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 ;-)

[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 ;-)

[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 ;-)

[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 ;-)

[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.

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.

Raised question

[The Clockwork Troll]

So do skunks call unpungent marijuana "human"?

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. :)

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.

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.

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'.

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

[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?

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

[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: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

[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".