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

31–40 of 180 posts

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#31

Post by copsarebastards »

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.

As far as I can tell that's true, but a lot of the taboo drugs taste awful, too. Psilocybin mushrooms taste like someone mixed stale almonds with household dust and a tiny touch of vomit. MDMA tastes like a mix of baking powder and metal.

The simplest hypothesis I can think of that explains this is that most things taste bad. We usually only eat the exceptions--the things that taste good. But we'll eat something that tastes bad if it gets us high.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#32

Post by eropple »

forgotpasswd3x wrote: post #30
dragonwriter wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a situation where coffee would be banned, we would in all likeliness see a rise in coffee smuggling, a drop in quality of coffee, and coffee addicts would face problem due to the illegality of the stuff More likely if caffeine were banned. If coffee were banned, those with a dependence (which is most likely on caffeine, not coffee) would substitute other sources. Like tea. Or soda. (People might smuggle coffee if i…

I wonder if pedantry were banned, would we see a rise in darknet sites for posts like yours?

dragonwriter pointing out that there are economically substitutable goods to coffee, and that the prohibition would have to be much more generalized, is a straight-up good point, and you're not contributing.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#33

Post by cappsjulian »

atom_enger wrote: post #11
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. Un…

Yeah I'm inclined to not use the word addict - maybe go with what DFW said about everyone worshipping

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#34

Post by eropple »

chrischen wrote: post #27

> Some drug use causes horrible harm, as I know very well, but the overwhelming majority of people who use prohibited drugs do it because they get something good out of it — a fun night out dancing, the ability to meet a deadline, the chance of a good night’s sleep, or insights into parts of their brain they couldn’t get to on their own. Just because 90% of drug users aren't being harmed, doesn't mean it's necessaril…

You view it as taking drugs to "avoid facing reality". A less judgmental and, frankly, less jerkish way of putting it would be "stress relief." Because we are not a bunch of meat-puppet robots, able to turn off emotions with a blood-curdling scream of the lambda effing calculus. Combating stress is a positive effect. External signals that are internalized are not false, they are externally derived, and the idea of a blanket claim of negativity based on this idea that any avoidance is inherently a negative is wacky.

If you think the solution to a dead mate is to sack up and move on (and no, I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm just getting at the inescapable conclusion of your line of thinking), I don't think you're particularly well-qualified to pontificate about either stress or grief.

(And I don't touch anything stronger than the occasional beer, I just don't like your tone or your presumption.)

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#35

Post by montecarl »

peterwwillis wrote: post #20
jamesbowman wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A surprising amount of foodstuffs can be classified as a drug. Not only does tea contain caffeine (in small quantities), but it also containes an amino acid, L-Theanine, which can cross the blood brain barrier and has psychoactive properties.[1] Some people like the effect enough to supplement it.[2]

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theanine#Effects

[2]: http://www.amazon.com/Now-Foods-L-Theanine-Veg-Capsules-60-C...

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#36

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

Terr_ wrote: post #22
atom_enger wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Un…

> Once you see it this way, it's hard to stand in line at Starbucks and think "I'm not an addict." Except "addict" is a loaded term, which implies... well, unequivocally maladaptive behavior. You seldom hear about people who lie to their loved ones about their hidden coffee stash, or steal from their child's piggybank to sustain their caffeine fix.

>You seldom hear about people who lie to their loved ones about their hidden coffee stash, or steal from their child's piggybank to sustain their caffeine fix.

I also seldom hear of people who lie to their loved ones about their hidden drug/alcohol stash, or steal from their child's piggybank to sustain their drug/alcohol fix. Really, I do often hear the same sad generic story which you refer to, but there are never any specifics nor any thing else that would prove it is actually as common as is purported.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#37

Post by MichaelGG »

atom_enger wrote: post #11
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. Un…

That's because we've somehow equated addiction with badness. When you read about opiates, for instance, the high addiction potential is called out as a major downside. Doctors get all nervous about it, try to prescribe little, don't allow refills, etc. Yet this is not the case when prescribed, say, antidepressants, which can be just as addictive.

What we need to do is realize that addiction is not a bad thing intrinsically. Sure, it has the downside of needing a supply of the addictive thing, but that might be a minor and perfectly reasonable price to pay. Just like popular medications that have a small chance of making all your skin die and fall off, or over time, frying your nerves and making you jerk around. Never, in my personal experience, have any medical personnel made a big deal about those side effects of "good" drugs like anti-psychotics, stabilizers, or anti-depressants. But mention "bad" drugs and they go nuts about similarly small tradeoffs.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#38

Post by grasstomouth »

chrischen wrote: post #27

> Some drug use causes horrible harm, as I know very well, but the overwhelming majority of people who use prohibited drugs do it because they get something good out of it — a fun night out dancing, the ability to meet a deadline, the chance of a good night’s sleep, or insights into parts of their brain they couldn’t get to on their own. Just because 90% of drug users aren't being harmed, doesn't mean it's necessaril…

Even you argue that 90% of drug use isn't "helping," the bigger problem that we have today is that criminalizing drug use makes it that much worse. The American Medical Association declared drug addiction "a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry" in 1987. Why then are we sending drug users to prison and ruining their chances for future employment? This only exacerbates the problem and is essentially a lifetime punishment.

We need to be treating it as a disease and a social problem, not a criminal one, with an appropriate and measured response.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#39

Post by MichaelGG »

chrischen wrote: post #27

> Some drug use causes horrible harm, as I know very well, but the overwhelming majority of people who use prohibited drugs do it because they get something good out of it — a fun night out dancing, the ability to meet a deadline, the chance of a good night’s sleep, or insights into parts of their brain they couldn’t get to on their own. Just because 90% of drug users aren't being harmed, doesn't mean it's necessaril…

I like how you just gloss over how one should "solve the problem". All they have to do is "move on". Well... perhaps drug use is a good way to move on. Drugs are part of reality, so it's rather silly to say they're only used to "avoid reality".

If I get cut in the leg, the doctors put me on morphine while things heal up enough. Am I avoiding reality? Should I just grit my teeth and be tough? For what benefit?

Likewise, if I cannot concentrate, doctors give me stimulants to help, and most folks view this as OK. But if I want to have an extra-fun night out and use the same medication, all of a sudden I'm a speed freak escaping reality?

And if I'm suffering mentally, why can't doctors give me the same morphine as they do for my leg?

How are drugs any more false signalling than doing other activities like seeking out a new mate, meditation or religion, or whatever other things you'd consider as "facing reality" and "moving on"?

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#40

Post by hristov »

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…

You can drink two glasses of red wine every day of your life and if you are healthy adult male of average weight, this will likely extend your life and improve your health. For a woman it is down to one glass. You can drink a glass of coffee or a cup of tea every day of your life and this will also probably improve your life and your health.

Trying doing that with cocaine or heroin. Actually do not try it because you will be addicted and have serious health consequences.

There are very few discrete things in nature. Like most things psychoactive substances have varying effects. But some substances have effects so different from others, they should be in a different category.

Someone might argue that sulfuric acid is just a more powerful version of lemon juice. But it's acidic effect is so much more powerful than that of lemon juice society quite correctly treats them as being completely different.

Post reply on HN