The same drive can be seen in cat's even when they are exposed to catnip. Obviously a lone cat still enjoys catnip, even though it doesn't have other cats to tell it that the catnip is pleasurable. That in an of itself I think clearly demonstrates the error in thinking that pot is solely pleasurable because of peers influence on an individual.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
The Effects of Pot
In Howard Becker's essay he claims that pot is not something that is inherently pleasurable, and that culture teaches us that it can be. To me, the argument is a little off. I find that most of his statements can directly be applied to food, but in a slightly different way. I'm sure no one came out of the womb confident in their ability to eat solid foods, but I'm fairly confident that everyone in our class is able to do so without giving it a second thought in their present state. Similarly, I'm pretty sure it is safe to say that everyone has eaten some food that didn't agree with them, or that created an issue because they were sick. It didn't make them give up on eating, because they had a physiological drive to continue it. I feel that a similar experience exists with drugs that is just a little further down in people's minds, and easier to control. Pot and alcohol aren't popular just because culture deems it to be something pleasurable, they are popular from a primeval drive in people to experience a distorted reality, one that can satisfy things by creating otherwise impossible experiences.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting post. I also think that his argument needs to be better defined. What does he mean by "inherently pleasurable"? Depending on how Becker defines this phrase will greatly affect how his argument holds up.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your post, if this is the point Becker intended on making. It can't be soley the influence of others that deems smoking pot pleasurable. If smoking pot did produce discomfort, and continued to after several uses I don't see how a user would continue to use unless it was for somekind of social identity that is very important to the user or a medical use. What I think Becker is trying to get across is that the effects are very abnormal, pleasurable or not, they take some form of influence from a experienced user to encourage future use, someone to say what your feeling is perfectable fine, don't worry, just enjoy it.
ReplyDeleteIt's a perfect drug to explore the 'INHERENTLY' part of 'inherently pleasurable.' THC doesn't activate what neuroscience now pretty much universally calls the 'pleasure receptors' (interesting term) in the brain (neither do alcohol or nicotine). It does activate related areas, and disrupts / alters sensory and perceptual pathways. But it's pretty clear one needs to 'learn to like' it.
ReplyDelete