The reason that peer pressure to do drugs is so intense is that for those doing the pressuring, you look like a crazy person.
They look at the vast majority of people in their environment who do drugs on a regular basis, often throughout their entire lives, and appear to be fine and happier for it. Then they look at you and, since you are in the minority, immediately conclude that you are overreacting.
I grew up with a few friends who abstained from drugs completely. As they grew older and gained perspective, they slowly let down their guard and most of them fell into familiar patterns of reasonably healthy, occasional drug use. A few others had drug problems.
The fact is that a minority of people have the right mix of personality, circumstances and chemistry to become addicts. To make the decision to abstain from any kind of drug use, you are eliminating the small chance that you could become an addict, which is commendable. But what you don't know is that eliminating that chance comes at a great cost. What your peers were trying to tell you was "dude, trust us, it's worth the risk!" A good friend might have said, "friend, if you never take risks, you'll never experience the full richness of life!"
If I were your friend, I would say, quite honestly, that I cannot, almost as a rule, trust anybody who has not tried a variety of mind altering substances. The insight that they provide is, in my opinion, essential to developing an open mind and a deeper perspective on life. Moreover I would be wary of anybody so, to me, risk averse.
But your argument would still be that I don't properly understand the risks. Perhaps that is true, but here is my point:
I respect your decision to eliminate the risk of your becoming an addict, but I don't think that it is appropriate for you to be indignant. Rather, you should be sorrowful.
> I cannot, almost as a rule, trust anybody who has not tried a variety of mind altering substances.
EXCUSE ME? I'm sorry, but give me a fucking break!
I work hard, hit my deadlines, contribute to open source, am loyal to my friends, ready to help at the drop of a hat, and I'm risk-taking enough to be an entrepreneur, yet, look out, I can't be trusted because I choose not to smoke it up? How does that follow logically?
I've attended many parties through the years (the early ones were what are so commonly called "drinking parties" because, well, they're college and high school kids getting drunk), and I grew up in a family who enjoy with a few beers after work and on the weekends.
And throughout this exposure, I've never once had even the slightest itch to actually partake, despite the incredible amounts of peer pressure. But I attended the parties, I hung out with my friends and watched them get drunk (and later high, as they experimented further), and never once I did think "Hey, these conversations are so stimulating, I should totally do this too to improve my cognitive faculty."
No, I thought "Hey, you continue doing what you're doing. Me? I'm going to go back to playing the piano and talking with whomever is coherent enough to hold a conversation, and tomorrow, we'll laugh about all the stupid shit you won't remember doing."
Instead, watching folks get drunk, and holding conversations with folks who were high has only helped to strengthen my complete lack of desire to do these drugs. Not because of some aversion to risk, but because I just frankly don't like what I see in people when they are under the influence - they're generally just idiots.
And yet, despite all this, I know I can trust the trustworthy and not trust the untrustworthy, and I do not hold it against someone if they choose to enjoy certain recreational drugs. Indeed, despite my teetotalism, I paid for the open bar at my wedding.
Frankly, your almost complete trust-wise dismissal based on such a trivial criterion as "willingness to do drugs" is as closed-minded as I can imagine. At least I haven't completely written off an entire section of the population because of a disagreement in how we spend free time.
Thank you. Not being trustworthy for not using drugs is a completely new one to me, I've seen companies that test their employees for drugs (a practice that I abhore, and as an employer never engaged in) but this takes it to a whole new level.
I don't see any reason to consider all those who haven't experienced various altered states of consciousness to be inherently untrustworthy. That said, if you haven't experienced these things then you probably can't fully understand the large swaths of civilization that were inspired by them: art, language, architecture, writing, film, religion, etc. And the odds are that if you can't fully understand something, then you can't properly value it.
Alas it is too late to edit. Let me clarify what I mean by "trust", as it is a vague word that includes a range between trusting somebody with your life and trusting somebody to remain sane under ordinary conditions.
What I mean by "trust" is deep friendship trust. The kind of trust that's necessary for a best-friendship, love affair, or business partnership.
It's true, my statement was a bit hyperbolic, though I would stress that it is very personal. I meant to say something somewhat like that I'm simply very unlikely to get along with somebody who unilaterally shuns drugs. It is more a conclusion from observation than a matter of principle.
Let me guess, do you smoke tobacco? If so, have you tried to quit?
It is very untrue that only a minority of people have the right mix of personality, circumstances and chemistry to become addicts. There are indeed drugs which are not particularly addicting for most of us (eg marijuana, LSD). There are other drugs which most people who try them will not do them enough to get addicted (eg heroin and alcohol - though alcohol is one of the few where withdrawal symptoms can kill addicts). And then there are drugs which really do wind up causing addiction in a large portion of people who use them (eg tobacco, caffeine, crack).
Furthermore even if the odds of getting messed up by drugs is small, the potential consequences are not. For instance if I look at relatives I find one who died from lung cancer caused by smoking, another whose brain is still scrambled many years after quitting meth, another who has a constant battle to avoid becoming a crack-head, and yet another who is permanently messed up from fetal alcohol syndrome. Note, I'm not going to friends here - just looking at siblings, nieces, and nephews, including those by marriage. (Yes, I do come from a large family...)
I personally use mind-altering substances responsibly and in moderation. But given how wrong it can go, I would NEVER push someone to use them who was not comfortable. And I would NEVER pooh pooh the risks.
Every single person I know that does drugs performs at or less than their potential. I've never done anything except for caffeine and alcohol, but this perspective you write about is overrated when it comes at the cost of performance, work ethic, and the possible risk of life altering addiction. It should, of course, be legal to do so.
Part of the reason why people want others to use the same drug is to feel less guilty about their using. That goes for people pressuring others to drink alcohol at parties, in high school to try cigarettes, in college to try marijuana, and other substances. The fact that there is a person in a group who is consciously not using the drug brings the idea to mind that using that particular drug might not be the best long term investment. Note that this does not apply to friendly advice given once (which I have no problem with), but it certainly applies to repeated social pressure or emotional blackmail. Even the grandparent borders on that territory: if you don't use drugs you can't be trusted, you have neither an open mind nor a deep perspective, and you're a wimp.
If anybody who is encouraging others to use a drug wants to see the other side of the coin, try ordering a tea or water instead of a beer at a bar, and see how people react. Repeatedly I have been asked what I wanted to drink, answered tea or water, and a couple of minutes later a beer arrives. Don't be so boring, it's here now, drink it! Note that sometimes I do drink alcoholic beverages, so it's not even that they want me to experience something new. I never replace other people's drinks by tea, heck I've gladly helped people buy marijuana (legally).
P.S. my kid brother is addicted to cigarettes and it's certainly not because one day somebody suggested it to him as friendly advice and he thought "Wow, you're right, smoking cigarettes would be so beneficial for me".
To be fair, the stigma attached to people who use these drugs is, I think, wrong. I call it "wrong" because I think the negative associations with "doing drugs" contribute to the rate of bad experiences and, given that people are going to use drugs, I'd rather they not have bad trips.
I think it's unwise but not immoral. And a person who has taken a drug and is having a difficult experience shouldn't be thinking thoughts like, "this is wrong and I knew it is wrong and that's why I'm suffering" because that will enhance the bad-trip/panic-attack element but, instead, "I made a decision and now I'm having this experience and the only thing I can do is learn from it".
I like the Eastern approach to morality better than the Abrahamic one. Negative actions aren't "immoral" and don't make you a "dirty" person; they're unskillful and, given that we've been in samsara for a long time, we've all done a lot of extremely unskillful things.
For me it is really simple: other people get to use their bodies as they see fit and I get to use mine the same way. I don't judge my friends that drink, smoke or do drugs. If that is what they think is the best way for them to live then that is their freedom.
"> Part of the reason why people want others to use the same drug is to feel less guilty about their using.
I think that about sums it up."
that is an extremely negative judgement.
So you think that anyone who recommends a drug to you is doing do for the selfish reason that this makes them feel "less guilty" about something they actually consider wrong?
I think you're right on about sugar. The amount of it that people are consuming is ridiculous. Obesity in the U.S. is a real problem. I've seen people ruin their lives with soda. One person I know is at least 300 pounds (135 kg) and most of it is from soda. He drinks, on average, 4 20-oz (590mL) bottles per day. That's 960 empty calories, or a pound of fat every 4 days (!).
Also, I know a couple people who are now dealing with the end stages of diabetes. Really ugly stuff.
I've used psilocybin twice and both times it busted me out of a long-lasting and difficult bout of depression. I should use psilocybin more often to maintain a healthy and happy outlook on life (or maybe just quit the startup world and do something more sane).
You might not know which people you know use drugs. Unfortunately, due to the illegality of many useful and helpful drugs, more harmful ones have become popular. Not all drugs are created equal.
That's pretty disingenuous. 23 million Americans have used drugs/alcohol to the point of needing treatment: http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/08/study-22-million-am...
That's 7% of the population, including children under 12. Take the pre-peer-pressure group out and it starts to look more like Russian Roulette. I'd hardly call that a risk worth taking.
From your link, that was the number that the study authors estimated needed treatment. However only about 11% actually got treatment, and the #1 cause of not getting treatment is that they did not think they needed it.
There undoubtably was a lot of denial involved. But without knowing more about the biases of the authors, there is a real possibility that they are being overly quick to assume that people need treatment when someone else may conclude that they do not.
Why should I try recreational drugs? I see very little benefit and a noticeable risk.
Conversely, I fly airplanes for fun and have a wonderful time doing it. Should I look down on people who have never tried that, the way you stupidly look down on people who don't agree with you on drugs?
Don't you find that in some way, you _do_ "look down" on those who don't at least try flying recreationally?
I know many of the sub-cultures I'm involved in do exactly that. Motorcycle riders. Musicians. DJs. Burners. HackerSpace members. Artists. All of those circles of friends of mine have some level of scorn/pity for people not participating in their specific thing.
You _shouldn't_ take drugs if it doesn't interest you to do so. Anyone who tries to pressure you into going so should be avoided. Just the same as you'd consider someone trying to pressure people into flying, as opposed to offering an opportunity and backing off if there's no interest shown - would be being a jerk.
There's a huge gulf between the sort of mild sense of superiority a lot of hobbies confer on those who partake, and saying that you couldn't trust anybody who hasn't tried your hobby.
If I were your friend, I would say, quite honestly, that I cannot, almost as a rule, trust anybody who has not tried a variety of mind altering substances. The insight that they provide is, in my opinion, essential to developing an open mind and a deeper perspective on life. Moreover I would be wary of anybody so, to me, risk averse.
Disagree strongly. I won't discuss personal experiences (real name) and my own usage history is actually quite moderate and I haven't used any (including alcohol beyond one drink) in 4 years, but I've known some heavy users, studied a bit of psychopharmacology, and probably know more about these drugs than you do.
It's true that most people who use psychedelics have positive experiences. These drugs probably shouldn't be illegal (even though I think it is extremely unwise, for most people, to use them). Some of them are probably safer than alcohol.
Still, I think you exaggerate the insight you get out of drug use. You had that creative and spiritual potential inside of you. It's just that most adults are too uptight to unlock it without a chemical crutch, but it's there and people have been experiencing it for centuries without using psychoactive substances.
People who start using drugs regularly start attributing everything that is interesting, creative, or spiritual in their life to the substances they ingest, the "plant teachers". I'm not talking about addiction because the most interesting drugs are generally non-addictive psychedelics, so much as a kind of subtle reliance that creeps up on a person. It can be very destructive in the long term, and yes, I've seen people destroy their minds with psychedelic overuse.
It's important to separate artifacts (visuals, strange thoughts, perceptions of paranormal ability) from the real stuff-- insight, clarity, spiritual experience. Drugs provide a lot of artifacts and some insight. Meditation provides almost no artifacts but more insight. At my age (29) I'm pretty solidly convinced that artifacts are not desirable. Some are beautiful, some are terrifying, but all involve divorce from reality. What we should be doing is diving into reality and figuring out ways to improve it (mostly through mundane processes like being better people, learning, and treating each other better). Karma's real, and the better your actions are, the better your experiences will be.
Psychedelics seem to be karmic accelerators. They seem to speed up time 100-1000x in that regard: months or years of psychological change, growth or decay, and karmic fruition in a few hours. That might seem like a good thing, but it's often dangerous. You might be "3 months away" from a psychological crisis that, if you actually had that much time to address and resolve the issue, you could weather.
I'm not saying no one should use drugs-- indigenous Americans who use low doses of psychedelics for spiritual purposes seem to have no problem-- but if you do it, you're on the bleeding edge of something that no one understands very well, and in a very demanding (if you're a typical drone, you should never go on a trip on a normal weekend; you need at least 2 office-free days on each end) and intolerant society like ours, it can lead to some really bad outcomes. Worse than the drugs themselves is the way society reacts to them and the changes in people who use them. I've seen people lose jobs because of otherwise manageable HPPD and spiral out of control from there.
Finally, drugs are unnecessary. You can have interesting experiences without them. Most of what makes a good shrooms trip great is spending 6 hours in nature in a somewhat meditative state. How many adults go out into park and sit and think for 6 hours? Almost none, and if they had the mindfulness skill to do this, we'd have a better world. If you learn how to meditate (I don't want to trivialize this because spiritual growth is a lifelong effort, but you can become basically capable pretty quick) you can have experiences of similar quality-- if it's important to you and you make the time. No, you won't get many artifacts through meditation, but I've seen enough people go actually insane not to want artifacts.
Thank you for this wonderful comment. It really encapsulates my thoughts on the matter but I have been unable to express it so elegantly - even to myself.
Drugs truly are unnecessary. People do themselves a great disservice to believe that through drugs they gain valuable, worthy insight. It's there! You, who took that drug, had that insight inside you. Drugs are not a key to some hidden wealth of wisdom and knowledge.
(I occasionally drink and smoke marijuana, so I am by no means antagonizing against those who do.)
They look at the vast majority of people in their environment who do drugs on a regular basis, often throughout their entire lives, and appear to be fine and happier for it. Then they look at you and, since you are in the minority, immediately conclude that you are overreacting.
I grew up with a few friends who abstained from drugs completely. As they grew older and gained perspective, they slowly let down their guard and most of them fell into familiar patterns of reasonably healthy, occasional drug use. A few others had drug problems.
The fact is that a minority of people have the right mix of personality, circumstances and chemistry to become addicts. To make the decision to abstain from any kind of drug use, you are eliminating the small chance that you could become an addict, which is commendable. But what you don't know is that eliminating that chance comes at a great cost. What your peers were trying to tell you was "dude, trust us, it's worth the risk!" A good friend might have said, "friend, if you never take risks, you'll never experience the full richness of life!"
If I were your friend, I would say, quite honestly, that I cannot, almost as a rule, trust anybody who has not tried a variety of mind altering substances. The insight that they provide is, in my opinion, essential to developing an open mind and a deeper perspective on life. Moreover I would be wary of anybody so, to me, risk averse.
But your argument would still be that I don't properly understand the risks. Perhaps that is true, but here is my point:
I respect your decision to eliminate the risk of your becoming an addict, but I don't think that it is appropriate for you to be indignant. Rather, you should be sorrowful.