4 ms·

This review is much like Pollan's own writing, loose with the facts and wild with conjecture and speculation. > so perhaps it is little wonder that the permane

This review is much like Pollan's own writing, loose with the facts and wild with conjecture and speculation. > so perhaps it is little wonder that the permanently sozzled intellectuals of the Middle Ages were prone to magical thinking. What? Drinking alcohol adulterated water remained a common practice until the late 1800s. And we don't have reason to believe people were hammered all the time. Generally drink was lower in alcohol content then and it was usually cut with water. > It’s unclear from the book (and from my subsequent Google searches) whether the spider was given the arachnid equivalent of a single cappuccino or a more Balzacian dose, which makes the comparison with other drugs less helpful, but Pollan’s point is that caffeine changes us more than we realise. Is there even an equivalent? Spiders barely have what we consider a brain. I'm not sure much other than cellular science is translatable from spiders to humans. > societies tend to ban those plants that appear to pose a threat to the social order. That seems pretty suspect. Western societies after all have tolerated alcohol, probably one of the most destabilizing drugs there is, for centuries. It seems to me, they ban what is unfamiliar or rather, they ban anything that hasn't reached large usage among the power class of that society.

pmoriarty 5y ago
> > societies tend to ban those plants that appear to pose a threat to the social order. > That seems pretty suspect. Western societies after all have tolerated alcohol, probably one of the most destabilizing drugs there is, for centuries. It seems to me, they ban what is unfamiliar or rather, they ban anything that hasn't reached large usage among the power class of that society. Enforcement of anti-drug laws falls pretty heavily on the lower classes of society, particularly minorities. The ruling classes can pretty much get away with doing whatever drugs they want, rarely with any serious legal repercussions. Psychedelics and cannabis were very strongly associated with the counterculture, religious and sex cults, social justice and antiwar movements, and with dropping out of the mainstream culture in the 1960's and 70's. This, along with wide-eyed sensational reporting of drug-related tragedies caused a full-blown moral panic that led to their being banned. Alcohol never had a history of use that was even remotely close to this and it was widely used among all classes in society (including the ruling class). It too was banned in the US in the early part of the 20th Century until Prohibition was recognized to be much worse than allowing alcohol to be legal.
- DubiousPusher 5y ago
  > Alcohol never had a history of use that was even remotely close to this Are you kidding? People used to get drunk and riot all the time in major American and European cities. Have you ever read about the gin craze? What is banned is certainly affected by the sensationalistic stories and the perceived scariness of it. But IMO the actual result of what does get banned has more to do with the cultural status quo, in group power and out group xenophobia. The repeal of alcohol prohabition is good evidence of this. Alcohol was traditionally accepted in Western culture for one. It's use was widespread and sometimes even seen as a "right of a passage" among the enfranchised class. America tolerated all kinds of other policy which lead to violence before, during and since prohibition. What got it repealed was that FDR and a lot of other politicians liked to drink. A lot of their voters liked to drink. They saw it as American to drink. They came from an alcohol tradition. Tobacco and caffeine are both intertwined with American middle and upper class identity, especially in the mid 20th century when these bans are really coming down. And of course, they weren't banned. Psychedelics may have been used by in-group white kids but they were banned before their use could become wide enough to integrate them to the culture. Native support didn't matter because they are such a tiny population and so thuroughly locked out of power.

pmoriarty 5y ago

> > societies tend to ban those plants that appear to pose a threat to the social order. > That seems pretty suspect. Western societies after all have tolerated alcohol, probably one of the most destabilizing drugs there is, for centuries. It seems to me, they ban what is unfamiliar or rather, they ban anything that hasn't reached large usage among the power class of that society. Enforcement of anti-drug laws falls pretty heavily on the lower classes of society, particularly minorities. The ruling classes can pretty much get away with doing whatever drugs they want, rarely with any serious legal repercussions. Psychedelics and cannabis were very strongly associated with the counterculture, religious and sex cults, social justice and antiwar movements, and with dropping out of the mainstream culture in the 1960's and 70's. This, along with wide-eyed sensational reporting of drug-related tragedies caused a full-blown moral panic that led to their being banned. Alcohol never had a history of use that was even remotely close to this and it was widely used among all classes in society (including the ruling class). It too was banned in the US in the early part of the 20th Century until Prohibition was recognized to be much worse than allowing alcohol to be legal.

DubiousPusher 5y ago
> Alcohol never had a history of use that was even remotely close to this Are you kidding? People used to get drunk and riot all the time in major American and European cities. Have you ever read about the gin craze? What is banned is certainly affected by the sensationalistic stories and the perceived scariness of it. But IMO the actual result of what does get banned has more to do with the cultural status quo, in group power and out group xenophobia. The repeal of alcohol prohabition is good evidence of this. Alcohol was traditionally accepted in Western culture for one. It's use was widespread and sometimes even seen as a "right of a passage" among the enfranchised class. America tolerated all kinds of other policy which lead to violence before, during and since prohibition. What got it repealed was that FDR and a lot of other politicians liked to drink. A lot of their voters liked to drink. They saw it as American to drink. They came from an alcohol tradition. Tobacco and caffeine are both intertwined with American middle and upper class identity, especially in the mid 20th century when these bans are really coming down. And of course, they weren't banned. Psychedelics may have been used by in-group white kids but they were banned before their use could become wide enough to integrate them to the culture. Native support didn't matter because they are such a tiny population and so thuroughly locked out of power.