Direct evidence of the use of multiple drugs in Bronze Age from human hair test(nature.com)
nature.com
Direct evidence of the use of multiple drugs in Bronze Age from human hair test
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-31064-2
134 comments
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 get high and start passing that along too? It's entirely plausible that our species and immediate ancestors have been getting high for millions of years! Since we have to eat anyways, we might have discovered our first high before our first stone tool!
Kinda puts the war on drugs in an even worse light.
Since hunter gatherers naturally passed along knowledge of the safety of edible plants, at what point did they figure out how to get high and start passing that along too? It's entirely plausible that our species and immediate ancestors have been getting high for millions of years! Since we have to eat anyways, we might have discovered our first high before our first stone tool!
Kinda puts the war on drugs in an even worse light.
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.
You do the math for us, you seem to have all the answers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wasn't this proposition put forth by Terence McKenna?
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.
How long have Homo Sapiens been around? More or less than three million years?
Anatomically modern 'homo sapiens' have been around for much less than that - 120,000 years
The oldest homo sapien fossil is about 300,000 years old. 3 million years ago would still be in the latter half of the reign of the Australopithecus genus. Homo habilis hadn't even appeared yet to kick off our genus.
That makes sense. I was confused because I just read a paragraph that talked about archaic humans of 2 million years ago. But now I realise it was using the term in a more general sense - specific to Homo rather than Homo Sapien
> different hallucinogenic compounds, mainly nicotine…
Wait what? Nicotine is hallucinogenic? What sort of ungodly dose do you need for that.
Wait what? Nicotine is hallucinogenic? What sort of ungodly dose do you need for that.
Ha! I didn't catch that the first time. That's a direct quote from the paper though. I think maybe they meant psychotropic, not hallucinogenic, as tropane alkaloids aren't traditionally hallucinogenic. Or they started with "different hallucinogenic compounds, mainly tryptamines" and then edited in nicotine and tropane alkaloids, and missed it on editing.
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 merely fed it to his own livestock on the same farm. SCOTUS ruled that this could be regulated via the Commerce Clause because, if he grew his own grain, he could be expected to buy less grain on the open market, which could indirectly affect interstate commerce. By that logic, virtually anything can affect interstate commerce, and be regulated as such.
In Wickard v. Filburn, a farmer grew grain on his farm. He did not sell this grain, whether across state lines or otherwise; he merely fed it to his own livestock on the same farm. SCOTUS ruled that this could be regulated via the Commerce Clause because, if he grew his own grain, he could be expected to buy less grain on the open market, which could indirectly affect interstate commerce. By that logic, virtually anything can affect interstate commerce, and be regulated as such.
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...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bil...
>outright threatening to increase the number of justices to intimidate other justices for that ruling
Good thing we’ve learned so much since then. You would never have anyone so short sighted as to jump up and down for that in these more civilized times.
Good thing we’ve learned so much since then. You would never have anyone so short sighted as to jump up and down for that in these more civilized times.
If seriously does need to be done though. It's morbid having a single elderly person's health dictate which way a country goes.
I'd like to see one seat per circuit (13), and a term limit of 20 years.
I can get behind this.
Some countries even have several dozen supreme justices, with a new one every year or two. That would rid us of this obscene phenomenon that turns one elderly person's health issues into a disgraceful politically polarized evening news issue. It also increases the RoI of extortion and assassination.
Some countries even have several dozen supreme justices, with a new one every year or two. That would rid us of this obscene phenomenon that turns one elderly person's health issues into a disgraceful politically polarized evening news issue. It also increases the RoI of extortion and assassination.
If we're going to blame someone, why not blame the court for expanding its own power, back in 1803? SCOTUS' current role is defined nowhere in constitution (Which says next to nothing about the roles of courts), or by an act of legislature. It was, quite literally, magicked out of thin air by SCOTUS.
The role of the courts in deciding the constitutionality of legislation was very much in the zeitgeist of the American experiment. Federalist, No. 78:
> It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. [0]
It is absurd to say that the Supreme Court “magicked out of thin air” the notion of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison. That was simply the Court's first assertion of the power the constitution gave it to wield, the wielding of which is the primary purpose of the judiciary as a separate but equal branch of American government.
0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._78#Judicial_r...
> It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. [0]
It is absurd to say that the Supreme Court “magicked out of thin air” the notion of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison. That was simply the Court's first assertion of the power the constitution gave it to wield, the wielding of which is the primary purpose of the judiciary as a separate but equal branch of American government.
0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._78#Judicial_r...
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.
> 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 is amazing how many people have trouble understanding that a dispute of the form “is this action the government is taking lawful, given the existence of Congressional action X and Constitutional provision Y” is case arising under the Constitution and Laws of the United States.
Yes, it’s a bit surprising. The whole point of a constitution is to provide a groundwork and a set of meta-rules governing how the ordinary rules of society may be made and modified, and how disputes about those sorts of thing should be resolved. The judiciary is precisely the mechanism for entertaining and deciding these disputes.
The odd thing, really, is that it took a decade and a half, until 1803, for the Supreme Court first to find it necessary to tell another of the other branches of government that it had broken the rules.
The odd thing, really, is that it took a decade and a half, until 1803, for the Supreme Court first to find it necessary to tell another of the other branches of government that it had broken the rules.
Not all that odd. The federal government legislated much less then, it was a drastically simpler nation. And the 14th amendment had not been adopted incorporating most of the first 10 amendments to cover state actions.
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.
Article III. "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court..."
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.
I don't think its value neutral when drug laws allowed slavery to essentially continue and has destroyed countless communities and families
- Activities staying inside state lines should be subject to federal regulation so that children don’t die due to breathing in coal dust at work, or so that people don’t get poisoned by lead in the air and water;
- Activities staying inside state lines should not be subject to federal regulation so that people don’t get sent to prison in droves for what is essentially a medical problem.
Seems to me like federal regulation is fairly value-neutral, as in usable in equal measure for both good and evil. The tricky part is deciding which is which, of course.
- Activities staying inside state lines should not be subject to federal regulation so that people don’t get sent to prison in droves for what is essentially a medical problem.
Seems to me like federal regulation is fairly value-neutral, as in usable in equal measure for both good and evil. The tricky part is deciding which is which, of course.
well that's the issue with common law versus civil law. Literally reinterpretations, past references etc. It's not just what the men who penned it meant, it's how the court interpreted.
Clarence Thomas actually dissented on this and said it was crazy.
He's right. Saying that the federal government can regulate how much a farmer can grow to feed their own animals because it would somehow impact interstate commerce is entirely unhinged
It's the most incredible form of mental gymnastics in order to grab power
It's the most incredible form of mental gymnastics in order to grab power
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.
I have always thought Wickard v Fillburn was wrong decided, though.
[deleted]
I know it's a long shot, but I have some hope that the current Supreme Court will overturn Wickard v. Filburn and eviscerate the authority of the Federal government. This is not terribly likely but they have shown some willingness to take a fresh look at established precedents.
The Ninth doesn't mean "you can't regulate anything we didn't mention".
It just says that any mere omission shouldn't be construed to mean anything. The lack of an enumerated right to privacy doesn't forbid the courts from deciding we have one.
It just says that any mere omission shouldn't be construed to mean anything. The lack of an enumerated right to privacy doesn't forbid the courts from deciding we have one.
Agreed, and virtually anything not enumerated would fall under either the Elastic Clause[1] or the Commerce Clause[2] giving Congress power to regulate it.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause (technically an enumerated power, but the broadest and vaguest one by far)
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause (technically an enumerated power, but the broadest and vaguest one by far)
Correct. That is the 10th:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Rights and governmental powers are not the same thing. The Feds, States, and the People aren’t able /supposed to violate rights, even unenumerated ones. Hence things like the right to privacy.
The Ninth is a reminder that the Tenth has its limits too.
The Ninth is a reminder that the Tenth has its limits too.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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 government.
> Finally, we could offer no direct regulation, but states could place strong penalties for any harms caused by dangerous products
And if you get seriously sickened by a product you then must have the resources to prove in court against a massive corporation that it was a specific drug, from one specific company that made you sick and that there's no chance it was any of the other totally unregulated and untested drugs from random sources that you've taken over the course of your lifetime that caused the problem. You'd also have to somehow trace a drug back to a manufacturer who could pop-up and vanish at a moments notice since nobody is keeping track of anything. Not ideal...
> 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.
We've fought tooth and nail for what few protections we have today while pharmaceutical companies have worked tirelessly to exploit and undermine that same system of regulations. With so much at stake, it makes sense that people would hesitate to throw away what progress we have made to try some new unproven thing, but you're right that our current system has its flaws so changes need to happen. What's important is that the end result of those changes makes us all safer and makes it harder for companies to get away with abuses.
As far as leaving everything up to individual states, I know that if I were a drug manufacturer it would be a hell of a lot less of a burden if I only had one set of rules to follow, only had to allow one group of inspectors into my facilities, only had one set of licensees I had to acquire and maintain, only had one place I had to report side effects and submit approvals to etc. Putting everything in the hands of one centralized agency that covers the entire nation is a huge win for drug companies and consumers who don't need to worry that the drug they pick up on one state isn't held to the same standards as a drug they pick up in another. Sometimes centralization is simply the most efficient way to handle something and it'd take a lot to demonstrate that decentralization would be an improvement for pretty much anybody.
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 government.
> Finally, we could offer no direct regulation, but states could place strong penalties for any harms caused by dangerous products
And if you get seriously sickened by a product you then must have the resources to prove in court against a massive corporation that it was a specific drug, from one specific company that made you sick and that there's no chance it was any of the other totally unregulated and untested drugs from random sources that you've taken over the course of your lifetime that caused the problem. You'd also have to somehow trace a drug back to a manufacturer who could pop-up and vanish at a moments notice since nobody is keeping track of anything. Not ideal...
> 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.
We've fought tooth and nail for what few protections we have today while pharmaceutical companies have worked tirelessly to exploit and undermine that same system of regulations. With so much at stake, it makes sense that people would hesitate to throw away what progress we have made to try some new unproven thing, but you're right that our current system has its flaws so changes need to happen. What's important is that the end result of those changes makes us all safer and makes it harder for companies to get away with abuses.
As far as leaving everything up to individual states, I know that if I were a drug manufacturer it would be a hell of a lot less of a burden if I only had one set of rules to follow, only had to allow one group of inspectors into my facilities, only had one set of licensees I had to acquire and maintain, only had one place I had to report side effects and submit approvals to etc. Putting everything in the hands of one centralized agency that covers the entire nation is a huge win for drug companies and consumers who don't need to worry that the drug they pick up on one state isn't held to the same standards as a drug they pick up in another. Sometimes centralization is simply the most efficient way to handle something and it'd take a lot to demonstrate that decentralization would be an improvement for pretty much anybody.
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
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 gotten off the ground. We would have whole above board industries for recreational drugs which would just be "agriculture" instead of black markets and cartels. Government couldn't touch birth control, PrEP, or whatever bs de jour they want to ban. People wouldn't have to worry about living with chronic pain because they get labeled as a drug seeker.
The war on drugs would have never gotten off the ground. We would have whole above board industries for recreational drugs which would just be "agriculture" instead of black markets and cartels. Government couldn't touch birth control, PrEP, or whatever bs de jour they want to ban. People wouldn't have to worry about living with chronic pain because they get labeled as a drug seeker.
Based on your proposed framework, the war on drugs people would just have to declare certain things unsafe to consume.
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.
> 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.
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.
The 9th amendment is, unfortunately, completely useless in the current political climate, because what is an 'obvious natural right' that can be 'discovered' by the courts, is completely in the eye of the beholder. And right now, the beholder is on the payroll of evangelical reactionaries.
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...
https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibit...
https://time.com/5501680/prohibition-history-feminism-suffra...
Uh, that’s not exactly a complete picture. Prohibition also allowed the mafia to gain a foothold in the US.
In the same sense so did police officers and departments that looked the other way.
Has nothing to do with the fact that prohibition reduced drinking and domestic violence sharply.
It also resulted in the rise of gangsters like Al Capone.
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 worst impulses for their greater good, like parents do for their unknowing child?
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.
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.
> If you have money, opioids are easily available via dealers throughout the world and there is no epidemic of addicts.
Most people don't know a dealer, and don't have the confidence to try to find one without worrying about the risk of contacting a narc or a tattletale or in some other ways destroying their lives because of the legal system.
Hurdles matter. It's like common sense gun control- red flag laws, waiting periods, assault weapon bans, etc. None of those things make it impossible to have a mass shooting - but they make it a little harder, and that will stop a certain percentage of people.
Dangerous drugs like opioids should be available, cheaply, by prescription only, and "addiction" should be a sufficient reason for the prescription. This makes the safe and secure drug source the correct choice for vulnerable addicts, still lets us drive the black market and drug cartels out of business, it prevents crazy impulse purchases, and the requirement to renew your prescription periodically gives you a chance for a responsible adult to non-judgmentally offer you resources for achieving sobriety. It's a win-win-win, guaranteed to lower death tolls and crime rates, but unlikely to increase the number of addicts.
Most people don't know a dealer, and don't have the confidence to try to find one without worrying about the risk of contacting a narc or a tattletale or in some other ways destroying their lives because of the legal system.
Hurdles matter. It's like common sense gun control- red flag laws, waiting periods, assault weapon bans, etc. None of those things make it impossible to have a mass shooting - but they make it a little harder, and that will stop a certain percentage of people.
Dangerous drugs like opioids should be available, cheaply, by prescription only, and "addiction" should be a sufficient reason for the prescription. This makes the safe and secure drug source the correct choice for vulnerable addicts, still lets us drive the black market and drug cartels out of business, it prevents crazy impulse purchases, and the requirement to renew your prescription periodically gives you a chance for a responsible adult to non-judgmentally offer you resources for achieving sobriety. It's a win-win-win, guaranteed to lower death tolls and crime rates, but unlikely to increase the number of addicts.
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, Glock, AR-15, automatic rifle, RPG, cannon, tank, land mines, nuclear warhead
If there's even one thing on the above list that you'd not want to be automatically OK for every person in the world to own and operate (at least on a "until you hurt someone" basis), then you're putting an arbitrary limit which values "preventing likely harms to others" over absolute autonomy.
Even if you'd allow the warhead I don't think either of us can be said to be 'right' or 'wrong' -- just that it's most productive if we acknowledge which "paramount value" (perfect freedom vs. reduction in predictable harms to innocent others) we are prioritizing, and acknowledge that we have to make a significant sacrifice in the other one in order to do that.
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, Glock, AR-15, automatic rifle, RPG, cannon, tank, land mines, nuclear warhead
If there's even one thing on the above list that you'd not want to be automatically OK for every person in the world to own and operate (at least on a "until you hurt someone" basis), then you're putting an arbitrary limit which values "preventing likely harms to others" over absolute autonomy.
Even if you'd allow the warhead I don't think either of us can be said to be 'right' or 'wrong' -- just that it's most productive if we acknowledge which "paramount value" (perfect freedom vs. reduction in predictable harms to innocent others) we are prioritizing, and acknowledge that we have to make a significant sacrifice in the other one in order to do that.
The line is relatively clear to me - is it easy or not to harm others?
With opioids not really, not easier than with rat poison.
With guns it's super easy, so they should be regulated.
I would not limit your freedom which allows you to hurt yourself, but I would limit your freedom which allows you to hurt me, because that would limit my freedom. Worry about yourself and your loved ones, leave my wellbeing to me.
With opioids not really, not easier than with rat poison.
With guns it's super easy, so they should be regulated.
I would not limit your freedom which allows you to hurt yourself, but I would limit your freedom which allows you to hurt me, because that would limit my freedom. Worry about yourself and your loved ones, leave my wellbeing to me.
I mean if you offered me the full auto gun or a tank I’d not be so impolite as to refuse
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
Not to mention, do people use biological weapons recreationally? That's news to me
Nah, I started out putting things in order from most legally allowed to most harshly punished/seen although it looks like I did organize the opioids more via badness.
I definitely think cannabis is less harmful than alcohol.
I definitely think cannabis is less harmful than alcohol.
> 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.
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.
Please explain the mechanism by which cannabis causes DNA damage when consumed in the same quantity as alcohol. When you match recreational dose, it doesn't. There is a slight possibility of free radicals in smoke causing DNA damage but that is incredibly minor compared to alcohol and can be avoided with different methods of consumption. You can't avoid the DNA damage of alcohol at any dose or method of consumption
The word I was responding to was "harmful", with no further specification. I stand by what I wrote, and don't feel the need to try to explain a point I wasn't making.
So then what is the mechanism of harm, if you can't state what the mechanism is then what is the reason to believe the statement?
Anyone can just claim something is "harmful" but if they can't really state how then why is there any reason to believe the statement
Anyone can just claim something is "harmful" but if they can't really state how then why is there any reason to believe the statement
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2022/04/marijuana-hea...
> People who use marijuana have an increased risk of heart disease and heart attack, according to a large study led by researchers at Stanford Medicine.
> The study also showed that the psychoactive component of the drug, known as THC, causes inflammation in endothelial cells that line the interior of blood vessels, as well as atherosclerosis in laboratory mice.
> The inflammation and atherosclerosis can be blocked by a small molecule called genistein that occurs naturally in soy and fava beans, the researchers found. Because genistein has limited brain penetration, it doesn’t inhibit THC’s ability to stimulate appetite, dull pain and tamp down nausea — characteristics vital to medicinal marijuana users.
...> I expect we will begin to see a rise in heart attacks and strokes in the coming years.
If you go the Fava bean route, know that it can cause illness in some people. Soy is safer, and purified genistein (available as a supplement) probably safer still.
> People who use marijuana have an increased risk of heart disease and heart attack, according to a large study led by researchers at Stanford Medicine.
> The study also showed that the psychoactive component of the drug, known as THC, causes inflammation in endothelial cells that line the interior of blood vessels, as well as atherosclerosis in laboratory mice.
> The inflammation and atherosclerosis can be blocked by a small molecule called genistein that occurs naturally in soy and fava beans, the researchers found. Because genistein has limited brain penetration, it doesn’t inhibit THC’s ability to stimulate appetite, dull pain and tamp down nausea — characteristics vital to medicinal marijuana users.
...> I expect we will begin to see a rise in heart attacks and strokes in the coming years.
If you go the Fava bean route, know that it can cause illness in some people. Soy is safer, and purified genistein (available as a supplement) probably safer still.
> opioids are easily available via dealers throughout the world and there is no epidemic of addicts
There is absolutely an epidemic of opioid addicts.
There is absolutely an epidemic of opioid addicts.
Let's agree to disagree.
They are already available on street corners, snapchat, and the darkweb. With no authority to ensure what dosage the illicitly manufactured pressed-pills have.
Sure, but the fraction of people who would go out of their way to access these is presumably small(er), especially those who havent yet tried them and who would nt jump through so many hoops to acquire them if they dont know their effect.
I know I'm happy certain drugs aren't easily available.
I know I'm happy certain drugs aren't easily available.
The reality is that many people use drugs, likely yourself included, and they are dying from this unregulated market. Prohibition is taking lives and making addiction worse. Whether some x percentage of people may be dissuaded from using drugs is not at issue. in my mind the harm from unclean supply is much greater.
Banning doesn't fix that, the allure is still there.
Teaching what addiction is like is much better at curbing it.
The easiest way to do that is to have someone hold their breath as long as possible until their body is screaming for air each time, for about half an hour.
Because that is what drug addiction is like, and taking the drug is like taking that breath of air, instant relief, until you run out of air again and you're in hell waiting for the next fix. Over and over. Never ending.
I'd say films like Trainspotting did a much better job at stopping heroin than any outright ban ever did.
Teaching what addiction is like is much better at curbing it.
The easiest way to do that is to have someone hold their breath as long as possible until their body is screaming for air each time, for about half an hour.
Because that is what drug addiction is like, and taking the drug is like taking that breath of air, instant relief, until you run out of air again and you're in hell waiting for the next fix. Over and over. Never ending.
I'd say films like Trainspotting did a much better job at stopping heroin than any outright ban ever did.
Trainspotting made heroin more cool and increased usage. What worked was culture shifting to other new cooler drugs without the baggage of a needle.
> 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.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Burroughs
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]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Burroughs
I hear what you're saying, and generally I agree. But then I also see how alcohol (which for all intents and purposes will be our stand-in for opioids) abuse has ripped apart lives and families.
No.
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.
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 don’t know about that. For another perspective, if alcohol and nicotine became illegal then the amount of alcohol and nicotine consumed would go down. Not to zero, but it wouldn’t stay the same. We’ve already seen evidence of this during prohibition and in areas where the legal age to buy nicotine has been raised.
Prohibition has become known as a failure because there was still a vibrant underground alcohol trade, but it didn’t mean that everyone continued drinking at the same rate. It really did reduce alcohol consumption.
Prohibition has become known as a failure because there was still a vibrant underground alcohol trade, but it didn’t mean that everyone continued drinking at the same rate. It really did reduce alcohol consumption.
> Prohibition has become known as a failure because there was still a vibrant underground alcohol trade, but it didn’t mean that everyone continued drinking at the same rate. It really did reduce alcohol consumption.
Mostly, after the brief sharp drop to around 30% of pre-Prohibition levels, just the much smaller (consumption at around 60-70% of pre-Prohibition levels) effects of the de facto tax collected by organized crime that prohibition imposed (“Changes in consumption were modest given the change in price. This suggests that legal deterrents had little effect on limiting consumption outside of their effect on price. Social pressure and respect for the law did not go far in reducing consumption during prohibition”.) [0]
And, both nicotine and alcohol have substantial regular taxes now, which serve the same purpose without fuelling organized crime, so prohibition would just redirect funds from the public coffers to criminal enterprise.
[0] https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3675/w3675... , p. 8
Mostly, after the brief sharp drop to around 30% of pre-Prohibition levels, just the much smaller (consumption at around 60-70% of pre-Prohibition levels) effects of the de facto tax collected by organized crime that prohibition imposed (“Changes in consumption were modest given the change in price. This suggests that legal deterrents had little effect on limiting consumption outside of their effect on price. Social pressure and respect for the law did not go far in reducing consumption during prohibition”.) [0]
And, both nicotine and alcohol have substantial regular taxes now, which serve the same purpose without fuelling organized crime, so prohibition would just redirect funds from the public coffers to criminal enterprise.
[0] https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3675/w3675... , p. 8
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.
> humans have been drug consumers for millennia
I don’t find this argument convincing at all in the modern era. Synthetic drugs and even commercialized organic drugs are significantly more potent than anything that could be found a century ago.
Synthetic cannabinoids are vastly more addictive and dangerous than cannabis ever could be, for example. Synthetic drugs like MPDV are known to produce compulsive redosing even in people who could moderate their intake of traditional drugs like cocaine.
You can’t compare what’s available now to historic drugs.
I don’t find this argument convincing at all in the modern era. Synthetic drugs and even commercialized organic drugs are significantly more potent than anything that could be found a century ago.
Synthetic cannabinoids are vastly more addictive and dangerous than cannabis ever could be, for example. Synthetic drugs like MPDV are known to produce compulsive redosing even in people who could moderate their intake of traditional drugs like cocaine.
You can’t compare what’s available now to historic drugs.
At a minimum, regulation is still needed, with criminals penalties for violating the regulations. Civil suits can only reach so far.
Make the really hard stuff only available by prescription.
Make the really hard stuff only available by prescription.
People who drink too much do even more damage to their bodies and brains than any other drug so that argument is nonsense
> 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.
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.
Alcohol is a drug that very often produces long lasting damage or even death in experienced users who believe to be drinking responsibly. In fact, it causes long lasting damage to a very significant portion of its users.
One unique aspect of alcohol when compared to other recreational drugs is the fact that its metabolite, acetaldehyde, damages DNA, it's a well known carcinogen. Ethanol itself also disrupts DNA methylation
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, <when used to treat severe chronic pain> 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.
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, <when used to treat severe chronic pain> 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.
But definitely isn't worse than alcohol and fentanyl and 6MAM are both used medically. The damage from krokodil, as you mention, is from the impurities. Not to mention, krokodil wouldn't even be a thing if people had access to the usual schedule 1 substances
> krokodil wouldn't even be a thing if people had access to the usual schedule 1 substances
...at a price they can afford. Otherwise it still would be a thing, regardless of schedule 1 legality.
...at a price they can afford. Otherwise it still would be a thing, regardless of schedule 1 legality.
One of the reasons those drugs are expensive is because of the illegality. In states with permissive cannabis laws the prices have fallen enormously. Not to mention people could easily grow poppies if it were legal to do so and extract the latex
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.
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.
I agree that comparisons are generally a poor way to go about it but I think the "alcohol is actually really bad" point needs to be mentioned because many people do think it's okay and fine just because it's legal
Yes, I agree here. I think the potential for abuse is really underplayed. "middle class drinking" is often actually functional alcoholism here in the UK.
Societal harm
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...
https://www.nytimes.com/1914/02/08/archives/negro-cocaine-fi...
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
> 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
"This thing is inherently too risky/dangerous to use ... like firing a gun off into the air"
This is dead wrong, and an extremely ignorant take.
Firing a gun into the air is ill-advised and illegal because such bullets have a tendency to randomly impact and maim or murder bystanders within the radius of a couple of miles.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/15/firi...
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2011/03/can-falling-bull...
Firing a gun into the air is ill-advised and illegal because such bullets have a tendency to randomly impact and maim or murder bystanders within the radius of a couple of miles.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/15/firi...
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2011/03/can-falling-bull...
Yeah, firing a gun into the dirt is much safer. If you have a giggle switch make sure you can handle the recoil, otherwise you might shoot yourself or someone else in the foot.
I'm telling you what the argument is. Not endorsing it. That's why its in quotes.
Isn't the whole objection that it might hurt others?
My understanding is in the US it's just regulation of commerce, there is no actual prohibition on the existence of a chemical compound in your bloodstream
Because the 9th and 10th Amendments are effectively non-existent in jurisprudence for the last century or two.
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.
Dosage, and possibly method of consumption, which has an effect or people would never have invented freebasing or snorting. Herbs also have many other components, which may have pharmacological effect, while drugs do not have those components.
That's a modern, western distinction tho. In many cultures plants, mushrooms, and other substances are considered straight up medicine, sometimes mixed with other things, usually surrounded by ritual.
The point I was trying to make is that a "drug" is typically highly purified and a standardized single component, or at most a mix of highly purified components. Herbs, as medicine, are complex and variable.
Even with highly debased street drugs they're missing the additional herbal components.
Even with highly debased street drugs they're missing the additional herbal components.
Is it tho? It's not uncommon to mix weed with herbs, it's called a spliff. Ayahuasca is a combination of substances, would you not consider modern ayahuasca consumption as a drug? Mushrooms are often mixed with lemon juice.
Plus what's the point of making the distinction? And you mentioned that people in the past wouldn't snort drugs, and that's false, there's native tribes that would make powder out of seeds and snort them.
Plus what's the point of making the distinction? And you mentioned that people in the past wouldn't snort drugs, and that's false, there's native tribes that would make powder out of seeds and snort them.
"Weed" is an "herb". The "drugs" in weed are THC and the cannabinols/oids.
> would you not consider modern ayahuasca consumption as a drug
From the context of what I wrote, obviously not. In colloquial usage, I would call it a drug, but I was obviously making a distinction here.
> Plus what's the point of making the distinction?
The context and particularities of what I was saying is the point!!!!!!!!!!
Herbs do not naturally standardize their active compounds. These compounds are subject to variable expression based on the genetics, environmental conditions in which they are grown, and time of harvest. Purified drugs, and even some herb-based supplements, are standardized. Even when they're being debased on the street, they're being debased in the batch in a standard manner (assuming they were well mixed, of course).
> and that's false, there's native tribes that would make powder out of seeds and snort them.
Thanks for letting me know. I don't see that this fact detracts from the larger point I'm making. Please stop nitpicking and try to see the larger point I was trying to make. I'm not trying to have an argument here, I'm trying to have a discussion.
> would you not consider modern ayahuasca consumption as a drug
From the context of what I wrote, obviously not. In colloquial usage, I would call it a drug, but I was obviously making a distinction here.
> Plus what's the point of making the distinction?
The context and particularities of what I was saying is the point!!!!!!!!!!
Herbs do not naturally standardize their active compounds. These compounds are subject to variable expression based on the genetics, environmental conditions in which they are grown, and time of harvest. Purified drugs, and even some herb-based supplements, are standardized. Even when they're being debased on the street, they're being debased in the batch in a standard manner (assuming they were well mixed, of course).
> and that's false, there's native tribes that would make powder out of seeds and snort them.
Thanks for letting me know. I don't see that this fact detracts from the larger point I'm making. Please stop nitpicking and try to see the larger point I was trying to make. I'm not trying to have an argument here, I'm trying to have a discussion.
So you're basically conflating "drug" = "molecule".
I see the point better now, but I still think the distinction is misguided. In a clinical context, dosage is more accurate, that's true, but this is not a distinction to be made between "pure molecule" and "herbs" in any other context.
For example if you use a scale for mushrooms, which under this idionsycratic distinction would be more of a "herb" than a "drug" (the drug counterpart being the psilocybin molecule), then dosage would likely be more accurate than a tab of LSD, because you really have no way of knowing how much LSD is in there.
In other words yes, the natural variance and additional components within "natural" drugs exists, but it is not inherent that this variance is significantly more than that of what you can get with synthetic drugs, specially if you consider that there's likely less hands between a person growing a plant/mushroom, and a chemist making something fairly difficult such as LSD.
This is not nitpicking, rather elaborating on the context, and trying to illustrate that the distinction you are making is only really applicable to comparing a clinical to a non-clinical setting, and it's not something inherent to the origin of the molecules.
I see the point better now, but I still think the distinction is misguided. In a clinical context, dosage is more accurate, that's true, but this is not a distinction to be made between "pure molecule" and "herbs" in any other context.
For example if you use a scale for mushrooms, which under this idionsycratic distinction would be more of a "herb" than a "drug" (the drug counterpart being the psilocybin molecule), then dosage would likely be more accurate than a tab of LSD, because you really have no way of knowing how much LSD is in there.
In other words yes, the natural variance and additional components within "natural" drugs exists, but it is not inherent that this variance is significantly more than that of what you can get with synthetic drugs, specially if you consider that there's likely less hands between a person growing a plant/mushroom, and a chemist making something fairly difficult such as LSD.
This is not nitpicking, rather elaborating on the context, and trying to illustrate that the distinction you are making is only really applicable to comparing a clinical to a non-clinical setting, and it's not something inherent to the origin of the molecules.
Fair enough.
For anyone interested in the kind of drugs involved here:
>The analysis showed the presence of atropine, scopolamine and ephedrine in the three replicated hair samples (Fig. 5) at the following concentrations: 6.7, 9.2, and 10.7 (mean = 8.9) pg atropine/mg hair, 384, 423 and 504 (mean = 437) pg scopolamine/mg hair, and 295, 328 and 367 (mean = 330) pg ephedrine/mg hair.
Drug use in the broadest sense.
Atropine and scopolamine are no fun drugs as deliriants they require extraordinary skill. In this case the ratio of atropine:scopolamine could be indicative of Datura stramonium [0] growing in the region.
Most recreational drug users who try to experiment with Datura et al. quickly realize after "waking up" ~ 24 hours or so totally disoriented in questionable disposition with little to no memory with what had happened that it is nearly impossible to put them into "good use" and leave it be at some point. Regular use is mostly documented by highly experienced shamans (i.e. experienced in different forms of altered state of consciousness).
[As a note aside: In 1934 Bill Wilson a struggling alcoholic and later founder of AA had a transformative experience under the heavy influence of atropine and scopolamine ("Belladonna Cure") after which he became sober:
>At Towns Hospital under Silkworth's care, Wilson was administered a drug cure concocted by Charles B. Towns. Known as the Belladonna Cure, it contained belladonna (Atropa belladonna) and henbane (Hyoscyamus niger). These plants contain deliriants, such as atropine and scopolamine, that cause hallucinations.
It was while undergoing this treatment that Wilson experienced his "Hot Flash" spiritual conversion. While lying in bed depressed and despairing, Wilson cried out: "I'll do anything! Anything at all! If there be a God, let Him show Himself!" He then had the sensation of a bright light, a feeling of ecstasy, and a new serenity.] [1]
Ephedrine on the other hand is a stimulant (methamphetamine analogue with a hydroxyl group at the β position), now mostly used by bodybuilders in much higher doses (an order of magnitude higher than measured in the hairs above) to effectively burn fat.
[0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datura_stramonium
[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Alcoholics_Anonym...
>The analysis showed the presence of atropine, scopolamine and ephedrine in the three replicated hair samples (Fig. 5) at the following concentrations: 6.7, 9.2, and 10.7 (mean = 8.9) pg atropine/mg hair, 384, 423 and 504 (mean = 437) pg scopolamine/mg hair, and 295, 328 and 367 (mean = 330) pg ephedrine/mg hair.
Drug use in the broadest sense.
Atropine and scopolamine are no fun drugs as deliriants they require extraordinary skill. In this case the ratio of atropine:scopolamine could be indicative of Datura stramonium [0] growing in the region.
Most recreational drug users who try to experiment with Datura et al. quickly realize after "waking up" ~ 24 hours or so totally disoriented in questionable disposition with little to no memory with what had happened that it is nearly impossible to put them into "good use" and leave it be at some point. Regular use is mostly documented by highly experienced shamans (i.e. experienced in different forms of altered state of consciousness).
[As a note aside: In 1934 Bill Wilson a struggling alcoholic and later founder of AA had a transformative experience under the heavy influence of atropine and scopolamine ("Belladonna Cure") after which he became sober:
>At Towns Hospital under Silkworth's care, Wilson was administered a drug cure concocted by Charles B. Towns. Known as the Belladonna Cure, it contained belladonna (Atropa belladonna) and henbane (Hyoscyamus niger). These plants contain deliriants, such as atropine and scopolamine, that cause hallucinations.
It was while undergoing this treatment that Wilson experienced his "Hot Flash" spiritual conversion. While lying in bed depressed and despairing, Wilson cried out: "I'll do anything! Anything at all! If there be a God, let Him show Himself!" He then had the sensation of a bright light, a feeling of ecstasy, and a new serenity.] [1]
Ephedrine on the other hand is a stimulant (methamphetamine analogue with a hydroxyl group at the β position), now mostly used by bodybuilders in much higher doses (an order of magnitude higher than measured in the hairs above) to effectively burn fat.
[0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datura_stramonium
[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Alcoholics_Anonym...
It looks like Graham Hancock's Supernatural may not be complete fiction after all!
I loved his books when I was a kid - but with serious grains of salt, obviously.
I loved his books when I was a kid - but with serious grains of salt, obviously.
It's human nature to want to alter our consciousness. This just proves we've been doing it for millennia. Whether it's via caffeine or opium.
Some say that Helen mixes opium into the wine early in the Odyssey.
> 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 [in human hair]
> The results furnish direct evidence of the consumption of plant drugs and, more interestingly, they reveal the use of multiple psychoactive species.
Basically, we have long discovered "drug paraphernalia" and other adjacent materials, suggesting drug use (namely cannabis, tobacco, various psychoactive mushrooms, opium, various stimulants like areca and ephedra, deliriants like Datura, and of course alcohol). But we haven't known for sure that these meant the drugs were consumed recreationally/medicinally. This gives direct evidence the drugs were in fact consumed deliberately.
tl;dr - Homo sapiens got high.