Reply to comment

While I am very interested in the medical and research potentials of drugs, I would like to address Paul’s concern of why these drugs should be limited to medical use. A couple people (Amelia and K Smythe) used the term “counter culture,” which is the topic with about which I would like to think more. As K Smythe recognizes, counter cultures are typically conceptualized with some degree of negativity. However, in keeping with our conversations about mental diversity, I believe it would be beneficial to move away from these negative views – though how to do so is a difficult question, to which Rebecca offers some insight. Accordingly, perhaps we should even drop “counter” from the term counter culture, recognizing that drug cultures may just be “different” instead of pitted against the rest of society.
So what potential benefits could the drug culture offer society at large? While non-medicinal potentials of drug use may not be very pragmatic in a direct sense, as we have already pointed out, drugs offer the potential to allow for new ways of thinking, new states of mind. This opens the door to greater mental diversity: new creative potential, new perspectives, new cultures. Perhaps one of the greatest examples of the creative potential of drugs is the music industry. Jimi Hendrix, Pink Floyd, The Grateful Dead, and The Beatles stand out as bands that have completely driven the evolution of modern music, and all of these bands were highly influenced by drug use in their compositions. Even if one doesn’t like these bands, it seems short-sighted to disregard the contributions they have made for the world of music. Even without going into the potential cognitive benefits of music, isn’t it enough to say that these bands make millions of people happy? Sure this conversation requires discussions of the risks of drug use to oneself and others, but if observations suggest drugs like MDMA, marijuana, and LSD don’t pose a major risk to people’s lives and well-being, why not let Jimi Hendrix be while he’s rocking out with a headband soaked in acid? This was really one of Rebecca’s points in class: that we should recognize the potential benefits offered by the artifacts of drug culture. It seems to me that such artifacts are sufficient enough reason to consider the value of drug use. In no way am I here proposing that everyone do drugs, or that drugs should be unconditionally legalized. Rather, I only want to highlight the positives that often get thrown into the shadows of stigma.
Finally, as Rebecca points out, much of the stigma against drugs is driven by an internal feeling – an intuition. If we are to change the way society views drugs such as MDMA, these intuitions are what must be targeted. Targeting intuitions, is a complex process that involves changing unconscious cognition. For example, there are observations that suggest that while someone may consciously report not to be racist or biased, they may unconsciously respond to members of a different race in a negative manner. (A poor description. See Blink by Gladwell for a complete description of these observations.) The point is that while changing conscious beliefs about race or drug use is important, it is not enough to induce complete cognitive change. If we hope to create significant change, we must also try to target unconscious processes (e.g. emotions, feelings, or intuitions). Perhaps it would pay to consider how we could target these negative reactions/views, working with both conscious beliefs/values and unconscious intuitions.