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

Direct evidence of the use of multiple drugs in Bronze Age from human hair test

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 135 posts

Re: Direct evidence of the use of multiple drugs in Bronze Age from human hair test

#101

Post by sirsinsalot »

kevviiinn wrote: post #33
tastyfreeze wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the welfare state that exists, a common argument is that people that destroy their bodies or brains are a burden on "society".

People who drink too much do even more damage to their bodies and brains than any other drug so that argument is nonsense

Fairly sure cocaine in heavy use is more damaging than alcohol? The cardiotoxicity (especially when paired with alcohol which it always is) combined with the vasoconstriction. Maybe.

I find in general drug discourse making these comparisons isn't super helpful. The risk and damage profile of different drugs is very complex. Mdma in frequent use isn't very damaging in one sense, but can really impair cognitive function long term which can reduce quality of life as much as liver damage of drinkers or COPD of heavy smokers (as a simplified illustrative example)

I think presenting a view that all things are toxic and that healthy use of anything is down to how, why and when it is used is better for normalising the conversation rather than doing X vs Y showdowns.

Re: Direct evidence of the use of multiple drugs in Bronze Age from human hair test

#102

Post by Maursault »

reducesuffering wrote: post #15
tmountain wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s the basis of the argument for prohibition if someone isn’t hurting others?

Imagine opioid pills were OTC. For a lot of people, they will initially be instant feel-good happy pills, even though people know there will be disastrous repercussions to taking them indefinitely. How many people go through bouts of severe depression? Won't some percentage of them, in moments of weakness, decide to try the opioid pills, feel good, and get sucked in? Shouldn't we as a society, try to curb humanity's…

> even though people know there will be disastrous repercussions to taking them indefinitely

People have some funny notions about the health consequences of opioid addiction.

     In 1942, Burroughs enlisted in the U.S. Army to serve during World War II. After being turned down by the Office of Strategic Services and the Navy, he developed a heroin addiction that affected him for the rest of his life, initially beginning with morphine.[1]
Addicted to opiates by age 23, William S. Burroughs finally died 60 years later. Opioid addiction is not really all that unhealthy, medically or biologically speaking, so long as the addict doesn't fatally overdose or expire from withdrawal. The biggest problem with opioid addiction is social stigma. Ao long as the addict can maintain their addiction, they can lead ordinarily productive lives with a normal life expectancy. Cocaine or methamphetamine or alcohol addiction, on the other hand, will kill you.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Burroughs

Re: Direct evidence of the use of multiple drugs in Bronze Age from human hair test

#103

Post by naijaboiler »

autoexec wrote: post #94
mortify wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This assumes that Federal government regulation is the only kind and the only way to restrain people from selling dangerous products. Products could receive private endorsements in a way similar to a UL listing for electronics. States would still be able to regulate products. There would be differences in their implementation and we could learn from the outcomes of those differences. Finally, we could offer no direct…

> Products could receive private endorsements in a way similar to a UL UL is partially funded by taxpayer money in the form of grants, is itself regulated by the US government ( https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XVI... ) and for decades it was even tax-exempt! That's not a great example of some random but trustworthy body selflessly protecting the masses without the involvement or oversight of…

some people are so anti-centralization that they will contort inane arguments. Imagine arguing for buyer beware for drugs. yeah we tried that before. There's a reason term "snake oil" exists in our vocabulary

Re: Direct evidence of the use of multiple drugs in Bronze Age from human hair test

#104

Post by tastyfreeze »

autoexec wrote: post #43
tastyfreeze wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the welfare state that exists, a common argument is that people that destroy their bodies or brains are a burden on "society".

With the prison state that exists, I imagine the burden on society would be much higher by locking people up and criminalizing drugs and alcohol than the costs we'd face dealing with addicts and overdoses, the numbers of which both go down following legalization

Has anybody ever done such a comparison? That would be interesting to see.

Re: Direct evidence of the use of multiple drugs in Bronze Age from human hair test

#105

Post by 55555 »

ofalkaed wrote: post #75
akiselev wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fascinating thought is that we might have been doing this since _before_ homo sapiens emerged as a species. We've got plenty of evidence that we had cultural propagation of knowledge among our early ancestors for over three millions of years via the Oldowan and Acheulean stone industries. Since hunter gatherers naturally passed along knowledge of the safety of edible plants, at what point did they figure out how to…

We almost certainly did, animals of all sorts like being intoxicated. In apple country you often see that animals will ignore apples until they have fallen and fermented and then they get drunk off them. Deer love pot and appear to get high from eating it. In Bali they have a serious problem with monkeys steeling the drinks of tourists and getting drunk.

I enjoyed reading your comment but there's definitely no way to get drunk eating fallen apples. Do the math. And the monkeys in Bali are not stealing tourists' drinks.

Re: Direct evidence of the use of multiple drugs in Bronze Age from human hair test

#106

Post by bheadmaster »

55555 wrote: post #105
ofalkaed wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We almost certainly did, animals of all sorts like being intoxicated. In apple country you often see that animals will ignore apples until they have fallen and fermented and then they get drunk off them. Deer love pot and appear to get high from eating it. In Bali they have a serious problem with monkeys steeling the drinks of tourists and getting drunk.

I enjoyed reading your comment but there's definitely no way to get drunk eating fallen apples. Do the math. And the monkeys in Bali are not stealing tourists' drinks.

I neither enjoyed nor suffered reading your comment, but there's definitely a way to get drunk eating fallen apples. Do the math. And the monkeys in Bali are stealing tourists' drinks.

Re: Direct evidence of the use of multiple drugs in Bronze Age from human hair test

#107

Post by vkou »

pash wrote: post #70
voldacar wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where in the constitution is that power described or given?

Article III, Sec. 2, clearly, which begins: > The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution … Let’s not continue this conversation. The view I’m presenting is long established and can be found better and much more extensively made in a great many sources which no one should have any trouble finding, should he wish. You, I infer, do not wish.

It's missing a hell of a lot of details on how the court is actually supposed to work, most conspicuously, the details that the grandparent post was railing at FDR for trying to change.

Re: Direct evidence of the use of multiple drugs in Bronze Age from human hair test

#108

Post by ofalkaed »

55555 wrote: post #105
ofalkaed wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We almost certainly did, animals of all sorts like being intoxicated. In apple country you often see that animals will ignore apples until they have fallen and fermented and then they get drunk off them. Deer love pot and appear to get high from eating it. In Bali they have a serious problem with monkeys steeling the drinks of tourists and getting drunk.

I enjoyed reading your comment but there's definitely no way to get drunk eating fallen apples. Do the math. And the monkeys in Bali are not stealing tourists' drinks.

Monkies stealing booze is a fairly common issue all over the tropical world, just do a search for drunk monkies. Bali is known for its thieving monkies and they even exploit it for tourism, they have a park called Alcoholic Monkey Forest filled with thieving monkies. St. Kitts is also known for its drunk monkies.

You do the math for us, you seem to have all the answers.

Re: Direct evidence of the use of multiple drugs in Bronze Age from human hair test

#110

Post by b112 »

whoopdedo wrote: post #97
b112 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since hunter gatherers naturally passed along knowledge of the safety of edible plants People had no aspirin, no painkillers, multiple parasites, diseases, rotting teeth, etc. While getting high may have been part if it, for some, it may have been relief.

But they did. Some of the oldest written records we have describe the pain relieving effects of willow bark. But your point stands that for thousands of years intoxicants were just another type of medicine.

True, and this brings up another thing. Willow bark is highly regional.

So people were likely to be limited to some degree, in what choices they had. And the winter was isolating for many, I recall reading newspapers from the late 1800s (eg, 1880 onward), about how small towns were so happy to "dig the road out" and talk of "getting fresh supplies".

Even with trains, and shipping, and world wide trade that the British Empire afforded at that time, if your road had 15 feet of snow on it, well.. you weren't going 50 miles to the next town.

So they had to store, locally, everything for the winter. And my point is, 19th century trade was immense.

I can imagine tribes had some trade, but I doubt it happened at most times of the year, and I imagine it wasn't guaranteed delivery of some items.

So I think, truly, local was it.

Post reply on HN