The ideology of pharmacological determinism “invests the substances themselves with more power than they actually have” (Reinarman and Levine 1997a, 8). In actuality, when psychoactive drugs enter the body, they produce their effects through the release or reuptake of brain chemicals called neurotransmitters. That is, drugs work by stimulating substances already present in the human brain. The fact that “psychoactive drugs produce their effects by neurotransmitters points out their true secret: All drug sensations, feelings, awareness, or hallucinations can also be achieved without drugs” (Gahlinger 2004, 159; emphasis in original). Though many find this idea controversial, people can and do achieve altered states of mind through non–drug related activities such as religious fervor, gambling, long-distance running, roller coaster riding, dreaming during sleep, and other behaviors that affect the flow of brain chemicals.4 My point is that drugs do not produce feelings that the body and brain are incapable of producing by themselves. “All the thoughts, perceptions, and behaviors [resulting from drug use] already exist” (Gahlinger 2004, 159). By themselves, drugs are inert substances—they do not cause harm or relief until people choose to consume them (Reinarman and Levine 1997a). But by placing heavy emphasis on “the sphere of molecules” (DeGrandpre 2006, 27), a cultural acceptance of pharmacological determinism fails to consider the social, cultural, and historical contexts of drug use. And contexts (i.e., the conditions under which people take drugs) are often more important than molecular structures for understanding consequences and patterns of use (Zinberg 1984).
Meth Mania: A History of Methamphetamine, Nicholas Parsons, (2014).
