of substances which are labelled 'drug'. I'd like to rant about the 'smart' drugs like Piricetum/Nootropil, L-Tryptophan, and Melatonin when i have more time!

[invisibleplanet]

Bleep from overloadmedia wrote:
It's a good topic, one that I don't think i'm properly experienced to really comment upon. However, it's worth having a look at the role drugs have had in society throughout history.

Hallucinogens are perhaps the most significant substance in this discussion, because they, more than any other drug, have caused breakdowns, madness, schizophrenia and the like. To experience something as full-on as Mescaline, Peyote or some of the v.powerful substances found in potent Mycologi is far beyond any "programming" that anyone in any society could ever imagine.

Conversely, in ancient Inca, Maya and Aztec culture, those who experienced these "visions" were those highly respected by society, i.e Shamans ...so there is a paradox between them and today's society.


indeed! the paradox is that in ancient cultures, a member of the community has the designated role of shamam (This role includes skills like clairvoyance, healing the sick, banishing bad vibes, and the ritual act of 'going mad' on psychedelic drugs) and in the western world, the 'priests' who are responsible for our spiritual world, do not..leaving the often young, 'modern shaman' without a guide. The relative ease of which these drugs are available (if u go looking for them) means that many who take them, are very unprepared for the consquences of this descent into spiritual madness.

Now, due to what I see as a heavy handed attitude of the LAW with respect to drugs of all kinds, (creating TABOOS of such dangerous substances, possibly being responsible for an increased desire to break that taboo, and providing FUCK ALL info for the adventurous user/experimenter), I believe young/old people feel it is OK to experience the 'spirit vision' using powerful hallucinogenic and psychotic drugs. What they don't know, is that without a guide, or understanding of how the drug works, they could be risking their own sanity.

Whilst their are many many books available which talk one through the shamanistic virtues of these once exclusively shamanistic drugs, I think these could not possibly be a replacement for what history tells us should be undertaken in the presence of an experienced trained guide. I'm not convinced that everyone who takes them understands the consequences of having one's inner core being opened suddenly like this.

Once, whilst working on a music festival in the Wye Valley, a Spanish Gentleman arrived in the afternoon at the 'GATE' and enquired what was happening. I told him about the music festival, and he wanted to come in, so he paid for his day-ticket, and after a little chat, he went into the festival arena. Later on, I was awoken from my sleeping bag, by a friend, saying: "The Spanish man u let in is going mad at the gate." I hurriedly dressed, and on arrival at the Gate, I found him in a very distressed state, babbling in spanish. A woman on duty at the gate was shouting at him, telling hims he must be mad....I interjected....he focused on me, and looked slightly relieved. I gestured to him to sit down..which he did immediately, and then sat next to him. I held out my hand to his, which he took and then asked him to tell me what had happened since his arrival. After he had relaxed a little, I asked him what he had eaten or drunk. He looked intently at me, and told me he had had some mushroom tea in the cafe. "AHA!" I said.. u have had psychedelic fungi. He began to calm down, and understood immediately, and spoke in english once more.
I then gave him a pint of ORANGE juice, and 6 very large BREWERS YEAST, and told him that these vitamins would counteract the psychedlic experience if he so wished. Then he began to tell me about his work. He was a Child Psychologist, and he did think he was going mad as he wasn't aware he had taken a drug. I apologised to him for not warning him about the dangers of festivals. He managed to regain control of his thought processes about 1 hr after taking the Brewers Yeast and we talked all the time.

He was quite ok after his descent into 'madness', and luckily viewed it as an adventure. I imagine if he had been 17 and unemployed/uneducated this may have been quite a different story.

Incidently, very large doses of B and C vitamins do countermand the effects of psychedelics, and it's worth remembering to administer these to anyone u find in your environment who is suffering from a bad trip, and it's worth remembering just how vunerable these people are at that time: and treat them with the utmost respect and care

[bitch one]

i think the vitamins counteracting idea is a myth. however valium is no myth and highly effective. it is wise to always have some handy when experimenting with psychedelics.

[invisibleplanet]

i'm sorry, i do NOT agree with your valium idea.

the thought of rendering a frightened mind to be imprisoned by a drug which almost renders the first time user immobile, and powerless could NEVER be a good idea.

The B vitamins are NOT a myth. They are the most powerful neuro-stimulants u can give yourself...think about it....a mushroom is almost all 'B vitamins'....
one needs to begin to fuel the brain with B.vitamins, to aid the restoration of balance.

And large doses of C.Vitamin DO begin to work on the toxic effects of the psycho-tropic drug.

Incidently, the drug 'L-Tryptophan' is a complex b-vitamin ..it can be found naturally in bananas, and is made synthetically from a lab-grown fungus. It is a pre-cursor to seratonin production, and is one the most controlled psychiatric drugs in the uk, needing blood-tests in order for the manufacturer to release it to a psychiatrist, in order to be taken in conjunction with the serotin drugs seroxat and prozac. L-Tryptophan is prepares the chemistry of the brain to produce seratonin. So B vitamins DO have powerful effects on the brain chemistry.

The drug valium, is also a prescription only drug, and if u were to give this to someone having a psychotic episode whilst under the influence of a psychotropic drug like psylocibin or lsd, u could be making the situation worse. I heard it physically incapacitates the user, and we have no way of knowing what the effects will be on a psychotic bad trip.

[bitch one]

Originally posted by invisibleplanet
i'm sorry, i do NOT agree with your valium idea.

the thought of rendering a frightened mind to be imprisoned by a drug which almost renders the first time user immobile, and powerless could NEVER be a good idea.


:)

heehee. what makes you think valium immobilises and imprisons you? that's utter nonsense. it just calms you down.

if you go to hospital having a bad trip, what do you think they give you? there is no more effective cure for anxiety. apart from maybe a blowjob, or even better a valium followed by a blowjob. that'd put even the most freaked out person into instant psychedelic bliss...

obviously i'm talking hypothetically here, as i've never had a blowjob.

[invisibleplanet]

Originally posted by bitch one
obviously i'm talking hypothetically here, as i've never had a blowjob.

rofl b_one! of course, if we could we would, eh? :D

but returning to the topic...if we were to encounter somone having a bad trip, to try the b vitamins/c vitamin overdose, and create a compassionate bond between u and the sufferer is probably the best 'field' medicine. if they're not talked down from this, then i would call the hospital.

[owain_k]

@ bitch one/Emma/Invisibleplanet : V good points !

From what i understand, one might argue that the word psychosis is merely a 'socially ascribed' phenomenon which in real terms, only exists if we as a society agree upon its definition as such, or more to the point, except its defination as such because we are educated to do so !

A question of programming then....?

Certainly, from the Shamanistic point of view...it would seem so as said members of their respective societies are indeed highly valued members of their community.

I do believe that people have 'psychotic' episodes without ever having ingested 'illegal' drugs whatsoever, often driven to illness through the sheer pressures of life (stress, money worries etc...), thus in this case, we can say that the societal influence on ones state of mind (in this instance) can indeed cause psychosis...

But from my own experience, LSD certainly brought out deep seated anxieties in my own personna when i tried it some 10 years ago (an experience which i don't think i would want to repeat!), so I certainly agree that 'illegal' drugs can be very harmful and in some cases....do induce psychosis (as we understand it).

As for counteracting the effects of drugs....

A friend of mine is a nutrionalist and has long been a recreational user of all manner of things but swears by "tinned peaches & clementines" as a wholesome remedy for all things narcotic, as said substances depleat natural stocks of vitamins and sugars....

[bitch one]

hey, don't touch that tinned fruit man, it's full of free radicals

[Lady E]

ha ha ha
that reminds me of people who do loads of class a s then wont take paracetomol for their headache

[grobelaar]

Hmmm, I had another thought just after I posted this topic. Essentially I don't see the being any difference between drugs and food or anything else that we ingest, inhale etc - they all affect the balance of chemicals in our body, some acutely other not so, others work rapidly and have drastic short term effects, others are ongoing and build with continuous use., but effectively all they do is effect the chemical balance.

I'd like to explore the idea that it isn't the compounds and substances that we ingest/inhale/consume etc that are drugs. But rather it is the information/ideas/concepts/experiences that we are subjected to that are the 'drugs'.

Given this, society today (particular western) we are complete and utter wholesale (or perhaps retail) 'info' junkies. More than ever before we are constantly assailed with new 'info'. TV, movies, DVDs, the internet, music, books, the list goes on and ever more inventive designer 'info' is coming on the market all the time.

The consequences and implications of the information taken in is rarely considered., or if they are it is 'black' knowledge. For example, CIA and KGB brainwashing methods would further atest to the power of 'info'. As would the banning of subliminal advertising. Info can be dangerous. Its also highly addictive - more addictive than any compound or substance, current human behaviour would support this, consider how few people explore their creative sides these days - a central tenet I'm sure that is vital to western society. Imagine what a shambles the place would be if we all wanted to be artists.

Any way I'm sure McKenna and other may have touched upon this with their TV is a drug theories (haven't read much so don't know how far he went in other books).

Back to the traditional definition of drugs, perhaps the fact that many of them don't produce 'chemical' dependencies until taken to extreme excess - however, the psychological dependencies take hold a lot quicker, almost instantly, in some cases. Perhaps this could be taken as an addiction to the information that these substance create or an addiction to the enhanced effect it has on the 'info' being taken in.

Any way enough of my armchair philosophies, I probably should read more books, but then I may be prone to becoming corrupted.