6 ms·

Another view, is that, except for the extremely strong willed, getting used to a serene state of mind is addicting and kind of counter productive. Perhaps, add

Another view, is that, except for the extremely strong willed, getting used to a serene state of mind is addicting and kind of counter productive. Perhaps, addictive is not the right word. But it seems to me (purely from a human nature perspective) its similar to obesity (Eating food is not "addictive", but there is a definite element of "craving" and inability to overcome that craving). All in all, such substances are not natural and, with unchecked use, might put a whole society in danger. This is the reason I am ambivalent about the whole movement to legalize it.

aaomidi 5y ago
Appeal to nature is a logical fallacy. Also, from the things we surround ourselves with. It's probably the most natural.
- sneak 5y ago
  Even if the appeal to nature weren't bogus, both alcohol and cannabis are as "natural" as things can be in that broken worldview.
  - scaramanga 5y ago
    Yes, it's almost as if society has developed firmly established norms about substance use which are so irrational as to be totally incoherent, and ITT you can find people reflexively confabulating justifications for those norms or trotting out the same tired old bromides to reassure themselves that the topic is being debated and that everything is fine. Or maybe my drug-addled brain is just seeing pink elephants everywhere ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- elefanten 5y ago
  I smoke, but this is dense. Smoking the natural substance is an unnatural use, by that use of the word. “It grows from the earth” Yeah so does hemlock.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    So don't smoke. There are other ways of consuming with out inhaling the aftermath of burning. Yes, I know the effects are different in how one is affected. The smoking of anything has always been a curious "ritual" to me as it is so against everything the body is made to do.
    - lolc 5y ago
      I have developed this pet theory that humans have grown fond of fire and will feel secure in its presence. How do they know they're at a fire instead of just basking in the sun? When they are inhaling, I mean smelling, its fresh smoke of course! I don't find it far-fetched to assume that an affinity to fire was selected for over the last millennia. Why, we even have a mutation that makes us less susceptible to carcinogens in smoke compared to other mammals. That would make smoking, and smoking indoors, an activity that replaces the open fires we're accustomed to. Standard disclaimer for evolutionary theories: They are ill-suited to determine social policy.
      - im3w1l 5y ago
        Smoking is an acquired taste. As is alcohol. We learn to like things that make us feel good, and learn to dislike things that make us feel bad (poisonous or spoiled).
      - dylan604 5y ago
        That's some theory. Personally, I don't buy in to it. The concept of a burning end of a ciggy replacing an actual fire is just too far out there for me to accept in some far reaches of the human psyche is out there.
  - kaba0 5y ago
    Eating fish could be considered as natural as it gets, but there is a species which contains one of the most potent poisons ever found, so..
  - realce 5y ago
    Nature made you inquisitive and able to use and create tools, but you think engaging in those behaviors is somehow un-natural.
- yuretz 5y ago
  Appeal to nature might be a logical fallacy in arguments, but in practice is a useful heuristic anyway.
  - kaba0 5y ago
    Given the amount of alternative “medicines” building on that heuristic, I fail to see where it is useful other than for scam artists. Sure, there are biological inventions we can copy and refine for possibly even better inventions - but those are useful not because they originated from nature but because evolution found a locally optimal solution to a problem.
    - yuretz 5y ago
      Well, being able to identify potentially locally optimal solutions without having to go through an entire optimization process yourself is a pretty powerful heuristic in my book.
  - eivarv 5y ago
    Out of curiosity: How does any argument become more or less logical depending on its context? Your comment reads to me as if the concept of logical fallacies is only useful or valid within the framework of rhetorical competitions – or alternatively that logically invalid reasoning is useful if you're only interested in making a decision, rather than making a correct or well-informed one.
- vintermann 5y ago
  "Appeal to nature" isn't a logical fallacy, it just assumes some things about how things should be. You might disagree with those assumptions, but you, too, have beliefs about how things should be.
  - scaramanga 5y ago
    In which case it would be much more honest to say "I think this is good or bad" or "these are my values and they are not subject to debate" rather to propose that thing you like is the natural state of affairs and offer that up as if it were a proposition that you were debating. Or worse, the null-hypothesis from which some nebulous burden of proof is assumed for the opponent. In other words, it is a dishonest strategem which relies on the other party making the logical fallacy that the natural state of affairs must be good, or that a burden of proof lies with them, instead of recognizing this as the sleight-of-hand that it is. So I think GP was just being polite by calling it a logical fallacy :)
  - aaomidi 5y ago
serial_dev 5y ago
> All in all, such substances are not natural... But they are natural, aren't they? No less natural than the watermelon we are all eating (it might be cultivated), and I don't see anyone wanting to criminalize eating watermelon. Weed, tobacco, alcohol, coca leaves, poppy, they are all natural. Also, even if it's natural, it has nothing to do with its dangerousness, so I don't follow your argument. With regards to legalizing it, I'm on the side that if alcohol and tobacco are legal, weed should be legal, too. They are all bad for you in some sense, but we need to balance that with freedom and individual choice, and to me, they are pretty similar.
- rex_lupi 5y ago
  They are not "natural" in the sense that humans don't consume ethyl alcohol to survive, in fact it is often quite damaging to biological systems. Apart from some microbes I'm not aware of any other organisms that use alcohol as their energy source. Alcohol/thc/caffeine/nicotine (you name it) do not fall in the "natural" diet of humans. Most psychoactive substances are metabolites which plants/fungi store in them to deter other animals from eating them.
  - dnh44 5y ago
    Humans aren't the only mammals on this planet that consume alcohol. https://news.berkeley.edu/2014/07/01/drunken-monkeys-and-our-thirst-for-booze/ https://news.berkeley.edu/2014/07/01/drunken-monkeys-and-our...
    - rex_lupi 5y ago
      That'd still be "recreational use", not as staple food
      - JohnBooty 5y ago
        Is anybody in this discussion advocating alcohol as a staple food? A staple food is something that makes up a dominant portion of one's diet; it's beyond a mere common or everyday food. A staple food, food staple, or simply a staple, is a food that is eaten routinely and in such quantities that it constitutes a dominant portion of a standard diet for a given person or group of people, supplying a large fraction of energy needs and generally forming a significant proportion of the intake of other nutrients as well I would certainly agree with you that alcohol is not a very safe choice for a staple food!
codeptualize 5y ago
Unless incredibly severe I think the consequences should not impact it’s legality. People will use it legal or not. If it’s legal you can charge taxes and spend that money on addiction prevention and treatment. Help people with addiction problems instead of putting them in jail. Addiction is often a symptom of underlying mental health problems, you don’t solve those with punishment. And that’s even disregarding the amount of crime and violence illegality creates.
- kumarvvr 5y ago
  Being legal adds a whole lot of marketing push and general acceptance in the population, especially young ones. Time and again I see so many stories of young people fucking up their lives, and wasting so much of their lives trying to correct mistakes. Something which should have been guided by elders and well-wishers. But US society is neck deep into "individuality" at their own detriment. A society that is taught from day one to be "independent" will discover that generations after generations will keep making the same mistakes. Same debt traps, same drug problems, same unhealthy choices.
  - xorfish 5y ago
    It should be the same for any potentially dangerous drug. Legalize it, tax it and ban advertising it completely. This should be applied to alcohol and tobacco as well. Advertising beer, wine or smoking should be forbidden.
  - KnobbleMcKnees 5y ago
    > adds a whole lot of marketing push It sounds like you've identified the thing that should be illegal. Unfettered capitalisation on any product that can harm the population is generally a terrible idea, and the product frequently has nothing to do with it.
  - codeptualize 5y ago
    As the others mentioned; Advertising should be banned. I do agree though that general change is needed. Imo it comes down to education on drugs, facilitating safe use, and treatment of mental health issues and addiction. "Don't do it, but if you do; do it as safe as possible. If you get into trouble; get help." is imo the only sensible drug strategy. It's one thing to say "drugs are bad mkay" another to actually explain what the risks are and just provide basic practical tips on how you can reduce risk if you do take drugs. Things like not using too much of anything at once, getting drugs tested, making sure you do it in a safe environment, not mixing drugs, clean needles (although really don't do those types of drugs), etc etc. Also make sure people know the difference between weed and for example heroin, meth and fentanyl. Not all drugs are equal, weed is relatively harmless. Lastly testing; It should be facilitated. Here it's quite common to get your pills and powders tested. It's free and facilitated. It saves lives as you make sure people don't OD on pills that contain fentanyl instead of whatever the user expected it to be. Same for legal weed btw, I believe in the US the quality is much better because of legalization. These things work, they literally save lives. You can prevent so much pain and suffering by simply accepting the fact that people will use drugs and adjust your policies based on that fact.
spoiler 5y ago
In me, it's partially a coping mechanisms, and a method to to silence the brain demons. It's interesting that you brought up food, because I'm an emotional eater too. I've had them under control for a while now, but the emotional eating is a struggle sometimes. I need to trick myself into not doing it. For weed it's less of a struggle because I genuinely notice the "persistent" effects (no more than a few days in me), which effect my mental performance and emotional state. Also, after quitting the binge I had withdrawal (I'm told for weed it's very mild, but it's horrendous nonetheless). More details to this in this video https://youtu.be/7u_cm5b1s7Y https://youtu.be/7u_cm5b1s7Y I now smoke weed when I plan/want to for fun, and it's very occasionally...
- sdze 5y ago
  Try quitting Coffee / caffeine. The most horrific withdrawal ensues (at least for me).
  - spoiler 5y ago
    That's interesting! I never heard of caffeine withdrawal before, but it makes sense when I think about it. I know a lot of people who say they that can't function with caffeine. I'm not a big coffee drinker (and usually mix it with decaf, because too much makes me feel weird). So I'd probably be okay on that front. How much coffee do you drink daily? I drink maybe one cup, and that's mostly for the taste (hence the decaf).
    - sdze 5y ago
      I drink about 6-9 cups of coffee per day. The withdrawal journey that is published in the lying internet is not true (at least for me). I get all sorts of diffuse pain in the legs and lower back area. Not to speak of the killing headache and depressed mood.
      - mschuster91 5y ago
        How can you actually sleep with that much coffee?! A single cup after ~1600 and I can't fall asleep until 0200 or later...
MattPalmer1086 5y ago
Plenty of animals consume alcohol (e.g. fermented fruit), presumably to get high. Is that natural?
mellavora 5y ago
> unchecked use, might put a whole society in danger. So you mean that if, for example, over 50% of the population was using a known mind-altering drug, society might go to shit? Do prescription psychiatry medicines count? You might want to take a look at what % of the western world has such a prescription. Between opiods, amphetamine, and anti-depressants, I think the US passed the 50% mark some time ago.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  > over 50% of the population was using a known mind-altering drug, society might go to shit? You mean like caffeine? (Or chocolate? Or even refined sugar?)
- sjcoles 5y ago
  I worked in a pharmacy as a tech for a couple years. The amount of drugs the general population is on was *mind blowing*.
- kumarvvr 5y ago
  Absolutely. What ever I have read or heard about those drugs (most of it from peoples experiences on reddit and all), it is clear to me that they don't actually solve any issue, and simply make the mind numb. In some cases, perhaps that is required. But why is it that the worlds richest country need to keep 50% of its population on drugs? That is a societal flaw, and worryingly a self sustaining one at that. I also attribute it to the hyper-velocity lifestyles, lack of stable marriages, excessive consumption of media in general and social media in particular. And most importantly, a materialistic point of view where the whole purpose of life is for pleasure, partying and enjoyment.
  - eecc 5y ago
    That’s a very reactionary attitude… you’re simply blaming all the “unknown” “new stuff” for everything negative in life. I bet people blamed excessive reading of books, or “a materialistic point of view” during the Romans, the Middle Ages… modernity… hey, who coined the phrase “o tempora! O mores!”
Shamii 5y ago
Of course they are natural. I have adhs and I see my weed more like glasses. Ever thought about that not every brain model/mode is as balanced as the other? If I can't sleep properly for years, I get depressed. And yes of course I tried everything.
toshk 5y ago
"Natural" in an ambiguous that is impossible to define properly, yet it casts some morality on behaviour. Anyway, the need for intoxicating itself seems to arise in more animals that have high developed cognitive abilities, Dolphins get high on passing around poisonous fishes, monkeys rub centipedes over their body and there are many more examples. Mushrooms, smoking, fermented fruits and grains have been part of human lives for hundreds of thousands of years. It seems that animals with high cognitive abilities feel the need to turn it off at times.
etripe 5y ago
> except for the extremely strong willed, [...] addicting Addiction isn't about willpower so much as psychopathology and genetics. It's a coping mechanism. > getting used to a serene state of mind is [...] kind of counter productive What is suspect about serenity? Is religion equally problematic as a source? How is it counterproductive? > such substances are not natural and A naturalist argument is usually invalid. We can't expand upon the rules of the universe. Plastics are just as natural as anything else. Cannabis also doesn't induce any foreign states in our brains. Even using the narrow definition of "can't be found in the wild": cannabis is a plant, so it very much does exist in the wild. So do alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, psilocybin ("magic mushrooms") or ergotamine (LSD). When applied to brain chemistry: to my knowledge, drugs don't do novel things to our brains. They promote infrequent states, but that doesn't make them unnatural. Especially not if you consider how alien dream states, meditative and transcendental experiences feel. > with unchecked use, might put a whole society in danger Adding a slippery slope to it doesn't improve your line of reasoning. It does tend to whip the masses into a frenzy, like its cousins "Won't somebody think of the children" and "Why should we help those who won't help themselves?". It also doesn't conform to reality. Have California or Colorado collapsed because weed was legalised? Have the Netherlands? > I am ambivalent about the whole movement to legalize it Decriminalisation seems obvious to me as a solution, if coupled with a sorely needed investment in mental healthcare (across the West). The latter is necessary regardless of how we consider drugs - see homelessness, domestic violence, suicide, burnouts, etc. Decriminalisation works (cf Portugal's results), dries up income sources for the cartels, allows quality controls to be put in place, reduces stigmatisation for users, lowers the threshold for seeking therapy, keeps people out of prison for victimless crimes, creates a revenue source for the government through sales and other taxes... The alternative to decriminalisation is telling the population "we know best". Looking at the so-called war on drugs globally, it's also an endeavour that's bound to fail, strengthen drug cartels, escalate violence and cause more damage than it prevents.
JohnBooty 5y ago
Eating food is not "addictive" Oh, it most definitely is. Or to be more specific, eating the "wrong" kinds of foods (typically fat and sugar) is addictive. Also, unlike other addictions, you get bombarded with billboards and television ads for the thing you're trying to moderate.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
avgcorrection 5y ago
You can’t just throw out the word “human nature” and expect anyone to accept it. “Human nature” just means “this thing we all know about how the world and people work, come on… now don’t be difficult”. It means nothing.
- Veen 5y ago
  We are biological beings and our biology determines our diets, neurology, endocrinology, and multiple other factors about our lives. Whether people like it or not, we do have a biological human nature that shapes many aspects of our behaviour and culture.
  - avgcorrection 5y ago
    That we have a human nature is obvious. That anyone can just throw out “human nature” as if they know what it is is the thing that I’m contesting!
    - realce 5y ago
      "This thing humans do TOO OFTEN is simply not human nature!"

aaomidi 5y ago

Appeal to nature is a logical fallacy. Also, from the things we surround ourselves with. It's probably the most natural.

sneak 5y ago
Even if the appeal to nature weren't bogus, both alcohol and cannabis are as "natural" as things can be in that broken worldview.
- scaramanga 5y ago
  Yes, it's almost as if society has developed firmly established norms about substance use which are so irrational as to be totally incoherent, and ITT you can find people reflexively confabulating justifications for those norms or trotting out the same tired old bromides to reassure themselves that the topic is being debated and that everything is fine. Or maybe my drug-addled brain is just seeing pink elephants everywhere ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
elefanten 5y ago
I smoke, but this is dense. Smoking the natural substance is an unnatural use, by that use of the word. “It grows from the earth” Yeah so does hemlock.
- dylan604 5y ago
  So don't smoke. There are other ways of consuming with out inhaling the aftermath of burning. Yes, I know the effects are different in how one is affected. The smoking of anything has always been a curious "ritual" to me as it is so against everything the body is made to do.
  - lolc 5y ago
    I have developed this pet theory that humans have grown fond of fire and will feel secure in its presence. How do they know they're at a fire instead of just basking in the sun? When they are inhaling, I mean smelling, its fresh smoke of course! I don't find it far-fetched to assume that an affinity to fire was selected for over the last millennia. Why, we even have a mutation that makes us less susceptible to carcinogens in smoke compared to other mammals. That would make smoking, and smoking indoors, an activity that replaces the open fires we're accustomed to. Standard disclaimer for evolutionary theories: They are ill-suited to determine social policy.
    - im3w1l 5y ago
      Smoking is an acquired taste. As is alcohol. We learn to like things that make us feel good, and learn to dislike things that make us feel bad (poisonous or spoiled).
    - dylan604 5y ago
      That's some theory. Personally, I don't buy in to it. The concept of a burning end of a ciggy replacing an actual fire is just too far out there for me to accept in some far reaches of the human psyche is out there.
- kaba0 5y ago
  Eating fish could be considered as natural as it gets, but there is a species which contains one of the most potent poisons ever found, so..
- realce 5y ago
  Nature made you inquisitive and able to use and create tools, but you think engaging in those behaviors is somehow un-natural.
yuretz 5y ago
Appeal to nature might be a logical fallacy in arguments, but in practice is a useful heuristic anyway.
- kaba0 5y ago
  Given the amount of alternative “medicines” building on that heuristic, I fail to see where it is useful other than for scam artists. Sure, there are biological inventions we can copy and refine for possibly even better inventions - but those are useful not because they originated from nature but because evolution found a locally optimal solution to a problem.
  - yuretz 5y ago
    Well, being able to identify potentially locally optimal solutions without having to go through an entire optimization process yourself is a pretty powerful heuristic in my book.
- eivarv 5y ago
  Out of curiosity: How does any argument become more or less logical depending on its context? Your comment reads to me as if the concept of logical fallacies is only useful or valid within the framework of rhetorical competitions – or alternatively that logically invalid reasoning is useful if you're only interested in making a decision, rather than making a correct or well-informed one.
vintermann 5y ago
"Appeal to nature" isn't a logical fallacy, it just assumes some things about how things should be. You might disagree with those assumptions, but you, too, have beliefs about how things should be.
- scaramanga 5y ago
  In which case it would be much more honest to say "I think this is good or bad" or "these are my values and they are not subject to debate" rather to propose that thing you like is the natural state of affairs and offer that up as if it were a proposition that you were debating. Or worse, the null-hypothesis from which some nebulous burden of proof is assumed for the opponent. In other words, it is a dishonest strategem which relies on the other party making the logical fallacy that the natural state of affairs must be good, or that a burden of proof lies with them, instead of recognizing this as the sleight-of-hand that it is. So I think GP was just being polite by calling it a logical fallacy :)
- aaomidi 5y ago

serial_dev 5y ago

> All in all, such substances are not natural... But they are natural, aren't they? No less natural than the watermelon we are all eating (it might be cultivated), and I don't see anyone wanting to criminalize eating watermelon. Weed, tobacco, alcohol, coca leaves, poppy, they are all natural. Also, even if it's natural, it has nothing to do with its dangerousness, so I don't follow your argument. With regards to legalizing it, I'm on the side that if alcohol and tobacco are legal, weed should be legal, too. They are all bad for you in some sense, but we need to balance that with freedom and individual choice, and to me, they are pretty similar.

rex_lupi 5y ago
They are not "natural" in the sense that humans don't consume ethyl alcohol to survive, in fact it is often quite damaging to biological systems. Apart from some microbes I'm not aware of any other organisms that use alcohol as their energy source. Alcohol/thc/caffeine/nicotine (you name it) do not fall in the "natural" diet of humans. Most psychoactive substances are metabolites which plants/fungi store in them to deter other animals from eating them.
- dnh44 5y ago
  Humans aren't the only mammals on this planet that consume alcohol. https://news.berkeley.edu/2014/07/01/drunken-monkeys-and-our-thirst-for-booze/ https://news.berkeley.edu/2014/07/01/drunken-monkeys-and-our...
  - rex_lupi 5y ago
    That'd still be "recreational use", not as staple food
    - JohnBooty 5y ago
      Is anybody in this discussion advocating alcohol as a staple food? A staple food is something that makes up a dominant portion of one's diet; it's beyond a mere common or everyday food. A staple food, food staple, or simply a staple, is a food that is eaten routinely and in such quantities that it constitutes a dominant portion of a standard diet for a given person or group of people, supplying a large fraction of energy needs and generally forming a significant proportion of the intake of other nutrients as well I would certainly agree with you that alcohol is not a very safe choice for a staple food!

codeptualize 5y ago

Unless incredibly severe I think the consequences should not impact it’s legality. People will use it legal or not. If it’s legal you can charge taxes and spend that money on addiction prevention and treatment. Help people with addiction problems instead of putting them in jail. Addiction is often a symptom of underlying mental health problems, you don’t solve those with punishment. And that’s even disregarding the amount of crime and violence illegality creates.

kumarvvr 5y ago
Being legal adds a whole lot of marketing push and general acceptance in the population, especially young ones. Time and again I see so many stories of young people fucking up their lives, and wasting so much of their lives trying to correct mistakes. Something which should have been guided by elders and well-wishers. But US society is neck deep into "individuality" at their own detriment. A society that is taught from day one to be "independent" will discover that generations after generations will keep making the same mistakes. Same debt traps, same drug problems, same unhealthy choices.
- xorfish 5y ago
  It should be the same for any potentially dangerous drug. Legalize it, tax it and ban advertising it completely. This should be applied to alcohol and tobacco as well. Advertising beer, wine or smoking should be forbidden.
- KnobbleMcKnees 5y ago
  > adds a whole lot of marketing push It sounds like you've identified the thing that should be illegal. Unfettered capitalisation on any product that can harm the population is generally a terrible idea, and the product frequently has nothing to do with it.
- codeptualize 5y ago
  As the others mentioned; Advertising should be banned. I do agree though that general change is needed. Imo it comes down to education on drugs, facilitating safe use, and treatment of mental health issues and addiction. "Don't do it, but if you do; do it as safe as possible. If you get into trouble; get help." is imo the only sensible drug strategy. It's one thing to say "drugs are bad mkay" another to actually explain what the risks are and just provide basic practical tips on how you can reduce risk if you do take drugs. Things like not using too much of anything at once, getting drugs tested, making sure you do it in a safe environment, not mixing drugs, clean needles (although really don't do those types of drugs), etc etc. Also make sure people know the difference between weed and for example heroin, meth and fentanyl. Not all drugs are equal, weed is relatively harmless. Lastly testing; It should be facilitated. Here it's quite common to get your pills and powders tested. It's free and facilitated. It saves lives as you make sure people don't OD on pills that contain fentanyl instead of whatever the user expected it to be. Same for legal weed btw, I believe in the US the quality is much better because of legalization. These things work, they literally save lives. You can prevent so much pain and suffering by simply accepting the fact that people will use drugs and adjust your policies based on that fact.

spoiler 5y ago

In me, it's partially a coping mechanisms, and a method to to silence the brain demons. It's interesting that you brought up food, because I'm an emotional eater too. I've had them under control for a while now, but the emotional eating is a struggle sometimes. I need to trick myself into not doing it. For weed it's less of a struggle because I genuinely notice the "persistent" effects (no more than a few days in me), which effect my mental performance and emotional state. Also, after quitting the binge I had withdrawal (I'm told for weed it's very mild, but it's horrendous nonetheless). More details to this in this video https://youtu.be/7u_cm5b1s7Y https://youtu.be/7u_cm5b1s7Y I now smoke weed when I plan/want to for fun, and it's very occasionally...

sdze 5y ago
Try quitting Coffee / caffeine. The most horrific withdrawal ensues (at least for me).
- spoiler 5y ago
  That's interesting! I never heard of caffeine withdrawal before, but it makes sense when I think about it. I know a lot of people who say they that can't function with caffeine. I'm not a big coffee drinker (and usually mix it with decaf, because too much makes me feel weird). So I'd probably be okay on that front. How much coffee do you drink daily? I drink maybe one cup, and that's mostly for the taste (hence the decaf).
  - sdze 5y ago
    I drink about 6-9 cups of coffee per day. The withdrawal journey that is published in the lying internet is not true (at least for me). I get all sorts of diffuse pain in the legs and lower back area. Not to speak of the killing headache and depressed mood.
    - mschuster91 5y ago
      How can you actually sleep with that much coffee?! A single cup after ~1600 and I can't fall asleep until 0200 or later...

MattPalmer1086 5y ago

Plenty of animals consume alcohol (e.g. fermented fruit), presumably to get high. Is that natural?

mellavora 5y ago

> unchecked use, might put a whole society in danger. So you mean that if, for example, over 50% of the population was using a known mind-altering drug, society might go to shit? Do prescription psychiatry medicines count? You might want to take a look at what % of the western world has such a prescription. Between opiods, amphetamine, and anti-depressants, I think the US passed the 50% mark some time ago.

sokoloff 5y ago
> over 50% of the population was using a known mind-altering drug, society might go to shit? You mean like caffeine? (Or chocolate? Or even refined sugar?)
sjcoles 5y ago
I worked in a pharmacy as a tech for a couple years. The amount of drugs the general population is on was *mind blowing*.
kumarvvr 5y ago
Absolutely. What ever I have read or heard about those drugs (most of it from peoples experiences on reddit and all), it is clear to me that they don't actually solve any issue, and simply make the mind numb. In some cases, perhaps that is required. But why is it that the worlds richest country need to keep 50% of its population on drugs? That is a societal flaw, and worryingly a self sustaining one at that. I also attribute it to the hyper-velocity lifestyles, lack of stable marriages, excessive consumption of media in general and social media in particular. And most importantly, a materialistic point of view where the whole purpose of life is for pleasure, partying and enjoyment.
- eecc 5y ago
  That’s a very reactionary attitude… you’re simply blaming all the “unknown” “new stuff” for everything negative in life. I bet people blamed excessive reading of books, or “a materialistic point of view” during the Romans, the Middle Ages… modernity… hey, who coined the phrase “o tempora! O mores!”

Shamii 5y ago

Of course they are natural. I have adhs and I see my weed more like glasses. Ever thought about that not every brain model/mode is as balanced as the other? If I can't sleep properly for years, I get depressed. And yes of course I tried everything.

toshk 5y ago

"Natural" in an ambiguous that is impossible to define properly, yet it casts some morality on behaviour. Anyway, the need for intoxicating itself seems to arise in more animals that have high developed cognitive abilities, Dolphins get high on passing around poisonous fishes, monkeys rub centipedes over their body and there are many more examples. Mushrooms, smoking, fermented fruits and grains have been part of human lives for hundreds of thousands of years. It seems that animals with high cognitive abilities feel the need to turn it off at times.

etripe 5y ago

> except for the extremely strong willed, [...] addicting Addiction isn't about willpower so much as psychopathology and genetics. It's a coping mechanism. > getting used to a serene state of mind is [...] kind of counter productive What is suspect about serenity? Is religion equally problematic as a source? How is it counterproductive? > such substances are not natural and A naturalist argument is usually invalid. We can't expand upon the rules of the universe. Plastics are just as natural as anything else. Cannabis also doesn't induce any foreign states in our brains. Even using the narrow definition of "can't be found in the wild": cannabis is a plant, so it very much does exist in the wild. So do alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, psilocybin ("magic mushrooms") or ergotamine (LSD). When applied to brain chemistry: to my knowledge, drugs don't do novel things to our brains. They promote infrequent states, but that doesn't make them unnatural. Especially not if you consider how alien dream states, meditative and transcendental experiences feel. > with unchecked use, might put a whole society in danger Adding a slippery slope to it doesn't improve your line of reasoning. It does tend to whip the masses into a frenzy, like its cousins "Won't somebody think of the children" and "Why should we help those who won't help themselves?". It also doesn't conform to reality. Have California or Colorado collapsed because weed was legalised? Have the Netherlands? > I am ambivalent about the whole movement to legalize it Decriminalisation seems obvious to me as a solution, if coupled with a sorely needed investment in mental healthcare (across the West). The latter is necessary regardless of how we consider drugs - see homelessness, domestic violence, suicide, burnouts, etc. Decriminalisation works (cf Portugal's results), dries up income sources for the cartels, allows quality controls to be put in place, reduces stigmatisation for users, lowers the threshold for seeking therapy, keeps people out of prison for victimless crimes, creates a revenue source for the government through sales and other taxes... The alternative to decriminalisation is telling the population "we know best". Looking at the so-called war on drugs globally, it's also an endeavour that's bound to fail, strengthen drug cartels, escalate violence and cause more damage than it prevents.

JohnBooty 5y ago

Eating food is not "addictive" Oh, it most definitely is. Or to be more specific, eating the "wrong" kinds of foods (typically fat and sugar) is addictive. Also, unlike other addictions, you get bombarded with billboards and television ads for the thing you're trying to moderate.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

avgcorrection 5y ago

You can’t just throw out the word “human nature” and expect anyone to accept it. “Human nature” just means “this thing we all know about how the world and people work, come on… now don’t be difficult”. It means nothing.

Veen 5y ago
We are biological beings and our biology determines our diets, neurology, endocrinology, and multiple other factors about our lives. Whether people like it or not, we do have a biological human nature that shapes many aspects of our behaviour and culture.
- avgcorrection 5y ago
  That we have a human nature is obvious. That anyone can just throw out “human nature” as if they know what it is is the thing that I’m contesting!
  - realce 5y ago
    "This thing humans do TOO OFTEN is simply not human nature!"