Slashdot Mirror


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."

46 of 250 comments (clear)

  1. Tell that to to judge ;-) by ls671 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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. ;-)

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    1. Re:Tell that to to judge ;-) by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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

      --
      Wherever You Go, There You Are
    2. Re:Tell that to to judge ;-) by santax · · Score: 2

      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.

    3. Re:Tell that to to judge ;-) by tirefire · · Score: 5, Informative
      (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.

    4. Re:Tell that to to judge ;-) by am+2k · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Tell that to to judge ;-) by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    6. Re:Tell that to to judge ;-) by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    7. Re:Tell that to to judge ;-) by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

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

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

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:Tell that to to judge ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    9. Re:Tell that to to judge ;-) by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

  2. Catnip by ZiakII · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  3. Here's the COAL link to this... by Announcer · · Score: 3, Informative

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

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

    Interesting article.

    --
    Willie...
  4. Voice of Title by ModernGeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Sig: I stole this sig.
    1. Re:Voice of Title by Trinn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  5. Re:Hypothetical Article by ls671 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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... ;-)

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  6. Raised question by The+Clockwork+Troll · · Score: 4, Funny

    So do skunks call unpungent marijuana "human"?

    --

    There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
  7. Terence McKenna spoke a lot about this by frank_carmody · · Score: 3, Informative

    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).

  8. Humans don't need substances to alter their state by nido · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... 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. :)

    --
    Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
    www.teslabox.com
  9. Coffee Found This Way by RobinEggs · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  10. this is no news ... by polar+red · · Score: 2

    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)

    --
    Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    1. Re:this is no news ... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. Origin stories by vlueboy · · Score: 2

    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!

  12. Drugs and their first use. by Nrrqshrr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  13. Re:O RLY? by inglorion_on_the_net · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  14. Oh, not that one again... by Balinares · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > 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'.

    --

    -- B.
    This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
  15. Re:O RLY? by fastest+fascist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  16. Psychoactive users are not junkies by vandan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Psychoactive users are not junkies by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:Psychoactive users are not junkies by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

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

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    3. Re:Psychoactive users are not junkies by RazorSharp · · Score: 4, Informative

      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?

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  17. Well derr! by damaged_sectors · · Score: 3, Informative
    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?

  18. Re:Sounds about right. by grcumb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
  19. Re:Hypothetical Article by damaged_sectors · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  20. Re:O RLY? by damaged_sectors · · Score: 2

    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"

  21. Stop the war on drugs by devent · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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."

    --
    http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    1. Re:Stop the war on drugs by devent · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    2. Re:Stop the war on drugs by endymion.nz · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      mediocrity rules, man
  22. Re:Hypothetical Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  23. Re:Hypothetical Article by mikael_j · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?".

    --
    Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
  24. Re:O RLY? by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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).

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  25. Re:Hypothetical Article by pinkushun · · Score: 2

    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! :-)

  26. Re:Hypothetical Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  27. Re:Hypothetical Article by itsenrique · · Score: 2

    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.

  28. Re:Entheogens are our birthright... by moortak · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
  29. Re:Hypothetical Article by mikael_j · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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".

    --
    Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
  30. Re:Hypothetical Article by sjames · · Score: 2

    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.