Why animals eat psychoactive plants • Hacker News Board

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#131

Post by mercer » Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 1:43 PM UTC

MichaelGG wrote: post #105

pyre wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think your conclusion is correct, but not a problem, precisely because concepts like 'addiction', as well as 'mental disorder' are contextually defined.

ADHD might not be a problem if you're living in a wild environment and roaming the woods as a primary activity. Schizophrenia might not be an issue of you live in a society where you're considered a 'seer/prophet' and taken care of by the community for your 'valuable' service. Heroin might not be an issue if you're filthy rich and happy with your lifestyle.

Practically speaking, of course society might value labeling any use of heroin as 'addiction' because it might be too rare for people to be able to live well while using. Similarly, I believe making alcohol a bit more of a 'drug' (as it is commonly seen) is not a bad thing because so many people, relatively, become unhealthily dependent on it.

I've become more and more convinced that it would benefit us all if we 1) let go of our somewhat arbitrary current definitions of 'illegal drugs' and 'addiction' (at least in 'common' conversation), and 2) keep in mind that the goal of criminalizing a substance or labeling someone as 'mentally ill' is to help people function in whatever society their in, and not an attempt to objectively define any of these things.

I have a lot of friends who by many definitions suffer from various 'mental problems'. Many of them function well because they chose a lifestyle, career, and social environment that suits them, rather than taking the path of medication. While this is not an option for everyone, I wish the mental health industry would spend more energy on this rather than simply 're-socializing' people through medication or therapy.

To be clear, I realize this is not a simple issue, and that for many people medication is a lifesaver. I also realize that the impact of incorrectly advising people on these matters can ruin lives. I'm not an expert!)

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#132

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 1:46 PM UTC

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…

You thought wrong. See, e.g., http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/info/addiction/how-is-addict...

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#133

Post by mercer » Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 1:47 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #120

WickyNilliams wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?!…

Part of the reason is that they don't know how often they see people under the influence of drugs, because it's not something that will be paraded in front of someone who is clearly anti-drug - unlike alcohol - because of the legal risk. So their image of drug users is drug addicts with so severe problems that they are "visible" in wholly negative ways, because outside of a few self-destructive people or activists, f…

This goes both ways. I've met many people who seem to be just as 'normal' as the people around them, but suffer from their behavior. Especially when it comes to alcohol, I've noticed that identical behavior over time can diverge: one person might just stop drinking as they grow up, while the other ends up being unhealthily dependent on their drinking. And the latter situation seems fine and might even go unnoticed by everyone... until it suddenly isn't (break-up, being fired, depression).

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#134

Post by saiya-jin » Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 1:49 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #120

WickyNilliams wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?!…

Part of the reason is that they don't know how often they see people under the influence of drugs, because it's not something that will be paraded in front of someone who is clearly anti-drug - unlike alcohol - because of the legal risk. So their image of drug users is drug addicts with so severe problems that they are "visible" in wholly negative ways, because outside of a few self-destructive people or activists, f…

Your story reminds me of my current GF, who is catholic. she had to "justify" dating me to her granny, who said something along "he is probably mkay, but atheist! have you lost your mind?" After meeting me, granny had to correct her perception and accept that atheists can be actually good people too :)

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#135

Post by vidarh » Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 1:50 PM UTC

bambax wrote: post #113

> As a young scientific researcher, Siegel had been confidently toldby his supervisor that humans were the only species that seek out drugs to use for their own pleasure This upsets me to no end. How do they know? People constantly proclaim that "only humans do this or that" which means "animals don't do that", which means... well, nothing, since "animals" is not really a relevant category. Animals is short for "livi…

I'm reminded of an incident when I was a kid, when a freeway in Sweden was closed because of falling geese.

They'd gotten drunk by eating fermented berries, so much so that apparently quite a number were unable to continue flying, or make a safe landing. Some cars were hit before the local freeway was closed (I don't think there were any human casualties; not so sure about the geese).

Of course that could have been an aberration, but as it turns out, in places where fermented berries or fruit is regularly available, animals do often explicitly seek it out.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#136

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 1:50 PM UTC

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…

Or the fact that mere use of a substance isn't the same thing as addiction/dependence.

Now, what stops them from being called a "drug abuser" is that their substances of choice are legal, so aren't subject to the use=abuse idea that applies to illegal drugs, but even illegal drugs aren't generally subject to a use=addiction idea.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#137

Post by wingerlang » Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 1:53 PM UTC

bornhuetter wrote: post #118

wingerlang wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sandwich isn't necessarily a hamburger though. Also, doesn't a hot dog refer to the whole package? That'd make it different from a sausage.

Americans consider hamburgers to be a type of sandwich. It can be confusing to people from other countries who don't consider meat in a bun (as opposed to meat between slices of bread) to be a a sandwich.

Yeah. I'm from Sweden and when I think sandwich I think of this: http://i.imgur.com/hJwtQ7N.png

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#138

Post by psykovsky » Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 1:55 PM UTC

malka wrote: post #24

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.

Because it is socially acceptable to be addicted to coffee. Plus you can buy coffee almost anywhere, and it is really inexpensive. In 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 : imagine that one day, your dealer is all out of coffee. That would cause a withdr…

Taxes, dude, that's what's missing in the equation. If coffee was taxed the same as alcohol or tobacco there would be an increase of piggybank cracking to buy the next coffe fix.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#139

Post by stplsd » Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 2:07 PM UTC

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…

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

This only because heroin is illegal. Pure heroin is very gentle and harmless drugs. The worst you can get from pure heroin is constipation. While it may be unpleasant compare it to the effects of long term alcohol use which includes cirrhosis, serious heart problems, etc.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#140

Post by fnordfnordfnord » Wed, Feb 11, 2015, 2:18 PM UTC

Hytosys wrote: post #126

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm glad you've never had anyone in your life with a drug addiction. It is clearly something from which you have been withdrawn. Thanks, but that's not what I said, you're mistaken on that account. >This isn't something about which people are simply exaggerating. The stories don't need exaggeration. My response, and what I find offensive about these stories' use in pro-drug war propaganda, is that they are being use…

OK, we agree then! Clearly a heated subject. I've encountered numerous people that equate addiction to routine, and that was what I was speaking out against. My apologies.

No worries. I could have articulated my ideas better.