Recreational drugs in the Trekverse
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
“Tricky stuff...”
Just be sure the floor is steady before delivering the jab
Some observations:
I will preface this first one by saying that I've never approved of, nor voluntarily indulged in, any sort of recreational use of pharmacologically-active substances. The few times I've had even a mild "buzz" going (once, from an accidental triple-dose of dextromethorphan cough syrup [I was half-asleep, and grabbed the wrong spoon!], and once of twice from rather strong prescriptions, when I was experiencing extreme lower back pain), I found the whole sensation utterly revolting.
But consider:
Out of the four biggest "killer" recreational drugs, i.e., the four that have caused the greatest morbidity over human history, three of them are also the three most addictive drugs in common recreational use. The "odd man out"? Cocaine, in all its forms. It's extremely habit-forming, and can be extremely destructive, but I'm aware of no evidence that it causes classical physiological dependency.
Out of the three most addictive recreational drugs, all of them killers, all of which have ample evidence of causing classical physiological dependency, two of them also happen to be the two biggest "gateway" drugs, i.e., the two drugs most likely to lead to other unrelated drugs. The "odd man out" here? Opiates and opioids, taken as a group: while there are "entry-level" opiates and opioids, they generally only lead to more opiates and opioids.
Out of the two biggest gateway drugs, both of them classically addictive, both of them known killers, both of them also happen to be legal for anybody over a certain age to buy, possess, and use, in most of the United States. Both of them had a high level of social acceptability in the past (to the point where refusing to allow visitors to indulge was considered rude), and both of them claimed to have health benefits in the past. One of them is still socially acceptable, and still occasionally even claims a health benefit. These two drugs are ethanol and nicotine.
Where is marijuana in all of that? Nowhere.
The other observation is that some years ago, I wrote a non-ST (but certainly ST-influenced, and Humanx Commonwealth-influenced) science fiction short story, in which the first-person narrator, a first-contact specialist, is observing a hard-libertarian culture, in which . . .
I will preface this first one by saying that I've never approved of, nor voluntarily indulged in, any sort of recreational use of pharmacologically-active substances. The few times I've had even a mild "buzz" going (once, from an accidental triple-dose of dextromethorphan cough syrup [I was half-asleep, and grabbed the wrong spoon!], and once of twice from rather strong prescriptions, when I was experiencing extreme lower back pain), I found the whole sensation utterly revolting.
But consider:
Out of the four biggest "killer" recreational drugs, i.e., the four that have caused the greatest morbidity over human history, three of them are also the three most addictive drugs in common recreational use. The "odd man out"? Cocaine, in all its forms. It's extremely habit-forming, and can be extremely destructive, but I'm aware of no evidence that it causes classical physiological dependency.
Out of the three most addictive recreational drugs, all of them killers, all of which have ample evidence of causing classical physiological dependency, two of them also happen to be the two biggest "gateway" drugs, i.e., the two drugs most likely to lead to other unrelated drugs. The "odd man out" here? Opiates and opioids, taken as a group: while there are "entry-level" opiates and opioids, they generally only lead to more opiates and opioids.
Out of the two biggest gateway drugs, both of them classically addictive, both of them known killers, both of them also happen to be legal for anybody over a certain age to buy, possess, and use, in most of the United States. Both of them had a high level of social acceptability in the past (to the point where refusing to allow visitors to indulge was considered rude), and both of them claimed to have health benefits in the past. One of them is still socially acceptable, and still occasionally even claims a health benefit. These two drugs are ethanol and nicotine.
Where is marijuana in all of that? Nowhere.
The other observation is that some years ago, I wrote a non-ST (but certainly ST-influenced, and Humanx Commonwealth-influenced) science fiction short story, in which the first-person narrator, a first-contact specialist, is observing a hard-libertarian culture, in which . . .
. . . taken exclusively as a suppository.
Research has demonstrated that cocaine is physically addictive. The drug activates genes that code for the protein delta-FosB; this protein, in turn, activates production of GluR2, a component of glutamate receptors, and these bind to the neurotransmitter glutamate. An increase in the ability to bind to glutamate intensifies a person’s sensitivity to cocaine’s rewarding effects, which is a physical change leading to reinforcement for taking the drug. And I have seen many a friend go through withdrawal from cocaine ( spent a lot of time in the Hamptons in the early aughts), it presents the same way I have seen other drug withdrawals present.
As a former smoker, I agree that it was totally acceptable, even in the 90s, when I started. By the time I quit on 12/28/10, it was less so. Drinking is so deeply ingrained in us that it will not be going be the wayside anytime in the foreseeable future.
Interesting. I'd always wondered about the common assertion that cocaine lacked a mechanism for physiological addiction or withdrawal. I see that one has been found. Yet if it increases sensitivity to its own effects, that would seem to go directly against the typical opiate/opioid/barbiturate/ethanol/nicotine situation, in which the drug inserts itself into a natural process, causing atrophy of that process and reduced sensitivity to the drug's effects, a tolerance is built up, and escalating dosages are required to achieve the same effect.
Cocaine was never my thing. The few times I did it it made my heart race and I just wasn't into that. But I do know that for the people in my life that do use it regularly, they can still get that feeling off the same size line or bump that they did in the beginning they just need to do those lines or bumps more frequently.
Cole Porter said it best, in the ORIGINAL second verse
Sinatra only had the guts to record that version once (he usually used the "perfume of spain" and "bop-type refrain" alternates); Joan Morris and William Bolcom stuck with the original verse (CD: "Night and Day: The Cole Porter Album," Omega OCD-3002)
Last edited:
Maybe the chairs on the bridge are injecting relaxant drugs whenever a stressful situation occurs, many sci fi stories I've read have stuff like that on the ships. Then when they move to the conference room chairs they're injected with diplomatic/mental stimulant drugs. That explains why they get so much done in there
Red alert suppositories?
I'm not sure the "Fed society has no poverty and you can do anything, so why do drugs?" idea works. We see incredibly rich people nowadays - who COULD be "out there exploring an ancient city or skydiving or scuba'ing in warm, beautiful oceans" - off their goddamn nipples on coke, even IF their fortunes are secure and not dependent on creative genius.
That's because we're still a bunch of mouth-breathing 21st century primitives, lacking the "evolved sensibility" of Star Trek people, which would push us to spend every waking moment "working to better ourselves and the rest of humanity."
Kor
I missed this on my first watch, but in DSC: "Lethe", Stamets likens something to "a psychic hit of speed"
Amphetamines are still a thing in 2256.
Amphetamines are still a thing in 2256.
Possibly. It's also possible that Stamets is historically aware of amphetamines being a drug in the past. Something he could've read in a book or saw in an old movie.
You can go search for medical descriptions of how cocaine activates glutamate receptors "...increas(ing) in the ability to bind to glutamate intensifies a person’s sensitivity to cocaine’s rewarding effects, which is a physical change leading to reinforcement for taking the drug." - but I'd rather have Rick James speak on the subject...
I don't know what Archer injected into Reed, when Reed's leg was impaled by the Romulan mine, but it got Reed high as a kite. Reed even asked for more.
