Hacker News Reader

Comment by GordonS | Hacker News Reader

You're right, some people simply enjoy occasionally consuming drugs. It's not much different to people consuming alcohol really, the only real differences are alcohol is generally more socially accepted, and that alcohol is generally considered to be more harmful to society.

If there was a guaranteed safe supply chain for recreational drugs that are currently illegal, things would be a lot safer too.

View on HN

> It's not much different to people consuming alcohol really, the only real differences are alcohol is generally more socially accepted, and that alcohol is generally considered to be more harmful to society

I would amend your analogy: "people comsuming alcohol to get drunk". Lots of people enjoy a glass of wine or a beer or sipping whiskey or whatever, not because it makes them drunk, but because they enjoy the flavor (e.g., wine pairings, etc). I'm pretty sure almost everyone who does drugs does so to get high. Note that I'm not arguing that alcohol is better than drugs, only that I think this distinction is important.

But everyone who's drinking alcohol is doing it at least in part for the effect. Non-alcoholic beer is a thing and there are plenty of wine replacements and mocktails, but they're nowhere near as popular as the real thing. Obviously there's a difference in a glass of wine with dinner and being roaring drunk, but that's true of any drug. You can micro-dose LSD, or you can take it until you're seeing pink elephants on the ceiling.

As a sample size of 1, I do not drink alcohol for the effect. I don't like the disoriented feeling. But I do like the flavor of a good beer, wine, or single-malt Scotch.

So if I don’t bring my own non-alcoholic beverage to the party (or restaurant), does that mean I must secretly be drinking for the effect? Of course not! It just means that I can avoid the effect without going out of my way to buy alcohol-free. Also, “not drinking for the effect” also encompasses people who are okay with getting buzzed or drunk, but that’s not what they’re setting out to do. For example, I don’t drink to get drunk or buzzed (I don’t have anything against it; I just don’t enjoy the sensation), but I’ve had a strong drink on an empty stomach. That doesn’t mean I was setting out to get buzzed (again, I wasn’t), only that I’m not going out of my way to avoid it.

You can spin it also that ie weed makes tastes go to overdrive, so you can do quality sweet/salty 'food pairing' with same intentions and results as wine pairing - things taste better. In fact, ridiculously way better.

Munchies ritual became part of my trips when I used to smoke, since such an experience in regard of taste can't be provided by any michelin star restaurant, no matter how hard they try (although they do provide great experience in other forms). Its unhealthy, its practically impossible to just nibble, rather devour a metric ton and some more.

Let's stop pretending people do drugs for anything but drug's effect on them. Wine is no different, plenty of folks who are alcoholics run purely on wine, albeit on different quantities than small glass of red. Try drinking half a liter of red wine every days for few years though, where it will lead you.

You’re missing the point about the “taste” bit—the point isn’t that they’re doing it for the taste, but that they’re not doing it for the psychological effect. In your example, changes to taste are the psychological effect of weed. Again, this isn’t a moral argument, just observing a distinction.

This is not true.

psychedelics are widely used for micro-dosing, which isn’t about being high - its meant to be sub perceptible dosing.

Also for therapy and mental well being.

Fair enough. TIL.

> I'm pretty sure almost everyone who does drugs does so to get high.

This is not the case. I know people who use them to manage chronic pain. It's not all that different from getting a Vicodin prescription, but without shifting most of the cost to society.

Hence "almost". I'm pretty sure such people don't make up a significant portion of drug users, but I could be wrong.

Its a false difference. Most people take mdma for the feeling of happiness, not to get wasted.

Of course you will take a substance for its effect... the real distinction is wether you are addict / overconsuming, or not.

> and that alcohol is generally considered to be more harmful to society.

Alcohol is definitely not more harmful to society than most prescription opioids, tobacco, meth, heroin, PCP, etc. The harm of each drug needs to be assessed on a per capita by user basis.

Its incredibly dangerous because of its social acceptance. I don't see a difference between heroin and alcohol addicts, they are both desperate souls and mere shadows of their potential. Countless families are destroyed because of alcohol. Family violence. Drunk driving.

Per capita, back home, and in many many places like russia, it is by far the deadliest substance. Because its legal and +-accepted.

No its on the addict / per user.

Its not because almost no one takes heroin and that it kis no one that its not dangerous.

How dumb is that reasoning..

There have been studies showing that it is the most harmful drug to society, including Professor Nutt's rather famous 2010 Lancet paper.

The fact that alcohol is legal and generally socially acceptable of course means that it's also the most consumed recreational drug by far, which no doubt contributes - but it can't be denied that alcohol is addictive, and alcoholism is a huge problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com