Live data from Hacker News

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

nature.com

81–90 of 135 posts

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

#81
post #48

> Thus, opium alkaloids were detected in Late Bronze Age containers > different hallucinogenic compounds, mainly nicotine, tryptamines and tropane alkaloids have been chemically documented in Prehispanic artefacts from the Americas, and psychoactive compounds of Cannabis in archaeological wooden braziers from China. > The alkaloids ephedrine, atropine and scopolamine were detected, and their concentrations estimated…

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…

I recall seeing some television nature documentary showing monkeys and other animals getting drunk on fermented rotting fruit lying on the ground. This has been going on for a while.

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

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People who drink too much do even more damage to their bodies and brains than any other drug It’s possible to do a lot of damage with heavy drinking, yes, but it’s not true at all to suggest alcohol is the most damaging drug. There are numerous synthetic drugs that can produce long lasting damage or even death even in experienced drug users who believe themselves to be consuming responsibly.

Can you name which ones? Being in the field of pharmacology, this is interesting to me. I'd love to read about it I'd you have sources

Desomorphine seems kind of bad, even without the other nasty effects when it is homemade by people who can't afford the real thing (i.e. Krokodil).

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

> While desomorphine was found to be faster acting and more effective than morphine for the rapid relief of severe pain, its shorter duration of action and the relatively more severe respiratory depression produced at equianalgesic doses, as well as a high incidence of other side effects such as hypotension and urinary retention, were felt to outweigh any potential advantages.[15][16]

From [15] we have: short duration which is independent of dose, tolerance, persistent decrease in respiratory rate, less sleep compared to morphine, possible greater withdrawal symptoms than morphine.

For medical uses [15] cites some good uses where it is preferable to morphine, but this is a drug that's even more worthy of regulation than morphine itself.

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

#83
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an area where we must acknowledge that one's "values" frame of reference is inextricably linked to how you decide this question. Yes, we definitely are sacrificing some of everyone's bodily autonomy because we think it's less bad than the consequences of putting no limits on it. Caffeine, Alcohol, Cigarettes, Cannabis, Cocaine, Meth, Heroin, Fentanyl, biological weapons and on some parallel track: BB gun, .22…

Are you genuinely suggesting that cannabis is more harmful than alcohol Not to mention, do people use biological weapons recreationally? That's news to me

> Are you genuinely suggesting that cannabis is more harmful than alcohol

If consumed in the same quantity, it might be.

> do people use biological weapons recreationally? That's news to me

Botox is a neurotoxin originally derived from a bacterium. And various pesticides are regulated. Nicotine actually is a naturally occurring pesticide, though these days BigAg companies produce far more potent "Neonicotinoids" for killing insects.

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

#84
post #48

> Thus, opium alkaloids were detected in Late Bronze Age containers > different hallucinogenic compounds, mainly nicotine, tryptamines and tropane alkaloids have been chemically documented in Prehispanic artefacts from the Americas, and psychoactive compounds of Cannabis in archaeological wooden braziers from China. > The alkaloids ephedrine, atropine and scopolamine were detected, and their concentrations estimated…

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

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

#85

Drugs or herbal medicine? Is there even a difference when talking about early civilizations? We know that herbal medicine was a staple of many early civilizations. Even animals use herbs as medicine. It seems to me that we have known this information for ages.

What’s the difference? Herbs and drugs are different labels for the same thing.

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

#86
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, Probably because most people want regulations and enforcement around pharmaceuticals. If we decide that the government has no power to pass laws surrounding drugs we'd be hurting ourselves.

We would? If the only laws on the books was that people who manufacture or sell drugs and pharmaceuticals had to faithfully represent their contents (covered under law's regulating commercial speech) and safe to consume (covered under negligence) but you couldn't tell people what they are and aren't allowed to sell, posses, or consume I think we would be a million times better off. The war on drugs would have never g…

Based on your proposed framework, the war on drugs people would just have to declare certain things unsafe to consume.

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

#87
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, Probably because most people want regulations and enforcement around pharmaceuticals. If we decide that the government has no power to pass laws surrounding drugs we'd be hurting ourselves.

We would? If the only laws on the books was that people who manufacture or sell drugs and pharmaceuticals had to faithfully represent their contents (covered under law's regulating commercial speech) and safe to consume (covered under negligence) but you couldn't tell people what they are and aren't allowed to sell, posses, or consume I think we would be a million times better off. The war on drugs would have never g…

Looking at the supplement industry, we kinda do. There are some specific exemptions - can't put cocaine in coke - but redbull and the rest of them still were able to lean into the legal OTC stimulant category despite the war on drugs, and get to a $16b brand.

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

#88

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.

> 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, Probably because most people want regulations and enforcement around pharmaceuticals. If we decide that the government has no power to pass laws surrounding drugs we'd be hurting ourselves.

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 regulation, but states could place strong penalties for any harms caused by dangerous products which include not only fines that could simply bankrupt a company, but criminal charges by choosing to identify the individuals responsible for neglecting safety measures.

This isn't how we do things and to some these ideas seem like madness, but it's hard to argue that our existing system doesn't harbor its own brand of lunacy. Putting everything in the hands of an central government is a path we've chosen, but it's not the only path.

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

#89
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, Probably because most people want regulations and enforcement around pharmaceuticals. If we decide that the government has no power to pass laws surrounding drugs we'd be hurting ourselves.

We would? If the only laws on the books was that people who manufacture or sell drugs and pharmaceuticals had to faithfully represent their contents (covered under law's regulating commercial speech) and safe to consume (covered under negligence) but you couldn't tell people what they are and aren't allowed to sell, posses, or consume I think we would be a million times better off. The war on drugs would have never g…

> We would? If the only laws on the books was that people who manufacture or sell drugs and pharmaceuticals had to faithfully represent their contents (covered under law's regulating commercial speech) and safe to consume (covered under negligence) but you couldn't tell people what they are and aren't allowed to sell, posses, or consume I think we would be a million times better off.

I wouldn't be so eager to go back to the days of snake oil salesmen who can be fully honest about what something contains, while lying through their teeth about what effects it would have, or the research they've done.

Where if you do take something that makes you sick, or a batch of bad drugs floods the US market you can't possibly track down the people responsible because there are countless people on the street and the internet selling medications, with new unlicensed and untracked sellers popping up and disappearing all the time and no way to trace a particular pill or formulation back to the maker. Where the people who are sickened or the families of those who have died will be required to have enough money and time to take massive corporations to court and prove that a specific company and their drug was responsible for the harm, and that it couldn't possibly have been any of the other totally unregulated drugs the victim had taken at any point in their lifetime.

Where quality control is not mandated and there is no inspection or oversight of manufacturers. Where testing and clinical trials aren't required. Where there is no post-marketing monitoring for adverse effects. No rules against selling addictive substances to adults and children.

Where it's perfectly legal for pharmaceutical companies to bribe doctors to prescribe their drugs to the sick and desperate and to sell them at any price. Where there are no limits whatsoever on advertising them. No rules on how drugs should be labeled or regulations requiring sellers or manufacturers to make people aware of a drug's side effects or contraindications ("Our drug is perfectly safe! It isn't our fault the dumb consumer took it with that other drug and it killed them! They should have done their research! Caveat emptor!"). No rules about drugs requiring a prescription leading to people buying and taking them inappropriately and nothing to stop people from stockpiling essential medications making them scarce.

Over and over again we see how even our current regulations have been weakened and the regulators captured by industry and how and it's resulted in our regulations failing to protect people. We've already seen how totally ineffective those commercial speech and negligence laws you want to exclusively depend on have been at protecting Americans from cosmetics (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/harmful-chemicals...) and supplements https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/10/14/diet-pills-and-...) that are almost entirely unregulated.

I'm all for the legalization of recreational drugs, but I want those drugs heavily regulated like any other pharmaceutical. Be careful what you wish for, and spend some time studying what things were like before the US had drug regulations before you go suggesting we throw away over a hundred years of progress. I promise that while things aren't great, they are much better now than they were before we regulated drugs.

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

#90
post #10

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN