How We Normalized Mood & Mind Altering Drugs as Mental Healthcare

I vividly recall the government campaigns that saturated American television screens and permeated public school classrooms throughout the 1980s.

"Just say no."

This was a call to American children to resist the allure of drugs, which were becoming increasingly prevalent in society as illegal substances flowed into the United States from Central America. It marked the onset of a fervent "war on drugs."

There was a genuine concern about the effects of drugs on the brain and their ability to alter consciousness. For some, they offered a temporary mood boost or an irresistible high, creating a powerful urge to chase that sensation repeatedly. Drugs and alcohol can change our mental states, reducing inhibitions, anxiety, and self-consciousness. In the short term, they may provide feelings of elation and an otherworldly high, offering an escape from the challenges of daily life.

Over time, tolerance develops and dependence sets in. The pursuit of the drug to simply feel "okay," even if only temporarily, characterizes the behavior of individuals dealing with drug dependency. Before long, individuals were labeled as "addicts," and the drug began to exert control over their lives. Withdrawal from the drug is an excruciating experience; it's often described as hellish. People may endure the most severe traumas to obtain the drug, resorting to activities like prostitution, violence, criminal acts, and even hurting those they love. This was how drug use was portrayed.

It was evident at the time that experimenting with street drugs or prolonged use of prescription drugs for pain or anxiety carried serious consequences. Resorting to drugs to alter our emotional state was likened to striking a deal with the devil. While life's challenges are undeniable, seeking refuge in drugs and alcohol only exacerbated problems in the long term.

A message of resilience echoed throughout the culture:

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me." Back then, there wasn't any "social emotional learning" curriculum beyond the basic principle of treating others how you'd like to be treated. The trials of adolescence weren't medicalized; moody teenagers were considered normal, and adolescent rebellion was seen as a natural part of the journey toward independent adulthood. Emotions were viewed as typical and anticipated responses to life's challenges.

Indeed, while not everything was perfect, it was evident that resorting to drugs was not a solution for the anxieties and pains of existence. The ups and downs of life were more normalized back then.

So how did we deal with it?

First, most never assumed that anxiety or emotional struggles would be some permanent state of existence. Why? Because that was never shoved down our throats. Permanent psychiatric illness was never brought up, nor was there any notion of temporary anxiety or mood issues being linked to an underlying brain disease necessitating medical treatment.

Certainly, there were people dealing with more chronic mental health issues, but we attributed these experiences to valid reasons such as abuse, poverty, veterans after experiencing the atrocities of war, traumatic loss, or drug addiction.

Back then, we weren't inundated with constant media messages about new drugs to treat newly coined diseases. Drug advertising aimed at the public was practically non-existent. The idea of children or teens facing mental health struggles wasn't prominent in popular culture, so it wasn't something we often considered.

Psychiatry was considered a niche medical specialty, serving only a tiny fraction of the American population. The concept of using drugs as a form of mental health care simply didn't exist.

Instead, there was a stronger emphasis on religion and discussions about God in American society. While I can't verify the accuracy of the following poll, questions about purpose, meaning, life, and death were commonly discussed within families and religious communities. Public school teachers and staff were never expected to address these broader topics.

School was challenging for many of us, myself included. I found it incredibly boring and often daydreamed, made jokes, and got into trouble, resulting in my fair share of time spent in detention. I was an active kid who preferred sports and being outside. However, the thought never crossed my mind that this behavior might be linked to a psychiatric disorder. I didn't daydream because I had ADHD, nor did I act out in class due to uncontrollable impulses. The idea of taking stimulant drugs to make me comply was never even considered.

The notion of resorting to drugs to address behavioral issues would have sounded utterly ludicrous back then. Instead, I had to face the consequences of my actions. I was fortunate to have parents and coaches who cared enough to hold me accountable. My change in behavior wasn't the result of a drug intervention but rather my own growth and maturity in learning to regulate my behavior and consider the consequences of my actions. The message that my behavior was beyond my control was never communicated, neither in my upbringing nor in American culture at large.

What Happened?

We allowed ourselves to be influenced by drug companies, gradually accepting ideas that once seemed absurd. While there may be some individuals whose quality of life can be at least temporarily improved by pharmaceutical drugs, these cases indeed represent the extreme outliers in society. Although most of us may never personally know these individuals, we acknowledge their existence.

They included the homeless and destitute, individuals requiring long-term psychiatric care, and those most severely impaired. Among them were those facing rare cases of chronic psychotic breaks from reality, making functioning nearly impossible and often posing risks to themselves or others. They also encompassed individuals struggling with the most chronic and severe forms of depression, those needing stabilization during manic episodes, and the most behaviorally disturbed children. This was considered “medicine” and something they require to feel stable. Right?

This all sounded reasonable at the time.

How did we come to a situation where over 20% of the population depends on at least one psychiatric drug, with this figure continuing to rise? Why are these drugs being prescribed by nonspecialists seemingly without consideration of their consequences? And why has their usage become so normalized within society?

The Slippery Slope Technique

The "slippery slope technique" is a psychological strategy used to introduce ideas or changes that may initially be deemed unacceptable or extreme, gradually leading individuals to accept them over time. This technique relies on incremental steps, each seemingly small and reasonable on its own, but collectively leading to a significant shift in perspective or behavior. By starting with minor concessions or changes that are relatively uncontroversial, individuals become gradually desensitized to increasingly radical ideas.

When we recognize a "medicine" exists that targets the brain to rectify a biological abnormality in individuals distressed or “disturbed”, it conforms to our existing understanding of disease—a signal that something is amiss and requires correction. Throughout history, society has struggled to address the needs of people who existed on the margins. If modern technological advancements can reduce their suffering and facilitate stability, why wouldn't we endorse such progress?

In a culture that values the medical authority and assumes that drug use is rigorously evaluated for safety and efficacy, it's natural for us to place trust in our doctors, the FDA, and the medical training of our physicians. At that point in time, these mind and mood-altering drugs were primarily reserved for those who are most severely disturbed, and this approach appeared reasonable and compassionate.

Gradually, we collectively embraced the notion that emotional and behavioral disturbances were linked to underlying brain abnormalities that could be rectified through “medication”. Movies and television shows frequently depicted characters who demonstrated severe mental illness as "imbalanced," with their episodes attributed to being "off their medicine." This targeted messaging significantly shaped our collective perception of emotional and behavioral issues. Medicine symbolized stability, whether it held true or not. This notion became ingrained in our beliefs, accepted without question

It was only a matter of time before the boundaries between normalcy and pathology became increasingly blurred.

Expanding a Market

The market for psychiatric drugs catering to severe conditions posed limited commercial viability, failing to warrant substantial investment in production and advertising. There simply weren't enough people to justify the use of these powerful mind and mood altering drugs. Industry strategists took advantage of an opportunity to broaden the usage of their drugs by cultivating a market of individuals who would identify as having mental health issues.

This entailed crafting a narrative emphasizing the effectiveness of psychiatric drugs not just in treating severe conditions, but also in enhancing mood, easing anxiety, and boosting focus and behavioral stability. By positioning these drugs as “non habit forming” (a lie) and absent of debilitating side effects (a lie), pharmaceutical companies sought to capitalize on untapped consumer segments, thereby exponentially growing their market share. This strategic maneuver exemplifies a calculated approach to market expansion within the pharmaceutical industry, driven by an acute understanding of consumer behavior and market dynamics.

Big Pharma needs sick people to prosper. Patients, not healthy people, are their customers. If everybody was cured of a particular illness or disease, pharmaceutical companies would lose 100% of their profits on the products they sell for that ailment. What all this means is because modern medicine is so heavily intertwined with the financial profits culture, it’s a sickness industry more than it is a health industry.

- James Morcan, Author “Medical Industry Complex”

Pharmaceutical companies leverage some of the brightest minds in advertising and behavioral psychology to shape consumer perceptions. In a culture driven by consumerism, we've been conditioned to seek quick fixes for various ailments. This vulnerability has rendered us susceptible to the notion that we can medicate away the challenges inherent in being human: anxiety, fear, sadness, difficulty concentrating, grief, boredom, hopelessness, and doubt. Likewise, common behavioral issues experienced during childhood and adolescence are now categorized as medical disorders, instead of normal developmental challenges.

Once we entertained the notion that pharmaceutical solutions could address our problems, drug companies capitalized on this idea through their established channels of influence. The introduction of Ritalin for childhood behavior problems and Prozac as an antidepressant emerged as the most widely accepted solutions. However, during the 1980s and early 1990s, they had yet to achieve mainstream acceptance. Despite our limited knowledge about these drugs, including their approval processes and long-term consequences, we gradually began to incorporate the idea into our collective consciousness.

ADHD underwent a transformation from a controversial label primarily assigned to the most severely disruptive boys to a broader concept. “Major Depressive Disorder” became part of our cultural lexicon and has replaced the full spectrum of negative human emotions triggered by life's challenges. Gone were the days of merely "going through a difficult time" and seeking support to confront challenges. Now, it wasn't just a rough patch; it was diagnosed as "Major Depressive Disorder," a serious medical condition. What's more, we conveniently had the drugs to treat these so-called medical conditions.

The shift from the "Just Say No" campaign to the acceptance of psychiatric medications marked a significant change in public perception. While the former focused on the harmful effects of drugs, particularly illegal substances, the latter introduced the idea of drugs as “medicine” for mental health issues.

This transition was significant because medicines are typically associated with healing and restoring balance or stability. They are viewed as interventions for the sick, the disturbed, or the ill. In contrast, drugs often carry negative connotations and are associated with harmful effects.

When pharmaceuticals, essentially synthetic chemical compounds, are labeled as medicines instead of drugs, it fundamentally shifts our perception. The rollout of psychiatric drugs to the public represents one of the boldest medical experiments ever conducted on humanity. Just imagine attempting to manipulate brain chemistry to alter thoughts, emotions, and behavior, all without thorough long-term evaluation of its repercussions! It's truly staggering when viewed from this perspective!

Medicinal (adjective): (of a substance or plant) having healing properties.

This shift opened the door to medicalizing the emotional and behavioral challenges inherent in being human. Those who turned to drugs and alcohol were now labeled as "self-medicating" underlying mental illnesses, which purportedly required psychiatric drug treatment.

We found ourselves bombarded by advertising blitzes, while medical practitioners were led astray regarding the purported advantages of these drugs, with their associated risks conveniently downplayed. Academics morphed into paid mouthpieces for pharmaceutical giants. They penned textbooks, took center stage at conferences, and enjoyed prominent media appearances, all to champion the narrative of mental illness and push for drug-centric remedies. It all sounded impeccably scientific. We naively assumed a solid foundation in neuroscience existed, believing there were safe methods to boost specific neurotransmitters to enhance mood, focus, and alleviate anxiety.

The narrative shifted, absolving individuals of accountability for their behavior and suggesting that moods were beyond their control—they were now brain illnesses that could be managed akin to treating diabetes with insulin. While these campaigns appealed to our emotions, they also fostered a hyper-vigilance towards any signs or symptoms of emotional or behavioral disturbance.

By accepting this narrative, we were compelled to comply with all the other components of the sick care model, perpetuating a cycle where mental health issues were increasingly viewed through a medical lens and treated primarily with pharmaceutical interventions.

We were inundated with the message that early intervention could prevent later problems, prompting a push to involve more people in the system who might never have previously considered anything to be wrong. Parents found themselves influenced by pediatricians, school personnel, and mental health professionals who were now trained to identify the “signs” of burgeoning mental illness at an early stage. Failing to consider these “signs” were typical deviations in normal human reactions.

It has become increasingly evident that this strategy was a critical component of pharmaceutical marketing. By encouraging more people to identify with various mental health disorders, the pharmaceutical industry effectively expanded its customer base for psychiatric drugs. This approach capitalized on the normalization of mental health issues and the widespread acceptance of medication as the primary solution.

The exponential growth in the diagnosis of psychiatric illnesses has indeed left many feeling confused and uncertain. The lines between what is considered severe, abnormal, or within the range of normal human experience have become increasingly blurred. In this uncertainty, we often find ourselves blindly trusting professionals trained within the medical model, as the system pushes more and more people towards diagnoses and drugs.

This scenario has spawned a culture steeped in fear and emotional fragility, leaving parents apprehensive about employing traditional parenting methods. Instead, there's a growing inclination to defer to the authority of mental health experts. This, in a vicious cycle, leads to the misinterpretation of typical reactions and behaviors as potential indicators of mental illness demanding immediate intervention. Mental health professionals undoubtedly endorse this narrative, as it sustains their business. And before long, it's merely a matter of time before the inevitable referral for "medication" is issued.

Junk science has been widely disseminated across the Western world under the guise of scientific legitimacy, perpetuating the medical model of mental illness. Despite the absence of biomarkers for mental illness and the abandonment of research in this area, the prevailing model persists because it offers psychiatric drugs as the purported solution. This perpetuation of the status quo serves the interests of pharmaceutical companies while failing to address the complex and multifaceted nature of mental health.

We are to blame. Our naive consumer culture nurtured its growth without an ounce of critical thought or resistance. We relinquished our common sense and bowed to authority, be it the school, medical, government, or corporate news media. We became obedient sheep, blindly following the dictates of those in power, and in doing so, paved the way for the exploitation of our minds and bodies by profit-driven interests.

WE must relinquish the victim mentality and refrain from solely blaming doctors or pharmaceutical companies. Ultimately, WE empowered them with this authority. WE passively absorbed the marketing messages and accepted them as truth.

Now is the time for us to accept accountability for allowing this to occur and to reclaim our common sense. We must recognize the power we hold as consumers and citizens to demand transparency, integrity, and genuine care in our mental health systems. By questioning authority and advocating for informed consent, we can dismantle the grip of profit-driven interests and ensure that the well-being of people takes precedence over corporate gain. Let us reclaim our autonomy and commitment to critical thinking, forging a path towards a more responsible and compassionate approach to mental health care.

RESIST