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

41–50 of 180 posts

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#41

Post by kaoD »

chrischen wrote: post #25
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…

Coffee served at starbucks is in much lower quantities and milder concentrations than what one would normally ingest or inhale in harder drugs. They do boil tea out of coca leaves, which normally has a small amount of cocaine. It's only when it's concentrated, snorted, that it gives the temporary super high.

> Coffee served at starbucks is in much lower quantities and milder concentrations than what one would normally ingest or inhale in harder drugs.

A common dose of LSD is about 50-150 ug (ug as in micrograms). A Starbucks Grande Coffee has 330mg of caffeine inside. That is THREE orders of magnitude!

So, to sum it up: you can't compare dosages from different substances.

Also: 330mg is a lot of caffeine.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#42

Post by notnickwolf »

eropple wrote: post #32
forgotpasswd3x wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think he was just making a joke, one I thought was very funny.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#43

Post by TallGuyShort »

iooi wrote: post #12
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 in…

So, I've read TFA, I see no citation, and I'm still Googling to track down the original research. They may not have made it up, but they may have taken it out of context or omitted details.

>> 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?

No, I haven't. That's why I'm curious about whether the statistic is uniformly true, or averaged, or what. I'm not saying they made it up, I'm saying I'd like to see more details about how they arrived at that number.

edit: for instance, let's say 90% of "drug users" are marijuana users. Okay, then I'm not surprised, but that would only speak to the danger of marijuana compared to other drugs. Or is it 90% of the users of any given drug? I'd be surprised about the latter. Coming from the United Nations is not a shining banner of truth and unbiased facts.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#44

Post by rprospero »

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #36
Terr_ wrote: post #22

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." 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…

You're right that the generic story isn't really attached to statistical data that would make it meaningful. However, if you want specifics on the story, it's my mother in law.

She could either pay the rent or buy alcohol. She purchased alcohol and was evicted form her home.

Living homeless in the park, she and her children didn't eat for two days. When she received money, she decided to continue forgoing food to spend the money on alcohol.

After over a month of homelessness, during an Indiana winter that was below freezing during the day and colder at night, she was offered private housing and food for herself and her children. The only catch was that she'd have to remain sober. She preferred the alcohol. My wife has permanent medical problems from sleeping in those conditions.

She didn't steal from her daughter's piggy bank to buy alcohol. She did use her daughter's social security number to apply for a student loan, then use the loan money to go on a bender.

Alcoholism isn't just a generic scare story told by DARE officers to keep kids from drinking. It's a real issue killing a real woman named Virginia.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#45

Post by vinceguidry »

hristov wrote: post #40
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…

A once-daily dose of cocaine or heroin is not likely to lead to serious dependence or health effects. So long as the dose and frequency remain constant, one should be able to ride that horse forever.

Americans have forgotten just how ubiquitous drugs that are now illegal used to be, and how often they were used. Amphetamines used to be commonly prescribed by doctors, for just about anything. Hitler used to take crystal meth daily, he was reported to have taken nine shots during his last days in the bunker.

I read an article recently about a guy who became addicted to smoking opium. He said it took a long time and steady increasing doses before he finally reached the point where he was addicted.

Even alcohol was much more widely consumed during the Middle Ages, as it was safer to drink than water. Provisioning notes from the time period reveal shockingly massive quantities.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#46

Post by foobarian »

MichaelGG wrote: post #37
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…

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 intrins…

It comes from protestant tradition which rejects indulgence but values hard work. Good drugs facilitate the latter.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#47

Post by TallGuyShort »

Alex3917 wrote: post #10
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…

> Surely the percentage varies significantly depending on the drug. It actually doesn't, which is one of the key findings of addiction research. The reason is that people don't abuse drugs because of the physical discomfort of withdrawal, but rather because they have a psychological dependence on drug use. And that psychological dependence is caused by things like previous life trauma; any given drug is just an inter…

Any links to such research? It's hardly presented in a scientifically rigorous way, but take this for example: http://bakadesuyo.com/2012/08/whats-the-most-addictive-drug/. It supports the notion the delivery significantly impacts behaviour, but it also cites highly variable addiction rates - not a consistent 90%. Still Googling for better research, but suffice it to say I'm a bit skeptical of the claims...

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#48

Post by foobarian »

vinceguidry wrote: post #45
hristov wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A once-daily dose of cocaine or heroin is not likely to lead to serious dependence or health effects. So long as the dose and frequency remain constant, one should be able to ride that horse forever. Americans have forgotten just how ubiquitous drugs that are now illegal used to be, and how often they were used. Amphetamines used to be commonly prescribed by doctors, for just about anything. Hitler used to take cryst…

> Hitler used to take crystal meth daily, he was reported to have taken nine shots during his last days in the bunker

Not exactly a glowing endorsement of taking the drug.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#50

Post by agumonkey »

atom_enger wrote: post #13
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.

> 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 perspe…

Many writers used substances to create. How many geniuses did the same ? Erdos took amphetamines for instance.

Surely drug may increase creativity and/or intellectual bandwidth (in both good and bad ways).

Post reply on HN