Hacker News Reader

Comment by andyl | Hacker News Reader

The undertone I hear a lot is that drug use is beneficial, and would have positive effects on the population at large were it not for the outdated taboos of a backwards culture. If society was more rational and embraced drug use, then people could lead happier lives. The secret that people won't tell you (because of the taboos) is that drugs make you more successful in work and family life. If coffee is good then by extension amphetamines ought to be double-plus good.

Heavily paraphrasing here - I guess this is mostly a personal observation. I am curious to understand if I should explore drug use - if so many high-performers are drug users then maybe I should give it a try.

View on HN

Its an interesting point - well known high performers in many walks of life are documented drug users. To add to the list above, here are two more that im familiar with:

Stephen King has trouble recalling writing a number of his books during the eighties due to alcohol and cocaine abuse. [1]

Sigmund Freud was a cocaine abuser up until the point he started to become a more noted researcher [2]

[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1178151/Stephen...

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/books/review/an-anatomy-of...

Those undertones you hear are only giving you half the story: look at what happens to users. Cocaine was legal and used by the intelligentsia initially. Coca-Cola had cocaine; Sherlock Holmes took it to eliminate boredom. Prohibition in the U.S. was completely a moral-issue law, and was repealed a couple decades later. Cocaine is still illegal 100 years later. Why? Because society discovered that it doesn't turn out so well.

These "high-performers" mentioned by the parent post, do you want to live the lives they did? O. Henry died when he was 47, in part due to liver cirrhosis. [1] F. Scott Fitzgerald died when he was 44, in large part because of his drinking. [2] Frankly "The Great Gatsby" feels kind of dingy and depressing, and I, personally, do not want to have the kind of experiences in my life that would enable me to write such a book. Hemingway had four marriages and ended up committing suicide. [3] All the people I know that have been through a divorce describe it as extremely painful; to do it three times must leave a huge emotional scar. Is that the kind of "happier lives" you want to lead? Is it really high-performing to die at 44? How much greater could they have been if they weren't depressed, addicted, and/or lived twice as long? Have you read about the kind of lives alcoholics and their families have, let alone addicts of heavier drugs? Do you like being out of control (because when you are addicted, the addiction controls you, not the other way around)?

Be wise. Don't believe the lie that you would be free if only those taboos weren't holding you back. What if there is a very good reason those taboos are there?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._Henry

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._Scott_Fitzgerald

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Hemingway

You do know that cocaine in the US is still considered a Schedule II drug, meaning research is currently being conducted on its use in medical scenarios, whereas marijuana is a Schedule I and forbidden from authorized study? Ketamine may be known as a party drug, but it's also being tested in the treatment of PTSD. Research isn't always conducted in a lab, and some people are willing to be guinea pigs for a variety of personal reasons.

I didn't mention alcohol and those authors to make light of addiction, but to elaborate that even socially acceptable drugs can carry with them negative long-term outcomes. If you think for a minute that you'll achieve in your entire lifetime what O. Henry and F. Scott Fitzgerald did in <45 years - during the early 20th century when dietary input care standards were extremely lacking ("The Jungle") and medical science was barely out of primitive conditions (e.g. soap) - then by all means, lets see how much of an impact you've had on society at large. These were high performers who achieved heights that you can not begin to conceptualize with the outlook you've constructed.

It's like you totally ignored my caveats that every individual has individual tolerances, personality traits, or genetic factors which render drugs a risk-bearing proposition! You've made the very, very common mistake of assuming that without alcohol those writers would have been as uninhibited or determined to perform their art. It's like the "deal with the devil" that artists understand and fear - if doing something results in success, then along with it comes a lot of baggage to continue down that path.

You've done nothing but try and re-inforce that drugs such as alcohol lead to inevitable ruin, and completely glossed over the achievements those individuals did. Do you honestly think that O. Henry went to the bottle because it was his muse, or can you fathom the concept that the bottle was the way he coped with his insecurities as a pathway to actually doing something constructive with his life?

Wise up. Don't believe that you can cite Wikipedia and some friends who got divorced and use that to go toe-to-toe with somebody who has seen both the bright skies and pits of hell that is called life. What if you're part of the problem holding back our species?

I was curious if a HN reader could make an anti-drug argument, and you have written a nice one.

I've lost a lot of friends and family to drugs and alcohol - unfathomable damage. My best friend is using a lot of speed right now - I worry that he will be next. But damn he works like a tornado.

I've worked with tons of people who use drugs of some sort or another. My experience is that they perform fine until they don't. When they crack the bottom falls out and they're tossed into the rubbish pile without a second thought - disposable.

I can see the possibility that drugs could enhance your work performance. But can't see how drugs would help when trying to maintain relationships/kids/family.

Have you ever noticed that society tends to focus on the criminals who get caught, and rarely the ones who got away? A lifetime relationship with illicit substances is the same. Because of the taboo, nobody in their right mind who is successful, maintains life and family, and appears normal to the world would ever disclose what they do in their personal life and subject themselves to moralistic judgment. As in journalism, there are significant reasons to keep your confidential sources private.

Thanks for the compliment! I think you would be in a position to write an even more compelling argument. I think the best argument is stories about what actually happens. The promise of drugs is "more, now, for free." That might be more happiness, more productivity, whatever. The promise seems compelling, but it's important to know what the cost is. "More, now" is not as compelling when the price is "misery and destruction, later."

I encourage you to share your stories, if it isn't too painful. I think if you distill your observations, like your third paragraph, and illustrate them with some of your stories, it would be a compelling article.

HN wants people to toe the pro-drug line pretty closely. Hence your down votes.

I've had lots of friends and family killed by drugs and alcohol - I've got stories! But if you never had a negative experience, cautionary tales won't resonate.

I suppose evolution will sort things out in the long run, one way or another.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com