I get the impression that people who have tried drugs before are incredulous that there exist people who are simply apathetic about the whole experience.
I get the impression that people who have tried drugs before are incredulous that there exist people who are simply apathetic about the whole experience.
I personally have met a fair number of people who claim to have the same or similar beliefs about this as you. But every single one who I've had a friendly conversation with about it has turned out to not be apathetic or even close. It has always been some combination of fear of loss of control, some desire to stay "pure" or an ideological commitment to the fact that these things are "bad" because they got told so as children.
I ask whenever I can, and I ask in the most friendly, non-judgmental way possible because in my experience the average reaction to someone saying what you said is much more aggressive and confrontational than merely "incredulous". But I ask because I'm honestly very curious about this. It seems so odd to categorically state that there are some perfectly safe experiences you are positive that you will never try. Are there other experiences you feel the same way about? ("I never have, and never plan to try eating Greek food, it's because of apathy" for example)
If in the future you are in an accident or require chemotherapy or something that involves you being exposed to drugs that have an effect that you enjoy and find fulfilling/useful/pleasurable and you could experience that again, with negligible risk of any adverse effects would you do so?
Part of it is, I think, that I know I have addictive tendencies and don't want to give them any chances. I drink alcohol strictly on social occasions only - but when I do, I drink more than I should. Sometimes I catch myself going to parties less because I'll enjoy the company than as an excuse to drink. Heck, it's hard enough keeping my coffee intake under control.
Part of it is simple snobbery. The most surprising thing about Amsterdam's "coffee shops", to me, was how divey they all looked; boarded-up windows, overflowing rubbish bins, alongside tanning parlours and tattoo/piercing shops. Nowhere seemed sophisticated, intellectual. (Oddly enough, this was in complete contrast to the brothels). My mental image of drug users (with the possible exception of cocaine, and there are other reasons to avoid that) is of a class and culture that I don't want to associate myself with - and the few users I know personally align closely with this stereotype.
But I don't think either of those fully captures my rationale, and I'd be interested to hear more thoughts on the subject. I do though think the point needs to be made that many people don't feel the need to try drugs, and while their reasons against may be incoherent or poorly thought out, it's not that they have particularly strong feelings against drugs so much as that trying them just doesn't seem that important.
Basically, the reason I don't try drugs (I hope the sense I am using that word can be inferred), is because of my chemical engineering and research background. Every chemical (e.g. anything) you ingest has a certain effect on your body. I feel that with some drugs (marijuana, cocaine, etc.), there is a higher probability of a long-term negative effect. Is this actually the case? I don't know. But I know that science is at no position right now to answer the question as we only know with certainty the effects and mechanisms of the most basic chemical reactions. All of the subtle interactions with something as complex as the human body are nearly impossible to ascertain. What study could one possibly devise that would rule out so many confounding factors?
So, for something like marijuana, there may in fact be no long term effects. But when it's easy (at least for me) to not try it, I just don't see there being any benefit for myself. Others, obviously, see the risk/reward ratio as being more favorable.
Does that fit the use of the word "apathetic"? I think so. Maybe you think another word is more suitable. I am as apathetic to drug use as I am about skydiving, or tightrope walking, or running in a lightning storm. I'm simply indifferent to these activities because I don't see any reward they would provide me.
This is not apathy, this is being cautious or heedful to the possible damage to your body. I am quite sure there is enough evidence that trying psilocybin or marijuana ONCE is not going to damage your body in the long term. So considering that, if you dont go ahead and try even once, there has to be some element of fear in there.
Its a wonderfully complex organ sitting in my head and I dont want to die before experiencing(atleast once) what all "realities" it can offer.
So... where is this evidence? Maybe that's the case (no one can say for sure yet), but it's not something I want to risk, even if the risk is low. That's fine that you want to experience all that reality offers, but I am simply disinterested in that particular experience. I'm sure there's many experiences you care little in being a part of even though many people find it enjoyable. (For instance, I like going on long runs by myself. And there's certainly a risk of getting hit by a car. Most people would like nothing to do with such an event.)
I think a large amount of the incredulity in responses is a combination of being surprised someone would be disinterested in a entire class of relatively safe experiences (I share that feeling) combined with an understanding that your risk analysis is off.
Why is my risk analysis off? I'm not really sure how with a topic that doesn't have a hard scientific backing, your risk assessment gets more "priority" over mine. You can't weigh different people's probabilities (guesses) with your own probabilities and assume them to be any more correct. We'd have all kinds of nonsensical disagreements if that was the case.
Too much coffee doesn't do good stuff either.
I'm told there's a medically used drug? electrical tool? that is used in certain high-pain situations where it literally wipes your memory of high-spike pain (It erases the last few seconds or something). I don't want that either. I'd rather take the pain...
Generally, these things do things to my mind that I really don't like. I can only presume (based upon a decent amount of reading on the matter) LSD & other 'hardcore' hallucinogens will do similar things, but more in depth.
Take into account the actual effects and remove social stigma and legal ramifications, and the substances I'd be ok with for my children would be different than current norms.
Also, I've known quite a few people who have never had a drink, smoked pot, etc., and I respect their desires. Bit even they drank coffee or tea, or used other substances that alter mood or perception.
No, actually. Both smell gross to me; I don't plan on trying either.
... but I do like Monsters.
I see what your point is, but the paragraph I am referring to in the article specifically mentions marijuana. He uses the more conventional use of the word "drug" in that paragraph, and so I am simply continuing that usage than the more general form he was using in the rest of the article. Surely so many HN readers aren't getting caught up on these semantic distinctions throughout the article?
So, semantics aside... I have two daughters myself. Personally I'm fine with them using mood/perception altering substances in a responsible manner. Or not, according to their druthers.
The thing is, some substances have effects that go beyond the timeframe of any possible pharmacological effect. To have the experience of seeing things "fresh" as if through the eyes of a child is to know, experientially, that such a thing is possible as an adult. Truly knowing it's possible, one might occasionally make the effort to just look and experience, with fewer filters than is typical. This is a real and beneficial ability. Drugs are not the only way to get there, but they are one way.
Uhm, he specifically mentions tea, coffee and alcohol, right in the third phrase of that paragraph.
Seriously? Your profile suggests you're friendlier than your comments do.
What is the point of this comment? I already clarified what I meant to say plenty of times. I don't know what "goalpost-moving" is. I'm sure you know I was referring specifically to marijuana... since I said as much.
That was part of the point of the article.
I mean, man, LSD is no joke, that will take you places that an ocean of coffee won't help you reach. Of course, ideally we don't reach for anything.
OTOH LSD seems to be non- or low- addictive but coffee will get you hooked and give you withdrawals.
They're all mind altering drugs. Each thing is different. Some find value in them that others don't.
LSD is not physically addictive whatsoever.
A book can alter your mind more than any drugs. So what's your point?
You might be surprised...
No, it's nothing like that.
It's more like someone who claims never to have programmed a computer, right after saying they've written shell scripts and python applications and what they mean is they haven't written any Ruby or Java yet.
>> A book can alter your mind more than any drugs. So what's your point?
That saying "I find it odd that the author of the article assumes his daughter is going to try drugs one day. Personally, I never have" is silly when he has actually taken drugs, particularly some of the ones that are referenced in the very section of the essay he's talking about.
, he argued from ignorance.
Yes, it was. But that wasn't the point of the paragraph I was referring to. Shall I cite it?
Just because you've never used recreational, illegal drugs does not mean you've never used drugs. This artificial separation that people make is a major part of the reason we can't have a sensible discussion on the topic.
Beyond this, it's not unreasonable to assume that someone with an inquisitive mind will want to try things. Hell, nearly everyone tries tea and coffee. Nearly everyone tries drink, and nearly everyone tries weed these days. MDMA is having a mass resurgence amongst people in their 30s and 40s at the moment.
Maybe not all people will, but many will, and I get the impression he doesn't want his daughter limited by taboos and social mores but well informed and able to make her own rational choices. And as someone who obviously feels psychedelics to be an important life experience (personally I think they're overrated) he may even encourage his daughter to try them safely, and I don't see a problem with that.
The first sentences: I have a daughter who will one day take drugs. Of course, I will do everything in my power to see that she chooses her drugs wisely, but a life without drugs is neither foreseeable, nor, I think, desirable.
The first example of how taking drugs might be desirable, in the very next sentence: "Someday, I hope she enjoys a morning cup of tea or coffee as much as I do."
He continues with other example of his position on various drugs she might take: alcohol, nicotine, cannabis, psychedelics, narcotics. In the paragraph, "drugs" encompasses all of them.
The point is that the only line between what people call "drugs" and other mind-altering substances that people don't call "drugs" is a largely arbitrary legal one.
So I'm curious about your stance - being "simply apathetic about the whole experience". What experience exactly are you apathetic about? You said you know people who "don't even drink", so I assume you aren't one of them and do drink. You like Monster. So what's the distinguishing factor that only "drugs" offer that you are apathetic towards?
The majority of people have felt the effects of alcohol, and most of those have been properly drunk at some point - so they know what it's like to take something which profoundly and very noticeably affects their consciousness.
If a drinker says "I just don't understand the appeal in taking drugs", the implication is that there's some property common to illegal drugs that alcohol doesn't share. There's not; the only characteristic common to all illegal drugs is that they alter consciousness, and they absolutely share that characteristic with legal substances like alcohol, caffeine, etc.
The argument is not meant to equate LSD with caffeine; just to demonstrate that taking illegal drugs is not some categorically different thing to taking legal drugs. Once you break down that distinction, what's left to argue about is the pros and cons of each individual substance, which is IMO a Good Thing.
I just think that saying "I've never done drugs" while at the same time admitting drinking alcohol is kinda silly.
Some of the 'drugs' the guy talks about in the section about his daughter are caffeinated drinks and alcohol.
I also happen to think that these false distinctions (marijuana is a drug, alcohol isn't, oxycodone is different because it's a doctor-drug) do the debate a lot of harm.
I'm not saying you're wrong, mind.
I would be personally be much more inclined to believing the scientists whose entire career is the study of these illegal substances rather than the politicians who have to continue pushing the old ideals of "this is the line and we do not move the line because that would be an immoral attack on the fabric of society". Do you know why cannabis is known as marijuana? The reason is the old guard felt that cannabis was not foreign enough and changed it to something a wee bit more scary.
If you can put out a well reasoned argument against legalization then fine. If you will fall back to the standard catch all of 'its illegal!' then we have nothing discuss for you cannot present a reasonable argument.
edit: spelling error
Thanks to decades of propaganda...
Given how pragmatic Sam is about drug-taking, it would be fair to assume that his daughter will grow up with similar views and consider experimenting. My dad's experiences with/thoughts on psychedelic drugs were what paved the way for me to experiment. And because of my family's attitude towards mind-altering substances, I was able to experiment safely which was an encouraging factor.
He doesn't assume she's going to try all sorts of things at all. At least I didn't read that into anything he said.
I'm 29, and I've never tried alcohol or drugs aside from caffeine, and I have not had the same feelings of incredulity from anyone.
Also, I'd bet that our apathy comes from our never having experienced drugs, rather than some innate apathy to the idea.
Psychedelics are a tool to be used for self discovery, not some seedy thing only losers use. Maybe you are the one who is blinded by preconceptions here, not him.
You may think you've never used drugs but you have, you just don't understand the meaning of the word.
I'd try and think of "drugs" less like substances and more like vices. If you've ever used a vice to help yourself emotionally or physically you've taken drugs.
But he specifically mentioned alcohol and marijuana, to which I was referring.