The Animal World Has Its Junkies, Too

Phoghat writes "Research scientists have used many animal species in investigating mind-altering drugs, but it may come as a surprise to learn that animals in the wild — from starlings to reindeer — also make use of psychoactive substances of their own accord. It seems that many of these species have a natural desire to experience altered states of consciousness, and man may well have found his way to some of his favourite recreational drugs by observing the behaviour of animals."

Comments

Tell that to to judge ;-)

[ls671]

I remember watching a show on TV where a judge was telling a teenager that he was more stupid than an animal. The judge added: "Even animals aren't stupid enough to do drugs".

I can only imagine the teenager replying to the judge: "But your honor here a picture of a Reindeer seeking the hallucinogenic fly agaric mushroom".

It gave me an idea and I am now looking for investors to do a remake of that TV show with twists like this one added. Kind of "judge Judy is always wrong". It should be a great success and make a lot of money. ;-)

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[garyisabusyguy]

I was just imagining some puritanical speech about rejecting your animal nature and elevating people above base instinct

funny how that never works out, how hiding our human nature to enjoy intoxicants, sex, and all the other naughty things that people are prone to do just results in layers of lies and social artifice

the remedies that the puritans insist on are are inconvenient at best, in the case of blue laws, and deadly at at worse in the case of stonings

how long is it going to take the us to get over trying to enforce puritanical beliefs about intoxicants and find a better way to work with basic human/animal nature

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[santax]

Well, in their defence, those reindeer's are somewhat busy around these times... I can only imagine they want to relax after working hours. I mean, Santa ain't getting any skinnier.

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember watching a show on TV where a judge

That makes you stupider than a person stupider than an animal.

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[tirefire]

(emphasis mine)

I can only imagine the teenager replying to the judge: "But your honor here a picture of a Reindeer seeking the hallucinogenic fly agaric mushroom".

Funny you should choose the fly agaric mushroom for your example. Fly agaric is only a controlled substance (illegal to possess) in one U.S. state: Louisiana (source). Elsewhere, you can munch on them as much as you want (note: most people find the effects very unpleasant).

It is perhaps worth noting that although possessing/eating fly agarics is not illegal, it is a violation of FDA regulations to sell them for food or drug purposes.

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[ls671]

Nah, I am an Asgard. Even if I was the most stupid of the Asgards, I would still be smarter than you are.

The truth is that, while in school, we have to watch human TV shows to learn about that aspect of human beings.

Thankfully, this and other studies on mankind have allowed me to spot that you have made a mistake in your post and, given my infinite desire to help, I will tell you what it is: "stupider" isn't a word.

Now, I wander what this makes you but you are already forgiven due to our infinite comprehensiveness.

 

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[Anonymous Coward]

Thankfully, this and other studies on mankind have allowed me to spot that you have made a mistake in your post and, given my infinite desire to help, I will tell you what it is: "stupider" isn't a word.

BZZT. Nothing stupider than a prescriptivist has ever been found, despite ongoing studies in rock slime.

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[ls671]

Those types of reactions have always puzzled us and it is still one of the great mysteries amongst us; We just can't understand people who refuse help, it is contrary to our customs and traditions.

Would you please be willing to help us in solving this great mystery ?

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[Anonymous Coward]

So when are we going to start war on drugs on Animals?

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[Alex Belits]

Oh, for fuck sake, even watching a single episode of that show with Asgard in it, it's painfully clear that Asgard are supposed to have no understanding of human culture. Not that anything about them makes any sense in the first place, as the only purpose they have is a metaphor for "ivory tower intellectuals", yet another anti-intellectualist nonsense in American culture.

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you mean "wonder"? Confirm Yes/No?

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[JamesP]

So... "reindeer takes drugs, see Santa Claus?!"

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[Anonymous Coward]

How long is it going to take YOU to use capital letters?

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[drinkypoo]

"ivory tower intellectuals", yet another anti-intellectualist nonsense in American culture.

If I had a nickel for every time I got well-intentioned but utterly unworkable advice from someone with an ivory tower wedged well up their arse, I'd have a shitload of nickels. Ivory tower intellectuals are real. Most of them live in this category. Most of the people with the luxury to cat about the university for their entire life have never known real adversity. There are notable examples; they are irrelevant to the existence of the ivory tower intellectual.

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[damaged_sectors]

In defense of reindeer - this time of year they are Christmas lunch (I'm looking at you Linus). So you can hardly blame them for wanting to escape reality for a little while.

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[damaged_sectors]

BZZT. Nothing stupider than a prescriptivist has ever been found, despite ongoing studies in rock slime.

That's only because we're actively avoiding you - not because we're looking, and can't

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[Knuckles]

Note: the unpleasantness comes from doing it wrong. See the references to reindeer urine in TFA, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanita_muscaria

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[am 2k]

Note that things can have different effects on animals. For example, try feeding heavily spiced meat to a dog (well, rather don't). Perfectly fine for a human, but something between a heavily messed up flat and death for the canine friend.

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[kainosnous]

It wasn't that somebody just decided "You know, we should just not have fun!", but there are reasons why these things are considered bad. The first hint is your conscience, but the reason behind it is that they are simply, as the Bible explains, inconvenient.

Sex, for instance, is perfectly fine within the lifelong bond of marriage. However, when we use it as a source of pleasure, we find ourselves in all sorts of painful and distracting situations. As for intoxication, there are several problems. Other than the fact that you are out of control (depending on the intoxicant), you also have the tendency to get wrapped up in it and become less productive.

One may argue that there are drugs that are not adictive and cause no lasting damage. That may be the case, so they may not be so bad. The real problem is trying to define your life by pleasure, which is fleeting. It is one of the things, such as money, fame, etc. that people set their sites on that have no lasting benefit. In that sense, it is inconvenient at best.

Sadly, I have known many people who have had their life ruined by drug addiction. It is their experience that has told me the harm that those things can cause. Am I therefore advocating laws against drugs? Not necessarily. I'm just saying that they are a potential snare, and I thank God that He loves and forgives even the worst and will remove them from the things they can't leave on their own.

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[Demonoid-Penguin]

"ivory tower intellectuals", yet another anti-intellectualist nonsense in American culture.

If I had a nickel for every time I got well-intentioned but utterly unworkable advice from someone with an ivory tower wedged well up their arse, I'd have a shitload of nickels. Ivory tower intellectuals are real. Most of them live in this category. Most of the people with the luxury to cat about the university for their entire life have never known real adversity. There are notable examples; they are irrelevant to the existence of the ivory tower intellectual.

Their are two type of "intellectuals" - those that think, and those that "believe" they think. The latter are the ivory-tower type - can't change a tire, socialize, aren't toilet trained (piss in public), and have all the mental flexibility of brick. Having devoted all their waking hours to memorizing the output of authorities (of their youth) they so fervently wish to be - they become "authoritarian". They have a little trouble getting along with the anyone who does more in less time. They also try and limit their exposure to anything that challenges their extremely narrow capabilities - their narrow minds and shallow intellects ensure their limited experience of the real world. As a group they do not use recreational drugs (self-insight is an anathema to them) - though they do suffer greatly from imaginary ailments, and often feel they are discriminated against (especially by women) "due to their threatening intellect". (sigh). Bitterness and hatred are there most common sentiments - at best they are barely-functioning-sociopaths.

Just sayin'...

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[Anonymous Coward]

I will tell you what it is: "stupider" isn't a word.

The OED (and others) would appear to disagree.

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[Mr. Slippery]

It wasn't that somebody just decided "You know, we should just not have fun!", but there are reasons why these things are considered bad.

And most of them revolve around "that's something the tribe over the hill does, not something we do." Opium is something the heathen Chinese use, and marihuana is for Mexicans and for (gasp!) jazz musicians; us white folks drink whiskey. Taboos are an irrational social phenomenon, not the result of reasoned consideration of the effects of various behaviors.

I'm surprised that this article is being presented as news. Animal drug-seeking behavior has been know about for a long time. Psychopharmacologist Ronald K. Siegel wrote an excellent book about it over twenty years ago.

Sex, for instance, is perfectly fine within the lifelong bond of marriage

And it's also perfectly fine outside of it.

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[ultranova]

It wasn't that somebody just decided "You know, we should just not have fun!", but there are reasons why these things are considered bad.

Are considered bad by some. Please do not use the passive in trying to imply this is an universal or even widely-held attitude.

The first hint is your conscience, but the reason behind it is that they are simply, as the Bible explains, inconvenient.

My conscience condemns neither sex, drugs or any other source of pleasure. It only condemns hurting or harming people. The Bible condemns adultery, but neither sex, alcohol nor pleasure in general.

Sex, for instance, is perfectly fine within the lifelong bond of marriage. However, when we use it as a source of pleasure, we find ourselves in all sorts of painful and distracting situations.

Interesting contrast. Are you implying that sex is not pleasurable with a lifelong partner, or did you simply not think your post through? And even if you are promiscuous, that doesn't mean that you will not use your brains in sexual matters, and thus succesfully avoid "painful and distracting" situations.

Also, no partner is lifelong, unless you happen to die in the same airplane crash or something.

As for intoxication, there are several problems. Other than the fact that you are out of control (depending on the intoxicant),

Like Hell you are. You simply get an excuse for bad behaviour.

you also have the tendency to get wrapped up in it and become less productive.

You mean my overlords get less profit from me if I enjoy life occasionally? Oh noes!

One may argue that there are drugs that are not adictive and cause no lasting damage. That may be the case, so they may not be so bad. The real problem is trying to define your life by pleasure, which is fleeting. It is one of the things, such as money, fame, etc. that people set their sites on that have no lasting benefit. In that sense, it is inconvenient at best.

Define "benefit". No matter how hard you try, it eventually reduces down to getting pleasure and/or avoiding pain.

Also, I can't help but remember a book on "christian sexual ethics" I once read. It had a chapter on masturbation, which first used rather tortured logic to condemn it as sin, then spent the next 20 pages describing how to center your life around not masturbating: do not take hot showers, never be alone in a room, etc.

Even the most obsessive pervert occasionally thinks of something besides the pleasures of the flesh, but a puritan never will. The book made me realize that, no matter how worthless it otherwise was. It's better to simply satisfy your desires and then go do something else than to spend every waking hour fighting against them. And, as it happens, the Bible - specifically, Paul's letters - say the same :).

I'm just saying that they are a potential snare, and I thank God that He loves and forgives even the worst and will remove them from the things they can't leave on their own.

Yeah, he even forgives people who say "they" when talking of those caught by tempting snares. Here, have a link; may you reflect on it and this and gain insight.

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[lexidation]

I've had sex for pleasure for almost 40 years now. I don't recall it being the source of "painful and distracting situations". Did you get your dick stuck in a hole, or what? Why "painful"? C'mon.

If there is a god, God is not a "he". The bible is not "his" book. Jesus was not "his" son. And no, if your son is disobedient, you should not drag him down to the gates of the town and have him stoned to death by the other believers (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).

The universe is a very big place. Jesus and his Dad don't have enough magic to contain it anymore.

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[Hognoxious]

I've had sex for pleasure for almost 40 years now.

Isn't it getting a bit sore down there by now?

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[lexidation]

Not by any measure.

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[Anonymous Coward]

Similar for grapes/raisins and chocolate vs dogs. And aspirin vs cats. And PTFE fumes vs birds.

Macadamia nuts too..

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't that somebody just decided "You know, we should just not have fun!", but there are reasons why these things are considered bad.

Perhaps - but let's look at the reasons for some of them.

Cocaine: "In 1914, Dr. Christopher Koch of Pennsylvania's State Pharmacy Board made the racial innuendo explicit, testifying that, “Most of the attacks upon the white women of the South are the direct result of a cocaine-crazed Negro brain." Mass media manufactured an epidemic of cocaine use among African Americans in the Southern United States to play upon racial prejudices of the era, though there is little evidence that such an epidemic actually took place."
(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine#Prohibition)

or in short, "OMG we need to stop the niggers!"

Marijuana: A twofer on this one - both a way to criminalize a common recreational drug of the Mexican migrant population *and* a way to shut down a competitive process to William Randloph Hearst's pulp-paper business. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States)

Opium: "There were no legal restrictions on the importation or use of opium in the United States until the San Francisco, California, Opium Den Ordinance, which banned dens for public smoking of opium in 1875, a measure fueled by anti-Chinese sentiment and the perception that whites were starting to frequent the dens. " (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium)

In short: "OMG Chinese people are having fun, and might touch our white wimmins!"

I don't think I even need to cite a source for the blatant hippie-punching involved in instantly transforming LSD from a psychological research chemical to a "dangerous drug" overnight (thanks Nixon).

In short, essentially every modern "illegal drug" WAS LEGAL, until somebody (usually an uptight Christian, frequently with a double helping of racism) decided to make them illegal.

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[apparently]

Sex, for instance, is perfectly fine within the lifelong bond of marriage. However, when we use it as a source of pleasure, we find ourselves in all sorts of painful and distracting situations.

You know what puts a person in a painful and distracting situation? Not masturbating. But nooooooo, can't do that, Jesus says that masturbation is adultery: "Matthew 5:28 – “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who has looked a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”"

As for intoxication, there are several problems. Other than the fact that you are out of control (depending on the intoxicant), you also have the tendency to get wrapped up in it and become less productive.

It's interesting that the Bible doesn't actually ban any drugs or alcohol. Hell, Jesus was such a lush that he couldn't pass a glass of water without turning it into a fine chianti. Word on the street is that if he happened upon a pretty little thing having a casual sip of water, he'd miracle it into wine as it was falling down her esophagus. Crazy! I know! But probably justifiable since Genesis says that every plant on the earth was made for us to eat:
Genesis 1:29 - Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.
I mean, literally, God is saying "Did I hear someone say pot brownies? Pass the plate, man."

The real problem is trying to define your life by pleasure, which is fleeting.

Dude, you live in a world in which eating shellfish is an abomination that will cast you into hellfire and that slaves are Bibically told to obey their masters. Anyone who doesn't seek out a life of pleasure before they're cast into eternal damnation is just being practical.

Sadly, I have known many people who have had their life ruined by drug addiction......and I thank God that He loves and forgives even the worst and will remove them from the things they can't leave on their own.

So God loves and forgives and will remove people from the things they can't leave on their own, yet you know people who have ruined their lives due to drug addiction? Those two sentences contradict eachother. Please spend the rest of the holiday season visiting kids in terminal cancer wards and telling them that God loves them. See how far that goes to consoling their families when the kid can't overcome the tumors that are overtaking his body. "Thank" God; I'm sure that'll go over real well.

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[jadavis]

hiding our human nature to enjoy intoxicants, sex, and all the other naughty things that people are prone to do just results in layers of lies and social artifice

You left out other traits common among animals and people, such as violence and theft.

I'm not claiming that puritanism is the right approach to civilization, nor am I saying that human nature should be ignored, nor am I saying that all humans are prone to violent behavior.

But any civilization, if it wishes to avoid collapse, understands the negative consequences of uninhibited human nature and tries to control its people to some degree. Most of that control is exercised through social pressure, but laws are also used as a last resort.

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[tirefire]

Note: the unpleasantness comes from doing it wrong. See the references to reindeer urine in TFA

I checked out TFA and Wikipedia, and as I understand it, the amanita consumer must choose between eating somewhat poisonous mushrooms caps OR drinking reindeer urine. Or am I missing something? Because both of those options sound kind of gross.

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[Knuckles]

Or shaman urine :)
(The urine of anyone who volunteers is fine in practice, it helps if the volunteer is experienced though).

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[Knuckles]

And re grossness: the continued existence of the practice and the available texts by practitioners suggests that it must somehow be worth it. I haven't tried though.

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[sjames]

Now if we could get people to realize that the same applies to politicians from wealthy families only moreso, we'd be getting somewhere.

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[X0563511]

Shame on you mods, this isn't a real bible-thumper troll. There's some good points buried in here. ...

The first hint is your conscience...

I'll kindly ask you keep your system of morality in mind, as that is entirely what governs your conscience. This gets into really nasty arguments about good/evil black/white etc and we best not delve into that as nobody will leave happy.

Sex, for instance, is perfectly fine within the lifelong bond of marriage. However, when we use it as a source of pleasure, we find ourselves in all sorts of painful and distracting situations.

This tends to be true only for those who have an addictive personality, or are compensating for some other deficit. Seldom will you see a healthy (mental) person engaging in orgies/promiscuous behavior regularly. Keep in mind that promiscuous does not mean polygamous, or rather I don't mean it in that way.

As for intoxication, there are several problems. Other than the fact that you are out of control (depending on the intoxicant), you also have the tendency to get wrapped up in it and become less productive.

For the most part, I would agree. However, note that the only intoxicant I ever use is alcohol, and having maybe 5 drinks in a month tends to push this argument down. Perhaps I'm not 'normal' in this sense?

One may argue that there are drugs that are not adictive and cause no lasting damage. That may be the case, so they may not be so bad.

Excellent job cutting through this. I agree. If it's true, then it's not necessarily bad.

The real problem is trying to define your life by pleasure, which is fleeting. It is one of the things, such as money, fame, etc. that people set their sites on that have no lasting benefit. In that sense, it is inconvenient at best.

This is true. Note that, what others may not grasp, you said "define your life by" not "occasionally seek" - I don't think anyone could argue that gluttony, greed, or (true) hedonism are good things (even if the basis for them - survival etc - is).

Sadly, I have known many people who have had their life ruined by drug addiction. It is their experience that has told me the harm that those things can cause. Am I therefore advocating laws against drugs? Not necessarily. I'm just saying that they are a potential snare...

Aye - even if this isn't always the case, the amount of people who ruin themselves vastly overshadow the number who don't.

... and I thank God that He loves and forgives even the worst and will remove them from the things they can't leave on their own.

Heh, Karma's a bitch no matter what you call it, eh?

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[cusco]

We must be lucky to have beagles and Peruvian hairless dogs, since they can eat anything. Spicy meat, raw sweet potatoes (which they steal out of the pantry), chicken bones, sandwiches they find in the bushes, dead fish on the river bank, every kind of poop imaginable, you name it. The only problem that any of them have had is the puppy who swallowed an entire sock so couldn't eat anything else until she barfed it back up a couple of days later. And if it really **IS** somehow too nasty to eat the beagle figures that it makes great perfume to roll in. Don't get a wimpy inbred AKC dog, get a real dog that can chase rabbits in the freezing rain for hours, go home and snarf down a pile of leftovers, and snore the afternoon in a pile of rags under the couch.

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bible condemns adultery

Not all of the bible.

Then again, trying to get a consistent stance on anything out of the bible is just silly.
The only thing you can bet on is that God is angry at you for something.

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[rx7chick]

I think those animals should be arrested. Maybe even life in prison for "dealing" when they showed those gullible humans what was "up."

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[Hognoxious]

What about food? Does somebody bring it to you?

As for going to the toilet, it's probably better not to ask...

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[whereiswaldo]

how long is it going to take the us to get over trying to enforce puritanical beliefs about intoxicants and find a better way to work with basic human/animal nature

I've been doing some thinking along these lines myself lately. There's got to be a pie chart for each person that describes their basic need for certain stimulations: sex, power, love, reflection, etc... and obviously each slice of the pie would differ in size uniquely per person. I believe each of those needs has to have an outlet, or it will bubble over like a pot on the stove if it isn't tended to. This imagery also lends itself to a cyclical view of people's emotions - we all go through our ups and downs - that's just life. If you live a lifestyle that satisfies those needs (in a healthy way) instead of surpressing them, I think those ups and downs can be smoothed out. Sometimes when I'm sad, I think, why be upset about being sad? Embrace the sadness and fulfill that need, that slice of the pie. The trick is to find healthy ways to fulfill the needs. Obviously, that's not always easy. But I think a key is to recognize the needs and the cyclical nature and to be mindful when those needs bubble up to the surface.
A person who ignores their basic needs can get by for awhile all-smiles, but eventually things will break down. Better to have a balance.

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised that this article is being presented as news. Animal drug-seeking behavior has been know about for a long time.

Yea Native American have know this for a few thousands years. Of course nobody asks us anything we're just some dumb savages. What would we know.

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[mcgrew]

That bird won't fly.

The first hint is your conscience

My conscience doesn't bother me when I'm drinking or smoking pot. Why should it? My conscience only bothers me if I think I may have hurt someone.

I'm thinking of the social pressures the corporate media put on one; diet food companies trying to make you geel guilty about eating non-diet food, or the AT&T radio commercial where they talk about the "guilty pleasure" of downloding silly videos from YouTube -- "you know, the one with the squirrel playing tamborine".

the reason behind it is that they are simply, as the Bible explains, inconvenient.

The Bible doesn't mention intoxicants at all, except alcohol (which it says kings shouldn't drink). It says to give wine to the grieving and strong drink to the dying. Jesus himself turned water into wine for a wedding celebration, and wine is part of communion, for Christ's sake!

Other than the fact that you are out of control (depending on the intoxicant), also have the tendency to get wrapped up in it and become less productive.

I don't think you're reading the same Bible I'm reading; is your Bible by chance the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition? Where does the bible say anything about being out of control? Or that you are supposed to be "productive"? "Look at the lillies of the field, they neither spin now sew, but look how God has clothed then in their glory".

The real problem is trying to define your life by pleasure, which is fleeting.

Pleasure isn't evil. The only evil would be if you worshiped something besides God, like money. Money is the very worst of intoxicants. But there is nothing whatever wrong with pleasure.

In fact, the theme at my church this month has been "A Whitespace Christmas" -- giving yourself a break from the hustle and bustle and work and shopping and such. "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy" means RELAX on Sunday. Lay around the shanty and put a good buzz on.

Sadly, I have known many people who have had their life ruined by drug addiction.

So have I, but I've also known many people who at first glance seem to have had their lives ruined by drugs, but after talking to them realized that their lifes were already ruined before they ever took that first sip of whiskey or snort of cocaine. In many if not most cases, drug addiction is a symptom of an underlying mental illness, and is but a symptom rather than the disease.

One more thing -- The necktie is a symbol of wealth and power. Bankers, lawyers, politicians, stockbrokers, CEOs al wear this symbol. If your preacher wears a tie, he may be the wolf in sheep's clothing Christ warned you about; of all the things Christ had bad things to say about, wealth and personal power were at the top of the list.

And to whatever athiest modded that comment "troll", stop it unless you want Christian and Muslim slashdotters to start moderating and metamoderating all those comments that ridicule religion as "troll". Kainosnous' comments would only be trolling on an athiest messageboard, which slashdot isn't. Keep your irrational hate to yourselves, it isn't welcome here.

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[mcgrew]

Taboos are an irrational social phenomenon

I don't think taboos against theft, murder, rape, cannibalism, etc are irrational. Some taboos are, but I'd say most are not.

I'm surprised that this article is being presented as news. Animal drug-seeking behavior has been know about for a long time.

That was the first thought that slipped into me head when I saw TFS.

Sex, for instance, is perfectly fine within the lifelong bond of marriage
And it's also perfectly fine outside of it.

It can be, the danger is if one of your parents were having an illicit affair, you could wind up married to your sister. And there's no pain worse than finding that your spouse has been unfaithful.

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[mcgrew]

You're looking at the Muslim and Jewish bible with its old covenant. Jesus brought a new covenant (let he who is without sin cast the first stone).

The universe is a very big place. Jesus and his Dad don't have enough magic to contain it anymore.

That's just silly; Jesus' old man created the universe and he can do with it whatever he pleases. Just because you don't understand it or his ways doesn't mean he can't control it. It, and you, does what he wants.

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[Anonymous Coward]

This is total bollocks, my dogs regularly eat the leftovers that were (at the time I ate them) smothered in Buffalo Wild Wings Mango Habanero sauce. And they have suffered no ill effects. They don't even rush to drink water......

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[lexidation]

The Jesus Christ of the bible is a fictional character in a historical play about truth and meaning. There is no body of evidence in any science which would compel one to believe otherwise. The "new covenant" is just a bunch of silly bullshit Christians spout to apologize for the undeniable, unforgivable ugliness present in the Old Testament.

Jesus' "old man" wasn't God. He was, presumably, Joseph. And Joseph is long since dead, not in control of anything

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[ls671]

Yes.

Thanks for your help ;-)

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[ls671]

Of course, "Asgard" was only used as a mean to simplify the text and its reference should only be viewed as a mere attempt to make it easier for the reader to understand the point.

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[Phoghat]

How do you think Santa gets his reindeer to fly man?

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[Phoghat]

Yea Native American have know this for a few thousands years. Of course nobody asks us anything we're just some dumb savages. What would we know.

Yeah, at least I'm sorry about Manhattan Island man

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[Phoghat]

I've had sex for pleasure for almost 40 years now.

Isn't it getting a bit sore down there by now?

Not if you're doing it correctly

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[Alex Belits]

If they are so isolated from you, why do you care enough about them to post that diatribe?

Re:Tell that to to judge ;-)

[Demonoid-Penguin]

If they are so isolated from you, why do you care enough about them to post that diatribe?

What does one (sophistic) thing have to do with the other?

Won't examining your own motivations provide a suitable answer? Or are you just trying to make some sort of obscure, petty, and asinine point? Are you unable to understand the difference between a (somewhat tongue in cheek) description of *some* intellectuals and *all* intellectuals. Your implied opinion of me says nothing about me, and speaks volumes of you.

Catnip

[ZiakII]

Just give a cat catnip it is like watching a junkie just getting their fix. My friend's cat just discovered where it was hidden and was opening the cabinet and closing it to get his fix.

Hypothetical Article

[jhoegl]

This article is Hypothetical and wouldnt be published in anything worth a damn because the scientific leg work has not been done.
I also note the publisher of this non-assuming website "pjonline.com"...Pharmaceutical Press 2010.

article is total crap and isnt worth being posted on slashdot.

Re:Hypothetical Article

[ls671]

I quickly checked on that, in the legal section, it says:

"PJ Publications is part of Pharmaceutical Press, the publishing division of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain."

It seems credible. At first glance anyways... ;-)

Re:Hypothetical Article

[pinkushun]

Anyone who has at least a few months of hallucinogenic experiences, would instantly know that its not at all impossible for animals to want to experiment with psychoactives.

It may not be a proven scientific fact, but it does become common sense, as your eyes are opened to the world in ways you never thought existed, like the relationship between your brain and the chemicals that affects your perception of reality and time.

I guess it is harder to imagine the want of such unique perspectives, without having such an experience yourself.

Re:Hypothetical Article

[anti-NAT]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w4RmbX4WR8

Re:Hypothetical Article

[echucker]

Note the sidebar to the article - it shows the reindeer photo as the magazine cover. The article is being published to boost seasonal sales.

Re:Hypothetical Article

[damaged_sectors]

It's actually a very old truth. Try a little research - not just reindeer either.

Note: there are many plants (and fungi) containing drugs - and a few cultures that credit animals with discovering drugs (coffee, cocaine, mushrooms) - but just because animals/birds get high on them doesn't mean it's a good idea for humans. Fly agaric is about as fun a recreational drug as Datura. As a general rule - if the side effects are comparatively minimal - the drug is popular, and illegal. Psilocibin bearing mushrooms for example are illegal in place where Fly Agaric is not.

Re:Hypothetical Article

[damaged_sectors]

It is sad to see it posted. I see nothing but hear-say and conjecture.

Accompanied by the smell of shit? Hint: it's because you've got your head up your arse.

Nothing in it is actual scientific evidence of these happenings except vague references. I question what this articles intention is except to perhaps attempt to make a case for drugs, which almost seems like a drug addicts logical reasoning after being blitzed on weed and watching a "National Geographic" documentary on something.

What is truly sad is a/clowns like yourself - who abuse the ability to read by not researching, and disregard anything that stands in the way of their deep emotional investment in stupid beliefs

Kind of like those that persist with the belief that nature is pure and humans are sinners - we are all animals, just some more "civilized" than others. Next week - perverts insist not all animals are monogamous and heterosexual, and murderers claim animals sometimes kill more than they eat.

Of course (recreational) drugs are just a crutch for those that can't cope with reality... and spouting patently, and demonstrably, bullshit opinions like yours isn't avoiding reality?

Or is this a "god" thing - the same one that made the drugs and the capacity to be affected by them?

Re:Hypothetical Article

[Nursie]

In five years, when you're bored of LSD and the long term effects have gone, you'll read this back and *facepalm*.

Believe one who knows.

Re:Hypothetical Article

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm 43 years old, I haven't used hallucinogens since I was 28 and I still have to say that it was a very interesting experience that I do not wish to have undone. It's not a "miracle pill" but LSD definitely can be helpful in helping you understand yourself in a way that most people who do not use hallucinogens never come close to understanding.

While the experience can be as plain as just a "laser show" (lots of visual stimulation, giggling and general silliness) it can also be extremely fascinating. I still remember the feeling of being able to how I was thinking. It's a bit like using a kernel level debugger on your thought processes, you see things about the way you think that you never would have picked up as clearly otherwise. Of course, there's always the risk of getting stuck in an infinite loop which forces you to figure out how to manipulate your own mind in order to snap out of it.

Re:Hypothetical Article

[mikael_j]

Did you ever consider that people may not be comfortable attaching their names or even their more commonly used nicknames to posts stating that they have used drugs and that they considered said drug usage to be mostly positive? There are plenty of people who have to pretend to be anti-drugs publically because their employer, friends and many others would never approve of anything short of "Drugs are bad, mmkay?".

Re:Hypothetical Article

[jhoegl]

Nope, neither. I am neither religious nor do I wish to separate humans from animals. My point is that it is not a scientific article, and thus is pointless unless backed by scientific data. Citation might be a good start.
I mean, I can theorize that clowns do more harm than good because children develop a phobia of people who mask themselves in makeup causing them to not like women and thus cause domestic violence.
Plausable, but where is the proof?

Re:Hypothetical Article

[jhoegl]

I agree, taking drugs that damage the brain and body to "enhance" ones imagination is OOOHHH so worth it.
But to assume I havent taken any drugs is pretty dumb.
However, realizing the harm drugs do to ones self to simply "enlighten myself to a higher state of being" is much more enlightening.
THe reality is that people take drugs to escape. Escape life, escape pain, escape not understanding. Once you know thyself, know thy neighbor, and know thy pain you have reached the real enlightenment that is life.
NOTE: This does not require religion if that is what you are thinking. It just requires reflection and courage to face your fears and woes.

Re:Hypothetical Article

[Nursie]

I think it's interesting to see how minds react to chemical adulterants.

I think most of the insights gained are the sort of thing that seems significant at the time and turns out meaningless later, like dreams. And I also think that in general the idea of opening your mind with hallucinogens is subjective. Of course you could say it's subjective in its very nature, but I mean subjective in that it feels or seems like something has happened when really it hasn't.

No regrets, but I don't buy the hype,

Re:Hypothetical Article

[pinkushun]

It's been over 3 years now, without any craving or long term effects, after 3 years frequent use.

In retrospect, the visuals of me programming my brain, and the world around me, can't be matched by any multimedia experience, ever! :-)

Re:Hypothetical Article

[pinkushun]

Yes there is definitely some escapism involved, the same goes for eating (as some do when depressed) and drinking liquor.

Most things that stimulate our senses could be fixated on as means to escape our reality temporarily.

Mind drugs on the other hand, accentuate our thoughts and forces us to deal with what's inside our skulls, albeit in a very different perspective, and usually with a very giddy gait!

Re:Hypothetical Article

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, neither. I am neither religious nor do I wish to separate humans from animals. My point is that it is not a scientific article, and thus is pointless unless backed by scientific data. Citation might be a good start.
I mean, I can theorize that clowns do more harm than good because children develop a phobia of people who mask themselves in makeup causing them to not like women and thus cause domestic violence.
Plausable, but where is the proof?

What you propose is plausible for reasons that I hope are based on the work done by psychologists, people who have used science to determine what is true to the best of our knowledge. It isn't plausible just because you were able to write it down.

TFA was similar in that it proposed stuff that has most likely been determined through scientific methods. It doesn't make any claims to be particularly rigorous, so you have to take the info in that way. Observations have been made, studies have been done, but the dry scientific methodology has been omitted to make the article a bit of a better read. What the article claims is plausible (and I would say more so, as I have seen other pieces on animals getting wrecked - I heard of some browsing herbivores leaving fruit that had fallen from 1 tree for a period of time whilst eating other fruit in the area, then eating the rotten fruit and getting drunk).

TFA also isn't ladened with adverts (AdBlock has blocked nothing, and NoScript only has Google analytics in the untrusted), so that piece doesn't appear to have been published for money, or at least as attempted gross profiteering. Whilst people bullshit for various reasons, money is the biggest driver. When claims are made on some blog, with adverts blocked from numerous networks, multiple untrusted domains in NoScript, and perhaps a smattering of web bugs, it looks very suspect. This looks less so (though of course you are right to be sceptical, I just feel it is misguided in this case).

Oh, and if you wanted a citation, RTFA! It is mentioned at the very top!

Your equating drug addiction and weed use though, and your preachy attitude towards what human beings do with their own bodies, shows your true colours. You don't need to practice religion to behave like you are religious. Shit, I know people who are obsessed by football, and consume themselves into big debt, who aren't religious, yet their dogmatic attitude to a sports club and mindless acceptance of what they are told by businesses parallels the religiously faithful. These people I know are faithful to their brands, and just like those who accept what, for example, the catholic church has to say, some of them will get fucked by their brand owner.

Re:Hypothetical Article

[Anonymous Coward]

Get fucked, you cryptofascist!

Or to put it another way, I guess you are one of those who will not listen to criticism of the police or military unless it comes from current or past service members too?

Most of the shit that goes round about drugs comes from those who have never done them. Or they have, but they pretend their choice of drugs aren't drugs, they are "drinks" or "medicines", etc.. You don't appear to be dismissing what they have to say, so your agenda is actually quite clear.

Yours,
A different AC to the one you are trying to attack.

Re:Hypothetical Article

[itsenrique]

which almost seems like a drug addicts logical reasoning after being blitzed on weed and watching a "National Geographic" documentary on something.

Sounds like here-say and conjecture.

Re:Hypothetical Article

[mikael_j]

Then, I guess he is not so proud of using drugs, now is he?

I don't think he/she stated that he/she was "proud" of his/her drug use, but even if the parent poster is proud or in no way feels guilty about his/her prior drug use that doesn't mean that it is without consequence to publicly state this fact.

There are plenty of people out there who would be happy to force someone who has not used drugs for years into rehab, or have them fired because "we don't hire druggies". That's not to mention just generally being viewed with suspicion by your peers. And if you have kids and social services find out about any prior drug use (not counting severe alcoholism though) they're very likely to put your kids in foster care (at least around here). Oh, and if you are divorced with shared custody you can bet your former spouse will use any and all drug use in the past as an excuse to get full custody of the kids.

"Free speech" doesn't mean "Free speech as long as you reveal your identity up front".

Re:Hypothetical Article

[sjames]

I have watched birds getting drunk on berries myself. I have also heard reports from others I trust of birds leaving berries on the ground until they ferment, then eating them and flying around drunk. I have seen footage of elephants choosing to eat fermented melons rather than fresher ones, then stumbling around drunk.

Years of research by others verifies this quick observation and shows that it extends to other drugs as well.

If you're not aware of any of it it's only because you aren't looking at all. Your entire basis for dismissing this is that you haven't been spoon fed the relevant information at best, and at worst you have studiously avoided information contrary to your worldview. There is nothing even slightly controversial in the facts reported by TFA.

Re:Hypothetical Article

[cusco]

One of the most delightful pieces of video I've ever seen was the animals getting drunk on fermented amarula fruit in 'Animals Are The Funniest People'. It's about 45 minutes in, and absolutely hilarious.

Re:Hypothetical Article

[damaged_sectors]

Nope, neither. I am neither religious nor do I wish to separate humans from animals. My point is that it is not a scientific article, and thus is pointless unless backed by scientific data. Citation might be a good start. I mean, I can theorize that

clowns do more harm than good because children develop a phobia of people who mask themselves in makeup causing them to not like women and thus cause domestic violence. Plausable,

No.

but where is the proof?

My apologies if you interpreted my comments to accuse you of religious beliefs. Advancing an "opinion" to refute a substantially supported fact is usually the act of a "one-bookian" and/or a self-righteous fool.

This is not Wikipedia - I didn't post the original story (which is very, very old news). Your demand for a citation is just stupid. If a child tells you that an apple falls due to gravity - do you dismiss that because the child isn't a scientist? Do you demand a citation?

Love to see you try that with a police officer.

The world, and I, owe you nothing. Acting like a damaged child and "demanding" others provide "evidence" to oppose your unsubstantiated views robs you of any right to credibility and respect. You should be used to that by now.

I propose that if you can write - then you can read. Demanding proof on this subject is like demanding proof of gravity - it is neither an obscure, nor recent, area of research. But if literary comprehension is a failing - try asking at your local pet shop "got anything that'll get my cat off".

(yawn) Having spent the last half hour reading your posts - your only point is the fleshy growth on top of your neck. I've bolded the citation for that. Happy?

Re:Hypothetical Article

[cusco]

That seems to vary dramatically from person to person. I knew two poets who wrote while stoned. One did her best work then, while the other would have to throw away almost everything as soon as he came down. The mescaline in San Pedro cactus brought me to a new and life-changing point of view, and I know someone else who changed career path after examining his life while on psylocibin mushrooms.

Re:Hypothetical Article

[Demonoid-Penguin]

In five years, when you're bored of LSD and the long term effects have gone, you'll read this back and *facepalm*.

Believe one who knows.

Have to disagree there (of course my perception of reality is distorted). Thirty years later, children, grandchildren, successful in business, and generally regarded as a prominent member of society. Never had any "mental issues" or "flashbacks". Very, very few drugs I didn't try as a youth - including large amount of most of the hallucinogens (main academic background OC & P).

Drug use does not automatically give self-awareness or enlightenment. Drugs (legal or otherwise) are not incapable of causing damage. I certainly see many bad effects from drug use in others (alcohol, cocaine, amphetamines esp.). There are genetic factors that predispose some to greater risk of damage than others - and bad (contaminated) drugs. Other damage comes from social attitudes which force recreational drug users outside of mainstream society. But mostly, a healthy lifestyle, a good education, access to quality information (and drugs), coupled with self-discipline (delay that gratification) do allow safe recreational use of hallucinogenic drugs.

Note: Since my late twenties I haven't used any recreational drugs other than cannabis - though 6 years ago the wife and I took a holiday to Bali and enjoyed an ecstatic afternoon on gold-top mushies. (she's qualified to identify fungi using spore prints). Life is a joy, most of what makes people unhappy stems from a daily search for things to make them happy. Take your pleasure and insight where you find it.

I also enjoy fishing and surfing. Activities that kill and cripple people who fail to act in a responsible manner.

Denial is not being responsible. Humans/animals have always, and probably will always, modify their environment. Your head is part of your environment. Failure to recognize that is just indicative of the sort of futile desires that King Canute attempted to educate against.

The arguments that "it's not needed", "it poses a risk", are neither useful, nor relevant. They just demonstrate a lack of understanding.

I don't hold that my experiences will match those of others - I've certainly never proposed that any of my kids take drugs (though two of them have). Your experience may not match the experience of others. That the total number of people who regret trying hallucinogens (or other recreational drugs) is minute compared to the number of people who tried them should be some indication of the true situation. Literature and studies are fine - but when we are dealing with illegal drugs the true figures are distorted. Next time you're out and about - carefully phrase your questions and speak to some of us grandparents. You might be surprised.

Re:Hypothetical Article

[Demonoid-Penguin]

You feel so positive about it that you post as an AC? Sorry, but I don't believe you at all.

At the posters (stated) age that's probably wise. We are talking about controversial and illegal activities.

Given the "chilling effect", anonymous posts are appropriate - particularly if the poster works and resides in the US/Malaysia/Indonesia or China.

Please don't take hallucinogenic drugs - the Mental Health system is already under strain. Your opinion is indicative of the sort of person who will have a bad trip - "seeing" who you really are will not be pleasant.

There is a difference between the "person" people project, and the "person" people are. If that difference is large they will not be able to cope with things that break down those barriers (psycoactive drugs and alcohol). Those that are ashamed, or scared, of who they really are cannot cope with self awareness (freakout). And they are not pleasant people to be around when the barriers come down.

"Never trust someone you haven't been drunk with - because you don't truly know 'them'"

--- my grandfather (who once explained that pot was not discovered in the 60s - "when I was a lad in the Merchant Navy we called it 'goofing off' - stoned was what booze did")

Re:Hypothetical Article

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Then, I guess he is not so proud of using drugs, now is he? If he is not willing to stand behind his words, then his words are meaningless. If his drug use is private, then he should keep it to himself. If he wants to publicly comment on his drug use and how good it was for him, then he should do it publicly under his own name, not cower behind a false front. Until he is willing to state publicly who he is and what drugs he has done, he can STFU.

Your name and address please or is gutless another one of your deficiencies?

Re:Hypothetical Article

[Demonoid-Penguin]

No regrets, but I don't buy the hype,

Sounds wise :-D

Advocate and Educate have different spellings for a reason.

Re:Hypothetical Article

[Anonymous Coward]

> but LSD definitely can be helpful in helping you understand yourself in a way that most people who do not use hallucinogens never come close to understanding.
> I still remember the feeling of being able to how I was thinking.

I already did the same when I was younger, and without drugs.
And I still do it sometime when thinking of different point of view and implication on a "higher" abstraction level.

Re:Hypothetical Article

[TheHonch]

I've also tried it when I was ~30 2-3 times and it was not a nice experience, symptoms very similar to schizophrenia, as described in psychology textbooks (anxiety, hypersensitive to smells etc). I also puked a lot. But I don't regret testing it.

Re:Hypothetical Article

[Nursie]

I have no regrets, I had no bad experiences and I think hallucinogens should be legal.

The "you'll look back and facepalm" comment was because what I was replying to sounded exactly like all the pseudo-profound stuff that myself and others used to spout, so stereotypical but seemingly so important.

In the end it really isn't.

Re:Hypothetical Article

[Viceroy Potatohead]

Is it good enough to use my pseudonym? I completely agree with him. LSD is a wonderful and extremely useful drug, and I'm glad to have used it in the past. IRL I have no problem telling people that I've tripped on LSD, either. Since you can't attack the message, you attack the messenger.

Re:Hypothetical Article

[Demonoid-Penguin]

I have no regrets, I had no bad experiences and I think hallucinogens should be legal.

The "you'll look back and facepalm" comment was because what I was replying to sounded exactly like all the pseudo-profound stuff that myself and others used to spout, so stereotypical but seemingly so important.

In the end it really isn't.

Agreed! The biggest insights I had were that we take in huge amounts of data, but filter out most. That what we do perceive is flawed (confabulated). That most of life is trivia, and that knowledge somehow becomes a "profound insight". I remember laughing so hard I cried when I realised that the more obvious something was - the more profound that knowledge was. On the plus side - those insights made it hard to get over excited about sport, drama, and politics without recognizing it as foolish to think the achievements/actions of others is any reflection of us.

Here's the COAL link to this...

[Announcer]

In case the server gets Slashdotted, here's the Coral link:

http://www.pjonline.com.nyud.net/christmas/pj2010_723

Interesting article.

Starlings?

[countertrolling]

Yeah, they're pretty trippy

Voice of Title

[ModernGeek]

As a website that revolves around science, I find the headline offensive. The labeling of a person, or animal as a "junkie" is both unprofessional and crude. "Addictive tendencies found in non-human animals" would have been more appropriate. I'll note this incident in my journal and hope for an improvement in the near future. Good bidding and happy festivities this holiday season.

Re:Voice of Title

[Anonymous Coward]

As a website that revolves around science, I find the headline offensive. The labeling of a person, or animal as a "junkie" is both unprofessional and crude. "Addictive tendencies found in non-human animals" would have been more appropriate. I'll note this incident in my journal and hope for an improvement in the near future.

Good bidding and happy festivities this holiday season.

Well really the term 'junkie' is given to opiate (usually heroin) addicts, not people who try psychadelic drugs (most of which are not "addictive" in the traditional sense that they cause physical dependence).

If these animals were obsessively eating poppy plants, then perhaps it would be more appropriate to use the term "junkie" (although I agree, no less offensive. There's nothing funny or amusing about it).

Re:Voice of Title

[drinkypoo]

If these animals were obsessively eating poppy plants, then perhaps it would be more appropriate to use the term "junkie" (although I agree, no less offensive. There's nothing funny or amusing about it).

A FoaF broke into a woodrat's den and found poppy seeds and psilocybin mushrooms... stored away for the winter. Apparently they want their head trips in all seasons.

Re:Voice of Title

[Trinn]

I am hoping the headline was a joke, done to suggest thoughts of *intentional* drug users rather than the mythological addict, essentially hyperbolic negation of the intended result. Of course I could be wrong, we do live in a world where people presume that just because someone else likes to do something they don't quite understand it must be evil wrong immoral deadly and antisocial.

Re:Voice of Title

[Demonoid-Penguin]

As a website that revolves around science, I find the headline offensive. The labeling of a person, or animal as a "junkie" is both unprofessional and crude. "Addictive tendencies found in non-human animals" would have been more appropriate.

Agreed - in this instance it does sounds derogatory. I've always associated "junky" with "addict". I hold sex, eating, or cannabis aren't addictive either. Obviously I'm just picky 'cause I don't hold that "addiction" is a "disease" either.

On a trip to Holland I was surprised at how commonly people who smoked more than a few cigarettes, regularly drank 6 beers, or had more than 6 coffees a day, as "junkies". But then even left-wing in Holland is fairly right-wing to me - it's an educated, but conservative, religious place.

"Addictive tendencies

You probably should have held off on the gold-tops before you wrote that - and, no, the dragons you saw aren't real either.

Raised question

[The Clockwork Troll]

So do skunks call unpungent marijuana "human"?

Re:Raised question

[drinkypoo]

I'd assume they'd be like anyone else and call it Oregano.

Re:Raised question

[rxan]

We call it 'skunk' they call it 'skank'.

Terence McKenna spoke a lot about this

[frank_carmody]

Have a listen to his 'Search for the Original Tree of Knowledge' (tape 4 from memory) for a very nice exposition of the Santa Claus/psychedelic reindeer juxtaposition (e.g. red & white Amanita mushrooms that live under Xmas trees, toy-making elves, Lappland, flying reindeer).

Re:Terence McKenna spoke a lot about this

[PReDiToR]

Or read the book "Food of the gods" by Terrence McKenna.

Amazon UK has it, as does Amazon US.

Well known that animals use them

[The_mad_linguist]

Here's a video of all kinds of animals under the influence of a psychoactive drug!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohgqRRLjBsg

I'll leave whether it was voluntary as an exercise to the viewer.

Re:Well known that animals use them

[jhoegl]

You realize that is a comical rendition of something with a storyline to show those videos of animals...

Hey, man...

[countertrolling]

Wanna do some reindeer piss, man?

Howdy Doody got wooden balls, man?

Humans don't need substances to alter their state

[nido]

... While the substances are an easy way to experience something a little different, it's also possible to achieve "altered states of consciousness" entirely without the chemicals.

I don't have a copy of Stoned Free, but I like the premise:

Now you can just say "No!" to drugs... and get high anyway! This book enumerates many drugless consciousness altering techniques, both timeless and recent in origin, that anyone can make use of. Meditation, breathing techniques, high-tech highs, sleep and dream manipulation, and numerous other methods are examined in detail. Avoid incarceration, save money, and skip the wear and tear on your body, while getting higher than a kite.

I had to figure out how to relax my body (it was dysfunctional following a head injury), but even so I've had some neat experiences along the way: hypnagogic imagery, 360-degree vision, etc. If you've previously used substances (marijuana, LSD, etc) one can re-vivify those experiences with self-suggestion (self-hypnosis), or use descriptions of others to design your own trip.

Tripping without substances generally begins with relaxing the physical body, relaxing the mind, then making suggestions to yourself.

Binaural beats can help - Gnaural is the open source tone generator. I had to do some other things to fully recover from said concussion, and I'm finally dreaming up a storm. :)

Suprising?

[stms]

This isn't surprising fido's always loved beer.

junkie monkeys? water buffalo?

[Anonymous Coward]

scuuuse me??

Coffee Found This Way

[RobinEggs]

Many traditional stories about the discovery of coffee recount shepherds discovering its unusual properties after observing that their goats were unusually perky after munching a certain red berry, which turned out to contain coffee beans (which are technically seeds).

I certainly think this and other stories of discovering analgesics, psychoactives, etc. by observing animals are quite plausible.

O RLY?

[Alex Belits]

It seems that many of these species have a natural desire to experience altered states of consciousness

States of WHAT? Animals have consciousness now?

Re:O RLY?

[Anonymous Coward]

You really need to be told this? If so, you've obviously never had pets. But yes, this does seem to provide hard evidence for it.

Re:O RLY?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they have. As a veterinarian I think so, in particular primates and some mammals have consciousness, in a different degree that we have, but they have.

People love to feel superior to other creatures just because they have an evolved language.

Re:O RLY?

[inglorion_on_the_net]

It never ceases to amaze me how humans arrogantly believe that only they themselves are conscious, capable of experiencing joy and pain, etc.

It's not just humans vs. animals (as if humans weren't animals, and as if all non-human animals were the same), but also humans vs. other humans (it's ok to be cruel to $allegedly_inferior_group, or even "It's ok for me to trample everyone, but don't anyone dare to slight me!").

Without getting into what exactly the definition of consciousness is, I think it is irrational to simply assume that your own group has it, and no other group does.

Re:O RLY?

[Alex Belits]

Instincts and emotions are not consciousness, consciousness is by definition a kind of mental activity specific to humans.

Re:O RLY?

[Alex Belits]

Humans ARE mentally superior to all other animals. Even those humans who deny it, as the gap is pretty freaking wide.

Re:O RLY?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think (hope) that he is confusing "consciousness" with "conscientiousness"

That's a much lower amount of ignorance than someone who actually assumes animals aren't conscious.

Re:O RLY?

[fastest fascist]

Care to provide a source for that claim, other than your ass? Consciousness, as I suspect you mean it, is roughly synonymous with self-awareness, although I don't think it's quite that simple. In any case, that has been observed in a number of animals besides homo sapiens, such as certain apes and bottlenose dolphins. Of course due to the nature of the whole concept, it's pretty much impossible to conclusively prove any entity is in possession of consciousness, so cling to that if you wish.

Re:O RLY?

[vandan]

Oh dear. You do realise that you're an animal, right? And your signature suggests that you don't believe in God. I'm trying to reconcile these two beliefs that you hold, and yet can't.

Re:O RLY?

[Anonymous Coward]

Instincts and emotions are not consciousness

But the prejudice of calling others grossly inferior is a rather primitive instinctive action. The feeling that our family, group, or whatever, is better than the others sits deep in our mind, weakening our reasoning.

consciousness is by definition a kind of mental activity specific to humans.

As far as I am informed, there is not yet a single and accepted definition of consciousness. "Consciousness" is a rather abstract concept, I believe mainly invented to make a stark distinction between humans and animals.

That said, what is generally accepted as being some form of consciousness has also been observed in various animals at varying degrees. So, while we humans are (of course!) vastly superior in some aspects of the brain functions, your original question "animals have consciousness now?" just shows how you are dominated by instincts. (Disclaimer: I don't restrict this to your person--we all are dominated by instincts. I just wanted to say that your initial rant is just one example of this arrogance by instinct.)

Re:O RLY?

[Bobakitoo]

Consciousness is specific to me. I am the center of the universe, for it is infinit on all sides around me.

Try prove me wrong by demonstrating your own consciousness?

Consciousness is by-product of cellular organization, chatter between cells, and that any multicellular organism has some level of consciousness. But since we can only experience ourself, it can never be proved. And until you can prove our own, you cannot disprove their. Stop downplaying non-humans creatures.

Re:O RLY?

[Alex Belits]

Consciousness is by-product of cellular organization, chatter between cells, and that any multicellular organism has some level of consciousness.

At very least it requires brain, and sufficiently sophisticated brain ti perform abstract thought.

But since we can only experience ourself, it can never be proved.

There is nothing really to prove -- animals do not perform anything that requires abstract thought. All this stupid stuff about "self" is utterly irrelevant -- an object in any object-oriented language is more "self-aware" than any human can hope to be (as it knows absolutely everything about itself), and yet is not in any way "conscious".

And until you can prove our own, you cannot disprove their. Stop downplaying non-humans creatures.

Only when they will come to argue about that by themselves. Until then, into the soup they go. Mmmm, beef!

Re:O RLY?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cetacean intelligence

Read that article, then come back here with your findings. Feel free to correct yourself if you were wrong.

-ss

Re:O RLY?

[damaged_sectors]

Ever seen a house-trained dog that wants "out" for the toilet and doesn't get it? I missed the signs a couple of times - my dog pissed on the back door mat - and then comes and gives me the "ashamed" look (that's the look she gives me when she misses a rabbit), followed by the low whine and the tugging on the fingers with her teeth to make me follow her and see what the problem is. She's never been punished, even verbally - so I doubt it's a fear of punishment. Sure it's my interpretation.

I think, therefore I am - I cannot, though, rule out the possibility that my dog is not self-conscious, though probably not in the same way as I

She gets outside when (on rare occasions) cannabis is being smoked, one because she doesn't put in, two because she doesn't have a choice about inhaling, and three because she acts like a stoned human - gets up, pauses, looks back, looks forward, looks sheepish and then wanders back to her basket (what was I doing?) - and becoming very vocal (not barking, vocalizing). The vocalizing is something she does whenever she is in company with conversation - and acts just like a child who feels excluded. Close enough to a form of consciousness for me

Whether you are right or wrong about the meaning of the word - many animals exhibit a form of self-awareness (and a knowledge of time). Even human consciousness is just a theory with no more "provable" substance than a drug experience

I'm not sure all "humans" have the same degree of consciousness either - so maybe it's not as clear cut as conscious, or, not conscious.

And horses (farmers call it "laugh chaff") and cannabis plants don't go together - the horses will eat your plants, and just like possums, wallabies, kangaroos, cattle, sheep, chooks, cockatoos, and rabbits - once they've had a nibble fences won't stop them.

Catnip is interesting - some cats love it, but not all. The weird thing is it seems to make cats forget where they found it - I used to grow some in a garden of a house I shared with a cat lover. Everytime I went into the garden they'd follow through the gate and hunt for the catnip. They'd look everywhere until they found it - which was a little weird given it only grew in one pot, and that pot was never moved. Even I could use my nose to find it - but they had to investigate every carrot, lettuce, and tomato plant to work out which was the catnip. They didn't always take the same route whilst looking for it either. Strange - maybe that's part of the effect of catnip.

The real question in my mind, is not whether animals take drugs (they do), or why humans take them, but how plants (and fungi) determined that producing drugs would get the drug users to pay attention to them.

Re:O RLY?

[damaged_sectors]

I think (hope) that he is confusing "consciousness" with "conscientiousness"

That's a much lower amount of ignorance than someone who actually assumes animals aren't conscious.

I think he ate his dogs stash - the dictionary he's currently using is just a hallucination.

Re:O RLY?

[damaged_sectors]

Humans ARE mentally superior to all other animals. Even those humans who deny it, as the gap is pretty freaking wide.

Some, maybe, to really dumb animals. Maybe. I'm especially doubtful when measuring the output of those (humans) that like to associate themselves with the word "superior"

Re:O RLY?

[Bobakitoo]

Only when they will come to argue about that by themselves. Until then, into the soup they go. Mmmm, beef!

I do not need to fool myself into thinking cows are not conscious in order to enjoy eating them. Enjoy your lies.

Re:O RLY?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're referring to the ability of self-awareness (i.e. the ability to recognise oneself outside of instinctual behaviour and to apply a degree of rational thought) then you most definitely wrong. Magpies and elephants are among animals that have shown this ability in experiments.

Re:O RLY?

[Anonymous Coward]

A dog can recognize and fetch 100 different items by their name. (Needle from haystack for non-conscious being, right?)
Not only that, when you add an item in the heap, and ask the dog to fetch it by name, it can perform abstract thought to the level of bringing the unfamiliar item to you because it recognizes the other items and knows that the item it was asked to fetch is none of them.

How is that not conscious activity?

Re:O RLY?

[Anonymous Coward]

An object in object oriented programming does not "know" everything about itself. It can't know anything. It's a collection of bits and a definition of operations that can be performed on those bits.

Saying an object knows everything about itself is anthropomorphizing it.

Saying there's nothing to prove because animals don't perform anything that requires abstract thought is kind of arrogant. Maybe they can, but don't have the means to benefit from it, so we don't see it. How do you know they don't have abstract thought?

Re:O RLY?

[Anonymous Coward]

A dog can recognize and fetch 100 different items by their name. (Needle from haystack for non-conscious being, right?) Not only that, when you add an item in the heap, and ask the dog to fetch it by name, it can perform abstract thought to the level of bringing the unfamiliar item to you because it recognizes the other items and knows that the item it was asked to fetch is none of them.

How is that not conscious activity?

Because the dog is not human.

Re:O RLY?

[Mr. Slippery]

I do not need to fool myself into thinking cows are not conscious in order to enjoy eating them. Enjoy your lies.

Interesting. Most people who slaughter non-human animals for their pleasure (since flesh eating is not required for survival or health, pleasure is the only reason for it in any modern society) simply deny that they are conscious.

If you understand that non-human animals are indeed conscious, I'd be curious to know why you find it acceptable to slaughter them but not human animals. (Assuming, of course, that humans are off your menu, and that you wouldn't shoot a man in Reno just to watch him die.) What is the quality possessed exclusively by human animals that causes you to treat them so specially? Thanks.

Re:O RLY?

[Culture20]

Catnip is interesting - some cats love it, but not all. The weird thing is it seems to make cats forget where they found it - I used to grow some in a garden of a house I shared with a cat lover. Everytime I went into the garden they'd follow through the gate and hunt for the catnip. They'd look everywhere until they found it - which was a little weird given it only grew in one pot, and that pot was never moved. Even I could use my nose to find it - but they had to investigate every carrot, lettuce, and tomato plant to work out which was the catnip. They didn't always take the same route whilst looking for it either. Strange - maybe that's part of the effect of catnip.

Knowing cats, they were probably hunting for mice/insects, or eating greens. Then they went for dessert.

Re:O RLY?

[garryknight]

Alex Belits> consciousness is by definition a kind of mental activity specific to humans.

fastest fascist> Care to provide a source for that claim, other than your ass?

Simply by being a source for that claim, his ass - assuming that he does, indeed, possess such an animal - would be contradicting itself, surely.

Re:O RLY?

[AliasMarlowe]

animals do not perform anything that requires abstract thought

Clearly, you have never observed an octopus. They appear to study a problem before tackling it, and can solve unnatural challenges such as figuring out how to open a screw-top jar which contains a morsel of food. They don't just attack the jar with random moves, but study it while turning it around. Accomplishments such as these are suggestive of abstract thought, not mere instinctive behavior.

Despite living only about two years, and receiving no training from its parents (who die around the time their offspring hatch out), an octopus is a surprisingly intelligent mollusc.

BTW, you might try to define what you mean by "abstract thought" some time. You'll find it hard to include your own mental processes while excluding the perceived mental processes of tool-making animals (e.g. crows) or even of mammals which are considered less intelligent than the octopus (e.g. a horse).

Re:O RLY?

[itsenrique]

Nobody denies this, if by superior you mean we have a far greater capacity for intelligence.

Re:O RLY?

[Anonymous Coward]

A vegetarian I see. Yes animals are conscious, yes I could eat less meat or no meat. But quite frankly animal meat is both tasty and cheap. You can breed pigs like crazy but I dare you to try and produce enough fat humans to feed America, it's not economically feasible, also as we learned from our slave/genocidal days, humans are amazingly resilient. Watch a documentary on how many pigs are corralled at once (Food Inc.). Now imagine that many humans in close range under misery, that's asking for some sort of massive rebellion, most humans would rather die trying to escape that just get pushed into a food grinder (Gunshots would ruin the food product, so big armies wouldn't help). Plus unlike nazi germany, you can't starve people, you'd have to keep them well fed, causing more problems with controlling them. Also humans take years and years and years to develop and have comparatively few offspring. Honestly, THAT is the main reason we don't eat human. If you could buy "generic meat" that contained human meat prepackaged from a super market for 50% less than pig meat, people would buy (if society didn't teach eating people was bad)

That's one argument with a pessimistic view on human nature, here's the next: Humans have empathy, imagine the thought of eating a monkey, or a dog or cat. Compare that to a cow. We've bred dogs/cats (and monkeys are naturally similar to us) to be lovable, so we love them (note: we is western culture, some people eat dogs and cats). We don't eat humans because eating humans implies we're eligible to be next in line to be food, we're at the top of the food chain, so it'd be folly to subject ourselves to being hunted by ourselves. Self preservation is a big reason humans don't wildly kill humans, we like order and to have order we need security. That's another big reason people don't kill humans just like that (note in the past murder was far more common, this is a relatively new development)

and Finally my own opinion: I do not kill without a good purpose. If I see a mouse I'd rather catch it and toss it in a park 10 miles away than kill it. I let bugs go often (and keep a clean house to discourage them in general) but if it's being annoying I might kill it. Now I like a good hamburger, that qualifies as a good enough reason to cause the death of a cow, life's not fair, but thankfully the unfairness is in my favor. At the same time I would never kill a cow just for the hell of it, I would never mess with a cow or cause it uncomfort without good reason. I'm fully aware that I'm being selfish in eating more meat than I have too (I do think SOME meat in your diet is a good idea), and I'm fully aware that I'm being unfair towards non human animals.

Re:O RLY?

[Anonymous Coward]

And what proof can you give me that everything you do is not simple instinct and emotion? Because from my point, you're nothing but an automaton.

Re:O RLY?

[Demonoid-Penguin]

A vegetarian I see

No fair (you insensitive sod)! ;-p

I'm a vegetarian. I like killing things - I just don't eat them.

I'm not sure about farming humans for food being unviable - you could be wrong there (yummy soylent green).... how about street corner scales and compulsory liposuction? Could solve the energy crisis.....

Enjoy your hamburger - life is not sacred, it just is. My dog loves to hunt and kill (lives for it) - I don't discourage her, it's just the way it is. A big carbon cycle.

I suspect for evolutionary reasons the restrictions on killing our own kind are due to:- ;our need for society/family support ;the risk we may be killing our own offspring/relatives. Gene pool and support preservation no less.

Re:O RLY?

[Demonoid-Penguin]

A dog can recognize and fetch 100 different items by their name

A dog can recognize and fetch 1000 different items by their name - there fixed that for you. :-)

The dog is called "Chaser", it can work from drawings of the objects... and more. Originally featured in the doco "Secret Life Of The Dog" (BBC?). Also posted on here. Volumes of credible studies have been published.

Re:O RLY?

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Saying an object knows everything about itself is anthropomorphizing it.

No!

That's just the lame assertion of someone going to desperate lengths to support an unsustainable assertion. So desperate they're reduced to posting AC commends to support the ones they post under a pseudonym.

Your over investment in self-consciousness came at the cost of self-awareness. Meaning - we see your argument as baseless. Bluster changes nothing.

You look like a sad dick because you failed to use a dictionary to begin with. Continuing to misuse words doesn't give your original stupidly credibility.

Re:O RLY?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody denies this,

Oh, but they do. This page is full of post from them. And you are replying to them.

If by superior - they don't mean "superior" then maybe they should actually use the word they mean. Failure to do so just raises doubt that sentient and human have any correlation.

Don't feed to trolls.

Re:O RLY?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mu!

this is no news ...

[polar red]

there are countless instances of monkeys trying to get to alcohol.
(and don't tell me alcohol is no drug : it's one of the worst)

Re:this is no news ...

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact alcohol is one of the rare bad drugs.

Re:this is no news ...

[Anonymous Coward]

it's not all that bad, how do you think you came about.... oh wait...nm

Re:this is no news ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Alcohol is a strong solvent. Getting drunk is like getting high sniffing glue. It a real wonder that alcohol is legal while safe psychotropes are not.

Re:this is no news ...

[drinkypoo]

What's interesting about drunk monkeys is that it has been shown that monkeys are about as boozy as we are. That is, if you provide them access to alcohol (as in numerous tourist locations where they haven't been exterminated) about the same percentage of them will be teetotalers and the same percentage drunks as humans.

Re:this is no news ...

[damaged_sectors]

In fact alcohol is one of the rare bad drugs.

In fact alcohol is not a drug.

Re:this is no news ...

[betterunixthanunix]

...funny, because glue is legal too...

It would be really hilarious if bottles of whisky were labeled, "NOT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION."

Re:this is no news ...

[polar red]

alcohol is not a drug.

WRONG.
it's just legal, that's the only difference from cocaine, crack, heroine ...
http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/2010/11/29/alcohol-is-the-most-damaging-drug/
It also came fourth in terms of damage to users
behind only heroin, crack cocaine and crystal meth.

Re:this is no news ...

[rrohbeck]

Drunk elephants are the best. I forgot where I saw that, must have been National Geographic.

Re:this is no news ...

[Abcd1234]

In fact alcohol is not a drug.

Honestly, just out of sheer curiosity... are you trolling, or do you really believe this? If you believe it, uhh... why?

Re:this is no news ...

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact alcohol is not a drug.

Honestly, just out of sheer curiosity... are you trolling, or do you really believe this? If you believe it, uhh... why?

Seriously - not trolling.

Whilst it is accepted in the media (and gubment) to classify alcohol as a "drug". It is also accepted to classify addiction as a "disease".

Alcohol is a toxin. Like any toxin it does alter your perceptions - just as long as you find the sweet spot in dosage. Some alcoholic drinks do contain drugs (gin, absinthe, etc). If, as many propose, alcohol is a "drug" - then so are all toxins.

I'll stick to the definition of alchohol (ethanol) as taught when I studied O. Chem. and Pharm. - it's a toxic carbohydrate. The drug like (effect on body and mind) effects of alcohol are the result of the effect of toxins on the body. Whilst true drugs might be toxic, the primary effects are not a result of their toxicity.

Note: I'm not defending alcohol (or drugs). Or arguing that animals don't modify their world. Just getting irritated by the media misapplying words to dilute, diffuse, distort or subvert the meaning. Hacker != cracker. Habit != addiction.

Feel free to hold your opinion - you are certainly not alone. Chocolate contains drugs. Sex, power, chrome and shiny things are not drugs - even though they may produce drug like effects.

No offense intended - I hope that answers your polite question.

< / p e n d a n t i c s e m a n t i c r a n t >

Re:this is no news ...

[damaged_sectors]

alcohol is not a drug.

WRONG. it's just legal, that's the only difference from cocaine, crack, heroine ... http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/2010/11/29/alcohol-is-the-most-damaging-drug/ It also came fourth in terms of damage to users behind only heroin, crack cocaine and crystal meth.

Interesting article - the finding of which I don't dispute. Nor have I ever stated (or believed) that alchohol, or tobacco (or other drugs) do not cause harm. I simply pointed out that alcohol is not a drug.

Clearly you missed that point - though you seem to have English comprehension skills.

The point of your post is lost on me - if linking that article is supposed to prove alcohol is a "drug". You failed. It's just another misuse of the word.

If I refute the claims of flat-earthers, and you point to blogs by flat-earthers - and the blogs have no arguments supporting the proposition that the earth is flat... it's not an argument, not even a debate. It is just pointless. To try and use that tactic as an argument just demonstrates a lack of basic comprehension. Which is stupid..

So, I say again, in the hope you will understand the point, alcohol is not a drug. That's all - it's not an opinion as to whether it does not harm, or a denial it alters perception and affects the body. Asphyxiation, dizziness, CO, glue, solvents also affect the body and mind. And like alcohol - they are not drugs.

If 15 million people believe a stupid thing - it is still stupid.

Re:this is no news ...

[polar red]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug
'A drug, broadly speaking, is any substance that, when absorbed into the body of a living organism, alters normal bodily function'
how does alcohol not fall into that definition? Do you have a better definition ?

Re:this is no news ...

[polar red]

don't tell me the monkeys in GGGP are going for ethanol, they are going for alcoholic beverages, please have your reading skills tested.

Re:this is no news ...

[polar red]

he's probably an addict, trying to lie to himself. He should go to the AA.

Re:this is no news ...

[damaged_sectors]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug 'A drug, broadly speaking, is any substance that, when absorbed into the body of a living organism, alters normal bodily function' how does alcohol not fall into that definition? Do you have a better definition ?

Scroll further down - see the pharmacological definition. Sophists believe it's a moot point - that language is flexible and that meaning changes over time. Others (linguists) posit that words are loose fences around concepts - broaden them too far and the words become meaningless.

The popular press has defined alcohol as a drug - as a student of pharmacology (and organic chem) I was often corrected for lumping ethanol in with drugs and told it was a "toxic carbohydrate" with "drug-like effects in low doses". That's not the same as "drugs" that can have toxic effects. "Drugs" work on receptors - alcohol has no receptor - it's "drug-like" effects are the result of our bodies being flooded with toxins. (which is why I'm dubious about the health benefits of alcohol - as opposed to rest, distraction, and relaxation). Ephidrine has a receptor - part of amphetamine molecules fit that same receptor (that's why they work). Cannabis fits a(n) (endocannabinoid) receptor. If we expand the term "drug" (without meaning "having dragged") to include all things that when ingested affect the body and/or mind - then the list includes a lot of things (dizzyness, and anything that'll kill you).

Already things that are not ingested (normally) are called "drugs" (sex, computer games, attention etc). Sex doesn't have drug-like effects - it stimulates the release of drugs that have, drug-like effects. But I acknowledge that some will read that as a spurious assertion - likewise a distinction between whether a cart pushes a horse, or whether the horse pulls the cart.

So my position is that glue, petrol vapours (like used by the Delphic Oracles) etc are not drugs either - they are toxins. The use of the word drug to describe alcohol is fairly recent. Did you ever wonder why alcohol "intoxicates" and cannabis and ephedrine don't?

At the risk of being called a "grammar nazi" I don't hold that "specific" is a "pacific" ocean either - and that "cracking" and "hacking" are not the same thing.

Note: the first recorded instance of the use of "hacker" was a derogatory description of furniture craftsmen by the first mass-produced furniture manufacturers.

Language grows through new words, not by adding new meaning to existing words (generally).

As one of the Buddhas is alleged to have said when asked what one should do to make the world a better place - "the first thing we must do is change back the names" - I'm paraphrasing Michael Pollan there.

Hope that explains my reasoning for the insistence and definition.

Re:this is no news ...

[polar red]

so many words just show you're being pedantic. for 99.99% of the worlds population considers alcohol a drug; and THAT makes alcohol a drug.

Re:this is no news ...

[damaged_sectors]

for 99.99% of the worlds population considers alcohol a drug; and THAT makes alcohol a drug.

No - I AM being semantically pendantic - the amount of words doesn't make it so.

99.99% percent of the worlds' population huh? Too much emotional content.

Unless you claim a background in pharmacology or medicine, then you are not only a Sophist, but a desperate whacko. (yawn)

Re:this is no news ...

[polar red]

maybe you should talk to some alcohol-addicts and try to convince them alcohol is not a -very addictive- drug.

Re:this is no news ...

[damaged_sectors]

maybe you should talk to some alcohol-addicts and try to convince them alcohol is not a -very addictive- drug.

Why? Re-read my posts and see where I *don't* say the alcohol *isn't* dangerous (toxic). In case that's still not clear - alcohol, whilst not a drug, causes enormous social damage. Alcohol is addictive. You have a knack for pointing out the obvious and an inability to distinguish between your points and points made by others. Look through some of my earlier posts in this thread and note that early on I declared that I *am* being semantically pedantic about "alcohol not being a drug" - and that at no point have I ever suggested that alcohol is *not* harmful. I'm finding it hard to believe you don't have some sort of serious brain damage. Fetal alcohol syndrome perhaps, or are you just profoundly stupid?

If reading more than one hundred words a day makes your lips bleed, try Vaseline. Dumbing the world down to suit your comprehension level is, just dumb.

Your input is 'fascinating', be assured I'll get back to you for more of your elucidating insights.

Re:this is no news ...

[polar red]

If the only thing you point to is the pharmaceutical definition you probably earn your geek badge, but maybe should go out into the streets more to learn about the real world.

Re:this is no news ...

[Demonoid-Penguin]

If the only thing you point to is the pharmaceutical definition you probably earn your geek badge, but maybe should go out into the streets more to learn about the real world.

What's your story? Do you have some sort of chip on your shoulder about higher education, or are you just a crank nursing some obscure personal issue with the poster? You really do come across as someone suffering from foetal alcohol syndrome.

Re:this is no news ...

[polar red]

This dude zooms in on a semantic non-issue, which angers me a bit, b/c I know 2 alcoholics.

Origin stories

[vlueboy]

And now we know the origin of the blasted lolcats and why they prefer can haz cheezburgers to your friend's catnip-laced stash.
The bastard!

Drugs and their first use.

[Nrrqshrr]

I remember a shaman from one of those South American cultures say something like: "We have been using tobacco for hundreds of years, and look at what it did to you when you discovered it. We have been using coca for generations, and look at what you did when you found it. I fear the worst for you once you find the rest of our plants."
I guess the point is of the article is that the use of "drugs" is something part of nature, it's just how we do it that matters.

Re:Drugs and their first use.

[mrmeval]

Yes, hemlock is all natural, nightshade is all natural, petroleum is all natural, tobacco is all natural, nuclear fusion is all natural. How some thing or some process is used is what matters.

Re:Drugs and their first use.

[Anonymous Coward]

Trot your horse up next to the Empire state building, jump down to the roof, and take the elevator down to street level. Human use of petroleum is not all natural, it is heavily processed, unless you can tell me where to pump 87 octane gasoline with the various additives straight out of the ground. Tobacco is heavily processed, by adding numerous extracts and chemical to the final product, and while you could say on a universal scale,(Like in the universe,) that nuclear fusion is all natural, it doesn't all naturally occur on earth.

As far as your comment about hemlock and nightshade, they are all natural, but you would be a fool to ingest them, much like it would be to ingest the meat of an animal you might find that has been dead for several days without artificial refrigeration in a climate that averages 70 degrees or so. There are, however, naturally occuring things that exist that can be ingested and some of them have side effects that some may enjoy while being nondetrimental.

And if you are going to say something, just say it. Don't hint around about it. Let me translate your post:"Drugs...drugs are bad. Umkay?"

Re:Drugs and their first use.

[Demonoid-Penguin]

I remember a shaman from one of those South American cultures say something like: "We have been using tobacco for hundreds of years, and look at what it did to you when you discovered it. We have been using coca for generations, and look at what you did when you found it. I fear the worst for you once you find the rest of our plants." I guess the point is of the article is that the use of "drugs" is something part of nature, it's just how we do it that matters.

Cute. Which "South American" culture is that has been using both tobacco and coca for "hundreds" of years?

Will you be publishing this new discovery soon?

Re:Drugs and their first use.

[khallow]

Human use of petroleum is not all natural, it is heavily processed, unless you can tell me where to pump 87 octane gasoline with the various additives straight out of the ground.

So you're saying animals aren't natural either? They heavily process anything that they eat.

Re:Drugs and their first use.

[cusco]

Tobacco is heavily processed

In the Untied States, but not in the rest of the world. Most of the world cuts the tobacco, dries it, and then smokes it. Only here do we sugar it, wash it with menthol, and soak it in formaldehyde.

Re:Drugs and their first use.

[cusco]

You're apparently unaware that international commerce existed before the invention of the 18-wheeler. A piece of Alaskan jade was found in Central America, and Lake Superior copper has shown up in New Mexico and Florida. One of the products that Mayan caravans are known to have traded was tobacco, and I'd be exceedingly surprised if coca leaves weren't carried on the return trip northward. Interestingly, Egyptian mummies have been found with detectable levels of cocaine and nicotine in their tissues.

Addicted Spaniards imported tobacco seeds to South America fairly early in their occupation, IIRC before they even set up their first distillery.

Re:Drugs and their first use.

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Quit being so fucking pedantic. Of course they process food by eating it, and a few do a little preprocessing, like spiders. There is a world of difference between eating and manufacturing gasoline.

I don't normally do this, but...

Dumbass

Re:Drugs and their first use.

[khallow]

There is a world of difference between eating and manufacturing gasoline.

I recognize that humanity as a whole has this intellectual hangup about "artificial" versus "natural" processes. But how else do you expect an intelligence to extract transportation energy from decayed plant and animals? Force of will? Bad poetry? Leave the gas cap off and the petroleum crawls in? Artificial processes for making gasoline end up being just as natural as any other process in the universe such as eating food. The "world of difference" is irrelevant.

Re:Drugs and their first use.

[Demonoid-Penguin]

You're apparently unaware that international commerce existed before the invention of the 18-wheeler. A piece of Alaskan jade was found in Central America, and Lake Superior copper has shown up in New Mexico and Florida. One of the products that Mayan caravans are known to have traded was tobacco, and I'd be exceedingly surprised if coca leaves weren't carried on the return trip northward. Interestingly, Egyptian mummies have been found with detectable levels of cocaine and nicotine in their tissues. Addicted Spaniards imported tobacco seeds to South America fairly early in their occupation, IIRC before they even set up their first distillery.

Some of those things I was aware of - and I've an interest in paleontology and paleobotany. I'm not going to say that nicotine bearing plants weren't used by any South American cultures - only that I haven't read any mention of it in areas of early coca use, or of any archeological evidence.

The cute comment was in response to the quote you gave - to the best of my knowledge that is an urban myth (it's often quoted, a source would be nice). Though the expressed sentiments are true. I've read of South American tobacco use (Bruhn, Wasson, Cooper and others) but those writings (from memory) are specific to lowland areas where coca isn't produced. While it's *unlikely* the the two weren't used in the same areas - I have no references to it.

You are correct about transport and trade. Nicotine bearing plants in Australia are called "pituri" - and pituri trails cross the continent from far south-west to the north-eastern cape (where they would have met with Indonesians). Along those trails can be found evidence of the transport of materials such as ochres and flints. There is also reason to believe yarni (cannabis) was in use prior to the white invasion.

In Northern Europe (Scotland) there is substantial evidence that Cannabis sativa arrived long before the Romans (pollen, fiber ballast bagging and caulking, pipe twine etc).

In Australia (and Indonesia) there are a number of native erythroxylin species. The Javan variant has a higher active ingredient level than the Columbian plants - in fact prior to World War II most of the worlds production was (from Java area) Australian, English or Japanese. The Germans produced their cocaine in South America - the legacy of which is the current cocaine industry. Prior to German production the area that produced coca was much smaller, and restricted to the highest altitudes. The plants currently grown are a hybrid between one of the native Peruvian strains and the Javanese strain.

Indisputably (IMO) trade and transfer between all parts of the world existed just as it does now - the transfers just took a lot longer.

I read an interesting thesis some years ago that asserted the combination on monotheism, alcohol, and the military (Romes unholy trinity) led to the modern history we now live in - and ever since it has been a long and bloody crusade dedicated to removing all other religions and drug use. This makes it hard to reconstruct what was really used by original inhabitants.

Please point me at references to the Mayan caravans (if you remember it) - I've not seen anything on that subject, likewise the Inca. It's a subject I find fascinating (obviously)

Cheers.

Re:Humans don't need substances to alter their sta

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you can just grow some San Pedro and brew it in to mescaline tea... Saves time, money and has a 100% success rate.

Sounds about right.

[pspahn]

I've read that every human culture with the exception of one has it's own intoxicants. All but the Inuit (what are you gonna do, ferment whale blubber?) have found some form of mind alternation. Extending this to the rest of the animal kingdom, it's not surprising to me that other species are just as keen to how much fun booze or drugs can be.

Re:Sounds about right.

[grcumb]

I've read that every human culture with the exception of one has it's own intoxicants. All but the Inuit (what are you gonna do, ferment whale blubber?) have found some form of mind alternation. Extending this to the rest of the animal kingdom, it's not surprising to me that other species are just as keen to how much fun booze or drugs can be.

You're not going to believe this, but... fermented walrus meat. I'm not kidding.

I lived on Baffin Island for three years, and during that time, I was regaled at length on a number of occasions with first-hand accounts of how the Inuit would cache stores of walrus meat under stones in October (to keep the ravens from getting it) for about six weeks. Once it had a pretty solid veneer of mold, they would take it out, scrape it off and ingest it with gusto.

According to those who tried it, it induced a mild, contented buzz.

No, I did not try it. I didn't even want to see it.

Re:Sounds about right.

[damaged_sectors]

I've read that every human culture with the exception of one has it's own intoxicants. All but the Inuit (what are you gonna do, ferment whale blubber?) have found some form of mind alternation. Extending this to the rest of the animal kingdom, it's not surprising to me that other species are just as keen to how much fun booze or drugs can be.

Wonder if the Inuit just made themselves dizzy like kids do to alter their consciousness. I do note that a type of Icelandic moss contains a cannabinoid precursor (olivitol?) - don't know if it has any effects though.

Re:Sounds about right.

[damaged_sectors]

On further thought - an absence of plants wouldn't mean the Inuit had no access to drugs. Adrenal glands?

Entheogens are our birthright...

[Terminus32]

This man said it how it is: http://deoxy.org/mckenna.htm

Re:Entheogens are our birthright...

[vandan]

I'm missing the 'like' button from facebook all of a sudden ;) Totally agree ...

Re:Entheogens are our birthright...

[davev2.0]

And when someone you love dies after jumping out of a window because they are having a bad trip and think they can fly from the monsters coming out of the walls, you will still feel the same way, right?

Re:Entheogens are our birthright...

[Anonymous Coward]

And when someone you love dies when their bungee cord snaps, we'll ban all the other kinds of thrill seeking to make you feel better about your emotional blackmail?

Re:Entheogens are our birthright...

[countertrolling]

Now see? You got it wrong again. Obviously the window shouldn't be there. Ban all windows, I say!

Re:Entheogens are our birthright...

[moortak]

Because we all know death has never resulted from decisions made under the influence of alcohol, sleep deprivation, or any of the other perfectly legal ways to alter your thinking.

Re:Entheogens are our birthright...

[Terminus32]

I have never seen monsters come out of walls, and don't know anyone who has - even with heroic does of LSD, Mushrooms and Mescaline. Again, this is government propaganda...

Oh, not that one again...

[Balinares]

> States of WHAT? Animals have consciousness now?

No, it popped up MAGICALLY in us apes at some point; someone throw on a switch and BAM, consciousness overnight. MAGIC, I tell you.

Or, you know, maybe consciousness is not a binary variable, but, like most everything about the real world, a continuum, and like most things about the real world, various species have achieved various levels of it? You know? Just sayin'.

Re:Oh, not that one again...

[Alex Belits]

No, it popped up MAGICALLY in us apes at some point; someone throw on a switch and BAM, consciousness overnight. MAGIC, I tell you.

There is freaking huge gap between human mind and anything modern apes have. Sure, there was a long process between those levels, but all intermediate steps are long extinct, and have no chance to show up to make question about their level of consciousness relevant.

Re:Oh, not that one again...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is freaking huge gap between human mind and anything modern apes have. Sure, there was a long process between those levels, but all intermediate steps are long extinct, and have no chance to show up to make question about their level of consciousness relevant.

Given that apes can be taught to understand primitive writing in a way and teh behaviour of certain humans I would say that you are wrong until you provide a source.

Re:Oh, not that one again...

[Demonoid-Penguin]

There is freaking huge gap between human mind and anything modern apes have. Sure, there was a long process between those levels, but all intermediate steps are long extinct, and have no chance to show up to make question about their level of consciousness relevant.

Given that apes can be taught to understand primitive writing in a way and teh behaviour of certain humans I would say that you are wrong until you provide a source.

And given that dogs have exhibited abilities that apes cannot reproduce - recognize 3 dimensional objects from 2 dimensional, learn more than 400 words, point, and respond to pointing - I'd say that Alex has pulled his bible belt a little too tight.

I've seen dogs that definitely do understand "tomorrow". Tell them they're going hunting tomorrow and they will start trying to wake you up at 4am. Don't tell them, they'll sleep till noon. Record the different barks and noises made by dogs - then play them back to other dog owners and you'll find that regardless of the location - the owners will consistently understand what the dog is saying - and that dog communication is not for other dogs - it's for humans. I suspect that due to our long relationship with dogs (teaming up with them may well have made up more effective hunters) means that dog brains are more similar to ours than apes.

Most of our brains are for language and hands. We are not alone in either modifying ourselves, our environment, or responding to future, possible events.

Not that I'm saying that animals are equal, or that I shouldn't kill them. Ditto for self-proclaimed superior lifeforms. ;-p

Blindly proclaiming superiority is just, um, inferior(?).

Re:Oh, not that one again...

[Mr. Slippery]

There is freaking huge gap between human mind and anything modern apes have.

Ah, anthropocentrism. The old enemy of science, but how strongly it still holds to any consideration of our fellow vertebrates.

Re:Oh, not that one again...

[Culture20]

I suspect that due to our long relationship with dogs (teaming up with them may well have made up more effective hunters) means that dog brains are more similar to ours than apes.

Most of our brains are for language and hands.

If you're saying that dog brains are closer to ours than dog brains are to apes brains, you might be correct. If you're saying that dog brains are closer to ours than ape brains are to our brains, then you're incorrect.

Re:Oh, not that one again...

[Demonoid-Penguin]

If you're saying that dog brains are closer to ours than dog brains are to apes brains, you might be correct. If you're saying that dog brains are closer to ours than ape brains are to our brains, then you're incorrect.

And if you think that response is an argument to my post - you confuse an opinion with an argument.

Structurally, and functionally (aside from our more developed language centers and development for hands - minus our lost nasal and hearing abilities).... well, yes, I'm saying - what I said. Not all dogs, not all humans. Try "The Secret Life of a Dog" for a list of relevant references - inability to communicate and lack of colour vision are myths. The dog most studied is Chaser - with a proven vocabulary greater than many people who drive trucks with gun racks.

Most dogs (mine included) can do most everything an ape can do - and more. I'll give you $100 if you can teach an ape to find a three-dimensional object based on viewing a drawing - or point - or wait - or look where you're pointing. No ape has ever been taught to do any of those things. Many dogs can. Most collies and Jack Russells (other breeds as well, those are the ones I've mostly trained) easily learn 400+ words and concepts (around, under, over) - and colour recognition (get in the red car).

To generalize - dogs with eyes to the front (nose dogs) are smarter than dogs with eyes either side of the nose (eye dogs). Eye dogs are the ones that find it hard to not chase anything that moves and they don't tend to listen.

Re:Oh, not that one again...

[Culture20]

And if you think that response is an argument to my post - you confuse an opinion with an argument.

You are correct. I confused your opinion with an argument. I'm sorry, but brains do a _lot_ more than consciousness/self awareness. Because an ape's (chimp's) body is more similar to our own, it makes sense that their brains are more similar. You say that most of our brain is for language and hands. Dogs have no hands and a large portion of their brain is devoted to scent association.

The dog most studied is Chaser - with a proven vocabulary greater than many people who drive trucks with gun racks.

Either you greatly underestimate the mental capacity of average humans, or Chaser would be more famous than Mr. Ed or Koko. I bet you laughed at the Family Guy skit where Peter goes to the KFC asking for the Colonel, thinking to yourself "Oh my! What a delicious parody on the lack of vocabulary in the South!". What you missed is that the guy behind the counter was smarter than Peter, and was trying to impart his wisdom using the local dialect. "I say you he dead."

Most dogs (mine included) can do most everything an ape can do - and more.

I'm an ape. Get your dog to compile a custom kernel and I'll consider it. Have him complete Hurd and I'll believe you.

I'll give you $100 if you can teach an ape to find a three-dimensional object based on viewing a drawing - or point - or wait - or look where you're pointing. No ape has ever been taught to do any of those things.

Perhaps not, but they do really understand the meaning of color-words:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/09/new-milestones-with-thinking-japanese.html
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Thinking-Like-a-Chimpanzee.html

Many dogs can. Most collies and Jack Russells (other breeds as well, those are the ones I've mostly trained) easily learn 400+ words and concepts (around, under, over)

http://www.koko.org/world/signlanguage.html

- and colour recognition (get in the red car).

Most likely "red car" means "car that smells like leather seats" and "red ball" means "ball that smells like $FOO"

Re:Oh, not that one again...

[Demonoid-Penguin]

I'm sorry, but brains do a _lot_ more than consciousness/self awareness.

Apropos of what? That's hardly news.

Because an ape's (chimp's) body is more similar to our own, it makes sense that their brains are more similar. You say that most of our brain is for language and hands. Dogs have no hands and a large portion of their brain is devoted to scent association.

?? WTF?. I don't dispute that I wrote that - but *what* is your point?

The dog most studied is Chaser - with a proven vocabulary greater than many people who drive trucks with gun racks.

Either you greatly underestimate the mental capacity of average humans, or Chaser would be more famous than Mr. Ed or Koko.

That doesn't translate - no one in this house knows who those people/things are. And using fame as a measure of relevance/importance is just as stupid as your assertions.

I bet you laughed at the Family Guy skit where Peter goes to the KFC asking for the Colonel, thinking to yourself "Oh my! What a delicious parody on the lack of vocabulary in the South!". What you missed is that the guy behind the counter was smarter than Peter, and was trying to impart his wisdom using the local dialect. "I say you he dead."

I'll take that bet. How much did you just lose? I had to Google to find out what the fuck you're talking about. It's a cartoon show. For children and immature adults. Which fits given your approach to taking in new information. I've never watched that show - and short some sort of catastrophic head injury, am never likely to want to.

Illuminating insight into your basement world though.

Most dogs (mine included) can do most everything an ape can do - and more.

I'm an ape. Get your dog to compile a custom kernel and I'll consider it. Have him complete Hurd and I'll believe you.

You seem to confuse the process of building a binary with running a race. But, please tell us more about *your* abilities - perhaps if we're sufficiently impresses with your claimed accomplishments your dogmatic opinions will gain some credibility. Do you have ninja skills too? Because dogs don't so therefore apes are more like humans (who, unlike you, are not apes but are the third chimpanzee).

I've already pointed out that dogs don't have our language or hands.

Do any of the apes (other than the third chimpanzees) compile code? How many humans can? How hard can make config, etc be?

To avoid public humiliation - *do not* post your education references, your teachers probably tried, but you failed.

Widening an already piss-weak argument hardly strengthens your argument. Now go chase down a rat, rabbit and fox. When and if you catch it, kill it with your teeth. A spurious comparison given that you've not just read my earlier comments about hands, but essentially agreed with it. I'm guessing the almond shaped bit of my dog's brain is some what larger than yours.

I'll give you $100 if you can teach an ape to find a three-dimensional object based on viewing a drawing - or point - or wait - or look where you're pointing. No ape has ever been taught to do any of those things.

Perhaps not, but they do really understand the meaning of color-words: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/09/new-milestones-with-thinking-japanese.html http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Thinking-Like-a-Chimpanzee.html

Apropos of what? You have a better way of testing the ability of an animal to differentiate between colours without differentiating between colours.

Many dogs can.

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news, non-human animals also like food and sex. Stay tuned!

Psychoactive users are not junkies

[vandan]

It's a common perception ... and totally wrong ... that psychoactive users are junkies. Far from it. I have participated in multiple voluntary studies with the Australian National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, where they study recreational drugs ( E, LSD, etc ) ... and have asked them each time what they thought of my habits, and that of my peers. Each time they said the same thing ... that it was a pleasure to work with people who actually had their life together ... that the real 'junkies' use heroin, alcohol, cocain, etc ... and the recreational drug users, in contrast, are well in control of their activities, and leading productive lives. In fact I would go a step further and say that psychoactive drug users have their life together far more than the average person.

Re:Psychoactive users are not junkies

[Brett Buck]

Either that, or regular psychoactive drug users are just so zonked out that they think they are well-adjusted whether they are or not.

Re:Psychoactive users are not junkies

[Internetuser1248]

In fact there was a clinical study in the 1960s that showed that hallucinogenic drugs could be used to cure junkies of their addictions, especially alcohol.

Re:Psychoactive users are not junkies

[betterunixthanunix]

In fact, an enormous number of working adults (perhaps even the majority) are psychoactive drug users, and they seem to be OK...

Re:Psychoactive users are not junkies

[damaged_sectors]

In fact there was a clinical study in the 1960s that showed that hallucinogenic drugs could be used to cure junkies of their addictions, especially alcohol.

Try searching for Timothy Leary, d-lyseric acid diethylamide, prisoner, beginning/forerunner of AA (you are correct that it was trialled, don't know if it actually worked)

I have "heard" that LSD-25, surprisingly, (in minute doses) is an extremely effective treatment for chronic pain that doesn't respond to traditional pain killers....

Re:Psychoactive users are not junkies

[RazorSharp]

You can't become addicted to most psychoactive drugs. If you take acid two days in a row, on the second day it will hardly affect you. You develop a short-term tolerance (that goes away in a couple of days). Not to mention it's not desirable to take it multiple days in a row. It's mentally stressful and the brain needs to recuperate.

The only addictive psychoactive drug is PCP and no one does that anymore b/c no one becomes a steady user and lives long.

What do you consider well-adjusted? Talking out your ass?

Re:Psychoactive users are not junkies

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you were looking for the word psychedelic . All drugs are psychoactive .

Re:Psychoactive users are not junkies

[damaged_sectors]

I think you were looking for the word psychedelic . All drugs are psychoactive .

Your second link goes nowhere.

All recreational drugs being psychoactive is debatable (and still being debated) - Wikipedia is not the final arbitrator in that debate.

In Pharmacology it's generally accepted that xanthines and the classic amphetamines are not. For reference I'd refer you to my old lecturer Dr. Greg Cheshire, and the writer of PIKAL (which is about psychoactive drugs). That's not to say they don't have any psycoactive properties - just that they are fairly subliminal (ditto nicotine).

Oh - and plus 1 on the psychedelic point. There's a hell of a difference between imaginary (but realistic) bats in the desert and imagery behind closed eyes.

When it comes to visual hallucinations (psychedelics) - LSD-25 mixes senses (feel sound when peaking), Mescaline and Pscilocybin (?) have similar effects, DMT not so much so - but none of it was convincingly real (to me). Datura hallucinations on the other hand were extremely convincing (it's not a common recreational drug - keep it that way).

Re:Psychoactive users are not junkies

[Internetuser1248]

It was trialled, and it did work, it failed a peer review in which the therapy component was left out and the reviewers just tested the effects of LSD on addicts in isolation. This was felt to be grounds for stopping research. I should have said that in my first post as well, that there was a therapy component to the treatment. If you are an alcoholic and just take LSD it WILL NOT CURE YOU. I don't want people to go out and start self medicating. The research was picked up decades later on another drug Ibogaine and is now considered to be a real treatment but the fact is it works for most hallucinogens and Ibogaine is only used because it has less of a stigma.

Re:Psychoactive users are not junkies

[damaged_sectors]

It was trialled, and it did work, it failed a peer review in which the therapy component was left out and the reviewers just tested the effects of LSD on addicts in isolation. This was felt to be grounds for stopping research. I should have said that in my first post as well, that there was a therapy component to the treatment. If you are an alcoholic and just take LSD it WILL NOT CURE YOU. I don't want people to go out and start self medicating. The research was picked up decades later on another drug Ibogaine and is now considered to be a real treatment but the fact is it works for most hallucinogens and Ibogaine is only used because it has less of a stigma.

No dispute there. I'd read that a long time ago and couldn't remember the title ("Confessions of a hope addict"?). I never put a lot of stock in what Dr I-work-for-the-CIA-and-sell-out-Black Panthers-Leary had to say. I "think" the another person involved in that work might have been Yogi Bera - but that could be just an old hallucination ;-p

I do believe that LSD-25 is a powerful took for "reprogramming" people though... so did Charles Manson.

Well derr!

[damaged_sectors]

Drugs work because of, um, receptors. Given that most animals (not insects) have endocannabinoid receptors next we'll be surprised that animals like pot.

Slow news week - and, where's the usual filler about how Santa visits all the chimneys?

Re:Well derr!

[Anonymous Coward]

next we'll be surprised that animals like pot.

That kind of research would be be interesting to see. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence with dogs. I had a friend with dogs that would beg for Cannabis smoke to be blown in their faces. Once they got some, they went back to play with the other dogs. If they didn't get any, they would push their head down on your leg really hard while you were smoking and make little whimpering sounds. If you denied them, but passed the pipe to someone else, they would beg from the person who had the pipe. From what I've heard from other pet owners, this is not an uncommon trait of dogs of regular Cannabis users.

Re:Well derr!

[cusco]

My uncle's cat used to do the same. We'd be laying on the floor by the fireplace smoking and Custer would walk over to the person with the pipe, wait until they had inhaled, and then climb on their chest and wait for them to exhale. After a few hits he'd wander off and watch the rest of the evening from the corner.

Re:Humans don't need substances to alter their sta

[drinkypoo]

I bought my lady one of those LED flashy things you wear like glasses and she really likes it. I've tried it a few times and it does make interesting patterns. No idea if the lights are forcing me to relax or if I'm just relaxing because I'm watching patterns but I think it's nifty as well. It's on my list of things to do with an Arduino because I want one that's PC-connected and that seems the easiest way to achieve that.

Not a major surprise, really.

[vegiVamp]

Probably twenty or thirty years ago I saw a documentary about all kinds of animals who came to eat the half-fermented fruit lying under some kind of tree, and consequently getting very much drunk off their collective arses.

Nothing funnier than a drunk rhino falling over, I can tell you. If anyone knows what documentary that was - I was just a geekling at the time - I'd love to find it again.

Re:Not a major surprise, really.

[damaged_sectors]

Probably twenty or thirty years ago I saw a documentary about all kinds of animals who came to eat the half-fermented fruit lying under some kind of tree, and consequently getting very much drunk off their collective arses.

Nothing funnier than a drunk rhino falling over, I can tell you. If anyone knows what documentary that was - I was just a geekling at the time - I'd love to find it again.

The fruit is durian. Don't remember the name of the doco. It's also the reason you don't (ever) allow elephants access to large amounts of fruit or sugar cane - it ferments in their warm, slow digestive system. Having seen it first hand I wouldn't call it funny.

Re:Not a major surprise, really.

[butterbrot]

Perhaps Animals Are Beautiful People by Jamie Uys (who also made "The Gods Must Be Crazy")? At least that's the one I remember. I don't specifically recall any drunk rhinos, but there were plenty other species getting intoxicated by eating fermented fruit of the Marula tree.

Re:Not a major surprise, really.

[Forty Two Tenfold]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5E5TjkDvU0

Cats do it, too

[temcat]

When I had a cat, it used to get high from smelling T-shirt underarms. Really hilarious to watch.

Headline is wrong

[Internetuser1248]

The headline should read new study show reindeer take hallucinogens. It is not news that animals take drugs, the has been known for a long time. Many herbivorous mammals will overindulge in rotten fruit on the ground getting drunk off the alcohol fermenting in them. Studies on monkey alcoholism have been done that show that their behaviour is almost identical to ours except that their alcoholics remain respected members of the social group rather than outcasts (the monkeys in the study were stealng alcohol from tourist resorts). Panthers in south america take Ayahuasca, cats take catnip, lemurs use poisonous millipedes to kill pests on their skin, and also trip the hell out from the chemicals. The list goes on. Everybody likes drugs, drugs are good, hmmmkaaay?

Animal drug habits documentary.

Re:Headline is wrong

[satuon]

Too bad I don't have mod points, but anyway I was going to say the same thing, I've heard about animals seeking out natural drugs (plants or ripe fruit) at least a year ago.

Re:Humans don't need substances to alter their sta

[Culture20]

I bought my lady one of those LED flashy things you wear like glasses and she really likes it. I've tried it a few times and it does make interesting patterns. No idea if the lights are forcing me to relax or if I'm just relaxing because I'm watching patterns but I think it's nifty as well.

I bought one of those, but Wesley Crusher programmed Data to break it.

Article Has It Wrong.

[turkeyfish]

"man may well have found is way to recreational drugs by observing the behavior of other animals".

No, man found his way to recreational drugs by behaving just like other animals.

Stop the war on drugs

[devent]

Since we now determined that the use of recreational drugs is in our gene pool can we please stop the "War on Drugs" madness? It's working just like all the other laws to prohibit goods that people want, like alcohol and sex. But don't listen to me, listen to the Stanford "Neill" Franklin, Police (Ret.) Executive Director, LEAP .

"It pains me to know that there is a solution for preventing tragedy and nothing is being done because of ignorance, stubbornness, unsubstantiated fear and greed."

Re:Stop the war on drugs

[davev2.0]

I will agree we should stop the war on drugs if you agree we should make it illegal for the government and NGOs to provide support to drug addicts. No welfare, no medicare, no medicaid, no support at all, period. Will you agree with that?

In nature, the addict fends for himself and if he fails to do so, he dies.. In society, addicts and their co-dependents expect society to to fend for the addicts so the addicts won't die. Until society doesn't have to support and fend for addicts and allows nature to take its course, I see no reason to legalize recreational drug use.

Oh, and I have watched how the legal system treats drug abuse. It is way too lenient to start with and stays lenient until it because very harsh. The penalties are applied inconsistently and often haphazardly. My erstwhile girlfriend is going to prison for 30 months for driving her ex-boyfriend to do a deal. He did the deal and is now out on probation after doing an in-jail drug treatment program. So, the driver gets prison, the dealer gets probation. That is the problem with the laws, not that the laws exist.

Re:Stop the war on drugs

[devent]

The problem with the law is that we spend the money exact the opposite way than we should and, if you watched the video, it's just a big money sink which no positive results at all. Money we could spend on fight crimes like murder, rape, etc.

Right now the gangs and mafia makes the money and we spend a lot of money to combat those and we spend a lot of money to treat the drug addicts (either with a treatment programs or with prison).

With legalized drugs we would make the money (i.e. the state) that the gangs and mafia is making, we wouldn't need to spend billions in fighting those and so we would have plenty of money left to treat the drug addicts.

It works with tobacco, alcohol, gambling and porn, why are we outlawing drugs?

Re:Stop the war on drugs

[countertrolling]

As far as I am concerned, if we really wanted to end drug abuse, we would summarily execute drug traffickers, drug dealers, and habitual drug offenders.

Yeah, I feel the same about sociopathic internet trolls.

Re:Stop the war on drugs

[countertrolling]

My erstwhile girlfriend is going to prison...

Well... you sure know how to pick 'em...

Re:Stop the war on drugs

[endymion.nz]

Dave, basically all of the negative behaviours you associate with drug users are consequences of prohibition rather than drug use itself.

Your friend is going to prison because she broke a law that only exists to enable the prohibition of drugs. She probably did it to pay for her habit, and the only reason the drugs cost more than a can of coke is because the prices are controlled by black market forces.

I'm guessing she is also feeling pretty isolated after everyone in her life that thinks like you has written her off because the thing she likes to do happens to be illegal at this time in your country. You sir, are a bad friend.

Re:Stop the war on drugs

[davev2.0]

No, the negative behaviors are associated with addiction. Tell me, when one can not afford a can of coke because one can not keep a job because one is using too much to work, what then?

You, sir, are a bad animal who should be shot.

Re:Stop the war on drugs

[davev2.0]

Yeah, I feel the same about sociopathic internet trolls.

Let's see, you are following me and commenting on my various comments. That makes you a comment stalker. Your snide comments make you a troll. Sounds like you are a sociopathic internet troll. I guess you should go shoot yourself.

Re:Stop the war on drugs

[Anonymous Coward]

I will agree we should stop the war on drugs if you agree we should make it illegal for the government and NGOs to provide support to drug addicts. No welfare, no medicare, no medicaid, no support at all, period. Will you agree with that?

I will if you drop "Drug" and allow all addictions to be included(including addiction to a historically convenient fantasy[I mean religion]).

Re:Humans don't need substances to alter their sta

[Demonoid-Penguin]

... While the substances are an easy way to experience something a little different, it's also possible to achieve "altered states of consciousness" entirely without the chemicals.

I don't have a copy of Stoned Free, but I like the premise:

Now you can just say "No!" to drugs... and get high anyway! This book enumerates many drugless consciousness altering techniques, both timeless and recent in origin, that anyone can make use of. Meditation, breathing techniques, high-tech highs, sleep and dream manipulation, and numerous other methods are examined in detail. Avoid incarceration, save money, and skip the wear and tear on your body, while getting higher than a kite.

I had to figure out how to relax my body (it was dysfunctional following a head injury), but even so I've had some neat experiences along the way: hypnagogic imagery, 360-degree vision, etc. If you've previously used substances (marijuana, LSD, etc) one can re-vivify those experiences with self-suggestion (self-hypnosis), or use descriptions of others to design your own trip.

Tripping without substances generally begins with relaxing the physical body, relaxing the mind, then making suggestions to yourself.

Binaural beats can help - Gnaural is the open source tone generator. I had to do some other things to fully recover from said concussion, and I'm finally dreaming up a storm. :)

And some people need drugs to find reality.... you sound like you trip out just fine without any assistance at all. I prefer more control of my altered states.

P. J. Barnum wishes you luck with your new business venture.

Junkies ?

[mbone]

The animal world may have its junkies, but they sure aren't doing magic mushrooms.

Perhaps I'm just a nerd...

[MacGyver2210]

Did anyone else immediately think of the smack-addicted Dolphin from the Gibson story Johnny Mnemonic?

The big difference

[davev2.0]

When an animal becomes so addicted that it cannot fend for itself, it dies. When people get so addicted they can't fend for themselves, they expect the rest of the population to care and support them so they can go on using.

Re:Humans don't need substances to alter their sta

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fucking dumbass. Just because you alter your state of consciousness doesn't mean your stoned. Sleep is an altered state of consciousness: "ohhhh! I'm soooo high I'm seeing things!"

And wtf is 360 degree vision? Stupid fucking hippy. This is Slashdot, not a Grateful Dead fan site. If you're going to make outrageous claims then you better back them up with scientific evidence or rational argument. A link to some hippy book with zero scientific credibility doesn't count. None of the author's works are even currently in print. I wonder why.

Robins Love Brazillian Pepper Berries

[timkb4cq]

Robins Love Brazilian Pepper Berries, and fly around drunkenly after consuming them. Have you ever seen a robin come in for a landing on a wire & miss? Or catch it with one claw and dangle underneath? Common sights on Sanibel when the berries are ripe.

7 Species That Get High More Than We Do

[Anonymous Coward]

with pictures of the stoners
http://www.cracked.com/article_17032_7-species-that-get-high-more-than-we-do.html
http://www.cracked.com/article_17032_7-species-that-get-high-more-than-we-do_p2.html

Drunk horses

[AliasMarlowe]

A typical warmblood horse is about 550-600kg (over half a ton), but gets drunk on a surprisingly small amount of alcohol. They can get boisterous and disorderly on eating partly fermented apples http://guyism.com/uncategorized/drunk-horse-falls-in-uk-familys-pool.html. A pint or two of beer would probably get a horse utterly staggering drunk. Don't try it, however, as a disorderly horse is almost as bad as a disorderly elephant.

Caffeine

[Anonymous Coward]

All these comments and nobody's mentioned caffeine yet?

Ephesians 5:18

[tepples]

The Bible condemns adultery, but neither sex, alcohol nor pleasure in general.

"Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit." -- Paul, Ephesians 5:18 (NIV)

Also, no partner is lifelong, unless you happen to die in the same airplane crash or something.

"Lifelong" is more commonly taken in the sense of "until death parts us".

Re:Ephesians 5:18

[apparently]

"Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit." -- Paul, Ephesians 5:18 (NIV)

So what you're telling me is that Paul didn't pay attention to when Jesus converted perfectly good water into wine? Man, that Jesus, what a heretic, right?

Re:Ephesians 5:18

[Joe Tie.]

It's unfortunate, given what a massive tool Paul is. But in general I think it's a safe assumption that his writings are probably paint a more accurate picture of the teachings of Jesus than the gospels. He at least was a contemporary, while the gospel writers were just some random guys who tossed on famous names as self promotion.

Re:Ephesians 5:18

[Demonoid-Penguin]

It's unfortunate, given what a massive tool Paul is. But in general I think it's a safe assumption that his writings are probably paint a more accurate picture of the teachings of Jesus than the gospels. He at least was a contemporary, while the gospel writers were just some random guys who tossed on famous names as self promotion.

Mathew, Mark, Luke, and, John - everyone else came much later on.

And it's all bullshit. Not that this, or anywhere else is a forum for the undebatable. Faith, as evidenced by the arguments here, is not something that brooks debate (rationale, or logic).

Re:Ephesians 5:18

[mcgrew]

That's a little out of context. Expanded quote:

14Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.

  15See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise,

  16Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.

  17Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is.

  18And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

  19Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

  20Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

  21Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

It was a warning not to get caught up in this temporary life. Oh, and look -- DUNE! "The sleeper shall awaken!"

Storming Heaven

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the book Storming Heaven for information on many animals that self dose... from birds that eat so many drugged berries that they fall out of the bush to goats that ruin their teeth scraping funky fungus off rocks.... Storming Heaven is at least 20 yrs old (that's about when I read it) and IIRC it made the case that shrooms were a catalyst for the dev of both language and consciousness.

Re:Humans don't need substances to alter their sta

[Anonymous Coward]

Sleep deprivation is the easiest way I know of to start tripping w/o any drugs. No book or special technique needed. Once getting into the 36 to 48 hour zone, I know I start seeing some weird shit in the peripheral vision like moving shadows and tiny lights that flash out of nowhere. Sometimes it also helps for coming up with crazy ideas or bouts of creativity. The downside is that you can easily get agitated, elated, or pushed to some other emotional extreme. Short term memory also doesn't work as well, so writing down things for later during this state helps if you don't want such experimenting to be a wasted effort. After such experimenting, getting some good sleep isn't too hard and fixes most of the side effects.

Of course YMMV. Some people get by with sleep deprivation and very few side effects, and others will simply fall asleep before the weirdness phase kicks in.

Drinking != getting drunk

[tepples]

So what you're telling me is that Paul didn't pay attention to when Jesus converted perfectly good water into wine?

There is a difference between drinking Jesus's wine-from-concentrate in moderation and "getting drunk", which I take to mean drinking to substantial impairment. Muslims are the teetotalers, not necessarily Christians.

Drunken Lorikeets

[donak]

In the Australian city where I live, the local lorikeets (a kind of parrot) go absolutely wild over the flowers of the "Pepper" tree in the middle of our summer,
because the nectar in the flowers ferments in the heat ... and they get totally legless, wingless ... anything you can call it.

I've seen one flutter to the ground in front of me, land on it's back ... with it's wings still flapping like mad, trying to fly upside down.
After 20 seconds of going nowhere, it stopped, shook itself to it's feet and finally managed to take off. I didn't see it hit anything as it went,
but I'm glad it went the other way ...

"The animal World Had Its Junkies, /Too/"?

[De_Boswachter]

Title implies the junkie problem had previously only been recognized in either the plant world, the fungi world, or other kingdoms in the eukaryota domain, and possibly in the prokaryota and archaea domains.