Slashdot Mirror
Drugs, Computers & Cyberculture
Jett wrote to us with an interesting article concerning
links between drugs, computers and intellectual culture as a whole. The usage of drugs, ranging from hardcore substances to alcohol and such is an interesting intersection within the computer world. One of the other pieces that I've also liked in Feed was Steven Johnson's piece on Everything2.com. And to be straight: Yes, I am involved with Everything2. But it's because I think it's cool.
Well, I don't use drugs (okay, the occasional hard cider, yeah!) but I do know some very smart people who do, and work with computers. There are a lot of classic examples here, too.
:) and there's the link between the hacker culture and The Grateful Dead. Of course, hackers and hippies have a link too, which is not surprising, along with hackers and communists, revolutionaries, etc., so it's not surprising that something as "counterculture" as drugs would be in there too.
;)
There's BSD & LSD (maybe required, for Unix development
Or maybe we're just a bunch of posers, I don't know.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Judging from all the petrification posts and smargle buttsex trolls, it seems there is no lack of drug users here on slashdot. I figure about 30+ trips of acid at a young age will obtain such a state of mind.
Hmm... I dunno about that... Alot of my net.geek friends smoke weed, and do the occasional psychedelic (lsd/shrooms/x) I always find that I'm a much better coder after I've had a joint, brings out the creativity. Of course things may be different here in Vansterdam, BC than other places.
The biggest risk in doing most drugs is the risk of getting arrested.
from the article
"... MS/DOS and subroutines of the brain can be apprehended by consciousness."
so what does this say about Microsoft?
-- Went home. Had to feed the kids.
While I love the author's works, I never put the Hacking + Drugs connection together before reading his works. (Of course, I was 14 at the time, but that may be irrelevant).
:-)
I'm just curious if his works, the image of Case in the Gentelman Loser (?) was derived from the hacker / drug sub-culture, or if the drug-use only manifested itself later. The breeding grounds (ie University ) for both may intersect, but how much of a cross-over was there between the drug-users and the geek crowd bathed in the glow of their green-screen terminals?
Off hand, the reality-altering effects of drugs and thge virtual worlds that we now have are both 2 different approaches to altering your perception. A 24 hour EQ session will produce largely the same effects (disorientation, inability to focus, difficulty with speech
Besides, whenever I used to surf whacked, all I could manage was a lame 1st post now and then.
--sugarman--
This article didn't so much link drug usage with technology, as much as talk about one woman's drug usage, and interest in technology. She was interested in authors who used drugs, but offered no particular links between them
Considering why various authors used drugs might make an interesting article. Merely making the point that many have has been done before, and is pointless.
I see some polarisation here. On one hand, many geeks, especially American are rather conservative and do not use drugs. On the other hand, many geeks, often during their college years do use or at least have tried drugs. Some see it as a form of hacking the mind, wich I personally have sometimes experienced. When using psylocybine, I have often felt like debugging my mind.. and getting rid of some nasty errors, and I feel great afterwards. I have used all kinds of substances, but the psychedelics are the only thing that I sometimes still use.
There's an interesting statement in the article regarding the sensory experience in raves and Ecstasy as "training for the Internet and virtual reality." Whereas training has usually been used to refer to media education as a preparation for new media -- insulating ourselves and being aware of extensions to our nervous system -- here it seems that ravers are preparing to become passive to the medium.
At some party I've mostly forgotten (no, it wasn't THAT good) I overheard a woman describing her trip to an unspecified region of Africa and encountering some natives. She showed them the cover of a magazine with a person's face on it; taking the magazine, they turned it over and around in puzzlement as if they did not understand what it was they should be seeing. This woman went on to make fairly derisive comments about these people but I suspect that their only shortcoming was not being trained to recognize the print and flat surface of the image on that magazine as a person's face.
Is it the case that younger generations increasingly exposed to drugs and raves can better appreciate virtual reality or the Internet?
Now, that said, given that the piece was about Everything, it'd have been nice if it had more than about two paragraphs' worth about it without having lots of fluff rambling on and on around it. It seems like a JonKatz article, but even less relevant. :)
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?
Mmmn, Hemos, drugs are bad, mmn-kay?
First posts? Firsts posts are bad, mmn-kay?
Now you're cured! You can take the rest of the afternoon off for personal reflection, mm-kay? Find your own constructive way to better yourselves!
</ACCENT>
(*sound of thousands of Slashdotters scrambling off to smoke pot and hit 'reload' repeatedly....)
--
I think that it is clear that there is a strong connection between the counter-culture aspect of computers, drugs and even modern music.
Cyberpunk fiction is full of recreational drug use. Gibson, Sterling and Effinger all include it as essential parts of the new world morality of the settings of their novels.
The internet itself is a uncontrolled form of communication and their is a large amount of information that is useful to people involved in illegal drug use and crime in general.
It is not that computers are linked to drugs, but that computers are linked to the modern counterculture, and drugs are just a part of that counterculture.
A lot of the original hackers were ex-hippies, and a lot of young computer science students I know are involved in the whole techno subculture. The Matrix is a bad example of this, but it shows that such a link exists in the mind of mass media anyway. I think it is save to say that Neo's punk friends were into some stuff heavier than just a few Heinekens.
"Politics is for the moment, an equation lasts eternity" -A. Einstein
Hackers tend to be more political than anything getting more involved with left-wing political ideals that mind altering substances.
And as someone else pointed out, do we really need drugs when very soon we'll be able to alter our states of mind with VR?
That's basically thr direction Timothy Leary was heading with computers. He was looking for a ming altering experience with computers, as great as his experiences with drugs. He was an Amiga developer and interested in ultimately wiring it directly to the brain. Interesting and also probably very likely, one day.
Now on the other side of the coin, as an audio engineer I tend to be around a lot of musicians, and I can definitely say there is a larger link to drug use with them (bug surprise) than computer users. (of course the most addicted pot smoker I have ever seen was a fellow audio engineer, and some of you probably have CD's in your collection that he worked on, but that's another story entirely).
I must confess that the idea of altering my mind with drugs in intriguing, but I have yet to raise the courage to try an halucinagenic. And the thought of smoking appalls me to no end (though I did eat a pot-brownie once and it seemed to have little effect).
For me the, my mind altering comes from occasionally drinking alchohol, good conversation, and listening to a lot of very cool music.
Ignore Alien Orders
While I don't think the article delt with it all, the person outlined, while I agree with many of her ideas, seemed more like a coffee-shop radical than a hacker, I do think their is a link between drug culture and hackers. While everyone has there definition of what hacker means, to me it is "a free-thinker with a compiler" (or maybe more generally "A free-thinking pragmatic").
To me, being a hacker means rejecting all Dogma, be it corporate, religious, or state sponsored. And since the amorility of those drugs that have been marked "bad" by society is just dogma, a hacker faced with drug culture is more likely then others to come out for it.
It is very easy, from the outside, to reject drug users as criminals by prejudice, the way that many people outside the hacker community reject us as criminals. But one cannot forget that just like we have our brilliant free thinking hacker geniuses (you know the names), recent history has been littered by genius free thinking drug users (Aldous Huxely, Carl Sagan,,,).
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
I see just the opposite. All the techies I've known have had a secret interest in mind altering substances. Even though they don't use them very frequently that I've seen, they have generally been interested in exploring their minds using psychedelic drugs. You would be suprised at how many programmers out there take the occasional trip on acid or shrooms for inspiration.
Have you actually seen what various forms of truely mind altering drugs can do to a person? Medical evidence can be given that if you regularly take drugs of various sorts that produce neural stimulant reactions that the person in question will fall victim to eventual brain damage. Plus risking your freedom over getting ahold of drugs to keep an addict happy isn't pretty either.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Drugs are crucial to computer development. How many projects are fueled almost entirely by caffeine? When the impossible is demanded, the smart programmer will understand that he will perform better -- or maybe just perform more -- under the influence of something, usually coffee, Mountain Dew, or Jolt. He will rely on a chemical to enhance his abilities beyond the norm, and I don't see anything wrong with that.
As for harder drugs, namely those of the narcotic variety, my opinion is split. These drugs can improve performance, but unlike caffeine, where all you lose is sleep, these drugs can have serious effects on your health, your personal life, and your financial status. A good rule of thumb may be that any drug that can cost you your life isn't worth any amount of brilliant code.
Unfounded rumor time: I heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone about a computer science professor at my university who tabbed LSD on an hourly basis back in the 60s/70s in order to gain inspiration for his work in artificial intelligence. I don't know if it's true or not, but I know that the professor in question is now absent-minded and socially disabled and hasn't had a promotion in at least a decade. I would not be the least bit surprised if the "rumor" is the reason why his brain is fried.
The caveat: all of his work in AI turned out to be dead ends. His contributions to the field aren't anywhere worth the damage he did to himself. Let's be careful out there.
---
---
Remember when "Truth, Justice, & the American Way" wasn't contradictory?
This is such a great question. For me it involves being a little drunk and playing the guitar. At that particular moment in time my command of the instrument was never better. It was as if I was having an out of body experience and BECAME the guitar (I know that's cliche, but it was true). I've never had so lucid a moment in my life, prior to, or since then.
Drugs certainly can break down barriers.
As an experiment, the next time I record a friend of mine in the studio we are going to fool around with different levels of intoxication and see what our creative results are. It should be fascinating.
Ignore Alien Orders
Anyway, I can see that I was rambling for a while there. My point was that the more intelligent folk tend to do psychedelics and mind-expanders, the less intelligent folk tend to do stimulants and downers, and everyone does weed. At least, that's been my experience.
--
My response:
:) Can't hack all of the time.
c) medium
"Um, what was I saying/doing, again? Damn, I can't remember."
I just plain can't code when I'm on anything. My brain just seems to drop all state information after about 3 seconds or so. But I don't take things to help me code. I take them to relax after coding.
This sig is false.
I'm just curious as to how many hackers and crackers use drugs to enhance their cognitive abilities for brief periods of time? The reason I ask this is because I seem to recall some famous page being hacked a little while back, and the perpetrator leaving a note that had, amongst other things, an apology for his spelling because he was "on methadiachromanphetamines" or something. Anybody have an idea as to what effects amphetamines can have on the problem-solving abilities of the human brain?
You know the reason that we say drugs are "bad" is that they have various facts that can cause permanent damage and such. You must understand this or else everything fails. People thought that using amphemetines of various sorts was a "really cool idea" back in the early years of the commercial drug industry. They were used for weight loss and also as a general stimulant. However what they didn't realize at the time is that you get eventual damage to your brain stem and nerve centers. They start to break down your ability to think. All drugs essentially do is to release various forms of artificial chemicals into the body and cause something that is seen as "good" in the brain. Now this is usually a bad thing. When you start messing with the brain you have problems. Hell even things that are supposedly "good" for you are usually not all that good.
A prime example of this are antiphychodics and other mental mood altering drugs. These have had known effects on the brain and can lead to general atrophy of higher brain function. Look at misdiagnosis and abuse of Prozac. People have commited suicide because of their damaged cognitive abilities from such substances.
Something more contemporary is the increase of meth labs and such in the western US. The chemicals used to create these substances are extremely toxic and they also cause wild and uncontrollable on the part of the user. I think you can safely say that this is a bad thing. I don't know of any coder stupid enough to do this but judging what MS puts out I think that they must hire all of those people.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
It would seem to me that the "drug" of choice would have to be caffeine! By far, this probably the most used (and abused) drug amongst the programmer types that I know. Of course, the effects of caffeine are much less harsh than the hardcore drugs refered to in the article. Well, that is until you try to interact with a caffeine addict in withdrawl. (Do so at great personal risk...).
:-) ) and the Guiness I drink for fun (less time for that these daze!). "Buzz: The Science and Lore of Alcohol and Caffeine", by Stephen Braun, was a great read about the drugs I abuse on a constant basis.
For me at least, the only concern I have is the vast amounts of coffee I drink (welcome to the startup scene; a pot a day keeps the investors happy
The real silver bullet to good programs is caffeine; lots and lots of caffeine! *twitch, twitch*
Seriously, I mean they got just about everything else in there:
I really took issue with the statement that drugs would expand your bandwidth and increase your processing power. There's no evidence for that. They alter effect sure, but theres no real evidence for increased information processing.
I forget who said it, talking about the use of drugs to treat schizophrenia, but the comparison made was that in the past we did trepanning[*], then we locked people up, then we electroshocked them and now we use a chemical lobotomy. * - yeah, I've actually heard that some people get trepanning for recreational reasons now - some sort of high if it's done over the right area of the brain. I don't know if it's true.
"Drugs result in a chaotic, illogical state and I guess the reasons for using them are equally illogical"
I guess you never been to boozed-up tailgate party, very angry chaos, you might say that it's illogical to a scary extreme. But it's really not.
The reasons for using?
1. It's Fun.
2. Because it's THERE.
Why do people climb steep rocks? One wrong move and you're a CRIPPLE! Your life is runnied. But why do it? Adventure, something that some people never understand. Reality can be bore. Humans crave action and pleasure. That's why we drink and slow down when we pass a car crash. Danger can be both mental and physical, and some of us choose take that risk for our personal gain.
"...they risk their health, their precious jobs, legal ramifications."
Health reasons are understandable and I guess that's what keep most people from using. Fear of the unknown and it's effects on our bodys, the human body being an important tool of our meager little brains. If that goes, you can't work, and you'll be living in the street in no time. Some of the stronger ones can hack it and have a good time in the process. Legal ramifications are the result of highly developed monkeys (i.e. humans) trying to remind themselves how civilized they are.
Drug use in it's own terms poses no real threat, only human behavior can be threating, and some of us can destroy quite nicely without any chemicals.
My current pet program (PowerShell) came to be after a couple of bong hits. It's gotten more than 15,000 downloads since I released it (Jan 3rd, I think?) and I'm constantly getting email from people who love it. I took some bong hits, got really baked, got an idea, and started coding :-) So anybody that claims that drugs make you stupid is dead wrong.
:-)
I can also code some damn good Perl stoned, too
"Software is like sex- the best is for free"
-Linus Torvalds
I don't know about linux hackers, but I guess some developers working for a certain company located in redmond are on drugs. .... ON A SERVER!
There is lots of evidence for that:
- They think they can take over the world
- They are not in touch with reality
- "now, was I programming a word processor or a 3D shoot-em-up game, er... , what the heck, lets make both in one app!"
- Customer: "What a lot of bugs"
Tech. Sup.: "Yeah, I see em too, and they have such pretty colors! "
- Nice colorfull, playfull GUI
---
Having experimented when I was younger I can say that - at least for me - I could not code (or code well) if I were using virtually any drug. Except Caffein, of course.:) It's been my experience that any increase in thinking ability is an illusion. The thoughts I had while using drugs seemed to derive from the same sources as my sober thoughts.
These days I enjoy thinking too much to tamper with it in any serious way. Remember Sangamon's Principle (From Neal Stephenson's Zodiac).
One thing I have noticed is that after a massive coding day - something chock full of creation and logic - I can barely even speak. That's kind of like being on drugs.
IMHO, as per
J:)
Oh well, no point in steering now.
Like so much dribble back in the 60s, this is just another reach to justify drug use on a massive scale. It killed people then, and it'll kill people now.
1968 Drugs will make the Gratefull Dead sound better.
2000 Drugs will make the internet better.
Sugesting that this particular generation has been inoculated by slamming in the pit at burning man and pulling hits off a huka is just wrong, wrong wrong.
_________________________
It appears to me that the tech/cyber culter's connection to drugs is mostly confined to the experience altering drugs vs. the stronger more addictive drugs. I see more programers on weed and/or LSD then crack and/or heroin. I think its because programmers are more often looking for new/altered experiences. Drugs like LSD and weed allow us to explore ourselves and our world in new ways. Whereas harder drugs (like heroin) are mostly associated with trying to 'escape' the real world, not learn about.
:-), and doing something that makes me think (which is just about everything when I'm stoned :-)
Does this ring true with anyone else?
Completely, dude... that's why I don't like drinking very much, and even when my roommates are all drinking 40's I take bong hits and watch "The Wall" on DVD (I know DVDs are bad, but the picture quality is so much nicer, and since I happened to buy a dxr2 I can watch it under Linux)
There's nothing I like better than smoking really good weed, eating barbecued hamburgers (marinated in Olde English 800
"Software is like sex- the best is for free"
-Linus Torvalds
I also don't agree that the Internet is an overwhelming sensory experience. TV can be, movies can be, but the Internet isn't. That's what the media wants to think the Internet is all about: flash and bang, but they're basically missing the point.
Ultimately, the Internet is a very intricate and structured piece of reality, and I don't see pushing yourself farther from reality as preparing you for that experience.
I'm not panning the drug experience, just the notion that it is in anyway connected to the Internet.
sigs are a waste of space
A disproportionately low number PhDs and Nobel laureates use drugs.
my premise: phds and nobel laureates have reputations. they want to protect their reputations. drug use is considered a negative trait by society. therefore, they underreport their drug use in surveys, usually created by prohibitionist organisations such as NIDA, HHN (swedish group), etc.
A disproportionately high number of high school dropouts and criminals do use drugs.
my premise: these people obviously began using drugs at a very young age. currently, our society treats such people very poorly, ie, throwing them in jail, piss tests, basically treating them like human failures. it is this ostracism which causes them to become on the fring of society, aka dropouts and criminals.
Q.E.D
canadaman
-- This sig is.
As someone else pointed out, the article in question covers quite a bit of ground, but makes no real attempt to clarify or make substantial claims about the interrelationship between hacking and drug use. It seems much more about the visions and ideas of a single person, which while valid, certainly don't have anything to do with a community that I can't really think anyone would count her as a member.
That said, I do see some correlation between drug use (and patterns of drug use) and the hacker community. What follows is my personal experience (both in use, and observing others), and generalizations I make are unique to me, though I think they are a bit more valid the Ms. Plant's.
I've seen some claims from people above, but I honestly can't say I know anyone who can hack on anything but stimulants. Interesting ideas you might get on pot/LSD/whatever, but the coding process is very rational and process-oriented, which I can't see anyone doing well under anything but stimulants. Speaking of which, everyone notice that performance curve from crystal due to sleep deprevation? I've friends who were up for 72 hours on crystal, and though they functioned fine up until the very end, couldn't code after about 30 hours or so...
Anyway, my $0.02.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
episode 2 preview
Lars -
play Quake on acid, I DARE YOU.
(that does count as the Internet, BTW)
+&x
You make interesting points, though I don't think you have proven anything.
I think it is easy to get bogged down with these sort of qualitative arguments.
It is very common for these sort of arguments to be taken on faith or based on some sort of psudo-scientific research. The strength of these arguments is that they cannot be disproven. Their weakness is that they can be no more proven than disproven. I think it is simply wishful thinking on your part that a substantial portion of "great thinkers" secretly use drugs.
I am quite tired of people blaming their problems on society. You know what? We do have a society. There are rules, and there are repercussions for failing to follow those rules. I don't hold those rules as sacred, and in fact they are often quite wrong. I even think that it is our responsibility to break those rules when they are wrong, but this does not absolve one of the repercussions. There are countless individuals that can come up with ways to blame society for improper behavior, but instead choose to the right (and difficult) thing; they take responsibility for themselves. It CAN BE DONE. Anyone who is not in control of his own actions is mentally ill and should be compassionately treated for their illness.
I don't deny the possibility that the brain can be enhanced chemically, but evidence suggests that people who engage in this behavior think it makes them smarter (maybe deeper is a better word) and that people who observe them disagree.
I do happen to have personal experience with the mind-altering drug alcohol, both as the user and as the observer. It has a similar effect. People who are on it think that they are more fun, wittier, and more interesting (maybe even better looking.) Observers tend to find the user more obnoxious.
Just as I side note, I am for legalization of all drugs. I'm not some tight ass who can't have an original thought, or imagine anyone having beliefs other than his own; I just don't believe that drug use is a "geek value."
I don't even have anything against drinking (which I do) or smoking a little grass (which I don't, at least not yet.) I just disagree with the assertions that I can't have an informed opinion about something without experiencing it, the assertion that drug use is part of the geek sub-culture, and that drugs make you smarter (or more insightful or whatever.)
I seem to be rambling.
Anyway, I respect your opinion. As far as I am concerned, this is what slashdot is all about.
-Peter
sorry about your friends. I am sure they were totally unaware that smack could kill them.
Been around junkies all my life. They just don't care, they're dead anyway. Junk kills all pain, so they are one step away form death. I guess if that is how one wants to live and die, that's their business. The risk is the buzz. The buzz is the reward.
I have used drugs most of my life, mostly weed, but also used LSD, MDA, DMT, peyote, Chot(Kat) opium, Uppers downer, coke smack, even coleus.
It is not what you use, but how you use it.
There is nothing spiritual about it, only if you attach some spiritual message to it.
I agree the revelation is in the alteration of reality. It is a touch of death, it is a touch of insanity. The idea is to touch, not embrace.
Sorry your friends found an embrace when they only needed to touch.
Keep your head.
photosMy Photostream
A prime example of this are antiphychodics and other mental mood altering drugs. These have had known effects on the brain and can lead to general atrophy of higher brain function. Look at misdiagnosis and abuse of Prozac. People have commited suicide because of their damaged cognitive abilities from such substances
There's a little bit of a problem with linking Prozac to suicides. If you take a look at the suicide rate of Prozac users vs. the general population, you'll find that Prozac users have a much higher suicide rate.
But this is a misleading comparision -- when dealing with psychotic and depressed patients, remember you are talking about a population group that has an markedly elevated suicide rate vs. the general population. Once you do the proper comparision of Prozac vs. untreated mentally ill subjects, you'll find that Prozac users have a much lower suicide rate.
There's plenty of anecdotal evidence, so could Prozac still cause suicides somehow? Well, the possibility for idiosyncratic reactions definitely exists, and it is important to recognize when a patient is responding adversely to a drug. But on the whole, you're definitely preventing many suicides.
As for the effect of Prozac on the mentally healthy--we simply don't have the type of data you would need for that (and this isn't an example of negligence, either). In Phase I clinical trials, drugs are tested on healthy volunteers. I've volunteered to be a control subject for research several times (though none of those were clinical drug trials)
Suicides didn't show up -- so we're talking about an effect that, if it happens, happens at a very low frequency. To look any farther, you literally need tens of thousands of people to participate in a controlled, double blinded trial to get statistically significant data -- expensive, time consuming, and impossible to justify when your subjects in question are *healthy* to begin with since every drug has *some* side effects (OT Rant: This includes "natural" drugs, and any decent *real* Chinese herbalist could tell you what those effects are. But most health supplement makers don't.)
In the case of Prozac use in misdiagnosed patients -- while the medical diagnosis may have turned out to be incorrect, there was some separate (nonmedical) reason that caused that person to be undergo psychiatric evaluation in the first place, so again the data is skewed (In this case, in a way that is very hard to scientifically interpret).
Yea, people forget how powerful a drug caffiene is, not to mention nicotine and alchohol. Hypocrisy means never having to say you're sorry.
+&x
[Amen], brother, if [Hemos] is so involved with [Everything 2], why didn't he [prepare] it for the [Slashdot Effect]?
Chris Hagar
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
When I first saw the descriptive blurb, I immediately thought that I'd see some nasty flamewars, as geeks took offense at being portrayed as drug users. Taking a quick look at the posts thus far, I can see that's not the case. I guess I discover yet again that my internal view of The Other isn't quite congruent with reality.
So, is there anyone else out there who had the same reaction that I did? Somehow, I find myself hoping there's a silent majority out there.
I see no evidence to support this.
none at all.
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
My father is a defense attorney, and he sees all sorts of criminals walk into his office. Most of them have some experience with drugs, but most are NOT on drug charges. Most have NEVER been charged with drug crimes. Most of them are charged with stuff having nothing to do with drugs. Our city has a drug problem, but still, I would guess from what I hear over the dinner table that it's about eh other way around, maybe 10% of crimes are related to the illegality of drugs. MANY more cases are people who habitually inhabit the legal system because they can't get their lives straight, due to many problems, often including alcohol and drug addiction. When these people get help, they usually get straightened out. Yes, there are some people who handle drugs responsibly (or relatively so), and they are probably disproportionately represented among the technically skilled, but there are plenty of rednecks and homies out there who have the talent to rise beyond their surroundings, but they keep getting tripped up by these distractions that ruin their lives.
*GASP*
Does the system need to be changed? Yes, and it IS being changed in many places, to reduce the criminality and increase focus on treatment for those who truly need it. Does the system need to be removed? No.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
Hackers tend to be anti-authority. Therefore, hackers gravitate toward drugs because the religious authorities say that drugs are immoral and the government says drugs are illegal. In order to justify drug use, they invent benefits (like enhanced "insight" or "intelligence").
On the other hand, there is also the science/psychology "authorities" that say drugs are simply bad for you. (Of course, people dismiss this as tools of the authoritative state).
For example, the author claims that drugs enhance "insight". Certainly, if you talk to your average heavy LSD user, he/she will claim that the drugs provides all sorts of philosophical insights into the world. Unfortunately, they can't communicate exactly what those insights actually are, and such insights don't prove useful in their daily lives. Psychologists have studied this to a large extent and found that LSD does gives only the "illusion" of insight: the users are just fooling themselves.
Similarly, scientists have studied Extasy and found it has massive detrimental longterm effects to your IQ.
If you are looking for insight, read widely. In particular, read stuff that challenges your beliefs. The most interesting people I know are those who are widely read; the most boring people I've ever known have been heavy drug users. Similarly, I've noticed that the "insights" drugs give people does not change their beliefs. On the other hand, I've notice significant alteration in people's views on life when they start to read widely.
In the end, while wannabe hackers partake in anything counterculture, but all the interesting/talented ones I know are not into heavy drug use.
PS: I don't think drugs are immoral or that they should be illegal; just something that virtually never leads to anything useful.
Oh to have moderator access today. I think I disagree with whatever slashdot-terminal was trying to express up there about Prozac.
;-)
Here's some personal experience that may be a bit more coheret than s-t's grammatical soup...
Stimulants in general let you focus and do more faster. They definitely increase productivity--in the short term. Unfortunately, it's a zero-sum game. If I take an ephedrine/caffeine/norephedrine cocktail and spend three-plus hours in hyper-hacker mode, when I come down, I'll spend another three hours or so in half-wit-hacker mode. Plus stimulants are addictive. Best to not rely on them.
GHB and GBL on the other hand... now these are some drugs that, from my experience, don't seem to have any down side. About 90 minutes before bed, if I take a dose of GBL (different acronym, same pysiological effect), I'll have a very enjoyable and startlingly productive coding session. Afterwhich time I'll have a pleasantly tired feeling and it's Bed Time for Bonzo.
I've never tried coding and stoning, but I sort of think that I'd do more harm than good with that experiment
Well I am quite sory for the general gramatical flow of my post but I have heard of cases where people actually took Prozac and ended up killing themselves. The number one state for Prozac prescriptions is Utah, USA.
There is clinical documented evidence that indicated that eratic brain function can result from giving drugs like this to healthy mentally sound people. The pattern was something like this: guy goes into a doctor because he has a back ache, doctor gives him prozac because he appears depressed, guy starts acting quite eratically mood swings and such, rapid changes in behaviour and then eventual suicide. If I were to give yuou say heart medication yould you be in tip top shape? How about something that is supposed to cure seizures? See the point is that a drug that is supposed to counteract something that is wrong with you has ingredients that are supposed to balance or stop the chemical agents or cellular processes that are causing this.
If you think that there are no problems with drugs then why are there so many people who become addicted and all these dead people or people who have had measurable decreased intelligence after abusing drugs for years (Jimmy has slured speech and can't preform basic motor functions without difficulty)?
Oh I know what happened! You see our Evil Uncle Sam decided that all those hippies were making too much trouble and so he engineered all these hard core street drugs and got everyone addicted. Or even better he decided to "spike" all of those "pure" drugs with some of his own wacky stuff and discredit all those "reputable" drug "vendors" right?
In China during the mid 1800's we had a little wide scale problem with this.
You see Americn and British (yeah it wasn't just the "evil" Americans this time) thought that getting all of the native people of China hooked on opium was a really cool idea. Then the Chinese got really pissed and decided to kick ass. Well as it turned out the combined forces of the drug dealers and their governments allowed them to prevail. However after what happened to all the Chinese and all the people in Europe and North America there started a reform movement.
I know that people have certain rights however getting physically damaged s usually not something that people enjoy. Can I take a razor blade and just randomly start cutting myself? Sure dosn't mean that it's a cool idea. What about addiction? I have had people in my genetic past who have been addicted to alchol and tobacco. There is a very storng possibility that if say I started smoking pot that I will also become addicted. This is totally unacceptable. We don't need more druggies in the world and we don't need more related fatalities clogging hostpital ER rooms when more people who chose not to use/abuse drugs are dieing.
I am not an idiot because I have seen things which all point the other way with drugs and such. People getting sick, people becomming dependent, people going to jail, people loosing the ability to think and function. Anything that destroys the brain is bad and should be avoided. I think one of the worst diseases is Althertiezmers(sp) because you just loose yourself.
Furthermore I would like some conclusive proof that in fact drugs can improve my productivity. I would be willing to try this little experiment: I will pump myself full of all fof these illegal drugs for the rest of my life and allow for daily/weekly cat scans/MRIs to determine it I am well; adding to this is a complete physical that will detect cancer and other nasties that are there. If I become a vegetable I will be mercifully shot and put our of my misery. Both will necessitate a series of comprehensive round the clock analysis by various teams of psychologists and other professionals who sill determine that I am indeed functioning and efficient.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
The anti-drug laws are one of the worst things to happen to this country. There is no shortage of objective independant evidence that the correct solution is legalisation (perhaps requiring you to get a lissence to sell or even take drugs; thus preventing dealers from abusing their clients additions, etc.) Instead, we imprison insane numbers of non-violent ciminals and create violent criminals to provide the serivce of a dealer. I think we all know I could go on for days agreeing with the above post about the evil shit our gov. dose in the name of the war on drugs, so instead I will draw your attention to one little point which is relevent to this discussion.
My question is: If this law is passed would it be illegal for slashdot to post this story?
Jeff
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Unfortunately, what happened to me is what happens to some people- it stopped working for me. It stopped buffering me from the increasingly horrible reality, but I kept getting more and more compulsive about it, and then I'd still be able to step back and look at myself and wonder, what the hell? I'd always put drugs into me like they were fuel, but I began questioning whether a life like that (in worse and worse surroundings) was even worth living.
Roughly around the point where I didn't give a damn anymore and would settle for anything as long as it was different, I quit using, also drinking alcohol. That hasn't changed though I'm somewhat older now. One funny thing- I ended up drinking coffee so intensely that I shook and couldn't think straight! So I ended up giving up coffee 'cos I couldn't use it like a normal person :) still consume caffeinated beverages, but only ones like Coke and black tea.
Last of all I gave up smoking (tobacco), again only when I was good and ready. Good and ready constituted having the flu, smoking anyway (of course ;) ) and being rendered literally unable to breathe at times, in acute pain. I threw away big freezer bags full of tobacco (being a good hoarder I keep bulk amounts of such things). Never did manage the 'use the last bits up then quit' maneuver, for me it's always had to be dumping the whole habit at a random moment of "Augh! ENOUGH!".
I'm not terribly surprised so much of Slashdot is on drugs. Hell, most of the world is. It is jarring that you can have a Slashdot discussion on copyright and musicians and so many people will leap in arguing in defense of THE LAW and yet, drugs? Those don't seem to count, you don't see the same arguments, the same ferocity. I am for decriminalization, though, mostly so you can get a tax base on drugs, and so we can start dealing with the unpleasant realities of the situation out in the open rather than having them still there but always kept secret. Criminalization doesn't do shit to diminish drug use, frankly.
If anybody needed to see someone saying 'I stopped using drugs, you can stop', I'm quite happy to say it. If that sounds real trivial then you wouldn't understand :) now, I know loads of people will flame me as usual and eat my karma for daring to suggest that a person might be happier without drugs. Well, that's too bad, because that's what I found. These days I'm not a balky machine running on drugs and keeping a constant quiet inventory of my 'fuels'- I'm just me (albiet with plenty of coca-colas :) )
It seems to me that this is a good thing to be- anybody else wanting to try it, ask yourself- do you want to be free?
Did the LSD cause the psychosis or did it expose a preexisting problem? Schizophrenia tends to become visible in young adults and it is a relatively common illness. If someone is a latent schizophrenic, the LSD might trigger a psychotic episode.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
That was my post, and I think I proved a point. Weak minded people who do what their teachers and police officers tell them to do are the worst candidates for LSD use. You will question authority, and in an altered state of reality, you can actually look at yourself from an objective POV. I see that as a Good Thing©.
If you can't handle the notion that you were enculturated with beliefs that are wrong, don't use acid -- A closed mind cannot expand.
--
E2 IN2 IE?
>The bad press surrounding prozac was bought and
> paid for by Scientology marketers.
I hadn't though of this, but it makes perfect sense! [see www.xenu.net to see why].
Ryan Salsbury
Yeah, but do note that all this stuff quoted from the Dune novels is FANTASY. If you weren't on drugs you'd be able to tell the difference.
Please note: I used to do drugs too (for a long time) before I finally wised up.
Drugs do not enhance brain function; most of them interfere with it in a highly destructive manner. the reason you have a good feeling about doing drugs is that *all* those which are sold illegally for recreational purposes, directly or indirectly influence a certain group of dopamine receptors in the brain commonly referred by the lay public as the "pleasure centers".
When you take drugs you are performing an act no more sophisticated or meaningful than masturbation. Meanwhile your brain malfunctions badly. Big deal.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Yeah, but do note that all this stuff quoted from the Dune novels is FANTASY. If you weren't on drugs you'd be able to tell the difference.
<BR>
<BR>Please note: I used to do drugs too (for a long time) before I finally wised up.
<BR>
<BR>Drugs do not enhance brain function; most of them interfere with it in a highly destructive manner. the reason you have a good feeling about doing drugs is that *all* those which are sold illegally for recreational purposes, directly or indirectly influence a certain group of dopamine receptors in the brain commonly referred by the lay public as the "pleasure centers".
<BR>
<BR>When you take drugs you are performing an act no more sophisticated or meaningful than masturbation. Meanwhile your brain malfunctions badly. Big deal.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Hey, don't go linking open source with drug use. Open Source is for people who like to get things done. I have respect for Open Source d00dz. Drugs are for lamers who can't deal with the real world. I have no respect for them, only pity.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
(Before you flame me for saying that the WoD is a good thing, please read what I'm actually saying in this post.)
One of the main reasons the War on Drugs will not end anytime soon is because it creates the conditions that justify it. Drugs are criminalised, which, by driving the price up and already labelling users as criminals, makes users more likely to commit property crimes to buy drugs; since dealing is illegal, drug distribution is handed over to organised crime, which can afford to protect its networks. This leads to an increase in crime, and an increase in demand for action against crime. Furthermore, the increase in incarceration due to anti-drug laws swells the prison population (already extremely high in the U.S., and growing) and creates industries dependent on anti-drug laws, which oppose any liberalisation and push for tougher laws. (In California, for example, the prison warders' union has emerged as an influential lobby group.)
It is because of these factors that the War on Drugs will not end anytime soon. In fact, it could very well last as long as the United States of America exists in any recognisable form.
A disproportionately high number of high school dropouts and criminals do use drugs.
Well, technically, the 100% of drug users (excluding drugs such as alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, &c) are criminals (though, in this imperfect world, only a fraction have been convicted as such), which makes the second part of this statement meaningless.
because cannabis will be extinct in a few decades time. The U.S. Government is investing billions of dollars in research into biological agents (genetically engineered fungi, viruses and the like) to wipe out drug crops such as cannabis, coca and opium. Once these are developed, it is only a matter of time before said species are wiped out worldwide. (It would not take much effort for a DEA operative to procure a light plane and drop a few spores over most foreign countries.)
Yeah? So can one hit by a drunk driver. You prove nothing by anecdote. If you want cold, hard statistics, look here:
http://swill.co.za/chem/law/howbad.html
The long and the short of it is
Deaths in the USA per year, by substance:
Deaths from tobacco 1,000,000
Deaths from alcohol 400,000
Deaths from heroin and related opiates 2,500
Deaths from sniffing solvents 1200
Deaths from ecstasy 80
Deaths from LSD 10
Or how about a (true) counter-anecdote: I know a psychiatrist. Part of her job is to look after psychotic people who have had their psychosis triggered by LSD. She uses LSD 2 or 3 times a year.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
1987, Harrisburg Pennsylvania
Fifteen people were killed and another 176 were injured in the worst accident in Amtrak's history. Partnership For A Drug-Free America aired millions of dollars worth of free radio spots which proclaimed: "They say marijuana doesn't kill, but I lost my wife and two children in a train accident caused by marijuana."
It was all a hoax. Dr. Delbert J. Lacefield, chief of the Federal Aviation Administration's forensic toxicology unit, later admitted to falsifying blood test results in the Amtrak-Conrail crash, as well as numerous other crashes. Lacefield's claims that THC had been found in blood samples taken from railway employees were exposed as fraudulent in court. Court records show that Lacefield never even performed the laboratory analysis required to detect THC. No one was ever found guilty of using pot and there is no evidence that pot is related to any increase in railway accidents. Since drug testing was instituted, as a federal response to the alleged use of pot in the Amtrak crash, there has been no decline in railway accidents. The engineer accused of smoking pot was, in fact, drunk and had been convicted of driving under the influence a few months earlier.
Yes, I've seen a lot of stimulant abuse (and boy howdy do I mean abuse) in the techie crowd. There's a clearly lowered defense against stimulant use (and for the addictive ones, this usually ends up leading to abuse) among hackers due to odd-schedules and that drive to create that many hacker/coders have. I've been doing more and more coffee since my job moved to 1+1/2 hours from my home, and I'm starting to notice a bit of withdrawral over the weekends....
I've seen a lot of psychadellic use over the last 12 years of being in the hacker community. The drugs of choice seem to be psilocybe mushrooms ('shrooms) and LSD (acid). X (as in extacy, not X11) was never a very popular hacker drug on the east coast as far as I can tell. Many hackers come to psychadellics via simple experimentation, as they tend to be empirically minded and "Just say no" doesn't work very well against that mindset. After a short time, though, most hackers who do psychadellics get caught up in the "how does my brain work" game. Oddly enough I've never seen this have as much negative impact on one's life as a minor addiction to alcohol. Makes one wonder about the relative legallities, doesn't it?
One common thread among all of the hackers I know. None of them do the hard stimulants (e.g. cocaine et al.) or narcotics (e.g. opiates such as opium or morphine). I think this is because intelligent people of any sort tend to do a little research before taking any drug, and the side-effects of these drugs coupled with their massively addictive qualities makes bungie-jumping look like a nice safe passtime.
I feel like this post is an endorsement of drug use, and I want to be very clear: it's NOT. You have to live with your body and brain for the rest of your life, don't get stupid with it. "Just say no" isn't a terrible rule, but if you feel you need to live by another one, take all due caution. Do research. Say no the FIRST time, so you can think it over with a clear head and give it the same priority you would give any major life decision. And, most importantly: peer pressure to do anything you're not comfortable with indicates you have the wrong peers. Talk to them about it, or just find new friends.
If you're still confused, concerned or just want someone to talk to, send me some email, maybe some of what I've seen or been through can help, or maybe I can just help by listening.
Of course, these are all my thoughts and opinions, and my employer would probably be happier if I didn't state them, so there's little chance they agree.
The Government is a large body; if one department calls Criptography a black art, it doesn't mean that is the position of the whole government. That would be like saying that slashdot is bad because some poster said something studpid in one of the forms.
Not exactly. It would be more like calling slashdot bad because everyone who posts stories for slashdot posts stupid ones. Id wouldn't matter (to the end user) how many others working for slashdot could post good stories if they were not responsable for content. The same applys to government, who cares if the dept. of agriculture understands the encryption, the encryption policy makers are all that matters to encryption, and they made bad policy.
> What's the connection to computer culture? I'd
> agree with the earlier poster that computer
> people do less drugs. Maybe because mostly
> 'cool' kids do drugs and computer geeks don't
> fit that profile. Maybe because it's difficult
> to use a computer while high.
Well perhaps I can offer a differnt perspective
for you.
I was never "cool". There were always circles and
groups I was partially accepted in, I wasn't a
total outcast. However, I never truely felt I
fit in. I was always on the fringe, to sum I
prefered sitting with a few friends discussing
philosophy then throwing spitballs around at
lunch.
Ever since I first read about drugs, I was hooked.
It was over a year later when I smoked my first
joint, 5 years before my first hit of acid.
However, from the first text files I found, I knew
I had found something that I will spend the rest
of my life with.
The human mind and the mystic of the world of
drugs amazes and enthrawls me. It is like a whole
new world. It is a way for me to explore the
worlds within my own mind. A way to exist where
fantasy is reality.
In truth, I am not a heavy user. I smoke pot maybe
a couple of times a week at most, other drugs
maybe once a month (hardly ever less than 2
weeks apart). I am fascinated as much by my own
mind as by the computers I make my living
programming on.
To me a good drug is like a good book, or a good
poem, it takes you to a new realm and lets your
imagination take hold. That is the way I view
them.
Interestingly, DARE, the program in the US where
police are sent into schools to teach kids that
drugs are bad, has been shown to have a curious
effect. Kids who graduate from DARE are MORE
likely to use drugs as teenagers, than studtens
who didn't!
Why? Well some have postulated (and I agree)
that it is becuase DAREs founders, like many,
have forgotten that drugs are interesting. You
can't teach about them without exposing people
to the idea of them....and making many interested.
It was also postulated that in 20 years someone
will ask the Next Alexander Shulgin why he
became a chemist and began researching psychedelic
drugs and he will reply that he was interested
ever since he heard about acid in DARE.
(if you have an opionon about drugs...go read
Shulgins book Pihkal, it is likely to
change your perspective a bit)
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
>Some people, (usually extremely inteligent
> people) react badly to LSD
I don't think intelligence has much to
do with it. LSD projects your inner world to your
senses. It does some really amazing things.
I have found in my experiance with LSD (which
is personally limited, I have done it maybe
8-10 times so far) that the persons emotional
stability and self image are the most important
thing. If one takes LSD foolhardeled, not
believing that it has the power to alter them
forever in a real personal sense...they can be
shocked when it shows them what a mess their
internal world is.
You can't fight LSD. I have seen 2 differnt bad
trips where the person dealt with death. One
was a good friend with very low self image. He
crumbled. he tried to fight the drug and stop
the emminent death he percieved (its a long story,
he was in no real danger of death, all imagined
due to some stupid urban legends someone had
told him). This person was caught in loops (an
LSd effect) and caused himself long lasting
psychological trauma.
The other person realized they "were dead". They
lashed out and screamed violently. However,
after a time sat and "accepted death". They
realized (through some guidence of mine) that they
were dead and that it doesn't matter...that they
can not do anything about death comming and
they calmed down and stopped fighting it.
This second person suffered only some fear for a
day afterwards, and then settled back to
relative normalcy. She seems to have come out
better off for the experiance.
As I read at the bookstore today in a book whose
forward was written by the Dali Lama. Death is
inevitable. Once you realize that and accept it,
then you don't need to live your life in fear of
it. It is that outlook that separates, in my mind,
the person who will be traumatized by these
drugs easily, and one who wont.
LSD tho doesn't help matters. It is a very
"Pushy" drug. As one person I turned on recently
said, "This stuff has alot of pep to it". Its
not a drug that holds your hand and walks you
calmly through the doors of perception, it is
a drug that sneaks up behind you as you start
to peep through the door and kicks you through
the door and says "Deal with it bitch".
(of course...I love the stuff. So far it is
the favorite of anything I have tried...with the
possible exception of mescaline (well a cactus
preparation actually). which I only got a small
taste of but showed much beauty and promise))
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
> LSD (7 hits and your legally mental, count lost
> at 200, not done in 2yrs)
Not true...after any number of hits of acid you
are still legally sane. That is assuming you were
legally sane to begin with and the LSD didn't
trigger a latent psychosis....in those extreme
cases....you would be right for any amount of
LSD.
> Alcohol (Its addictive, I just don't like its
> effect.)
I don't mind its effect...well it does kind of
suck compared to others...but I am not big on
CNS depressants. However, I can't drink it because
OI have GERD and ethanol makes my stomac act
up worst than any other substance I have found.
> Shrooms (Fun, but it makes you sick)
Sickness, AFAIK, generally caused by the mushroom
bodies themselves. Method of ingestion matters.
extracted drug from the mushroom should mitigate
the stomac problems.
> Peyote (Quite fun.)
Mescaline and its related alkaloids from cacti
are very nice. Very "fun" and euphoric (least I
found). Profound compounds though, not for the
casual seeker.
> Robotussin
BTW Dextromethorphan (which I hate the effect of)
has been linked at least anecdotally to a
potentially severe form of brain damage. While
most users are relativly uaffected, extreme
moderation is recomended.
> The moral of the story, kids, don't do drugs at
> school.
I never used drugs when I had school the next
day. Most drugs I woulfn't use if I had work
the next day (maybe GHB or pot...but they are
relativly short acting and mild in moderation)
Other than pot or GHB...there isn't much I could
see doing more often then once a month or
a few times a year.
DXM (robo) is the second worst drug I have ever
done. I did dosages ranging from 200 mg up to
1 gram. I kept hoping with a larger dose maybe it
would stop sucking...never did. So I stopped.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
No real need to be ashamed, it isn't a crime, but then again you wouldn't want to go around claiming how significant it is and how it granted you great insight (unless you happen to be completely insane like Aleister Crowley). That's the point I was making about drug use.
I refuse to let anyone else dictate to me what I'm allowed to do to myself.
There are more important things to consider than what you want.
What if it were proven that widespread hard drug use caused a drop in national GDP? Or an increase in violent crime? Or an increased incidence of serious infectious diseases? Or an increase in teenage pregnancies? Or even just a generally perceived deterioration of moral values in society?
Society has the right to protect itself by outlawing substance abuse wherever possible because drug use robs people of their ability to exercise moral judgment and inclines them to act on impulse. (Of course alcohol is included in this category. But prohibition of alcohol was already tried and it caused more trouble than it was worth because alcohol is already too widely accepted).
In the words in Captain Spock (in the movie Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan:
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction