Hacker News Reader

Comment by Nursie | Hacker News Reader

If you've had a beer, or a cup of coffee, you've tried mind altering drugs.

That was part of the point of the article.

While true, it's quite a stretch to equate powerful hallucinogens with coffee (alcohol is another matter).

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.

Equate? Sure, they aren't equal. For instance I'd much rather be a passenger in a car with a driver who's had a regular, cup of coffee-sized dose of caffeine than with someone that's even had a little bit of LSD.

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.

Drug altering minds have trouble with coherence.

> OTOH LSD seems to be non- or low- addictive

LSD is not physically addictive whatsoever.

You're argument is like saying "you'll go over the speed limit some day, therefore you will be a criminal".

A book can alter your mind more than any drugs. So what's your point?

>A book can alter your mind more than any drugs. So what's your point?

You might be surprised...

>> "you'll go over the speed limit some day, therefore you will be a criminal".

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.

>A book can alter your mind more than any drugs.

, he argued from ignorance.

> That was part of the point of the article.

Yes, it was. But that wasn't the point of the paragraph I was referring to. Shall I cite it?

Yet you still say "I never have" while using the term "drugs", when clearly you have used some drugs.

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.

I really think you should re-read that paragraph - using "drugs" to include caffeine, nicotine and alcohol is exactly the point. I'll cite it.

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?

This is such a dumb argument. People say "drug" isn't a meaningful classification because it mixes different categories of substances, and in the next sentence they're equating coffee with LSD, apparently to defend the use of the latter.

Who's equating or defending anything?

I just think that saying "I've never done drugs" while at the same time admitting drinking alcohol is kinda silly.

It may be silly, but I bet 99% will understand that he meant the illegal stuff.

>> I find it odd that the author of the article assumes his daughter is going to try drugs one day. Personally, I never have...

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.

"It may be silly, but I bet 99% will understand that he meant the illegal stuff."

Thanks to decades of propaganda...

Why are things illegal? In the most purely naive idea, it is because government is supposed to prevent us from damaging ourselves. Tobacco and liquor are damaging things, they are literally poisons. Caffeine is also damaging.

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.

I never said it should or shouldn't be illegal. I'm saying that if you use the word "drugs" the way it was used in the parent, then 99% of everyone will understand it as being referred to illegal drugs.

edit: spelling error

Right, but the article and the rest of us are saying that that is arbitrary and unhelpful and we really ought to stop it if we're ever going to have an adult conversation about all this.

I honestly don't perceive many mental effects from caffeine at all, besides jitters if I have too much, so I much prefer to use alcohol as the example.

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 think you missed the point. "Drug" isn't a meaningful classification. Which is highlighted by the fact that coffee, cigarettes and alcohol are all drugs, thins most people have tried and can at least understand as 3 completely different entities in effect on mind and health.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com