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

21–30 of 135 posts

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

#21

Post by frant-hartm »

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…

No we shouldn't. There is a big difference between a parent safely bringing up a child and a state interfering with what an adult person does to themselves. Otherwise you open a can of greater good worms.

If you have money, opioids are easily available via dealers throughout the world and there is no epidemic of addicts. Yes there are individual cases, but most of these would be destroying their lives in some other available way if opiods weren't available, like heavy use of alcohol.

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

#22

Post by tastyfreeze »

heap_perms wrote: post #17
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".

I sincerely think that even if all drugs were legal, the rate of consumption wouldn't necessarily increase much. "People who take drugs "don't give a damn if they're legal, generally speaking.

I agree. I don't think there should be a prohibition on any drugs as it is a personal choice and humans have been drug consumers for millennia. Drug use isn't something that can be legislated away.

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

#23

Post by verilux68 »

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…

They are already available on street corners, snapchat, and the darkweb. With no authority to ensure what dosage the illicitly manufactured pressed-pills have.

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

#24

Post by mananaysiempre »

newZWhoDis wrote: post #13
eurleif wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To oversimplify, that's why prohibition 1.0 had to be done via constitutional amendment; but since then, we had the Wickard v. Filburn ruling, which made virtually everything regulatable under the Commerce Clause with its extremely broad interpretation of the phrase "interstate commerce". In Wickard v. Filburn, a farmer grew grain on his farm. He did not sell this grain, whether across state lines or otherwise; he me…

Such an absurd ruling, but none of the current supremes have the stones to overturn it

Looking from the outside, US constitutional law has always seemed like this absurd tangle of kabbalistic reinterpretations, but it seems important to mention that AFAIK the federal ban on child labour (whether or not its products cross state lines) rests on similarly twisty reasoning. (Things like environmental protections as well, probably, but this looks to have been the first example.) “Let’s allow the federal government to regulate whatever” is a value-neutral weapon.

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

#25

Post by ren_engineer »

eurleif wrote: post #10
anigbrowl wrote: post #4

I always wonder why nobody has made an argument that drug laws are unconstitutional since the 9th amendment states clearly that rights don't need to be enumerated, and there's abundant evidence of people making their own drug decisions prior to the existence of the USA.

To oversimplify, that's why prohibition 1.0 had to be done via constitutional amendment; but since then, we had the Wickard v. Filburn ruling, which made virtually everything regulatable under the Commerce Clause with its extremely broad interpretation of the phrase "interstate commerce". In Wickard v. Filburn, a farmer grew grain on his farm. He did not sell this grain, whether across state lines or otherwise; he me…

you can thank FDR for stacking the supreme court and outright threatening to increase the number of justices to intimidate other justices for that ruling. Supreme Court went with every overreach of power that FDR wanted for the federal government, including affirming the right to intern Japanese-Americans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bil...

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

#26

Post by nemo44x »

magila wrote: post #19
Tao3300 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It usually boils down to someone's sky daddy not liking it.

Drug prohibition in the US was motivated more by hate for black/brown people than sky daddies.

There’s a lot of truth in this. Cocaine was legal into the 20th century and prior to prohibition blacks weren’t allowed to drink in certain places. For recreation cocaine became something they could use and at rising murder and violence in black communities was blamed on “cocaine crazed negros”.

https://www.nytimes.com/1914/02/08/archives/negro-cocaine-fi...

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

#27

Post by kodah »

magila wrote: post #19
Tao3300 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It usually boils down to someone's sky daddy not liking it.

Drug prohibition in the US was motivated more by hate for black/brown people than sky daddies.

In the instance of marijuana I agree, but alcohol prohibition was primarily influenced by political morals (Progressives at the time) and the Protestant church [1]:

> Led by pietistic Protestants, prohibitionists first attempted to end the trade in alcoholic drinks during the 19th century. They aimed to heal what they saw as an ill society beset by alcohol-related problems such as alcoholism, family violence, and saloon-based political corruption. Many communities introduced alcohol bans in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and enforcement of these new prohibition laws became a topic of debate. Prohibition supporters, called "drys", presented it as a battle for public morals and health. The movement was taken up by progressives in the Prohibition, Democratic and Republican parties, and gained a national grassroots base through the Woman's Christian Temperance Union. After 1900, it was coordinated by the Anti-Saloon League. Opposition from the beer industry mobilized "wet" supporters from the wealthy Roman Catholic and German Lutheran communities, but the influence of these groups receded from 1917 following the entry of the U.S. into the First World War against Germany.

Direct evidence is that we still call tax on alcohol and tobacco "sin tax".

Other psychedelics were more popular in white communities. For instance, American Counterculture started in the 1960s and by 1966 Congress passed the Drug Abuse and Control Amendment. This was directly to address magic mushroom and LSD use. By 1970 we had the Controlled Substances Act which placed all psychedelics under Schedule I. The only exception being for Native Americans. [2]

Cocaine is a bit more interesting because it actually was commercially viable for a long time. It was in everything from Coca-Cola to wine and cigarettes. It was banned in 1914 with the Harrison Act. [3] This one was banned for a mix of legit and racist reasons. It's documented that internationally there was more crime due to addiction spreading like wildfire after the Spanish-American and Philippine-America wars. On the other hand, the language used in the US to gain traction to ban it was entirely racist and inaccurate as most users of Cocaine were white. [4]

Nixon did aim Marijuana enforcement at the Black community. Rhetoric in the 1800's used racist language to get the bills passed, but primary users were white. Almost all other prohibitions had to do with morals, religion, and crime. Sometimes it was a mix of all of the above. The commonality in almost all prohibitions was putting more of ones opponents in jail.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_Stat... [2]: https://psychable.com/history/history-of-psychedelics-in-ame... [3]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8473543/ [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Narcotics_Tax_Act

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

#28

Post by anigbrowl »

eurleif wrote: post #10
anigbrowl wrote: post #4

I always wonder why nobody has made an argument that drug laws are unconstitutional since the 9th amendment states clearly that rights don't need to be enumerated, and there's abundant evidence of people making their own drug decisions prior to the existence of the USA.

To oversimplify, that's why prohibition 1.0 had to be done via constitutional amendment; but since then, we had the Wickard v. Filburn ruling, which made virtually everything regulatable under the Commerce Clause with its extremely broad interpretation of the phrase "interstate commerce". In Wickard v. Filburn, a farmer grew grain on his farm. He did not sell this grain, whether across state lines or otherwise; he me…

Sure, but other Consitutional provisions stand on the same level as the Commerce clause. You would not get anywhere arguing that the 2nd amendment should be narrowed because gun violence impacts interstate commerce, for example.

I have always thought Wickard v Fillburn was wrong decided, though.

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

#29

Post by kevviiinn »

mananaysiempre wrote: post #24
newZWhoDis wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such an absurd ruling, but none of the current supremes have the stones to overturn it

Looking from the outside, US constitutional law has always seemed like this absurd tangle of kabbalistic reinterpretations, but it seems important to mention that AFAIK the federal ban on child labour (whether or not its products cross state lines) rests on similarly twisty reasoning. (Things like environmental protections as well, probably, but this looks to have been the first example.) “Let’s allow the federal gov…

I don't think its value neutral when drug laws allowed slavery to essentially continue and has destroyed countless communities and families

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

#30

Post by ren_engineer »

tmountain wrote: post #7
anigbrowl wrote: post #4

I always wonder why nobody has made an argument that drug laws are unconstitutional since the 9th amendment states clearly that rights don't need to be enumerated, and there's abundant evidence of people making their own drug decisions prior to the existence of the USA.

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

it was supported by progressives and feminists in the early 1900s and actually resulted in fewer deaths from alcohol and lower domestic violence. The anti-prohibition rhetoric in modern times was essentially manufactured by corporate interests to imply it doesn't work

https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibit...

https://time.com/5501680/prohibition-history-feminism-suffra...

Post reply on HN