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

91–100 of 180 posts

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#91

Post by nitrogen »

gizmo686 wrote: post #64
peterwwillis wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well first i'd question calling tea a socially sanctioned drug given how little caffeine it contains. (Also, most teas are quite pleasant tasting, if you use premium tea and make it correctly, which 99% of people do not) Second i'd note that virtually all foods that aren't fruits or vegetables must be 'acquired by special effort', and that a large number of them are fairly inedible or bland until you prepare or cook…

According to google, tea has 3mg/fl oz, while soda has 2mg/fl oz of caffeine. Also, the people that I know who drink tea, tend to drink it by the pot, whereas most coffee drinkers I know tend to drink by the cup.

Some sodas have twice that amount per ounce, and energy drinks have 10mg or more per ounce (just for reference).

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#92

Post by joesmo »

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…

You're obviously not familiar with the effects of any of these substances. Plenty of people live normal lives taking opiates every day (in obviously large amounts due to tolerance). Likewise, alcohol is far from the harmless substance you paint a picture of, easily as damaging or more damaging than any illegal substance.

The point is that the only difference here is between social acceptability and social unacceptability. There is nothing inherent in heroin or cocaine that's more dangerous than alcohol (quite the opposite in fact, especially in regards to heroin and opiates). So no, these substances do not have effects so different from others that they need to be in a separate category. If they did, alcohol would be classified right along with them.

This socially acceptable/unacceptable classification is often mistaken for something else, in this case, a difference between the effects of chemicals themselves. That is, of course, as the powers that be want it to be.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#93

Post by zurn »

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #76
foobarian wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hitler used to take crystal meth daily, he was reported to have taken nine shots during his last days in the bunker Not exactly a glowing endorsement of taking the drug.

JFK then? He made frequent use of the stuff.

According to rumors JFK used dexamphetamine. Probably Hitler also had access to the better amphetamines. Contrary to common belief meth is significantly different and nastier (neurotoxic).

There's a section of meth vs amphetamine on WP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine#Pharmacology - scroll to "Comparison to amphetamine pharmacodynamics"

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#94

Post by mc32 »

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…

There are outliers and exceptions to lots of things, but that does not necessarily mean that therefore it's appropriate to extrapolate to the population at large.

When people say window washers should wear safety equipment do we also say, well, there have been cases where window washers have fallen ten stories and survived, in order to color the hazards?

There are also very many legal prescription drugs to which when people become addicted to them, lead to dysfunction. Just because an addictive substance is 'clean' and legal does not mean it's healthy for people to ingest at will.

Drugs are like gambling. They hardly bring any good and potentially bring lots of bad. Do you think it would be good to push opiates on the Chinese, or push MJ on Mexicans and blacks? Would that be justice? While we may agree that punishment is disproportionate, or unjust, ridding society of substances that incapacitate people to varying degrees, is not too bad a thing. Would we rather have an intoxicated population, one less capable of making everyday decisions even-headed?

Anyhow, your argument is beside the point. Japan has harsh drug laws and it mainly affects its own people, same with Cuba, Russia and other non-US puppet regimes, so it's not as though it's a uniquely american invention to subjugate classes or people no, rather, it was an attempt by social engineers to rid societies of what they perceived were ills which affected society.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#95

Post by mc32 »

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…

To be fair, it is called a drug store. I think the reason we say drugs and alcohol is simply because alcohol was around way before we had a notion of 'chemicals which do harm to your body' kind of knowledge and alcohol has been an accepted beverage for millenia. It has been seen a vice, however, just like drugs, for quite some time.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#96

Post by richardw »

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…

There is likely a continuum of risk associated with all of these substances, but our society thinks of them only in a binary fashion. X is ok, Y is illegal.

This becomes a problem when some teenager tries one and then thinks that "they've been lying to me about this", and assumes that everything goes. There are risks but binary thinking isn't the right way to manage them.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#97

Post by fit2rule »

atom_enger wrote: post #11
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…

Once you see it this way, it's hard to stand in line at Starbucks and think "I'm not an addict." Everyone and their mother is addicted to something, it's just a matter of whether or not the authorities approve of your choice of substance. Truth is we're humans and humans seek to alter their consciousness whether it be through meditation, prayer, exercise, spinning in circles or a through a shortcut -- a substance. Un…

If weed were legal, I wouldn't use coffee, cigarettes, or alcohol. The ugly truth is, this is the case for a lot of people, and its quite well understood in the trillion-dollar coffee, cigarette and alcohol industries. I'd also be less likely to ask a stranger for industrial drugs to treat depression.

Plus, I could grow it myself for almost no cost.

Anything that upsets the economic and industrial consumption status quo is going to meet fierce and powerful resistance from those currently selling consumption every minute of their lives.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#98

Post by fit2rule »

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.

Its like nobody can ever improve themselves without being reminded that they were once 'bad'. This, I believe, is the crux for why progress is never made in society until someone gets up and says "enough is enough". We have no perfect martyrs.

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#99

Post by rms »

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.

...well, it makes me question the particular style of the article given previous allegations against the author. This breezy style of journalism is sometimes too entertaining to be rigorous.

Like the quote attributed to an attendee of the Eleusinian Mysteries? that you felt “new, astonishing, irrational to rational cognition.” Where did that quote come from?

Re: Why animals eat psychoactive plants

#100

Post by Natsu »

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…

Smoking is losing a lot of its social acceptance lately and for alcohol, well, I think we all know what happened during the years it lost its acceptance.
Post reply on HN