Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Aldous Huxley Foresaw America’s Pill-Popping Addiction

lithub.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 187 posts

Re: Aldous Huxley Foresaw America’s Pill-Popping Addiction

#131

Post by jcora »

IggleSniggle wrote: post #107
elil17 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While caffeine is technically a drug, it's just very different than alcohol and other drugs. People can go to work, spend time with family, and even make important life decisions without caffeine getting in the way. The same is not true for alcohol, cocaine, meth, etc. (Nicotine is similar, I imagine, though I've never actually used it)

I dunno. I think it's whatever society will tolerate. It used to be pretty common in America to drink on the job. Plenty of folks worked/work and do cocaine. Heck, Freud was a huge cocaine addict, and he's still widely celebrated for his stim-induced work!

Yeah absolutely not. You can certainly drink and work, just as it's possible to drive drunk without killing someone.

These isolated cases without incident don't really matter in the context of society-wide taboo, however.

Coffee and cocaine are worlds apart. Most people don't have jobs that would work with a coke addiction. Freud was exceptional and I think he did most of his influential work not under the influence anyway.

Re: Aldous Huxley Foresaw America’s Pill-Popping Addiction

#132

Post by SmellyGeekBoy »

Mijka wrote: post #122
narag wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also there's a very important difference: Soma is described as non-addictive, no hangover. It's a way to control society but keeping it productive at the same time. Any drug that causes "epidemics" that result in death or defeating from work would be useless. You can argue that it's enough that most people keep working though, even if a fraction gets trashed. Edit: if anything, social media or other addictive distrac…

Just to build up on previous comment and yours, "social media or addictive distractions" is also a thing known for a long time. "Panem et circenses" is a known latin expression about providing to the masses the 2 biggest basics (food and entertainement) to appease it, sometimes used to show a decline.

SOcial MediA... Hmm

Re: Aldous Huxley Foresaw America’s Pill-Popping Addiction

#133

Post by Cougher »

misterman0 wrote: post #115
Alex3917 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some benzos have muscle relaxant properties but I've never heard of them prescribed for pain. Back pain is thought to be mostly psychological, so it makes sense. Also, if you have minor tears or congenital defects in tissue around your spinal cord then anxiety can cause inflammation, which can then cause your spinal fluid to push against your actual spinal cord and cause all sorts of problems. (Or something like th…

>> Back pain is thought to be mostly psychological Do you have a credibility source to back that up?

I'm very skeptical of this. A common claim that's long been floated around the medical community, most recently in the "evidence-based" medical community, is that if there isn't a hard test for a condition, then it's psychosomatic. It's an arrogant and abusive conclusion that's also ironic: we don't have a diagnostic test to prove it, so the cause is something that also doesn't have a diagnostic test.

Re: Aldous Huxley Foresaw America’s Pill-Popping Addiction

#134

Post by oska »

Nursie wrote: post #127
oska wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Drug use goes back as far as humankind does because people have been trying to cope with the stress of life since there have been people. I do not think the second half of your statement is true. Certainly there was drug use in hunter/gatherer societies but it was mostly shamanistic/ritualistic use, not 'stress relief'. The example that you give of alcohol only really came on the scene with the advent of farming, w…

> Certainly there was drug use in hunter/gatherer societies but it was mostly shamanistic/ritualistic use, not 'stress relief'. Can we really say this? Are we sure that finding a patch of 'those' mushrooms wouldn't have just meant party time? We know that (for instance) animals seem to seek them out...

Ok, I just did a bit of searching for studies on hunter-gatherer use of drugs.

This paper [1] supports my characterisation of being mostly for shamanistic/ritualistic use.

And this paper [2] suggests that drug use also had medicinal benefits. But that is from a modern hunter-gatherer society that has undoubtedly been influenced by outside societies (indeed the drug they smoke has been imported from another continent), so I'm not sure how indicative of pre-historic hunter-gatherer use it is.

Where I remain dubious is the assertion that drugs have always been used for 'stress relief'. My feeling is that stress - as we understand it - was not something much experienced by hunter-gatherer societies.

[1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140512155025.h...

[2] https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-06/wsu-wrs05291...

Re: Aldous Huxley Foresaw America’s Pill-Popping Addiction

#135

Post by Intermernet »

Nursie wrote: post #128
elil17 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While caffeine is technically a drug, it's just very different than alcohol and other drugs. People can go to work, spend time with family, and even make important life decisions without caffeine getting in the way. The same is not true for alcohol, cocaine, meth, etc. (Nicotine is similar, I imagine, though I've never actually used it)

> (Nicotine is similar, I imagine, though I've never actually used it) I once heard Iain M Banks say on the radio, as he lit up (he was making a program about a tour of whisky distilleries at the time) - "Nicotine, a drug so shit you can do it while you're driving"

The program you mention became a book named Raw Spirit. It's one of my favourite books.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/567702.Raw_Spirit

Re: Aldous Huxley Foresaw America’s Pill-Popping Addiction

#136

Post by Nursie »

Intermernet wrote: post #135
Nursie wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (Nicotine is similar, I imagine, though I've never actually used it) I once heard Iain M Banks say on the radio, as he lit up (he was making a program about a tour of whisky distilleries at the time) - "Nicotine, a drug so shit you can do it while you're driving"

The program you mention became a book named Raw Spirit. It's one of my favourite books. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/567702.Raw_Spirit

Oh nice, didn't know it had gone any further than the radio.

I'm a big fan, though a guilty one as I've never read any of the non-M stuff..

Re: Aldous Huxley Foresaw America’s Pill-Popping Addiction

#137

Post by Cougher »

cf498 wrote: post #104
wlesieutre wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> genetics, life circumstances, surrounding culture Life circumstances like “needing to get their wisdom teeth removed.” The doctor prescribes you painkillers afterward and makes absolutely no mention of how addictive they are, or even that they’re opioids. I don’t think those people were going to wake up one morning and start using on heroin on their own, so I have a hard time writing them off as “well, some people…

Oh please spare me the sermon. You dont just wake up one day an addict. Its similar bullshit to "the first hit is always free". Its propaganda. As much as wide parts of American society dont want to believe it, as an addict you make a choice. Its your god damn agency. You dont just find out that the yummy candy made you an addict. Thats nothing but a nice excuse. You keep using stuff that you know you shouldnt use, b…

I agree with much of what you say, but it would have a much better impact if you didn't phrase it in such an angry, finger-pointing rant that doesn't really seem to fit here. Yes, a lot of people become addicted to drugs via their own "god damn agency", but it's also true that those who haven't experienced such addiction have no idea how overwhelming it really is and how insidious the addictive process is. It's also true that a lot of the people who become addicted started because

Re: Aldous Huxley Foresaw America’s Pill-Popping Addiction

#138

Post by agustif »

steverb wrote: post #130
Mijka wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to build up on previous comment and yours, "social media or addictive distractions" is also a thing known for a long time. "Panem et circenses" is a known latin expression about providing to the masses the 2 biggest basics (food and entertainement) to appease it, sometimes used to show a decline.

Or you could just say "bread and circuses" which is the common english idiom.

He was making a point about the oldness of the saying though, putting it in it's original latin helps deliver his point I guess

Re: Aldous Huxley Foresaw America’s Pill-Popping Addiction

#139

Post by Cougher »

mudil wrote: post #17

I am a practicing anesthesiologist and I see every day what medications my patients take, because we review preoperatively their in home meds. And it's astonishing that a large chunk of population takes either psychiatric or psychoactive prescription meds plus cannabis, etc. I even have a joke that Americans voluntarily take meds that in Soviet Union were only given to the political prisoners.

This presents an interesting diversion: the phenomenon of anesthesiologists who are addicted to drugs. I worked with one who lost his position as chief because he was caught buying street drugs . . . on a city street. If people who are so well-educated about the effects of recreational drug use can still succumb to it, it's unreasonable to expect that the average person should be "smart enough" to be immune to the risks.

Re: Aldous Huxley Foresaw America’s Pill-Popping Addiction

#140

Post by TeMPOraL »

Cougher wrote: post #133
misterman0 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Back pain is thought to be mostly psychological Do you have a credibility source to back that up?

I'm very skeptical of this. A common claim that's long been floated around the medical community, most recently in the "evidence-based" medical community, is that if there isn't a hard test for a condition, then it's psychosomatic. It's an arrogant and abusive conclusion that's also ironic: we don't have a diagnostic test to prove it, so the cause is something that also doesn't have a diagnostic test.

It does sound a bit like archaeology and ascribing religious purpose to any structure or artifact we cannot identify as something else.
Post reply on HN