6 ms·

I find it odd that the author of the article assumes his daughter is going to try drugs one day. Personally, I never have, and never plan to (23 years old). I

I find it odd that the author of the article assumes his daughter is going to try drugs one day. Personally, I never have, and never plan to (23 years old). In fact, there's plenty of people I know who don't even drink -- not because of any moral or legal reason, but simply because they aren't interested in it. To clarify, I don't care what things other people try (I encourage everyone to make their own decisions), but it strikes me as odd that he just assumes she's going to go ahead and try all sorts of things. 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.

JacksonGariety 13y ago
You should re-read the essay. 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.
- Xcelerate 13y ago
  No, I clearly understood what he meant by "drug". In fact another comment I made on here elaborates on that usage. But he specifically mentioned alcohol and marijuana, to which I was referring.
Nursie 13y ago
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.
- sublimit 13y ago
  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.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    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.
    - sanoli 13y ago
      It may be silly, but I bet 99% will understand that he meant the illegal stuff.
      - Nursie 13y ago
        >> 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.
      - betterunix 13y ago
        "It may be silly, but I bet 99% will understand that he meant the illegal stuff." Thanks to decades of propaganda...
      - Everlag 13y ago
        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.
- Xcelerate 13y ago
  > 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?
  - Nursie 13y ago
    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.
  - alexhill 13y ago
    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?
- virtualwhys 13y ago
  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.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    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.
    - virtualwhys 13y ago
      Drug altering minds have trouble with coherence.
    - eightyone 13y ago
      > OTOH LSD seems to be non- or low- addictive LSD is not physically addictive whatsoever.
- shin_lao 13y ago
  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?
  - writtles 13y ago
    >A book can alter your mind more than any drugs. So what's your point? You might be surprised...
  - Nursie 13y ago
    >> "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.
  - MacsHeadroom 13y ago
    >A book can alter your mind more than any drugs. , he argued from ignorance.
dwc 13y ago
So you have never had a cup of coffee or tea? I'm not aware of any adult I personally know who hasn't partaken of some substance that alters perception in some way. Though no doubt such individuals exist, such a state of absolute abstinence is not something I'd think of imposing on my children. 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.
- Xcelerate 13y ago
  > So you have never had a cup of coffee or tea? 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?
  - icebraining 13y ago
    He uses the more conventional use of the word "drug" in that paragraph Uhm, he specifically mentions tea, coffee and alcohol, right in the third phrase of that paragraph.
  - dwc 13y ago
    I don't feel these semantic distinctions are as distinct as all that. And they're not the same for everyone. I had a coworker who reported distinct euphoria from over-the-counter Motrin. 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.
alwaysinshade 13y ago
> it strikes me as odd that he just assumes she's going to go ahead and try all sorts of things. 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.
arg01 13y ago
I don't find it odd. I'd assume it's the same attitude plenty of parents have towards sex/parties. Assuming their child will be doing that even though it's not a given doesn't seem outrageous to me and seems like a fair analogy.
philthesong 13y ago
You may say you've never done any 'drugs'. But you've certainly gone through changes of consciousness. That's the author's point.
freshhawk 13y ago
I might be one of those people who strikes you as "incredulous" and, to be fair, I'm sure there are people who are actually "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?
- lmm 13y ago
  It's odd. I pride myself on being open to new experiences, and making my own judgements rather than relying on the law. But I seem to have an instinctive aversion to drug-taking (and it's not as simple as legality - I visited Amsterdam recently but to my own surprise found I didn't want to try the cannabis). 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.
herbig 13y ago
Yeah I think you're missing the point, that everyone takes drugs in some form and he'd like to guide her into doing so intelligently. 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.
Oxxide 13y ago
Did you also read the part where it said "If she doesn't, I'm afraid she'll miss out on one of the most important rites of passage." 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.

JacksonGariety 13y ago

You should re-read the essay. 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.

Xcelerate 13y ago
No, I clearly understood what he meant by "drug". In fact another comment I made on here elaborates on that usage. But he specifically mentioned alcohol and marijuana, to which I was referring.

Nursie 13y ago

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.

sublimit 13y ago
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.
- Nursie 13y ago
  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.
  - sanoli 13y ago
    It may be silly, but I bet 99% will understand that he meant the illegal stuff.
    - Nursie 13y ago
      >> 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.
    - betterunix 13y ago
      "It may be silly, but I bet 99% will understand that he meant the illegal stuff." Thanks to decades of propaganda...
    - Everlag 13y ago
      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.
Xcelerate 13y ago
> 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?
- Nursie 13y ago
  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.
- alexhill 13y ago
  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?
virtualwhys 13y ago
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.
- Nursie 13y ago
  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.
  - virtualwhys 13y ago
    Drug altering minds have trouble with coherence.
  - eightyone 13y ago
    > OTOH LSD seems to be non- or low- addictive LSD is not physically addictive whatsoever.
shin_lao 13y ago
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?
- writtles 13y ago
  >A book can alter your mind more than any drugs. So what's your point? You might be surprised...
- Nursie 13y ago
  >> "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.
- MacsHeadroom 13y ago
  >A book can alter your mind more than any drugs. , he argued from ignorance.

dwc 13y ago

So you have never had a cup of coffee or tea? I'm not aware of any adult I personally know who hasn't partaken of some substance that alters perception in some way. Though no doubt such individuals exist, such a state of absolute abstinence is not something I'd think of imposing on my children. 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.

Xcelerate 13y ago
> So you have never had a cup of coffee or tea? 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?
- icebraining 13y ago
  He uses the more conventional use of the word "drug" in that paragraph Uhm, he specifically mentions tea, coffee and alcohol, right in the third phrase of that paragraph.
- dwc 13y ago
  I don't feel these semantic distinctions are as distinct as all that. And they're not the same for everyone. I had a coworker who reported distinct euphoria from over-the-counter Motrin. 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.

alwaysinshade 13y ago

> it strikes me as odd that he just assumes she's going to go ahead and try all sorts of things. 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.

arg01 13y ago

I don't find it odd. I'd assume it's the same attitude plenty of parents have towards sex/parties. Assuming their child will be doing that even though it's not a given doesn't seem outrageous to me and seems like a fair analogy.

philthesong 13y ago

You may say you've never done any 'drugs'. But you've certainly gone through changes of consciousness. That's the author's point.

freshhawk 13y ago

I might be one of those people who strikes you as "incredulous" and, to be fair, I'm sure there are people who are actually "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?

lmm 13y ago
It's odd. I pride myself on being open to new experiences, and making my own judgements rather than relying on the law. But I seem to have an instinctive aversion to drug-taking (and it's not as simple as legality - I visited Amsterdam recently but to my own surprise found I didn't want to try the cannabis). 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.

herbig 13y ago

Yeah I think you're missing the point, that everyone takes drugs in some form and he'd like to guide her into doing so intelligently. 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.

Oxxide 13y ago

Did you also read the part where it said "If she doesn't, I'm afraid she'll miss out on one of the most important rites of passage." 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.