• List Price: $14.95
  • Save: $3.36 (22%)
FREE Shipping on orders over $35.
Only 7 left in stock (more on the way).
Ships from and sold by Amazon.com.
Gift-wrap available.
The Natural Mind: A Revol... has been added to your Cart
Condition: Used: Very Good
Comment: Minimal signs of wear. Pages are clean. Ships direct from Amazon
Have one to sell? Sell on Amazon
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See all 2 images

The Natural Mind: A Revolutionary Approach to the Drug Problem Paperback – December 9, 2004

See all 2 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price New from Used from
"Please retry"
$6.93 $0.76

Sugar Smart Express by Anne Alexander
Sugar Smart Express by Anne Alexander
Check out the newest book by Anne Alexander. Learn more | See related books
$11.59 FREE Shipping on orders over $35. Only 7 left in stock (more on the way). Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Gift-wrap available.

Frequently Bought Together

The Natural Mind: A Revolutionary Approach to the Drug Problem + Tastes of Paradise: A Social History of Spices, Stimulants, and Intoxicants + The Cocaine Kids: The Inside Story Of A Teenage Drug Ring
Price for all three: $39.32

Buy the selected items together

Best Books of the Month
Best Books of the Month
Want to know our Editors' picks for the best books of the month? Browse Best Books of the Month, featuring our favorite new books in more than a dozen categories.

Product Details

  • Paperback: 224 pages
  • Publisher: Mariner Books; Revised edition (December 9, 2004)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0618465138
  • ISBN-13: 978-0618465132
  • Product Dimensions: 5.5 x 0.6 x 8.2 inches
  • Shipping Weight: 7.2 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
  • Average Customer Review: 3.8 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (13 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #276,107 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

Andrew Weil, M.D., has degrees in biology and medicine from Harvard University. Author of the best-selling Spontaneous Healing and Eight Weeks to Optimum Health, he traveled the world experiencing and studying healers and healing systems and has earned an international reputation as an expert on alternative medicine, mind-body interactions, and medical botany. He is the associate director of the Division of Social Perspectives in Medicine and the director of the Program in Integrative Medicine at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

What This Book Is About

This book is an exposition of a theory that can help us. It is not a primer of pharmacology or a program for social reform. Rather, it is the germ of a new way of thinking about drugs and consciousness — a way that creates possibilities for solving a problem that divides us bitterly in our nation, in our schools, and in our homes.
I have been actively interested in drugs that affect the mind for the past ten years, and during that time I have had many opportunities to write this book. I have declined to do so until now for a number of reasons that are pertinent to the ideas I intend to develop in these pages. Before I discuss them, let me state briefly why I now wish to write.
The growing presence in our midst of chemicals that seem to alter consciousness raises questions of the utmost importance for us as individuals and as social beings. Examples of these questions are: What do these drugs tell us about the relationship between mind and body? Are they legitimate tools (in any sense) for changing the mind in a direction of greater awareness? How can a society come to terms with the individual urge to alter awareness? These questions are important because they bear directly on the nature of consciousness, which is, ultimately, the only problem worthy of total intellectual effort. It is the concern of all the world’s philosophies and religions, other problems being less precise statements of the same thing. All of us are working on the problem of consciousness on some level, and the conclusions we come to determine what we think about ourselves and the universe, how we live, and how we act. The complex phenomena associated with drugs in our country seem to me to be significant pieces of evidence to be taken into account in this process — clues to help us in our work whether we use drugs or not. It would be useful to have this evidence presented clearly and unemotionally.
In directing attention to matters of consciousness, I am not ignoring or minimizing the very real problems associated with drugs. Our news media are full of documented reports on the tragic consequences of the misuse of chemical agents in search of highs. But having acknowledged the reality of these problems, I propose to find solutions to them by looking to the positive aspects of the drug experience rather than to the negative ones (which are visible all around us). By positive I mean simply “tending in the direction of increase or progress” rather than the reverse, and I will attempt to justify this methodology in the course of the book.
During my years as a drug expert (a role I now cheerfully abandon) I have sat through a great many conferences about drugs attended by all sorts of people, but I have never heard the important questions given the attention they deserve. Instead, I have listened to pharmacologists arguing over changes (or possibly no changes) in the chromosomes of rats exposed to LSD, to users rambling on about the purely hedonistic aspects of drug experience, to physicians pretending to themselves that medical science can explain the subjective effects of drugs, to parents and educators begging for methods to make youngsters turn away from drugs, and so on and so on. These discussions have been emotionally charged, but the intellectual level has been uniformly low, whether the participants have been psychiatrists or addicts, students or policemen. I have waited for years for the talk to get around to the interesting questions, but it never has. Nor does it look as if it will. Consequently, I have resolved to stop going to drug conferences and to write instead.
In addition, I have collected an unusual body of information on this subject that I feel obligated to share with people who are interested in the meaningful questions. Through a series of coincidences I have had a chance to look at drugs from the point of view of a journalist, a user, an ethnobotanist, a physician, a laboratory pharmacologist, a “drug abuse expert,” and a federal government employee. No one of these viewpoints by itself enabled me to understand what I saw or to come to any useful conclusions. But gradually, from all the experiences I have had in these diverse positions, certain unifying themes have emerged. And to my great surprise, the principles that I have begun to discern leave me profoundly optimistic about the possibility of extricating ourselves from the desperate situation we now find ourselves in. In the following chapters I will describe how I have arrived at certain conclusions and will go into some detail about the reasons for my optimism.
Among the considerations that have kept me from writing until now, the emotionalism of the subject has bbeen uppermost in my mind. Drugs are not an emotionally neutral topic of discourse. There is no such thing as a disinterested drug expeeeeert, despite the stance of many scientists who claim to be presenting purely objective information. This is so precisely because the issues raised by drugs touch so closely upon our profoundest hopes and fears. Everyone who speaks or writes about drugs (and certainly all who “investigate” them) together with everyone who hears or reads what is said and written has an emotional involvement with the information. The exact nature of this involvement differs from person to person in both degree and quality, but it is always there. Consequently, it is extremely difficult to talk about drugs except in a direct interpersonal situation, where, at least, there is some possibility of monitoring emotional reactions.
In the course of my writings and lectures I have learned that people hear what they want to hear and tune out what they do not want to hear. I have also observed that the distortions of communication caused by emotional investments in preconceived notions are most damaging in groups that regard themselves to be free of such notions, such as physicians and pharmacologists.
Where a topic provokes emotional reactions, one may expect to see a closely related process of polarization in which divergent interpretations of data develop. The controversies that divide us over drugs illustrate this process well, for they are not so much battles over observations as battles over the significance to be attached to observations. No careful observer doubts that heavy marijuana smoking correlates with an “amotivational syndrome” characterized by lassitude, indifference, and a neurotic inability to accomplish things society considers important. But as soon as we try to interpret that correlation we run into trouble. Is heavy marijuana smoking a cause of amotivation, as many psychiatrists tell us, or is it simply another manifestation of an underlying (and unknown) psychological process? At every turn in our examination of observations concerned with drugs, we are forced to choose between rival interpretations. What are the real facts?
The answer, very simply, is that there are no facts. Or, more precisely, there are no facts uncontaminated by some degree of value judgment. Of course, the greater the emotional investments (or biases) of the participants in this muddle, the greater will be the degree of contamination. I cannot emphasize too strongly that everything we hear and read today about drugs is affected in this way; all facts put forth about drugs are merely masquerading as such. Nor can I repeat too often that the problem is likely to be most serious in just those cases where it appears to be absent. As I shall show in a later chapter, the pharmacologist who “just gives the facts” about ecstasy, heroin, and marijuana is often interpreting data through the distortions of biases so sweeping and so internally consistent that they remain invisible and unconscious.
These considerations place serious obstacles in the way of anyone who wants to understand what drugs mean. To get by them, we must be carefully discriminating about the information we choose to build theories on. A useful first step is an attempt to estimate the degree and kind of bias present, a practice that should become habitual. To check on the extent of conscious bias, one might ask oneself, Does the person giving me this information have any special case to make for or against drugs? In most instances today the answer will be yes. Law enforcement officers have a personal stake in making drugs look bad; regular users have a personal stake in making them look good. This is garden-variety bias and requires no special aptitude to spot; you just have to remember to ask the question. An affirmative answer does not mean that one should ignore the information, only that one should be alert to the possibility that observations have been interpreted one way rather than another on the basis of relatively meaningless criteria.
Unconscious bias is harder to detect and much more important to try to identify. The question to ask is, Does the person giving this information view the subject from a special perspective that might limit the validity of his or her generalizations? Unconscious bias is as common among proponents of drugs as among opponents. Here are two glaring examples, one from each pole. When I was conducting human experiments with marijuana in Boston in 1968, a Federal Narcotics Bureau agent told me that no matter how my experiments came out, he would remain convinced that “marijuana makes people aggressive and violent.” My research had nothing to do with that possibility, but I asked him what his evidence was for his belief. He had one piece of evidence dating from the early 1950s, when he had been seized by a curiosity to watch people smoke the drug. (His official duties were exclusively concerned with large-scale underworld heroin traffic and he had never come into contact with actual users of marijuana.) Accordingly, he had disguised himself as a beatnik and made his way to a Greenwich Village pot party. When he revealed himself as a Narcotics Bureau agent, “everyone there became aggressive and violent.” Most people laugh when I tell this story because the logical fallacy is obvious. But when I tried to point it out to this well-meaning man in Boston, he said, “That’s what I saw with my own eyes.” In February 1970 I attended a conference in California at which a young, radical sociologist presented data on drug use in American communes. He stated his belief that “marijuana often facilitates the development of communal life.” Asked to give evidence on this point, he explained that the question of who was going to wash the dishes was representative of problems encountered in making communes work. He said he had visited communes where this problem had been solved “by having everyone get stoned on marijuana and make a game of dish washing,” and he added that “marijuana is known to aid the performance of repetitive tasks.” When I objected to this last statement, he replied, “Well, that’s what I saw with my own eyes.” Now, suppose we take the trouble to set up formal double-blind experiments on the relationship between being stoned and the ability to tolerate dish washing. We might study two groups of subjects: one would smoke marijuana, the other a placebo, and neither we nor the subjects would know who was smoking what.
We would let each group wash dishes. I can predict with confidence that some persons who smoked marijuana would find that dish washing was never so easy. Others would find it harder than ever. Most would find it no different from usual. This pattern of data is very familiar; it comes up again and again in drug research today, and it is one reason why laboratory experimentation on drugs like marijuana has been so unhelpful.
When you ask a question in research and the data come back in this unhelpful way — that is: sometimes yes, sometimes no, most of the time it makes no difference — there is meaning in that result. The meaning is: you have asked the wrong question. In particular, you have tried to make something a causal variable that is not a causal variable. In the case above, the wrongness of the question lies in the hypothesis that the drug has anything causal to do with dishwashing ability. Marijuana smoking and happy dishwashing may travel together in some communes, but there is no reason to believe they are more than coincidentally related. It is the attempt to impose a causal relationship on their coincidental association that leads to the framing of a wrongly stated hypothesis. Experiments based on wrongly stated hypotheses uniformly produce useless information.
Most of the research now being conducted on psychoactive drugs is producing useless information at great expense; there is no end of wrongly stated hypotheses. The reason for this state of affairs is logical: precisely because drugs are an emotional subject, drug taking stands out in glowing colors from any complex of behavior of which it is a part. Consequently, observers (even highly trained observers) tend to fall into the trap of trying to explain the entire complex in terms of the drug taking — that is, to make the drug a causal variable when it is not. The tendency to make drugs causes of things we see associated with them is strong in proportion to our emotional involvement, to our unconscious biases. Often it is so strong that it blinds us to obvious factors that are much more directly causative of the phenomena we observe (as in the case of the narcotics agent who was sure that marijuana makes people aggressive and violent). In other cases the attribution of causal roles to drugs is an easy way to cover up ignorance of true causes, which are often more complicated. I suspect, for example, that the ability of some people to wash dishes happily in a commune has to do with a great many factors of personal and social motivation and that the presence or absence of marijuana makes little difference. But we have no ready explanations for variations in motivation from person to person and from setting to setting.
Unconscious biases act like filters between our perceptions and our intellects. They enable us to screen out observations that do not fit in with our preconceived notions and to see causal relationships where none exist. Worst of all, they blind us to their own presence so that we are quick to defend our erroneous hypotheses with shouts of “I saw it with my own eyes!” I have written at some length about the nature of biases toward drugs in amplification of my contention that it is difficult to communicate accurate information on the subject. Having said all this, I now owe the reader some commentary on my own biases, for, as I have said, there is no such thing as a disinterested drug expert.
I do not have any special case to make for or against the use of drugs. In addition, it will become obvious in the course of the book that my real interest is not drugs at all but consciousness. As for unconscious biases, I am, by definition, unable to identify any I hold at present, but I think I have identified and discarded the commoner ones as I have progressed from one way of looking at drugs to another. For instance, when I was a journalist I thought as a journalist and unconsciously selected from among my observations those that I knew would whet the emotional appetites of my readers. I can give a specific example from an account I wrote for Look magazine of the controversy leading to the dismissal of Richard Alpert and Timothy Leary from Harvard University in 1963. In describing the increasing popularity of LSD and mescaline in the Harvard community in the early 1960s, I wrote, “There were stories of students and others using hallucinogens for seductions, both heterosexual and homosexual.” Now, there were stories of students and others doing many other less titillating things with hallucinogens, but I picked that one for its journalistic value, and Look printed it for the same reason. When I gave up the point of view of a journalist, I came to see that it was one of the most distorted ways of interpreting observations about drugs, and I resolved not to make use of it again. In my experience the incidence of serious bias in journalistic accounts of drugs approaches 100 percent; I do not rate scientific journalism any better.
Similarly, I have worked through the unconscious biases of the pharmacologist and the clinician and have come to see them as equally limiting viewpoints that prevented me from formulating useful hypotheses about the effects of drugs. I want to stress the criterion of “usefulness” in evaluating concepts. The aim of scientific inquiry is not to reveal absolute truth but to discover more and more useful ways of thinking about phenomena. As philosophers love to remind us, we do not know anything absolutely. For example, we don’t know that the earth travels around the sun; that is simply the most useful way we now know of interpreting what we observe — useful because it simplifies things maximally and thereby gives us greater accuracy of description and prediction than any other concept yet proposed. If a more useful one came along, most of us would probably have as much trouble accepting it as the Ptolemaists had with the heliocentric theory. But more useful concepts do catch on, however much they are opposed, because they confer a greater degree of success in prediction and control of the phenomenal world on those who accept them. Their adherents thus become more fit in the Darwinian sense and have a distinct survival advantage in the intellectual evolution of the race.
Our present ways of thinking about drugs are as useless to us as a geocentric theory of the solar system. They leave us unable to describe, predict, or control the phenomena associated with drugs except in the crudest ways, as the insoluble drug problem demonstrates. Insoluble problems of this sort are always manifestations in the physical world of erroneous (that is, useless) conceptual models. I believe we can literally think our way out of the drug problem by changing the concepts from which it arises — the outmoded ways of thinking about consciousness in its ordinary and nonordinary forms. In essence, then, this book argues that our present ways of thinking about drugs and their effects on the mind have ceased being helpful to us and must be abandoned. I write it as a theorist of consciousness, not as a drug expert, and I will present theories that not only simplify thinking about drug-induced states but also open up possibilities for eliminating the negative phenomena now associated with drugs in our nation.
These theories are original, based entirely on my own observations, and, especially, on my own experience. I cannot see the value of trying to understand consciousness through methods that exclude the most immediately relevant source of information: direct experience of one’s own inner states. I am thus firmly on the side of the younger generation in its estimation of direct knowledge above all other kinds of knowledge. Nothing is ever really known by indirect means, least of all the nature of one’s own mind. My authority for presenting these theories is my own experience, not the medical degree I received from Harvard. In fact, my medical education included not one word on the subjects I shall discuss, and in 1966 my classmates had to petition the chairman of the Harvard Pharmacology Department for a single extracurricular lecture on opiate addiction.
The highly personal nature of some of the experiences from which my ideas have developed has been another source of reluctance to publish this material until it coalesced into a solid theoretical structure. In the following pages I have taken pains to be as frank as possible and to present no hypothesis whose validity I have not checked rigorously against both external and internal observations. My methods place me within a tradition once honored but now disowned by most experimental scientists: that of meticulous self-observation. If the reader will look up a work like Sir Humphry Davy’s researches on nitrous oxide (“laughing gas”) from 1799, he will find a superb representation of this tradition. Davy uncovered a wealth of useful information about an unknown substance, and he did it with careful intelligence and a spirit of wonder that seems to have vanished from our modern laboratories. Much research today — especially in the areas covered by this book — has become mechanical and dull, more concerned with getting and spending and publishing for the sake of publishing. Real science presses forward on the frontiers of knowledge with a sense of excitement and personal involvement. Like investigators of previous centuries, I have no desire to make my speculations inaccessible to nonscientists. Consciousness is everybody’s business because we all carry it about in our heads. I hope that what I am going to say about it will be of as much interest to musicians as to psychopharmacologists; consequently, I have tried to avoid technical language to present these theories in the form of readable chapters built around personal recollections.
For example, in the next chapter I will explore the question of why people take drugs and will introduce the notion of an innate human drive to experience periodic episodes of nonordinary consciousness — a postulate that underlies much of what follows. I have included in this chapter memories of Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1961, when Alpert and Leary started giving and taking psilocybin. The excitement these experiments generated in the university community and the following that gathered about the two psychologists were clear signs of what was to happen in the nation as a whole within ten years, although few interpreted those signs correctly in 1961. I am not writing history or autobiography. These recollections are merely a starting point for talking about altered states of consciousness — what they are, what their importance may be to us as a species, and what role drugs play in making them available to us. The conclusion I come to in the chapter is that altered states of consciousness have a clear potential for positive psychic development. The drug question can then be restated as a question about methods rather than goals: are drugs the right or wrong means to a desirable end? Accordingly, the chapter that follows is a discussion of arguments that can be made against the choice of drugs as a means to alter consciousness. Certainly, a number of such arguments have already been made. Many of them first came to public attention in 1963 following the dismissal of Alpert and Leary from Harvard, an event that generated considerable national publicity. But we shall see that most of the arguments that have been marshaled against drugs have little basis in logic. It is easy to see why authorities like college administrators get upset at the thought of young people turning on with chemicals; it is more interesting and much more important to try to understand why exponents of systems that value alteration of consciousness (like yoga and Buddhism) take similar positions.
The fourth chapter in this book, “What No One Wants to Know About Marijuana,” is a specific illustration of the ideas developed in chapter 3. It focuses on the inability of current models of pharmacology and psychology to make sense of the effects of the drug that is becoming the younger generation’s intoxicant of choice. As a jumping-off point I have used a short account of my attempts in 1967–68 to set up in Boston the first well- controlled human experiments with marijuana.
In the fifth chapter I will take the reader on an excursion to the Amazon basin for a brief look at societies that use drugs but do not appear to have problems with them. I offer this cross-cultural comparison as evidence for my contention that the problems we have with drugs are not inherent in the drugs but rather in our ways of thinking about them and about the states of consciousness people seek in them. I believe these South American “primitives” have hit upon basic principles of drug use that are eminently rational and therefore universally applicable, and I will suggest ways in which they might be translated into terms relevant to our own situation.
“The Solar Mind: Straight Thinking” summarizes conclusions I have drawn about the nature of ordinary thinking during my years as a physician and drug specialist, including a year with the National Institute of Mental Health. In these positions I have had a chance to observe firsthand the shortcomings of a way of thinking that I believe to be the true source of the problems that seem to be caused by the use of drugs.
“A Trip to the Moon: Deep Thinking” is a companion chapter about a very different kind of thinking that all of us have available to us all the time. If we learn to use it, many problems, including the drug problem, will begin to disappear. In this chapter I shall discuss more fully the positive aspects of altered states of consciousness to which I allude in chapter 2, as well as the implications of these theories for other fields of inquiry, particularly medicine and psychiatry.
The eighth chapter is an attempt to use the conceptions developed in earlier chapters and the method of nonordinary thinking to come up with general suggestions as to how we might proceed as a society to come to terms with the drugs that are here to stay.
The final chapter is a brief conclusion that considers the present revolution in consciousness and where it might lead.
I hope this format will allow the reader to trace the evolution of my ideas from the experiences that are their basis. The conclusions I have arrived at did not require any special mental equipment, and I believe their logic will be apparent to anyone who considers the same evidence I have had a chance to go over. I do not regard these ideas as my property in any sense; in fact, I publish them now to make them available to all who care to try them out. Conceptual models are designed for use; after all, that is the only way we will find out how well they work.
I would conclude this introduction with a friendly word of caution. The ideas in this book are revolutionary in the fullest sense of the word. In their underlying optimism and their insistent assignment of a higher priority to consciousness than to the material correlates of consciousness, they diverge 180 degrees from current scientific orthodoxy. Readers who accept my invitation to step through the looking glass may find themselves unwilling to go back, for the paths that open up are many, and they lead to wonders all of us can discover for ourselves.

Copyright © 1972, 1986, 1998, 2004 by Andrew Weil. Reprinted by permission of Houghton Mifflin Company.

Customer Reviews

3.8 out of 5 stars
Share your thoughts with other customers

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

24 of 24 people found the following review helpful By A. Smith on February 10, 2007
Format: Paperback
This book presents both pros and cons of drugs and drug use, and goes in depth into altered states of consciousness and why people seek them. It is not just a book about drugs, or a journal of the author's own drug experience. It is, rather, a compelling look at human nature. Dr. Weil provides many clear examples to support the magnitude of information this book contains. This book answered a lot of questions I had, and the author simply and clearly explains that a different way of thinking, an altered state of consciousness, is not a bad thing.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
15 of 15 people found the following review helpful By Antonio Scottodicarlo on July 16, 2007
Format: Paperback
In a Natural Mind, Dr. Andrew Weil backs up his assertion, that people take drugs in order to alter consciousness, in an eloquent and brilliant way. This book changed the way I think about drugs. Everyone needs to read this essential piece of work. It was so profound and poignant, I just couldn't believe what I was reading. A classic!
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful By Steven H Propp TOP 50 REVIEWER on August 2, 2013
Format: Paperback
Andrew Thomas Weil (born 1942) has a medical degree from harvard, and is founder and director of the Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine at the University of Arizona. He has written many books on alternative and complementary medicine and natural health, such as Spontaneous Healing, Natural Health, Natural Medicine, Healthy Aging: A Lifelong Guide to Your Well-Being, etc.

First of all, forget what you know about the lovable "grizzly bear" advocate of natural health and foods; that guy came later. This book was written in 1972, when Weil was a young doctor and medical researcher doing "serious" studies of marijuana, mescaline, and other drugs. (Yes, he did partake.) He explained in the first chapter, "This book is an exposition of a theory that can help us... it is the germ of a new way of thinking about drugs and consciousness... The growing presence in our midst of chemicals that seem to alter consciousness raises questions of the utmost importance for us as individuals and as social beings... All of us are working on the problem of consciousness on some level, and the conclusions we come to determine what we think about ourselves and the universe, how we live, and how we act... I am not ignoring or minimizing the very real problems associated with drugs.. [But] I propose to find solutions to them by looking to the positive aspects of drug experience rather than look to the negative ones." (Pg.
Read more ›
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful By Daniel S. Smith on May 31, 2013
Format: Paperback
I've read the original 1972 edition, the gist of which I don't think has changed much. It's good. Some of his thoughts on the science of consciousness seem rather speculative and his view on the healing power of mind seem a little overly optimistic at times, but the overall message on the need to re-integrate simplistic linear rational mind and the more complex but elusive unconscious is important and Weil has very interesting and well presented thoughts on this. As usual, people seem to be split on the drug topic. I don't find this book quite as fantastic as some do, but it is one of the better statements I've found on drugs and consciousness and I find the very negative reviews here to be rather closed-minded and paranoid. It's an interesting book, have a look if you're curious!
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
2 of 3 people found the following review helpful By Amazon Customer on January 16, 2013
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
Weil states that "consciousness is central and primary." This is what I believe too. So many authors in Physics, Cosmology, Psychology, and Philosophy make you wade through lots of writing to learn that they don't believe this.

I have now read the first 80% of the book. Weil discusses the universal human urge to experience different states of consciousness either through drugs or with no drug. He did his Harvard Medical School internship in the San Francisco Psychiatric hospital in the late 1960s, and treated people who were hospitalized for taking every imaginable street drug. He has also traveled to other cultures around the world who have different consciousness altering as part of their culture. He goes into the main street drugs and explains what they do medically, psychologically, and Spiritually. He covers every argument for and against and discusses medical research. He explains the solution to all of today's "drug problems," and this analysis is so general that it extends to modern allopathic medicine and its alternatives. He also covers Psychiatry, and social problems. His conclusions on all of this are sharply critical of the current status of all of these areas. Most people who have experienced consciousness altering drugs would probably love the book. Strong anti drug people would hate the book. Allopathic doctors -- the only kind covered by Medicare -- would angerly reject the book, and so would Psychiatrists. Weil is sharply critical of all of them and says they create the very problems they are trying to solve. He calls these people "straight thinkers" where "straight" does not refer to drug slang or gender orientation, but to the Linearity of thinking.
Read more ›
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again

Most Recent Customer Reviews

More About the Author

Andrew Weil, M.D., is a world-renowned leader and pioneer in the field of integrative medicine, a healing oriented approach to health care which encompasses body, mind, and spirit. His next book, "True Food: Seasonal, Sustainable, Simple, Pure," will be released October 9th, 2012.

View all of Dr. Weil's current speaking engagements here: http://weil.ws/Tojqex

Combining a Harvard education and a lifetime of practicing natural and preventive medicine, Dr. Weil is the founder and director of the Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine at the University of Arizona Health Sciences Center, where he is also a Clinical Professor of Medicine and Professor of Public Health and the Lovell-Jones Professor of Integrative Rheumatology. Dr. Weil received both his medical degree and his undergraduate AB degree in biology (botany) from Harvard University.

Dr. Weil is an internationally-recognized expert for his views on leading a healthy lifestyle, his philosophy of healthy aging, and his critique of the future of medicine and health care. Approximately 10 million copies of Dr. Weil's books have been sold, including "Spontaneous Healing," "8 Weeks to Optimum Health," "Eating Well for Optimum Health," "The Healthy Kitchen," "Healthy Aging," and "Why Our Health Matters."

Online, he is the editorial director of DrWeil.com, the leading web resource for healthy living based on the philosophy of integrative medicine. He can be found on Facebook at facebook.com/DrWeil, Twitter at twitter.com/DrWeil, and Dr. Weil's Daily Health Tips blog at drweilblog.com.

See a comprehensive list of Dr. Weil's information: about.me/DrWeil

Set up an Amazon Giveaway

Amazon Giveaway allows you to run promotional giveaways in order to create buzz, reward your audience, and attract new followers and customers. Learn more
The Natural Mind: A Revolutionary Approach to the Drug Problem
This item: The Natural Mind: A Revolutionary Approach to the Drug Problem
Price: $11.59
Ships from and sold by Amazon.com