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

101–110 of 180 posts

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#101

Post by burkaman »

Devthrowaway80 wrote: post #55
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…

One of the 4 founders of Johns Hopkins Hospital was addicted to both cocaine and morphine and was able to remain functional while addicted for the rest of his life. I think it's easy to mix up the effects of the illegality of certain drugs with the effects of the drugs themselves. Impurities and poor injection hygiene are probably a large part of the health effects of these two drugs currently, and they are a result…

I don't think the Hopkins founder is a great example here. He did have some impressive accomplishments, but at least according to this article [1], you couldn't call him functional in the same way a daily coffee or wine drinker is functional. A modern-day Halsted would be fired from any hospital, even if cocaine and recreational morphine were legal.

I know there's more to your argument than "Halsted did it so it must be ok", but I think this is a useful point.

[1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/health/27zuger.html?_r=0

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#103

Post by ommunist »

simplexion wrote: post #78
panzagl wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I mean really? Of course it changes the value of the article- articles written by unreliable sources are less valuable than those written by reliable ones. Or does it not matter as long as you like the message? If the CIA/NSA comes out and says "Oh it's ok y'all should totally get stoned" does that mean you trust them all of a sudden? It's no wonder every decent novel about a dystopean society has some type o…

Yes, really. Your argument is why people who have been to jail are unable to gain employment. People make mistakes.

Oh man, they become well employed (not paid) once they get to jail.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#105

Post by MichaelGG »

pyre wrote: post #65
MichaelGG wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I thought that one of the requirements for addiction was that you were willing to let the rest of your life go up in flames to get your next "fix." People definitely bandy about the word "addiction" for things that are somewhat less than that. E.g. not many people withdraw from those around them to get their next caffeine fix. (It's worth noting that this doesn't necessarily apply to just drugs. WoW-addiction falls i…

That has a strange bias then for people that are at trivial risk of having their life go up in flames. Howard Hughes, for instance, used hundreds of mg of morphine equivalent a day for decades. But being rich beyond belief, it's not like he'd ever encounter issues with supply. But most people, if told of such levels of use, would consider that an "addiction". It'd certainly be a strong physical dependence.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#106

Post by wingerlang »

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…

> “sandwiches and hamburgers”

I kind of get what you mean, but those are very different.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#107

Post by Uberphallus »

wk_end wrote: post #23
Alex3917 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

By this reasoning smoked marijuana is equally as addictive as nicotine and more addictive than snorted cocaine or orally ingested opiates (i.e. prescription painkillers). That seems pretty suspect to me.

That rule applies JUST within the same substance. And only generally, some exceptions exist for poor bioavailability due to absorption differences and particular metabolic pathways.

The idea is that the shorter it takes to get into the bloodstream/brain, the peak effects are stronger, and the downregulation of neuron receptors is more acute and lasts longer (therefore requiring redoses to activate them).

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#108

Post by WickyNilliams »

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…

A friend and I had a good laugh recently after spotting someone had posted a rant on FB declaring (amongst other misinformed nonsense) that "if someone is addicted to drugs they deserve to die". In the comments underneath more people chimed in with "yeah, bloody druggies, they deserve it", and other similar sentiments. Then the original poster commented, without a hint of irony, "I know, who would want to do drugs?! I'm bad enough after 10 jaegerbombs, i can't imagine what i'd be like on drugs". 10 jaegerbombs!! First, that is undeniably drug abuse. Second, these people don't realise that level of alcohol is far more intoxicating and dangerous (perhaps also addictive?) than many of the hardest drugs!

How are people's perspectives so off with this stuff? I understand education tells people "drugs are bad mmmkay" but to be as cold-hearted as to think addicts/users deserve to die, while ignoring the massive contradiction in your own beliefs? It absolutely astounds me

It's drug abuse which poses problems at social and personal levels, not drug use.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#109

Post by finishingmove »

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…

It's even worse, because the society-set standards demand of you to drink coffee every day, otherwise you will be seen as less productive than someone who drinks 3 cups a day.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#110

Post by fahadkhan »

finishingmove wrote: post #109
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…

It's even worse, because the society-set standards demand of you to drink coffee every day, otherwise you will be seen as less productive than someone who drinks 3 cups a day.

I have worked with people that do not need caffeine to be far more productive than myself with caffeine. Also read research which claims caffeine only brings people with caffeine tolerance to a normal level of alertness, i.e. its counter productive to use caffeine frequently. Unfortunately I cannot fix the cause, lack of sleep, so I try to address the symptoms.
Post reply on HN