The case against drugs

[Carl-Richard]

This topic is not another debate about psychedelics vs. meditation. This topic is about all drug-taking where the drug is taken to achieve a specific effect, be it for the purposes of productivity, spirituality, medication or recreation. Even so, it should be mentioned that classical psychedelics also have an atypical mechanism of action, and many of the points here therefore don't apply to them. Nevertheless, the prevailing idea among strategic drug-takers (e.g. coffee drinkers, nootropic users and enjoyers of pharmacological sleep-aids) tends to be that drugs have a net positive effect on their lives. My claim is that it's not that simple, neither from a short-term or long-term perspective.

The main concept presented here is the trade-off between flexibility (1) and selectivity (2): between 1) the ability to self-regulate and respond dynamically to different types of stimuli, and 2) the ability to respond strongly to a specific type of stimulus.

1) In its sober state, the body-brain system usually has a certain range of activity which it can unlock given the correct stimulus. For example, if you're about to lift something heavy, the system will experience a stimulus that produces a shift towards a state of higher activation by engaging those related systems (e.g. increased dopaminergic activity in various parts of the brain and and an activation of the sympathetic nervous system). When the stimulus ceases, it will reduce the activation accordingly. This is what a healthy system does: it responds to challenges according to the level of the challenge, and when the challenge is over, it reduces the activation. If the response is insufficient for the challenge, you can train the system to respond better over time.

2) On the other hand, taking a drug like say caffeine will make the system respond more strongly to a specific set of challenges (like lifting heavy stuff), but it will not be able to self-regulate this response to the same extent as an endogenous response (either tailor it specifically to the challenge or reduce activation after the challenge is over). This can create a waste of resources (excessive strength and duration of activation) and a lack of refinement (less specific and dynamic response). What good is it to blast your receptors with stimulant chemicals when you're supposed to rest? The drug also compromises the ability to respond to other challenges that require a different type of activation. For example, you'll not be able to sleep well or perform tasks requiring fine motor movements (e.g. threading a needle) on most types of stimulating drugs. While that is also true for the duration of an endogenously induced activation of the same kind, this response is much more dynamic. For example, unlike a cup of coffee, you're not very likely to be stuck with an elevated heart rate for the next couple of hours after lifting something heavy (it's usually back down to baseline after a couple of minutes).

It's widely known that when the drug has left the system, it still has a lasting effect on the system, namely the system's own attempt to self-regulate and respond to the effect of the drug (downregulation), which is the root the phenomena of drug dependence. This happens because the drug induces an unbalanced pattern of activation and utilization of resources, and the system will always try to regain this balance (homeostasis). It does this through negative feedback loops: countering excess activation through reduced activation. As the drug leaves the system, the system will reduce the associated activity below baseline in order to replace the lost resources and re-balance the overall functioning of the system. This creates periods of subnormal levels of specific types of activation and an overall sub-optimal level of functioning. As a result, you'll need progressively higher doses to achieve the previous level of activation (increased drug tolerance) and to avoid dropping below the baseline level of functioning (dependence). Drugs also tend to complicate other bodily processes (e.g. vasoconstriction, diuresis, muscle twitching, digestion problems, liver strain) and may in some cases be toxic.

So as a summary of the points above, this is what drugs really do: they provide one period of selective and rigid activation, then one period where the opposite effect is produced with the same level of selectivity and rigidity, all while decreasing the efficiency of the drug at next administration and potentially producing harmful side effects on the side. If you're a person who is on the spiritual path and is struggling to maintain a consistent meditation practice, struggling with fluctuating energy levels, bodily discomfort, fatigue, brain fog and emotional instability throughout the day, then maybe one priority should be to create a sense of stability, and eliminating all non-essential drugs can often be an overlooked step in this direction. It's easy to forget how much our culture has programmed us to consume all kinds of substances that are non-essential and that may do more harm than good. With that said, proper sleep, diet and exercise are the most essential parts of maintaining a healthy regulatory capacity.

The question is then whether drugs can actually serve as a net positive at all. I would say it depends on what your goals are. Do you value having a calm, clear and intuitive mind that is stable, subtle and refined? Do you value having a stable level of functioning throughout the day? Then maybe stay away from all drugs, be it stimulants or depressants, because all of it has an unbalancing effect on the system. But let's say you're less concerned about these things and you're more concerned about "getting shit done". Is there then a place for drugs? Maybe yes, but only if used strategically within small time periods and rather infrequently. You want to reduce the problems of limited duration and build-up of tolerance. For example, if you're going to do 3 hours of intensive work and nothing else after that, then using caffeine could be a good idea for that particular session. However, if you do this everyday, it will gradually have less effect and the response will become less refined. Therefore, consider only using caffeine for special occasions.

There is a deeper point to be made about refinement and the blunting effect of drugs on subtle processes, not in the sense that you're frying your brain through irreversible structural damage, but in the sense that you're not allowing the emergent properties of the system to refine themselves and properly unfold in a stable environment. After all, a central way of conceptualizing the movement towards higher consciousness is the movement towards more subtle levels of perception, cognition, feeling and being. This parallels with seeing the importance of ecology (stable, self-sustaining life systems) in the health and sustainability of the macrocosm of the world and the microcosm of one's own body. Through ecology, the path towards growth is recognized as the increased ability to self-regulate as opposed to the increased consumption of external resources. In other words, the solution lies in the intelligence and strength within, as opposed to a solution from the outside.

[Tim R]

Very nice post, I enjoyed reading?

To summarize your position with my own words; developing a system (body+mind) that is capable of dynamically adjusting itself into a state of equilibrium (a "stable system") is an essential part of the process of growing oneself. For achieving/catalyzing this, many people use drugs. However, you view drugs as an "solution from the outside" and thus not necessarily very suitable for developing a self-regulating/-sufficient system, given that drugs, being external forces, disturb the internal systemic balance. 

What about the distinction between system-intern vs -extern? Are drugs truly a solution from the outside, when in fact there are for example some psychedelics like DMT or 5-MeO that are endogenous? 

When do you consider something a "drug"? Are vitamins after a certain concentration also drugs, since they only make your body function "better"? 

Is there even such a thing as an internal (i.e. independent from the external) equilibrium? Or is a temporal disequilibrium maybe just part of a larger context of equilibrium? 

I agree with you on this:

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

the prevailing idea among strategic drug-takers [...] tends to be that drugs have a net positive effect on their lives. My claim is that it's not that simple, neither from a short-term or long-term perspective.

 

and this: 

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

the path towards growth is recognized as the increased ability to self-regulate

But:

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

the solution lies in the intelligence and strength within, as opposed to a solution from the outside

What if the distinction between the self as in "self-regulation" and "outside" starts to crumble? 

Btw, I'm not nitpicking on any of what you wrote, I think it's a well thought out post. 

[Terell Kirby]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

 It's easy to forget how much our culture has programmed us to consume all kinds of substances that are non-essential and that may do more harm than good. 

This is the crux of the problem. The legality of substances (food, medicine, etc) needs to be determined by a rigorous and non-bias cost/benefit analysis.

The problem is a lack of transparency due to special interest, and the lobbying of government.

Capitalism is often at the root.

Edited October 18, 2021 by Terell Kirby

[Egzoset]

I kind of appreciated the post right above because it's not just about the substance and you.

 

In any case some alarm bell resonates strong whenever i read or hear about ADDICTION and/or DEPENDENCY justifying ABSOLUTE ABSTAINANCE as it reminds me of these simple keywords to offer to those looking for the counter-part of it:

 

"Fix-my-Kid", "Kids-for-Cash", "Narconon Trois-Rivières".

 

Holier-than-you attitudes in face of a camera can actually hide monsters behind, keep that in mind before risking to fall into yet another mind-control game...

 

[Carl-Richard]

21 hours ago, Tim R said:

Very nice post, I enjoyed reading?

Thank you! 

 

21 hours ago, Tim R said:

To summarize your position with my own words; developing a system (body+mind) that is capable of dynamically adjusting itself into a state of equilibrium (a "stable system") is an essential part of the process of growing oneself. 
However, you view drugs as an "solution from the outside" and thus not necessarily very suitable for developing a self-regulating/-sufficient system, given that drugs, being external forces, disturb the internal systemic balance. 

Sound good. Just to clarify, it's not that you should strive to achieve homeostasis in your body. Your body's sole function is to maintain homeostasis (to maintain a balance between inputs and outputs). Drugs are just one type of input. The problem happens when you start relying on a constant stream of inputs in order to function, and when the nature of the input is selective and rigid (like with fast-acting psychoactive drugs), this compromises the functioning of the system in various ways, the main point being a loss of flexibility in responding to challenges in the environment.

 

21 hours ago, Tim R said:

What about the distinction between system-intern vs -extern? Are drugs truly a solution from the outside, when in fact there are for example some psychedelics like DMT or 5-MeO that are endogenous? 

Whatever is introduced to the system, the system will regulate itself as a response. If the nervous system produces a DMT molecule endogenously, then the system will accommodate the effects of this through various self-regulation mechanisms (e.g. by downregulating the activity of the related systems, e.g. the serotonergic system). Likewise, if you introduce some DMT from the outside, the system will also respond by regulating itself. The system is in a constant state of self-regulation. The question is just about how balanced it is, and the more unbalanced it is, the less flexible it is. Taking a large dose of exogenous DMT will definitely create an unbalancing effect.

 

21 hours ago, Tim R said:

When do you consider something a "drug"? Are vitamins after a certain concentration also drugs, since they only make your body function "better"? 

Drugs are non-essential and modulate existing activity already produced by the system. Many vitamins are essential and are not produced within the body. However, eating an unbalanced amount of vitamins will also produce an unbalanced response in the system. Same with essential amino acids. Say if you eat too much L-tryptophan (precursor to serotonin), then the system will respond by downregulating serotonergic activity. This is what is meant by eating a balanced diet: getting just enough essential nutrients that your body needs to sustain itself; not too much, not too little. The key takeaway here is balance

 

21 hours ago, Tim R said:

Is there even such a thing as an internal (i.e. independent from the external) equilibrium? Or is a temporal disequilibrium maybe just part of a larger context of equilibrium? 

The system is obviously in constant flux with the environment where the inputs and outputs are always changing. Homeostasis doesn't mean that the system is isolated from its environment. Rather, homeostasis is the different measures that a system has to take towards self preservation, i.e. "what do I need to do in order to keep surviving?". For any self-perpetuating life system to survive, it must maintain a fixed boundary between itself and its environment, and it does this by managing a relatively balanced flow of energy through the system. Signalling molecules like neurotransmitters are just one way that an organism can change its patterns of input and output, which is why the nervous system also needs homeostatic mechanisms like negative feedback loops in order to protect the larger integrity of the system.

[Carl-Richard]

21 hours ago, Egzoset said:

I kind of appreciated the post right above because it's not just about the substance and you.

In any case some alarm bell resonates strong whenever i read or hear about ADDICTION and/or DEPENDENCY justifying ABSOLUTE ABSTAINANCE as it reminds me of these simple keywords to offer to those looking for the counter-part of it:

"Fix-my-Kid", "Kids-for-Cash", "Narconon Trois-Rivières".

Holier-than-you attitudes in face of a camera can actually hide monsters behind, keep that in mind before risking to fall into yet another mind-control game...

Don't worry, I know exactly what you feel as an ex-addict myself . I was just trying to be accurate, not to morally condemn those who take drugs or are in any way "dependent".

[Egzoset]

12 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Don't worry, I know exactly what you feel as an ex-addict myself .

Do we know each other, m. addict??

 

Anyway if ACCURACY is the central concern then my previous post remains valid, but i may need to repeat an old argument just to clarify:

 

Neuro-plasticity
Contaminants
Consumption Method & Ritual
Socio-toxic 3rd-party interference

 

No moralistic judgement here neither, only a tool which evolved with time.  What it means is that old destructive habits can be undone at any age and in the end it might someday imply all responsible adults have finally found a satisfying health-wise alternative that no sane mind can resist.  The day this happens there won't be a market for minors alone and then inventories shall plumet until they vanish completely:  more specifically i'm thinking of rolling paper...  But honesty would have to be the key while right now most politicians are manipulative, arogant and i'll cut it there as an effort not to ruin the day.

 

...