4 ms·

> In the case of, say, “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas,” you sort of want Hunter S. Thompson to just keep doing drugs, if only so he’ll see more giant lizards.

by jMyles 11y ago

> In the case of, say, “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas,” you sort of want Hunter S. Thompson to just keep doing drugs, if only so he’ll see more giant lizards. In the very first paragraph, the author makes abundantly clear that he experienced a major whoosh while reading one of the greatest American novels and drug sagas of all time. The "Fear and Loathing" books were only about giant lizards, Richard Nixon, or LSD on the thinnest of surfaces - the author needs to re-read. > What most drug books don’t do is make the reader, upon closing the book, feel as though he or she really ought to think more seriously about experimenting with drugs. Really? The Invisible Landscape? Food of the Gods? The Human Encounter With Death? The Doors of Perception? The Spirit Molecule? PIKAL: A Love Story? What exactly is the author reading? Of all the classic "drug books," the only one I can think of that matches the author's description is Be Here Now, which the author does not mention. --- I'm not sure, after reading this review, whether I'm more or less inclined to read Clune's book - probably less. In this review, such as it is, Lewis-Kraus makes the (sadly still common) mistake of assuming that the reader has an identical understanding of what a "drug" is, and that the category of "drugs" is well-defined and discrete. Are LSD and heroin in the same category of thing? Is sugar in this same category? It seems useless in this context to compare a book about the highs of heroin with other books that happen to feature "drugs" in completely different contexts or as metaphorical devices. Reading this, I learned nothing except that pharmacological contrivances still have a grip on the editorial 'we.'

hugh4 11y ago
>Lewis-Kraus makes the (sadly still common) mistake of assuming that the reader has an identical understanding of what a "drug" is, and that the category of "drugs" is well-defined and discrete. Are LSD and heroin in the same category of thing? Is sugar in this same category? That sounds like a reasonable assumption about the reader; that they understand how words are used in contemporary English. The answers to your questions are "yes" and "no". The reader can also be assumed to know that, for instance, vancomycin and doxorubicin are also drugs, but that in this context the word "drug" is being used in a context which excludes them, just as the word "animal" is sometimes used in a context which includes humans and sometimes in one which excludes them.
- willhinsa 11y ago
  Except you just proved that you're an example of the exact point that the commenter was writing about. LSD and Heroin aren't really in the same category. They have completely different profiles of experience.
  - hugh4 11y ago
    And yet they're similar in several important ways (e.g. the legal framework around them, the fact that they should both be avoided for similar reasons), hence the fact that we have a word for them. I don't really care what the subjective experience of taking them is like. They're certainly more similar to each other than they are to antibiotics or chemotherapy drugs, both of which are also labelled with the term "drug".
    - jMyles 11y ago
      > similar in several important ways (e.g. the legal framework around them You are mistaking noise for signal here. > the fact that they should both be avoided for similar reasons In no sense is this a "fact." Many people suggest LSD use. Many people regard themselves as better for having used LSD. I don't think LSD is something to be avoided at all - it's utterly benign and very, very interesting. > They're certainly more similar to each other than they are to antibiotics or chemotherapy drugs, both of which are also labeled with the term "drug". In which ways? LSD is dissimilar to just about anything else on the planet, and has little in common, as far as I can tell, with opioids, antibiotics, or chemotherapy drugs. And again, let me bring up refined sugar. Sugar is a refined white powder, made by solvent extraction form plant matter, and is consumed solely for its chemical effects on the nervous system. It seems far closer to heroin than either of them are to LSD or MDMA or psilocybin. Yet these three, along with heroin, are "drugs?" I can't imagine a consistent taxonomy which casts such a wide net on behalf of the term "drug" as to include both heroin and LSD but exclude sugar.
      - GordonS 11y ago
        > I don't think LSD is something to be avoided at all - it's utterly benign and very, very interesting. I take it you've never had a bad trip then? I used to use mushrooms and LSD as a teenager and enjoyed it a lot. Until I had a bad trip, which was a truly horrible experience that at the time seemed like it would never end. I've never used any psychedelics since, and never will.

by jMyles 11y ago

hugh4 11y ago

>Lewis-Kraus makes the (sadly still common) mistake of assuming that the reader has an identical understanding of what a "drug" is, and that the category of "drugs" is well-defined and discrete. Are LSD and heroin in the same category of thing? Is sugar in this same category? That sounds like a reasonable assumption about the reader; that they understand how words are used in contemporary English. The answers to your questions are "yes" and "no". The reader can also be assumed to know that, for instance, vancomycin and doxorubicin are also drugs, but that in this context the word "drug" is being used in a context which excludes them, just as the word "animal" is sometimes used in a context which includes humans and sometimes in one which excludes them.

willhinsa 11y ago
Except you just proved that you're an example of the exact point that the commenter was writing about. LSD and Heroin aren't really in the same category. They have completely different profiles of experience.
- hugh4 11y ago
  And yet they're similar in several important ways (e.g. the legal framework around them, the fact that they should both be avoided for similar reasons), hence the fact that we have a word for them. I don't really care what the subjective experience of taking them is like. They're certainly more similar to each other than they are to antibiotics or chemotherapy drugs, both of which are also labelled with the term "drug".
  - jMyles 11y ago
    > similar in several important ways (e.g. the legal framework around them You are mistaking noise for signal here. > the fact that they should both be avoided for similar reasons In no sense is this a "fact." Many people suggest LSD use. Many people regard themselves as better for having used LSD. I don't think LSD is something to be avoided at all - it's utterly benign and very, very interesting. > They're certainly more similar to each other than they are to antibiotics or chemotherapy drugs, both of which are also labeled with the term "drug". In which ways? LSD is dissimilar to just about anything else on the planet, and has little in common, as far as I can tell, with opioids, antibiotics, or chemotherapy drugs. And again, let me bring up refined sugar. Sugar is a refined white powder, made by solvent extraction form plant matter, and is consumed solely for its chemical effects on the nervous system. It seems far closer to heroin than either of them are to LSD or MDMA or psilocybin. Yet these three, along with heroin, are "drugs?" I can't imagine a consistent taxonomy which casts such a wide net on behalf of the term "drug" as to include both heroin and LSD but exclude sugar.
    - GordonS 11y ago
      > I don't think LSD is something to be avoided at all - it's utterly benign and very, very interesting. I take it you've never had a bad trip then? I used to use mushrooms and LSD as a teenager and enjoyed it a lot. Until I had a bad trip, which was a truly horrible experience that at the time seemed like it would never end. I've never used any psychedelics since, and never will.