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

Why animals eat psychoactive plants

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 180 posts

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#11

Post by atom_enger »

evincarofautumn wrote: post #5

I’ve always found it fascinating that people don’t perceive socially sanctioned drugs as drugs at all. Saying “drugs and alcohol” to me is like saying “sandwiches and hamburgers”. A person can drink a cup of coffee in the morning, smoke a cigarette on their lunch break, and drink a couple glasses of wine in the evening, and the only thing that keeps them from being called a “drug addict” is that these particular drug…

Once you see it this way, it's hard to stand in line at Starbucks and think "I'm not an addict." Everyone and their mother is addicted to something, it's just a matter of whether or not the authorities approve of your choice of substance.

Truth is we're humans and humans seek to alter their consciousness whether it be through meditation, prayer, exercise, spinning in circles or a through a shortcut -- a substance.

Unfortunately we're working against decades of misinformation and racism in this fight for our freedom to consume substances as we wish. It's unfortunate because I think there's a lot of medical value in a lot of the substances our government has deemed illegal.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#12

Post by iooi »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #6

>> Only 10 percent of drug users have a problem with their substance My politics generally agree with the author's main point, but this statistic seems disingenuous. Surely the percentage varies significantly depending on the drug. I know plenty of people who smoke marijuana and don't have a problem with it. Yet the only people I've known who had problems with methamphetamine or heroine have all ended up hitting rock…

> Yet the only people I've known who had problems with methamphetamine or heroine have all ended up hitting rock-bottom or dying.

Have you known anyone who hasn't had a problem with either of those drugs but still used them at some point in their life?

I would recommend reading TFA, the statistic isn't something the author made up, its from a leaked copy of a United Nations Office on Drug Control report.

For those interested in the statistic:

"Only 10 percent of drug users have a problem with their substance. Some 90 percent of people who use a drug—the overwhelming majority—are not harmed by it."

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#13

Post by atom_enger »

PaulAJ wrote: post #4
arca_vorago wrote: post #3

Whenever I hear or read stories like this, I can't help but immediately think about Terence McKenna's "Stoned Ape" theory of human evolution. Due to some of his other theories, I tended to not take much heed, but perhaps he was on to something? Even the article says, "Siegel had been confidently told by his supervisor that humans were the only species that seek out drugs to use for their own pleasure" but later "Snac…

Thanks for pointing this out; I've never heard that idea before. But I don't think it holds water. The ability to talk and invent happens across our whole species regardless of recreational drug use. That means the explanations are to be found in genetics and evolution, not psychochemistry.

> That means the explanations are to be found in genetics and evolution, not psychochemistry.

Right, the point here is that perhaps the psychoactive substances aided our ancestors in making decisions or enlightening them(or straight up enhancing their senses) to withstand the test of evolution.

I'm not saying it gave them superpowers, but perhaps it enabled them to look at a particular challenge in a different perspective.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#15

Post by kaffeemitsahne »

iooi wrote: post #8
PaulAJ wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for pointing this out; I've never heard that idea before. But I don't think it holds water. The ability to talk and invent happens across our whole species regardless of recreational drug use. That means the explanations are to be found in genetics and evolution, not psychochemistry.

But did it, always? Could it be that the primitive humans that used these substances adapted better to their environment compared to their non-indulging peers, and we're more likely to be direct descendants of them? Not saying you are wrong, or right, but rather that it would be naive to dismiss this idea based on some notion of genetics and evolution. At some point the choices we made as a species in the past comes…

One of the more obvious ways in which drugs could have played a part in our evolution is, roughly stated, how the consumption of certain substances may have kept those individuals with more developed brains from going mad, or counteracted some of the disadvantages, allowing the trait to be passed on.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#16

Post by jamesbowman »

evincarofautumn wrote: post #5

I’ve always found it fascinating that people don’t perceive socially sanctioned drugs as drugs at all. Saying “drugs and alcohol” to me is like saying “sandwiches and hamburgers”. A person can drink a cup of coffee in the morning, smoke a cigarette on their lunch break, and drink a couple glasses of wine in the evening, and the only thing that keeps them from being called a “drug addict” is that these particular drug…

David E.H. Jones pointed out that the socially sanctioned drugs have something in common: they all taste bad. Or at least, they have a taste that is unappealing to children, and then must be acquired by special effort. Coffee, tea, tobacco, alcohol: all taste pretty awful to a ten-year-old.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#17

Post by mgkimsal »

jamesbowman wrote: post #16
evincarofautumn wrote: post #5

I’ve always found it fascinating that people don’t perceive socially sanctioned drugs as drugs at all. Saying “drugs and alcohol” to me is like saying “sandwiches and hamburgers”. A person can drink a cup of coffee in the morning, smoke a cigarette on their lunch break, and drink a couple glasses of wine in the evening, and the only thing that keeps them from being called a “drug addict” is that these particular drug…

David E.H. Jones pointed out that the socially sanctioned drugs have something in common: they all taste bad. Or at least, they have a taste that is unappealing to children, and then must be acquired by special effort. Coffee, tea, tobacco, alcohol: all taste pretty awful to a ten-year-old.

Except sugar.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#18

Post by [deleted] »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #6

>> Only 10 percent of drug users have a problem with their substance My politics generally agree with the author's main point, but this statistic seems disingenuous. Surely the percentage varies significantly depending on the drug. I know plenty of people who smoke marijuana and don't have a problem with it. Yet the only people I've known who had problems with methamphetamine or heroine have all ended up hitting rock…

[deleted]

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#19

Post by dragonwriter »

jamesbowman wrote: post #16
evincarofautumn wrote: post #5

I’ve always found it fascinating that people don’t perceive socially sanctioned drugs as drugs at all. Saying “drugs and alcohol” to me is like saying “sandwiches and hamburgers”. A person can drink a cup of coffee in the morning, smoke a cigarette on their lunch break, and drink a couple glasses of wine in the evening, and the only thing that keeps them from being called a “drug addict” is that these particular drug…

David E.H. Jones pointed out that the socially sanctioned drugs have something in common: they all taste bad. Or at least, they have a taste that is unappealing to children, and then must be acquired by special effort. Coffee, tea, tobacco, alcohol: all taste pretty awful to a ten-year-old.

> David E.H. Jones pointed out that the socially sanctioned drugs have something in common: they all taste bad. Or at least, they have a taste that is unappealing to children, and then must be acquired by special effort. Coffee, tea, tobacco, alcohol: all taste pretty awful to a ten-year-old.

That's certainly not true of all of the popular forms in which those (particularly alcohol and caffeine) are consumed by adults. Sure, most kids might not like black coffee or straight black tea (but plenty of adults take it with cream and sugar resp. milk and honey), but they've got very little problem with, say, Coca-Cola.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#20

Post by peterwwillis »

jamesbowman wrote: post #16
evincarofautumn wrote: post #5

I’ve always found it fascinating that people don’t perceive socially sanctioned drugs as drugs at all. Saying “drugs and alcohol” to me is like saying “sandwiches and hamburgers”. A person can drink a cup of coffee in the morning, smoke a cigarette on their lunch break, and drink a couple glasses of wine in the evening, and the only thing that keeps them from being called a “drug addict” is that these particular drug…

David E.H. Jones pointed out that the socially sanctioned drugs have something in common: they all taste bad. Or at least, they have a taste that is unappealing to children, and then must be acquired by special effort. Coffee, tea, tobacco, alcohol: all taste pretty awful to a ten-year-old.

Well first i'd question calling tea a socially sanctioned drug given how little caffeine it contains. (Also, most teas are quite pleasant tasting, if you use premium tea and make it correctly, which 99% of people do not)

Second i'd note that virtually all foods that aren't fruits or vegetables must be 'acquired by special effort', and that a large number of them are fairly inedible or bland until you prepare or cook them. And don't children generally dislike pretty much all foods? And especially healthful foods?

Post reply on HN