/32/ - Psychopolitics

>>2211

The pill problem goes way before 9/11.

The real gamechanger was prozac which came out in the late 90s. Back then it was called the "happiness pill" by the media, and it was prescribed furiously, things only went down a bit when some awful side effects came to light, but it was the start of what you see now.

I don't think there's a conspiracy here, psychologists and psychiatrists back in the 40s and 50s when questioned about how lengthy therapy was they usually answered that if someone ever invented a pill that could solve the mind's issues that therapy tackled then therapy itself would become obsolete.

So those pills don't exists yet, but what we got numbs the "pain" and that's enough for most people, and health insurance both in places like the US or in socialist countries like the EU find pills far cheaper than trained specialists and therapy sessions that can last for years

Its another case of government going for the lowest bidder and as we know those decisions always backfired in some way

>How safe are these "research chemicals"

Barely and I'm saying this with scientific information that probes it. Most of these pills are released with the least possible amount of testing mandated by regulations and even then some results might be "buried" to prevent any delays that would cost the pharma company.

>Why is medicine allowed to be patented and why can't I grow my own?

Most of this stuff can't be "grow" at all and if you mean drugs like marijuana and opium that's a whole different deal.

As for patents well here's the thing: some people want to make billions of dollars easily and so..........that's all. It also applies to most patents these days, and specially to patent trolls who will patent the most absurd shit and do nothing but wait until someone actually builds and sells something similar so they can sue them for patent infringement

>>2222

I meant to say late 80s for prozac

>>2222 (checked)

Nice quads, thanks for taking the time to respond.

I remember prozac begin in the news constantly in the 90s. It still seemed taboo to be on it though, everyone called the crazy pills. I still feel like it eventually became normalized around the late 90s/early 2000s. The stigma of begin on a pill kinda faded away and lots of people were begin put on a number of things. If it wasn't antidepressants it was speed or benzos. Everyone was encouraged to "talk about their problems" then given something to help them cope with whatever was deemed to be wrong with them.

Selling the problem off to the lowest bidder does make good sense, I just worry about the implications of it all. The fact that they advertise drugs directly to the public on TV is a huge red flag that there is some shady shit going on.

>Barely and I'm saying this with scientific information that probes it. Most of these pills are released with the least possible amount of testing mandated by regulations and even then some results might be "buried" to prevent any delays that would cost the pharma company.

Where can I read the information you are reading?

>Most of this stuff can't be "grow" at all and if you mean drugs like marijuana and opium that's a whole different deal.

I do mean cannbis and opium, but other things too. One can manufacturer lots of common drugs given the know how and resources, if someone wanted to set-up shop and start producing morphine they could given enough land. They could even take it a step further and make heroin, or cocaine, or any number of things.

I wouldn't advocate for begin allowed to produce a large amount of the substance to sell directly to the public. But I do own a bit of land, and I feel like I should be able to grow whatever I want on it. If I were to end up in a position where I needed pain medication I would much rather grow my own opium than deal with all the hoops to get it from a doctor. I don't mind paying for treatment, it's the routine of having to piss in a cup and have tablets counted with the constant threat of begin kicked out at any time that I find issue with.

Appreciate the reply. I know this board moves slow but I knew someone would reply eventually.

I certainly think that the population in general is more prone to consume substances that alter their mental states, not necessarily (or exclusively) because of some encouragement by the government. If we consider why a population could be encouraged to do so, we can arrive at three different possibilities, which might also apply simultaneously.

The first would be the “soma” possibility. Despite not agreeing with most of what he says, I agree with Kaczynski when he talks about the power process. Here is a simple explanation if you are not familiar with the concept: a few generations ago people spent their lives performing activities which had immediate and visible effects on their lives and on the environment as a whole; currently, people spend most of their times engaged in activities which produce results that have no visible or significant effect on their lives or environments. That is to say, the fractioning of the productive/value aggregation process according to Taylor’s preaching for specialization, added with the development of technology and automation, resulted in groups of people who no longer have jobs they see as relevant, e.g. people whose job is to sit in an office all day and write reports on things other people did. In short, our lives seem much less meaningful. In order to cope with this perceived meaninglessness the individual seeks substances like alcohol or antidepressants. If we accept this premise, there is no need for actual encouragement for the consumption of such substances, as the circumstances of our social and economic systems already push people towards it. A possible encouragement could then signify an intention to intensify the aspects of the system which are unpleasant towards us, namely the mechanization of human labor: treating people like machines.

As such, we arrive at the issue of wireheading. The term refers to artificial stimuli to the brain that generates feelings of pleasure and/or happiness. Consider the possibility that you could be programmed to feel pleasure while performing a task that you now find unpleasant or even abhorrent. Less extreme would be the thought of drugging people in order to allow them to not mind exhaustive work hours or psychological abuse. In this scenario, a company could be legally allowed to disperse stimulants and antidepressants in the office air in order to prevent the workers from complaining about having to work 12 hours a day with no bathroom breaks and constant yelling. Imagine if companies in the developed world could make their workers work like the Chinese without fear of strikes, quitting or lawsuits. In a somewhat related scenario, picture soldiers and police officers dosed with substances that prevented them from feeling empathy towards the people they are executing or towards the protestors they are brutally beating and arresting.

The second possibility references what L Ron Hubbard mentioned in the book that names this board: “the mentally ill have no rights”. Gun purchases in the United States, for example, are restricted to people who have previously been institutionalized or have been diagnosed with a mental illness (the specifics seem to vary from state to state). Naturally, it is the government who determines what kind of mental health background falls within those parameters, and it has the power to expand them whenever it wants. Why do I mention this? Two reasons: first, the logic of preventing the mentally ill from doing something can be applied to a lot of things (teaching, occupying government positions, etc.); secondly, some sort of mental imbalance is a requirement for the prescription of behavior-modifying drugs (or so we believe). Therefore, the more people are prescribed “mental health medication”, the more people can be at any time stripped of their rights and completely dismissed with the justification of being “mentally unsound”. In fact, people might even be locked up for the rest of their lives without a trial or chance of parole so long as a doctor decides that they are a threat to themselves or others. So, with this second possibility, the encouragement for the use of mental drugs would be a means to ensure greater control of the people by the government and even private companies.

[continues]

[continued]

The third possibility would be the creation of a barely conscious and easily controllable population of drug addicts. Some people report that antidepressants and other drugs don’t actually make them happy, they only make them “numb”. Now picture an entire population that is merely “going with the flow” without any feelings, consuming what is pushed on them without actually enjoying the products, accepting whatever the government says, not making their will heard because they simply have no will. Such a demographic would be perfect for the expansion of government/company powers, and eventually for culling.

I am not informed enough to have an opinion on the safety of these “research chemicals”.

The matter of medicine patenting is a complex one, but I am generally contrary to it. I am not sure that this one matter is board-related. As for “allowing people to grow their own medicine”, we go into the field of alternative medicine and home remedies. Yes, for generations people have used herbs and roots to treat illnesses and health issues in general, but the ones whose effectiveness has been proven through double-blind control tests have mostly been turned into the commercial medicines we now see. One must be careful not the assume that alternative medicine can fill all of the roles of regular medicine. This is especially true for people with an anti-establishment stance, which tend to associate everything that is endorsed or produced by companies as bad and everything that is “alternative”, “underground” and “natural” as good. This is not to say that people shouldn’t be allowed to grow their own medicinal herbs and medicines, I agree with you when you say that the government has no say in what I grow on my own land reminding you that the government owns all of the land, but I know what you mean. As an interesting factoid, there was a while ago news of a small village in Brazil where the people had had found a new herb and discovered that tea from that herb helped them with headaches, upset digestive tracts and other such problems. As it happens, the herb was marijuana that someone had planted in the woods and that had spread to other areas. The people were just simple folk who didn’t even know what it was, and made up a name for it.

>What is your opinion on drug use in society and how would you control it?

I assume you are referring to recreational drugs, such as cocaine and ecstasy, and not antibiotics and insulin. In that case, I generally oppose it. It is merely a form of escapism and hedonism, in which people choose to alter their perception of reality into something more pleasant instead of altering reality itself (undoubtedly a harder alternative). While I believe that there are people who genuinely benefit from the use of psychotropic drugs (especially DMT, LSD and mushrooms) by gaining special insight into themselves and inspiration in the case of artists, the great majority of people seek nothing more than enjoyment and a feeling of novelty. That being said, I oppose the criminalization of drugs and the so called “war on drugs”. The state has no business telling individuals which substances they may or may not put into their bodies, and the policies in effect in most countries clearly have achieved little. Besides, wars are generally a bad idea.

At the end of the day, television is probably worse than pot for both individuals and society in general.

>>2321

>>2322

We can't avoid the social factor, basically the almost complete acceptance of taking pills for "problems" in our society

It wasn't long ago when going to a therapist was something you couldn't mention to anyone without being judged. And have to take behavioral altering drugs was an even bigger deal, but now its not anymore.

Of course I wont deny that a lot of this "acceptance" was the work of pharma's paid PR, since if they can pay for relatively long ads during prime-time they can certainly also get the MSM to indirectly endorse the use of their pills.

And as I said before you can't deny that for the average borderline-ADHD western person taking a pill its far more preferable than dealing with their issues, be it by themselves or with a professional. They rather numb the "pain" which is the symptom with pills than to solve the "disease" which are their mental issues.

>>2211

Drugs, specifically opiates, induce docility in the masses.

I would not control drugs. I would educate the people on the importance of health and the effect it has on consciousness. If I was hitler everybody would be lifting and eating seasonally.