Drugs, Computers & Cyberculture 438
Jett wrote to us with an interesting article concerning
links between drugs, computers and intellectual culture as a whole. The usage of drugs, ranging from hardcore substances to alcohol and such is an interesting intersection within the computer world. One of the other pieces that I've also liked in Feed was Steven Johnson's piece on Everything2.com. And to be straight: Yes, I am involved with Everything2. But it's because I think it's cool.
The Doc Sayz (Score:1)
BSD and LSD, eh? (Score:2)
There's BSD & LSD (maybe required, for Unix development
Or maybe we're just a bunch of posers, I don't know.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Like them drugs (Score:2)
Re:The Doc Sayz (Score:2)
The biggest risk in doing most drugs is the risk of getting arrested.
anyone else catch this? (Score:2)
"... MS/DOS and subroutines of the brain can be apprehended by consciousness."
so what does this say about Microsoft?
Re:Like them drugs (Score:1)
Blame Gibson (Score:3)
I'm just curious if his works, the image of Case in the Gentelman Loser (?) was derived from the hacker / drug sub-culture, or if the drug-use only manifested itself later. The breeding grounds (ie University ) for both may intersect, but how much of a cross-over was there between the drug-users and the geek crowd bathed in the glow of their green-screen terminals?
Off hand, the reality-altering effects of drugs and thge virtual worlds that we now have are both 2 different approaches to altering your perception. A 24 hour EQ session will produce largely the same effects (disorientation, inability to focus, difficulty with speech
Besides, whenever I used to surf whacked, all I could manage was a lame 1st post now and then.
Drugs and Geeks (Score:1)
I'm just curious as to how many hackers and crackers use drugs to enhance their cognitive abilities for brief periods of time? The reason I ask this is because I seem to recall some famous page being hacked a little while back, and the perpetrator leaving a note that had, amongst other things, an apology for his spelling because he was "on methadiachromanphetamines" or something. Anybody have an idea as to what effects amphetamines can have on the problem-solving abilities of the human brain?
Not a big suprise... (Score:1)
*Young people with problems
*Burned-out idealists
*Raving Loonies
So just be cool, get em' a hot drink and call the Ambulance if they need one. They will be back to coding faster this way.
Play Safe
DaveG (type3)
I'm missing the link (Score:2)
Considering why various authors used drugs might make an interesting article. Merely making the point that many have has been done before, and is pointless.
Polarisation (Score:2)
Training for the Net (Score:2)
At some party I've mostly forgotten (no, it wasn't THAT good) I overheard a woman describing her trip to an unspecified region of Africa and encountering some natives. She showed them the cover of a magazine with a person's face on it; taking the magazine, they turned it over and around in puzzlement as if they did not understand what it was they should be seeing. This woman went on to make fairly derisive comments about these people but I suspect that their only shortcoming was not being trained to recognize the print and flat surface of the image on that magazine as a person's face.
Is it the case that younger generations increasingly exposed to drugs and raves can better appreciate virtual reality or the Internet?
The piece on Everything2 (Score:2)
Now, that said, given that the piece was about Everything, it'd have been nice if it had more than about two paragraphs' worth about it without having lots of fluff rambling on and on around it. It seems like a JonKatz article, but even less relevant. :)
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine [nmsu.edu].
Mmm-kay? (Score:2)
Mmmn, Hemos, drugs are bad, mmn-kay?
First posts? Firsts posts are bad, mmn-kay?
Now you're cured! You can take the rest of the afternoon off for personal reflection, mm-kay? Find your own constructive way to better yourselves!
</ACCENT>
(*sound of thousands of Slashdotters scrambling off to smoke pot and hit 'reload' repeatedly....)
--
Computers and Drugs (Score:4)
Cyberpunk fiction is full of recreational drug use. Gibson, Sterling and Effinger all include it as essential parts of the new world morality of the settings of their novels.
The internet itself is a uncontrolled form of communication and their is a large amount of information that is useful to people involved in illegal drug use and crime in general.
It is not that computers are linked to drugs, but that computers are linked to the modern counterculture, and drugs are just a part of that counterculture.
A lot of the original hackers were ex-hippies, and a lot of young computer science students I know are involved in the whole techno subculture. The Matrix is a bad example of this, but it shows that such a link exists in the mind of mass media anyway. I think it is save to say that Neo's punk friends were into some stuff heavier than just a few Heinekens.
Drugs, computers, rock & roll (Score:2)
Hackers tend to be more political than anything getting more involved with left-wing political ideals that mind altering substances.
And as someone else pointed out, do we really need drugs when very soon we'll be able to alter our states of mind with VR?
That's basically thr direction Timothy Leary was heading with computers. He was looking for a ming altering experience with computers, as great as his experiences with drugs. He was an Amiga developer and interested in ultimately wiring it directly to the brain. Interesting and also probably very likely, one day.
Now on the other side of the coin, as an audio engineer I tend to be around a lot of musicians, and I can definitely say there is a larger link to drug use with them (bug surprise) than computer users. (of course the most addicted pot smoker I have ever seen was a fellow audio engineer, and some of you probably have CD's in your collection that he worked on, but that's another story entirely).
I must confess that the idea of altering my mind with drugs in intriguing, but I have yet to raise the courage to try an halucinagenic. And the thought of smoking appalls me to no end (though I did eat a pot-brownie once and it seemed to have little effect).
For me the, my mind altering comes from occasionally drinking alchohol, good conversation, and listening to a lot of very cool music.
Re:Woman... likes drugs. What's your opinion? (Score:1)
I wonder if this is just a perception, or if it's actually true. Is drug usage really mostly among the "cool", or is it more widespread.
Another interesting point is why geeks use drugs, or why they don't.
these posts won't change anything (Score:1)
But the fact of the matter is that they do it and anything they read here won't make them stop. If they ever do they will have to come to that decision themselves.
It's about the info, mang (Score:1)
Legal info (without having to scan legal docs or hire a lawyer)
Production methods (barring certain "cookbooks" which are mostly useless)
Legal goodies (yes kids, there are a few interesting chemicals out there that haven't been scheduled yet, like DXM, salvia, and better stuff if you can twist around the right documents)
Places where to obtain the above goodies (www.jlfcatalog.com comes to mind, expensive but nice people)
Tools for trippin' (acidwarp anyone?)
Where to find a good lawyer (just in case)
Hell I remember when I started college and got the hang of FTP sites and that new fangled thing called gopher, and the first things I had stashed on my unix account were a list of legal highs, how to roll a joint, etc back in '92. Of course, most of this stuff was at the local libary, but here it was all indexed and bullshit free. Hell, all the ravers I knew back then always had the best computers (High powered 486's, The first time I saw a pirated copy of Alone in the Dark on one that was connected up to a loud stereo, I was hooked) Why? It was the new Big Thing. You have access to a good supply to chemicals, what else but use a powerful tool made of switches. Infinite fun on both fronts.
As for coding, I remember trying to finish a rather large comp sci project while under the influence. Tricky stuff and not much fun for me. Pretty much a waste of a good trip. But it can open the floodgates, for better or worse, for ideas on programing, art, music or whatever your twisted little mind wants.
Re:Woman... likes drugs. What's your opinion? (Score:1)
of course there is a connection (Score:5)
While I don't think the article delt with it all, the person outlined, while I agree with many of her ideas, seemed more like a coffee-shop radical than a hacker, I do think their is a link between drug culture and hackers. While everyone has there definition of what hacker means, to me it is "a free-thinker with a compiler" (or maybe more generally "A free-thinking pragmatic").
To me, being a hacker means rejecting all Dogma, be it corporate, religious, or state sponsored. And since the amorility of those drugs that have been marked "bad" by society is just dogma, a hacker faced with drug culture is more likely then others to come out for it.
It is very easy, from the outside, to reject drug users as criminals by prejudice, the way that many people outside the hacker community reject us as criminals. But one cannot forget that just like we have our brilliant free thinking hacker geniuses (you know the names), recent history has been littered by genius free thinking drug users (Aldous Huxely, Carl Sagan,,,).
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
Drugs and machines (Score:1)
-Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. One lick and you will suck forever.
Re:anyone else catch this? (Score:4)
Legialize Drugs (Score:1)
I think its time to declare a failure on the so-called war on drugs. I don't know the exact figures, but I'd be willing to bet that about 90% of crime in this country is drug-related. Legalize drugs, and you'd be getting rid of 90% of the crime. Of course the situation is more complicated then that, but I think it would be an improvement.
Of course, you wouldn't want to just simply legalize everything, but who would want to take Crystal Meth, when they could get a safer, cheaper, and similar-strength stimulant at Wall Mart?
And, in legalizing drugs, you'll defund the criminal enterprise that flourishes by providing drugs. There won't be any need for the crypts and the bloods anymore in inner cities, or any other "gangsta" gangs. Without any reason for these organizations, they will cease. If drug users aren't ostracized by outside culture, they will be able to fit in. Bill Clinton, and George W bush are proof that marijuana and cocaine aren't detrimental to people's lives respectively. This is despite what government propaganda purports.
I think at when you look at this rationally, the war on drugs doesn't really make all that much sense. It isn't stopping drug use, and its creating more crime (in attempts to get around it) then its stopping.
[ c h a d o k e r e ] [dhs.org]
Re:war on (some) drugs (Score:1)
not everyone in government is evil... but turning this argument on its head and calling government saintly or even immune to criticism is ridiculous.
i judge the us government by the laws it creates and upholds... and in regards to drugs i think the government is evil incarnate.
Drugs are a risk (Score:2)
Have you actually seen what various forms of truely mind altering drugs can do to a person? Medical evidence can be given that if you regularly take drugs of various sorts that produce neural stimulant reactions that the person in question will fall victim to eventual brain damage. Plus risking your freedom over getting ahold of drugs to keep an addict happy isn't pretty either.
well (Score:1)
Re:these posts won't change anything (Score:1)
does your employer (microsoft) test its employees for drug use?
would any members of the management pass you think?
Re:these posts won't change anything (Score:1)
I don't think the reasons for using drugs are quite as illogical as you make them out to be. You sound like you're spewing propaganda.
I have never used drugs myself, and have no idea what the experience is like, but to some people it's worth the downsides. That's simply a cost/benefit analysis on their part.
Mind Altering, Performance Enhancing (Score:3)
As for harder drugs, namely those of the narcotic variety, my opinion is split. These drugs can improve performance, but unlike caffeine, where all you lose is sleep, these drugs can have serious effects on your health, your personal life, and your financial status. A good rule of thumb may be that any drug that can cost you your life isn't worth any amount of brilliant code.
Unfounded rumor time: I heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone about a computer science professor at my university who tabbed LSD on an hourly basis back in the 60s/70s in order to gain inspiration for his work in artificial intelligence. I don't know if it's true or not, but I know that the professor in question is now absent-minded and socially disabled and hasn't had a promotion in at least a decade. I would not be the least bit surprised if the "rumor" is the reason why his brain is fried.
The caveat: all of his work in AI turned out to be dead ends. His contributions to the field aren't anywhere worth the damage he did to himself. Let's be careful out there.
---
This is soooo out of place here. (Score:1)
2. IMHO geeks pride them (our) selves on CLEAR HEADEDNESS. The ability to see a beautiful solution to a complex problem. AFAIK drugs tend to make you THINK this is what you are doing, but you are really just going (best stoner voice) "Whoah, chicken hats. No one ever thought of that before! Drugs make me smart."
I always wanted to be smarter that I am. Drugs make you dumb. This is not a geek value.
As a final thought: There may be a lot of drug use by internet users (particularly "internet feminists", whatever those are) but there is also a lot of homosexual, S & M, fat-girl porn on the internet, but that does not make it "prevalent among geeks."
-Peter
Re:Drugs and Geeks (Score:3)
This is such a great question. For me it involves being a little drunk and playing the guitar. At that particular moment in time my command of the instrument was never better. It was as if I was having an out of body experience and BECAME the guitar (I know that's cliche, but it was true). I've never had so lucid a moment in my life, prior to, or since then.
Drugs certainly can break down barriers.
As an experiment, the next time I record a friend of mine in the studio we are going to fool around with different levels of intoxication and see what our creative results are. It should be fascinating.
PROBLEMS?!?!? (Score:1)
Oh, you said problem-solving?!?!
B AHH!
my hands are turning blue!
they're turning blooo im so scared.
this now concludes our example of the effects of amphetaminGET THESE BUGS OFF ME!
choice of drug and intelligence (Score:5)
Anyway, I can see that I was rambling for a while there. My point was that the more intelligent folk tend to do psychedelics and mind-expanders, the less intelligent folk tend to do stimulants and downers, and everyone does weed. At least, that's been my experience.
--
Most drugs are like human stack smashers. (Score:2)
c) medium
"Um, what was I saying/doing, again? Damn, I can't remember."
I just plain can't code when I'm on anything. My brain just seems to drop all state information after about 3 seconds or so. But I don't take things to help me code. I take them to relax after coding.
Re:Drugs and Geeks (Score:2)
You know the reason that we say drugs are "bad" is that they have various facts that can cause permanent damage and such. You must understand this or else everything fails. People thought that using amphemetines of various sorts was a "really cool idea" back in the early years of the commercial drug industry. They were used for weight loss and also as a general stimulant. However what they didn't realize at the time is that you get eventual damage to your brain stem and nerve centers. They start to break down your ability to think. All drugs essentially do is to release various forms of artificial chemicals into the body and cause something that is seen as "good" in the brain. Now this is usually a bad thing. When you start messing with the brain you have problems. Hell even things that are supposedly "good" for you are usually not all that good.
A prime example of this are antiphychodics and other mental mood altering drugs. These have had known effects on the brain and can lead to general atrophy of higher brain function. Look at misdiagnosis and abuse of Prozac. People have commited suicide because of their damaged cognitive abilities from such substances.
Something more contemporary is the increase of meth labs and such in the western US. The chemicals used to create these substances are extremely toxic and they also cause wild and uncontrollable on the part of the user. I think you can safely say that this is a bad thing. I don't know of any coder stupid enough to do this but judging what MS puts out I think that they must hire all of those people.
This author knows nothing! (Score:1)
NOTE: This isn't flamebait. It's just the product of a mind just slightly bent on the Dew.
I, the Slashdot drug user (Score:1)
Over the next few years, I smoked weed on a few occassions, dropped acid a few more times - all of this while maintaining a high GPA (for what that's worth, I don't know) and beginning my career in IT.
I never used any drug more often than once every month, and generally once every six months, just as a way for me to ensure that I wouldn't spin out of control.
Near the end of high school, I began working as the sysadmin of a regional ISP. Shortly thereafter, I experimented with cocaine on about three occassions. I enjoyed it, but it wasn't worth the cost, and the addictive properties were apparent after only the second time I used it.
I then moved onto a (so far) great career in computer networking; I am currently a network designer at a regional financial firm.
Throughout this time period, I actively participated in groups such as NANOG, my local LUG, Cisco groupstudy, linux-net, and the local IEEE chapter.
Now, I use drugs about once a year.
The key was that I never got "into" drugs. I didn't get swept up by the drug culture or drug advocacy, nor did I ever use drugs when I was feeling low, so as not to develop a dependency on them. I have never felt a craving to use a drug more than once every few months. Most of my friends were aware of my drug use, even though they disapproved.
People say that they don't need drugs to have fun. That's a very poor point. I didn't (and don't) need drugs to have fun, either. However, they are fun for me, the same way going to the movie theatre is fun. It'd be like saying, "I don't need computers to have fun," as a reason for not ever using a computer.
By every account, I am a successful and happy participator in the IT field, my family, and my circle of friends.
I am merely trying to convey to people that using drugs doesn't equate to being a loser, or anything of the sort. There are a lot of stereotypes surrounding drugs and they may turn out to be right with lots of people, but don't fling around the "drugs are stupid" hype unless you're really as clueless as that statement would lead me to believe that you are.
I know as well as most of you do that there are a LOT of people who should never touch drugs because their lives would be ruined. That's unfortunate, but they didn't ruin mine.
have you ever used drugs? (Score:1)
they risk their health, their precious jobs, legal ramifications
The greatest risk is artificial, created by the 'war on drugs', with legal drugs held to the same standards as food and prescription drugs, the health concern would be minor. and the other two points would be moot.
But the fact of the matter is that they do it and anything they read here won't make them stop. If they ever do they will have to come to that decision themselves.
Especialy since most people here seem to be disagreeing with you...
[ c h a d o k e r e ] [dhs.org]
Where is the reference to my favorite drug? (Score:3)
For me at least, the only concern I have is the vast amounts of coffee I drink (welcome to the startup scene; a pot a day keeps the investors happy
Drugs,Computers Cyberculture (Score:3)
Seriously, I mean they got just about everything else in there:
I really took issue with the statement that drugs would expand your bandwidth and increase your processing power. There's no evidence for that. They alter effect sure, but theres no real evidence for increased information processing.
I forget who said it, talking about the use of drugs to treat schizophrenia, but the comparison made was that in the past we did trepanning[*], then we locked people up, then we electroshocked them and now we use a chemical lobotomy. * - yeah, I've actually heard that some people get trepanning for recreational reasons now - some sort of high if it's done over the right area of the brain. I don't know if it's true.
Re:these posts won't change anything (Score:2)
I guess you never been to boozed-up tailgate party, very angry chaos, you might say that it's illogical to a scary extreme. But it's really not.
The reasons for using?
1. It's Fun.
2. Because it's THERE.
Why do people climb steep rocks? One wrong move and you're a CRIPPLE! Your life is runnied. But why do it? Adventure, something that some people never understand. Reality can be bore. Humans crave action and pleasure. That's why we drink and slow down when we pass a car crash. Danger can be both mental and physical, and some of us choose take that risk for our personal gain.
"...they risk their health, their precious jobs, legal ramifications."
Health reasons are understandable and I guess that's what keep most people from using. Fear of the unknown and it's effects on our bodys, the human body being an important tool of our meager little brains. If that goes, you can't work, and you'll be living in the street in no time. Some of the stronger ones can hack it and have a good time in the process. Legal ramifications are the result of highly developed monkeys (i.e. humans) trying to remind themselves how civilized they are.
Drug use in it's own terms poses no real threat, only human behavior can be threating, and some of us can destroy quite nicely without any chemicals.
Re:Drugs are a risk (Score:2)
there is no convincing medical evidence that moderate use of drugs such as marijuana, alcohol, mdma, and lsd cause brain damage.
the primary risk of drugs results from the ridiculous establishment drug laws.
see the dpf [dpf.org].
information is free.
the only question is:
PowerShell (Score:2)
I can also code some damn good Perl stoned, too
"Software is like sex- the best is for free"
-Linus Torvalds
Some do... (Score:3)
There is lots of evidence for that:
- They think they can take over the world
- They are not in touch with reality
- "now, was I programming a word processor or a 3D shoot-em-up game, er... , what the heck, lets make both in one app!"
- Customer: "What a lot of bugs"
Tech. Sup.: "Yeah, I see em too, and they have such pretty colors! "
- Nice colorfull, playfull GUI
---
Programming and Drug Use (Score:2)
Having experimented when I was younger I can say that - at least for me - I could not code (or code well) if I were using virtually any drug. Except Caffein, of course.:) It's been my experience that any increase in thinking ability is an illusion. The thoughts I had while using drugs seemed to derive from the same sources as my sober thoughts.
These days I enjoy thinking too much to tamper with it in any serious way. Remember Sangamon's Principle (From Neal Stephenson's Zodiac).
One thing I have noticed is that after a massive coding day - something chock full of creation and logic - I can barely even speak. That's kind of like being on drugs.
IMHO, as per
J:)
Re:Mind Altering, Performance Enhancing (Score:2)
Re:Tune in, Log on, Drop out. (Score:2)
Like so much dribble back in the 60s, this is just another reach to justify drug use on a massive scale. It killed people then, and it'll kill people now.
1968 Drugs will make the Gratefull Dead sound better.
2000 Drugs will make the internet better.
Sugesting that this particular generation has been inoculated by slamming in the pit at burning man and pulling hits off a huka is just wrong, wrong wrong.
_________________________
Re:Heroin vs. Weed (Score:2)
Does this ring true with anyone else?
Completely, dude... that's why I don't like drinking very much, and even when my roommates are all drinking 40's I take bong hits and watch "The Wall" on DVD (I know DVDs are bad, but the picture quality is so much nicer, and since I happened to buy a dxr2 I can watch it under Linux)
There's nothing I like better than smoking really good weed, eating barbecued hamburgers (marinated in Olde English 800
"Software is like sex- the best is for free"
-Linus Torvalds
Re:Tune in, Log on, Drop out. (Score:2)
Ultimately, the Internet is a very intricate and structured piece of reality, and I don't see pushing yourself farther from reality as preparing you for that experience.
I'm not panning the drug experience, just the notion that it is in anyway connected to the Internet.
Re:This is soooo out of place here. (Score:2)
A disproportionately low number PhDs and Nobel laureates use drugs.
my premise: phds and nobel laureates have reputations. they want to protect their reputations. drug use is considered a negative trait by society. therefore, they underreport their drug use in surveys, usually created by prohibitionist organisations such as NIDA, HHN (swedish group), etc.
A disproportionately high number of high school dropouts and criminals do use drugs.
my premise: these people obviously began using drugs at a very young age. currently, our society treats such people very poorly, ie, throwing them in jail, piss tests, basically treating them like human failures. it is this ostracism which causes them to become on the fring of society, aka dropouts and criminals.
Q.E.D
canadaman
Re:Programming and Drug Use (Score:2)
1. Alcohol - I used to be a damn good coder while drunk. Haven't tried it in a while, but back in college, I could get really ripped at a party, have a great time, come back to my room, and code up a wonderful program. Then I would forget doing it, so I'd be all surprised the next day when I'd load up my program to find it was done. I recall that for one class, we had to make up a simple language and code an interpreter for it. I wrote a program in Pascal (because I had the compiler available) to interpret this stupid little language. The program ended up being 10,000+ lines because I got trashed and kept adding to the language. Instead of the 8 types of statements, it ended up being almost as completely functional as old C64Basic, with around 100 commands or so. And most of it was written after drinking 4 Zimas and a bottle of Skyy Vodka.
2. Weed - You can't code effectively when you're high. You end up giggling a lot and writing statements like "A=++B<C?D:E;"... Not good when you later try to understand what the hell you were doing...
3. LSD - Good old vitamin A. If you can get into coding while on acid, you will code like a madman. I'd get so focused while on acid that I found it impossible to stop whatever I happened to be doing until the effect wore off. Usually this took around 10 hours. Hell, I couldn't even turn my head. Hella neck pain the next day.
4. Hard stuff - Forget it. If you are a true geek, you won't even bother. It's hard enough to think, much less code while you're that screwed up.
Anyway, I gave up all that.. Too much pain afterwards, and it's hard enough to cope with the reality of stupid people.
I do agree though that it's hard to communicate after really getting into coding. I find, frequently, that while I'm coding, I block off the outside world to a large degree. People have remarked to me that they were trying to ask me questions, and I never even noticed their presence. It's like that sometimes.
---
The Article, My Experiences, and Other Rumblings.. (Score:5)
As someone else pointed out, the article in question covers quite a bit of ground, but makes no real attempt to clarify or make substantial claims about the interrelationship between hacking and drug use. It seems much more about the visions and ideas of a single person, which while valid, certainly don't have anything to do with a community that I can't really think anyone would count her as a member.
That said, I do see some correlation between drug use (and patterns of drug use) and the hacker community. What follows is my personal experience (both in use, and observing others), and generalizations I make are unique to me, though I think they are a bit more valid the Ms. Plant's.
I've seen some claims from people above, but I honestly can't say I know anyone who can hack on anything but stimulants. Interesting ideas you might get on pot/LSD/whatever, but the coding process is very rational and process-oriented, which I can't see anyone doing well under anything but stimulants. Speaking of which, everyone notice that performance curve from crystal due to sleep deprevation? I've friends who were up for 72 hours on crystal, and though they functioned fine up until the very end, couldn't code after about 30 hours or so...
Anyway, my $0.02.
-Erik
secret preview shots of Episode 2 (Score:2)
Re:Computers and Drugs (Score:2)
I think the role of "counter-culture" on the Internet is misleading. Certainly, the counter-culture has benefitted from the anarchy that is the Internet. Similar phenomena have happened in the past. I believe Dyson is quoted as say, "The Internet is great for conspiracies and bad for propoganda." I think she's right.
Certainly a lot of the Unix gods from the 70's were using drugs, like a lot of people their age at that time. Unix and the Internet were part of University culture for a long time, and the counter-culture is/was also strong there. Indeed, to this day geeks culture is still closely tied to University. It's no surprise that it's also tied to concepts that are strong in University.
However, I disagree with the notion that the computers are linked to the modern counterculture. There is definitely a lot of computer people who weren't part of mainstream culture, particularly when they were growing up (I still think being a geek may not be too trendy in school
But let's face it, the bulk of the people on the Internet use it to send people e-mails, buy things online, look up information on companies and consumer goods, and plan vacations. This is DEFINITELY not counter-culture stuff.
Not only that, but a lot of the CONTENT on the Internet these days is mainstream media, adverstising, marketing material from companies, etc. This is also the segment that's going to grow as more non-tech people come online.
The Internet was a brave new counter-culture world before AOL was in on it, before Al Gore (counter-culture visionary???
Today, the Internet *is* the world's culture. Every person who's a part of it participates in it, and that's now enough people that it can't help but be largely representative of mainstream culture.
Re:Computers and Drugs (Score:2)
He who contral Arrakis, controls the Spice. He who controls the spice,..gets lots of presents, or something.
The Dune series pays huge homage to the usefulness of drugs. The "spice" (of life, perhaps) allowed for intersteller travel by allowing pilots to bend space with their minds. It's also addictive, turns your eyes blue, and comes from the anus of giant worms.
And while it's the subject of the day..X is fun, but will rot your brain like nothing else, be cafeful.
Re:Tune in, Log on, Drop out. (Score:2)
(that does count as the Internet, BTW)
Re:anyone else catch this? (Score:2)
However, it would not surprise me to learn that the human mind actually ran a hodgepodge of Perl, TECO macros, Lisp, and COBOL (the last being in the R-complex, which pop culture has referred to as the "dinosaur brain".)
I actually found that the article, while it was interesting, was somewhat incoherent... and now, 15 minutes after reading it, I can't remember the author's main point or any insights/cool things that were in the text. Could it be that the author was trying to produce the textual equivalent of a couple of bong hits? :-)
Re:This is soooo out of place here. (Score:2)
I think it is easy to get bogged down with these sort of qualitative arguments.
It is very common for these sort of arguments to be taken on faith or based on some sort of psudo-scientific research. The strength of these arguments is that they cannot be disproven. Their weakness is that they can be no more proven than disproven. I think it is simply wishful thinking on your part that a substantial portion of "great thinkers" secretly use drugs.
I am quite tired of people blaming their problems on society. You know what? We do have a society. There are rules, and there are repercussions for failing to follow those rules. I don't hold those rules as sacred, and in fact they are often quite wrong. I even think that it is our responsibility to break those rules when they are wrong, but this does not absolve one of the repercussions. There are countless individuals that can come up with ways to blame society for improper behavior, but instead choose to the right (and difficult) thing; they take responsibility for themselves. It CAN BE DONE. Anyone who is not in control of his own actions is mentally ill and should be compassionately treated for their illness.
I don't deny the possibility that the brain can be enhanced chemically, but evidence suggests that people who engage in this behavior think it makes them smarter (maybe deeper is a better word) and that people who observe them disagree.
I do happen to have personal experience with the mind-altering drug alcohol, both as the user and as the observer. It has a similar effect. People who are on it think that they are more fun, wittier, and more interesting (maybe even better looking.) Observers tend to find the user more obnoxious.
Just as I side note, I am for legalization of all drugs. I'm not some tight ass who can't have an original thought, or imagine anyone having beliefs other than his own; I just don't believe that drug use is a "geek value."
I don't even have anything against drinking (which I do) or smoking a little grass (which I don't, at least not yet.) I just disagree with the assertions that I can't have an informed opinion about something without experiencing it, the assertion that drug use is part of the geek sub-culture, and that drugs make you smarter (or more insightful or whatever.)
I seem to be rambling.
Anyway, I respect your opinion. As far as I am concerned, this is what slashdot is all about.
-Peter
Re:drugs == bad (Score:2)
Been around junkies all my life. They just don't care, they're dead anyway. Junk kills all pain, so they are one step away form death. I guess if that is how one wants to live and die, that's their business. The risk is the buzz. The buzz is the reward.
I have used drugs most of my life, mostly weed, but also used LSD, MDA, DMT, peyote, Chot(Kat) opium, Uppers downer, coke smack, even coleus.
It is not what you use, but how you use it.
There is nothing spiritual about it, only if you attach some spiritual message to it.
I agree the revelation is in the alteration of reality. It is a touch of death, it is a touch of insanity. The idea is to touch, not embrace.
Sorry your friends found an embrace when they only needed to touch.
Keep your head.
Prozac and Suicide -- data can be misleading. (Score:2)
There's a little bit of a problem with linking Prozac to suicides. If you take a look at the suicide rate of Prozac users vs. the general population, you'll find that Prozac users have a much higher suicide rate.
But this is a misleading comparision -- when dealing with psychotic and depressed patients, remember you are talking about a population group that has an markedly elevated suicide rate vs. the general population. Once you do the proper comparision of Prozac vs. untreated mentally ill subjects, you'll find that Prozac users have a much lower suicide rate.
There's plenty of anecdotal evidence, so could Prozac still cause suicides somehow? Well, the possibility for idiosyncratic reactions definitely exists, and it is important to recognize when a patient is responding adversely to a drug. But on the whole, you're definitely preventing many suicides.
As for the effect of Prozac on the mentally healthy--we simply don't have the type of data you would need for that (and this isn't an example of negligence, either). In Phase I clinical trials, drugs are tested on healthy volunteers. I've volunteered to be a control subject for research several times (though none of those were clinical drug trials)
Suicides didn't show up -- so we're talking about an effect that, if it happens, happens at a very low frequency. To look any farther, you literally need tens of thousands of people to participate in a controlled, double blinded trial to get statistically significant data -- expensive, time consuming, and impossible to justify when your subjects in question are *healthy* to begin with since every drug has *some* side effects (OT Rant: This includes "natural" drugs, and any decent *real* Chinese herbalist could tell you what those effects are. But most health supplement makers don't.)
In the case of Prozac use in misdiagnosed patients -- while the medical diagnosis may have turned out to be incorrect, there was some separate (nonmedical) reason that caused that person to be undergo psychiatric evaluation in the first place, so again the data is skewed (In this case, in a way that is very hard to scientifically interpret).
Re:Blame Gibson (Score:2)
You have to see it or do it to really understands this, but the two really do complement very well. x gives you an increased capacity to percieve and the music fills it all up. The dancing can get very robotic, but at breakneck pace, fun stuff.
Re:uh, no offense (Score:2)
Re:Damnit Hemos! (Score:2)
Chris Hagar
Strange, I thought Slashdotters would be offended (Score:2)
So, is there anyone else out there who had the same reaction that I did? Somehow, I find myself hoping there's a silent majority out there.
Re:Computers and Drugs (Score:2)
Yes, computers and the Internet are in much more use today then they were a few users, but the original culture of the Internet, tied to the University and hacker cultures of the 60s, 70s, and 80s is still very much alive today.
Remember that it was the hackers of those times that BUILT the Internet as you see it today. Those people are still alive and very much active today.
This counterculture still exists, and while modern counterculture does make use of the Internet, a lot of counterculture on the Internet is still tied to the original hackers.
Re:Computers and Drugs (Score:2)
And my brain does NOT use MS/DOS as the article suggests...it runs Linux, although perhaps judging from this post, I should turn the EXPERIMENTAL featurs off.
ln -s /dev/null ./grateful.dead (Score:2)
I see no evidence to support this.
none at all.
--
90%? In your dreams. (Score:2)
*GASP*
Does the system need to be changed? Yes, and it IS being changed in many places, to reduce the criminality and increase focus on treatment for those who truly need it. Does the system need to be removed? No.
Re:BSD and LSD, eh? (Score:2)
--
Clear thinking dogma (Score:4)
Hackers tend to be anti-authority. Therefore, hackers gravitate toward drugs because the religious authorities say that drugs are immoral and the government says drugs are illegal. In order to justify drug use, they invent benefits (like enhanced "insight" or "intelligence").
On the other hand, there is also the science/psychology "authorities" that say drugs are simply bad for you. (Of course, people dismiss this as tools of the authoritative state).
For example, the author claims that drugs enhance "insight". Certainly, if you talk to your average heavy LSD user, he/she will claim that the drugs provides all sorts of philosophical insights into the world. Unfortunately, they can't communicate exactly what those insights actually are, and such insights don't prove useful in their daily lives. Psychologists have studied this to a large extent and found that LSD does gives only the "illusion" of insight: the users are just fooling themselves.
Similarly, scientists have studied Extasy and found it has massive detrimental longterm effects to your IQ.
If you are looking for insight, read widely. In particular, read stuff that challenges your beliefs. The most interesting people I know are those who are widely read; the most boring people I've ever known have been heavy drug users. Similarly, I've noticed that the "insights" drugs give people does not change their beliefs. On the other hand, I've notice significant alteration in people's views on life when they start to read widely.
In the end, while wannabe hackers partake in anything counterculture, but all the interesting/talented ones I know are not into heavy drug use.
PS: I don't think drugs are immoral or that they should be illegal; just something that virtually never leads to anything useful.
Re:Drugs and Geeks (Score:2)
Here's some personal experience that may be a bit more coheret than s-t's grammatical soup...
Stimulants in general let you focus and do more faster. They definitely increase productivity--in the short term. Unfortunately, it's a zero-sum game. If I take an ephedrine/caffeine/norephedrine cocktail and spend three-plus hours in hyper-hacker mode, when I come down, I'll spend another three hours or so in half-wit-hacker mode. Plus stimulants are addictive. Best to not rely on them.
GHB and GBL on the other hand... now these are some drugs that, from my experience, don't seem to have any down side. About 90 minutes before bed, if I take a dose of GBL (different acronym, same pysiological effect), I'll have a very enjoyable and startlingly productive coding session. Afterwhich time I'll have a pleasantly tired feeling and it's Bed Time for Bonzo.
I've never tried coding and stoning, but I sort of think that I'd do more harm than good with that experiment
Re:ln -s /dev/null ./grateful.dead (Score:2)
Here's a quote. If you don't like it, whine to Bruce Sterling.
Before we tackle the vexing question as to why a rock lyricist should be interviewed by the FBI in a computercrime case, it might be well to say a word or two about the Grateful Dead. The Grateful Dead are perhaps the most successful and long-lasting of the numerous cultural emanations from the Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco, in the glory days of Movement politics and lysergic transcendance. The Grateful Dead are a nexus, a veritable whirlwind, of applique decals, psychedelic vans, tie-dyed T-shirts, earth-color denim, frenzied dancing and open and unashamed drug use. The symbols, and the realities, of Californian freak power surround the Grateful Dead like knotted macrame.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
Another example: opium (Score:2)
There is clinical documented evidence that indicated that eratic brain function can result from giving drugs like this to healthy mentally sound people. The pattern was something like this: guy goes into a doctor because he has a back ache, doctor gives him prozac because he appears depressed, guy starts acting quite eratically mood swings and such, rapid changes in behaviour and then eventual suicide. If I were to give yuou say heart medication yould you be in tip top shape? How about something that is supposed to cure seizures? See the point is that a drug that is supposed to counteract something that is wrong with you has ingredients that are supposed to balance or stop the chemical agents or cellular processes that are causing this.
If you think that there are no problems with drugs then why are there so many people who become addicted and all these dead people or people who have had measurable decreased intelligence after abusing drugs for years (Jimmy has slured speech and can't preform basic motor functions without difficulty)?
Oh I know what happened! You see our Evil Uncle Sam decided that all those hippies were making too much trouble and so he engineered all these hard core street drugs and got everyone addicted. Or even better he decided to "spike" all of those "pure" drugs with some of his own wacky stuff and discredit all those "reputable" drug "vendors" right?
In China during the mid 1800's we had a little wide scale problem with this.
You see Americn and British (yeah it wasn't just the "evil" Americans this time) thought that getting all of the native people of China hooked on opium was a really cool idea. Then the Chinese got really pissed and decided to kick ass. Well as it turned out the combined forces of the drug dealers and their governments allowed them to prevail. However after what happened to all the Chinese and all the people in Europe and North America there started a reform movement.
I know that people have certain rights however getting physically damaged s usually not something that people enjoy. Can I take a razor blade and just randomly start cutting myself? Sure dosn't mean that it's a cool idea. What about addiction? I have had people in my genetic past who have been addicted to alchol and tobacco. There is a very storng possibility that if say I started smoking pot that I will also become addicted. This is totally unacceptable. We don't need more druggies in the world and we don't need more related fatalities clogging hostpital ER rooms when more people who chose not to use/abuse drugs are dieing.
I am not an idiot because I have seen things which all point the other way with drugs and such. People getting sick, people becomming dependent, people going to jail, people loosing the ability to think and function. Anything that destroys the brain is bad and should be avoided. I think one of the worst diseases is Althertiezmers(sp) because you just loose yourself.
Furthermore I would like some conclusive proof that in fact drugs can improve my productivity. I would be willing to try this little experiment: I will pump myself full of all fof these illegal drugs for the rest of my life and allow for daily/weekly cat scans/MRIs to determine it I am well; adding to this is a complete physical that will detect cancer and other nasties that are there. If I become a vegetable I will be mercifully shot and put our of my misery. Both will necessitate a series of comprehensive round the clock analysis by various teams of psychologists and other professionals who sill determine that I am indeed functioning and efficient.
A Drug War Question (Score:2)
My question is: If this law [slashdot.org] is passed would it be illegal for slashdot to post this story?
Jeff
heh. (Score:5)
Unfortunately, what happened to me is what happens to some people- it stopped working for me. It stopped buffering me from the increasingly horrible reality, but I kept getting more and more compulsive about it, and then I'd still be able to step back and look at myself and wonder, what the hell? I'd always put drugs into me like they were fuel, but I began questioning whether a life like that (in worse and worse surroundings) was even worth living.
Roughly around the point where I didn't give a damn anymore and would settle for anything as long as it was different, I quit using, also drinking alcohol. That hasn't changed though I'm somewhat older now. One funny thing- I ended up drinking coffee so intensely that I shook and couldn't think straight! So I ended up giving up coffee 'cos I couldn't use it like a normal person :) still consume caffeinated beverages, but only ones like Coke and black tea.
Last of all I gave up smoking (tobacco), again only when I was good and ready. Good and ready constituted having the flu, smoking anyway (of course ;) ) and being rendered literally unable to breathe at times, in acute pain. I threw away big freezer bags full of tobacco (being a good hoarder I keep bulk amounts of such things). Never did manage the 'use the last bits up then quit' maneuver, for me it's always had to be dumping the whole habit at a random moment of "Augh! ENOUGH!".
I'm not terribly surprised so much of Slashdot is on drugs. Hell, most of the world is. It is jarring that you can have a Slashdot discussion on copyright and musicians and so many people will leap in arguing in defense of THE LAW and yet, drugs? Those don't seem to count, you don't see the same arguments, the same ferocity. I am for decriminalization, though, mostly so you can get a tax base on drugs, and so we can start dealing with the unpleasant realities of the situation out in the open rather than having them still there but always kept secret. Criminalization doesn't do shit to diminish drug use, frankly.
If anybody needed to see someone saying 'I stopped using drugs, you can stop', I'm quite happy to say it. If that sounds real trivial then you wouldn't understand :) now, I know loads of people will flame me as usual and eat my karma for daring to suggest that a person might be happier without drugs. Well, that's too bad, because that's what I found. These days I'm not a balky machine running on drugs and keeping a constant quiet inventory of my 'fuels'- I'm just me (albiet with plenty of coca-colas :) )
It seems to me that this is a good thing to be- anybody else wanting to try it, ask yourself- do you want to be free?
Re:One hit of LSD can ruin your life (Score:2)
Re:ln -s /dev/null ./grateful.dead (Score:2)
hint: see my domain name.
--
Re:One hit of LSD can ruin your life (Score:2)
That was my post, and I think I proved a point. Weak minded people who do what their teachers and police officers tell them to do are the worst candidates for LSD use. You will question authority, and in an altered state of reality, you can actually look at yourself from an objective POV. I see that as a Good Thing©.
If you can't handle the notion that you were enculturated with beliefs that are wrong, don't use acid -- A closed mind cannot expand.
Re:Drugs and Geeks (Score:2)
> paid for by Scientology marketers.
I hadn't though of this, but it makes perfect sense! [see www.xenu.net [xenu.net] to see why].
Ryan Salsbury
Re:Dune and Drugs (Score:2)
Please note: I used to do drugs too (for a long time) before I finally wised up.
Drugs do not enhance brain function; most of them interfere with it in a highly destructive manner. the reason you have a good feeling about doing drugs is that *all* those which are sold illegally for recreational purposes, directly or indirectly influence a certain group of dopamine receptors in the brain commonly referred by the lay public as the "pleasure centers".
When you take drugs you are performing an act no more sophisticated or meaningful than masturbation. Meanwhile your brain malfunctions badly. Big deal.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Re:Dune and Drugs (Score:2)
<BR>
<BR>Please note: I used to do drugs too (for a long time) before I finally wised up.
<BR>
<BR>Drugs do not enhance brain function; most of them interfere with it in a highly destructive manner. the reason you have a good feeling about doing drugs is that *all* those which are sold illegally for recreational purposes, directly or indirectly influence a certain group of dopamine receptors in the brain commonly referred by the lay public as the "pleasure centers".
<BR>
<BR>When you take drugs you are performing an act no more sophisticated or meaningful than masturbation. Meanwhile your brain malfunctions badly. Big deal.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Re:of course there is a connection (Score:2)
I happen to agree completely with NuclearArchaeologist completely even though I *DID* take drugs, in quantity and variety, for ten whole years. Get this through your head: not all anti-drug points of view are due to ignorance? What ignorance to suppose that they are!
The most compelling reason not to take drugs is the knowledge - through experience - that their subjectively supposed benefits are NOT real, but their long term effects on health, wealth and what you managed to experience and achieve with your life ARE real. Oh yes, very real.
Ten years down the road I can tell you what you will have gained from taking drugs:
An empty bank account;
A stagnant career;
Health problems from the drugs themselves;
Health problems from not looking after yourself properly while taking drugs;
A circle of friends who care about nothing more than getting high (and would sell you down the river for the price of a fix if they could);
Ten years of your life gone forever, just like that, with nothing memorable or worthwhile to show for it;
A brain that doesn't work quite as sharply as it used to.
The difference between NuclearArchaeologist and you is simply that he's grown up and you haven't.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Re:Drug use has been forever... (Score:2)
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
War on Drugs == positive feedback (Score:2)
One of the main reasons the War on Drugs will not end anytime soon is because it creates the conditions that justify it. Drugs are criminalised, which, by driving the price up and already labelling users as criminals, makes users more likely to commit property crimes to buy drugs; since dealing is illegal, drug distribution is handed over to organised crime, which can afford to protect its networks. This leads to an increase in crime, and an increase in demand for action against crime. Furthermore, the increase in incarceration due to anti-drug laws swells the prison population (already extremely high in the U.S., and growing) and creates industries dependent on anti-drug laws, which oppose any liberalisation and push for tougher laws. (In California, for example, the prison warders' union has emerged as an influential lobby group.)
It is because of these factors that the War on Drugs will not end anytime soon. In fact, it could very well last as long as the United States of America exists in any recognisable form.
Re:This is soooo out of place here. (Score:2)
Well, technically, the 100% of drug users (excluding drugs such as alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, &c) are criminals (though, in this imperfect world, only a fraction have been convicted as such), which makes the second part of this statement meaningless.
Smoke up while you can... (Score:2)
Re:of course there is a connection (Score:2)
Maybe you don't need drugs. So let me ask you a question:
Sorry, drugs aren't going to make you happy. I am a former drug user, and it's not out of fear, hatred, depression, or anything else that I don't do them now. I simply work for a company that tests. As such, I haven't had the slightest sample of drug in over 2 years. Point being, if you're not happy, drugs won't make you happy. Yes, they may create a temporary haven for your emotions, but problems DON'T go away because you got some really sweet acid in the mail.
Health problems from the drugs themselves;
Pardon me??? Let me preface this with, I am a smoker. I smoke cigarettes. Camel cigarettes to be more accurate. As mentioned above, I used to smoke a lot more than cigarettes, including cannabis and opium. Let me say this... The potential for health problems with both cannabis and opium are far less than with every-day average nicotine cigarettes. In fact, if you smoke pot without paper (ie: bowls, vaporizers, etc.), you aren't even subjected to tar. As far as I recall, there haven't been ANY significant findings in favor of the "pot is harmful to your body" position. The paper is, most definately. No argument on that, but pot. No.
As far as acid goes, I don't know. I haven't done any conclusive studies, nor have I followed any. I can say this: I was a HEAVY acid user for a little longer than two years. Heavy defined as pretty much always tripping. No negative health problems thus far.
Ten years of your life gone forever,just like that,with nothing memorable or worthwhile to show for it;
HUH?!? Again, I'm not using drugs now, and haven't for the period of two years, but I can say this: there was a lot more to remember when I spent the majority of my days under the influence of something. YES, I DO remember what happened under the influence. YES, I am able to remember specific effects of hallucinogens, that even with such recollection, my sober mind cannot recreate. Maybe it's my limited imagination, I dunno. But there are VERY fond memories of my drug filled days.
I think what most people think of when they think of "druggies" or "junkies" or what have you, are the kids that are on the corner smoking pot/making trouble/doing decidedly 'bad things'. Well, it's not always like this. Drug usage oftentimes induces paranoia, which, at least in my scenario, has pretty much always led to drug usage in a "SAFE" environment. Home, a TRUSTED friend's home, or someplace similar. I personally don't think that it would be such a hot idea to take a bunch of acid and ride around town in my car, although walks in quiet neighborhoods, specifically at night, are very [enlightening|fulfilling|calming] under the effects. I DON'T condone driving under the influence of ANYTHING, to include prescription medication, but DO think that there are instances in which drugs can be induced in a relatively safe environment.
As far as your last two statements,
A brain that doesn't work quite as sharply as it used to.
The difference between NuclearArchaeologist and you is simply that he's grown up and you haven't.
I simply find that rediculous. You accuse hydina of being naive and patronistic, and then respond in kind. Some of the most intelligent older people that I know are habitual drug users. More often than not, you'll find that they offer an added bit of insight that conventional logic simply wouldn't drive you towards. I value them as friends, colleagues, and mentors. I DO look up to them, and value their opinions and insights.
Drug usage is not always a bad thing, as it is not always a good thing. There are people who cannot handle their drugs, as well as people who can. Drugs can fill a certain niche or void in a person's life, and there are people who can have that niche filled safely and responsibly. It's not an "ALWAYS" situation. To detractors: Drugs aren't ALWAYS going to negatively affect someone. To endorsers: Drugs aren't ALWAYS good for people.
To sum up, drugs work for some people, and not for others. This is a silly debate, argued WITHOUT fact. While I can't claim that my post is any more based in fact, I can say that at least I'm trying to be neutral.
Thanks for listening.
BR
Re:of course there is a connection (Score:2)
Nicotine is an addictive drug. Smoking is a stupid habit. Who's excluding nicotine use? I'm not. Marijuana *might* be less carcinogenic than tobacco (some studies say otherwise) but even if it is, it doesn't mean its harmless. Long-term (20-year) habitual marijuana users I've known cough like 20-year cigarette smokers.
No negative health problems thus far
Bully for you, one assumes you didn't overdo it. You probably won't get any problems from the LSD now that you've stopped using it. And if you used to smoke (whatever), the risk of cancer declines each year after you've stopped. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence though, and sticking unfamiliar substances into your body is prima facie an unhealthy thing to do - drugs that suppress or overstimulate or suppress appetite, alter your cardiovascular output and blood distribution etc. Worst of all, drugs that change the way your brain works. Did you know that MDMA (also known as X, E or Ecstasy) is very toxic to an important class of cells in the brainstem? This is what causes the deaths.
You accuse hydina of being naive and patronistic, and then respond in kind.
The difference is that I'm educated and experienced on both sides of the divide (I have been a drug user and am no longer; also I trained as a biochemist). So I'm not naive and I feel quite entitled to patronize the ignorant.
Some of the most intelligent older people that I know are habitual drug users.
Some of, I'm sure. And a lot of the brightest people are alcoholics too.
More often than not, you'll find that they offer an added bit of insight that conventional logic simply wouldn't drive you towards.
You're making an unwarranted assumption here. "insight that conventional logic simply wouldn't drive you towards"? What kind of logic would, then? Drug logic? Don't make me laugh. If there is an association it doesn't necessarily imply causality in one specific direction. It's more plausible to say that creative, intelligent, sensitive people are more likely to seek refuge from stress by taking mind-altering drugs. Had you ever considered that?
I value them as friends, colleagues, and mentors. I DO look up to them, and value their opinions and insights.
It's good that you have such relationships. But don't make the mistake of assuming that drugs are responsible for their insights.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Re:One hit of LSD can ruin your life (Score:2)
http://swill.co.za/chem/law/howbad.html
The long and the short of it is
Deaths in the USA per year, by substance:
Deaths from tobacco 1,000,000
Deaths from alcohol 400,000
Deaths from heroin and related opiates 2,500
Deaths from sniffing solvents 1200
Deaths from ecstasy 80
Deaths from LSD 10
Or how about a (true) counter-anecdote: I know a psychiatrist. Part of her job is to look after psychotic people who have had their psychosis triggered by LSD. She uses LSD 2 or 3 times a year.
Re:What harm has marijuana ever done? (Score:2)
Fifteen people were killed and another 176 were injured in the worst accident in Amtrak's history. Partnership For A Drug-Free America aired millions of dollars worth of free radio spots which proclaimed: "They say marijuana doesn't kill, but I lost my wife and two children in a train accident caused by marijuana."
It was all a hoax. Dr. Delbert J. Lacefield, chief of the Federal Aviation Administration's forensic toxicology unit, later admitted to falsifying blood test results in the Amtrak-Conrail crash, as well as numerous other crashes. Lacefield's claims that THC had been found in blood samples taken from railway employees were exposed as fraudulent in court. Court records show that Lacefield never even performed the laboratory analysis required to detect THC. No one was ever found guilty of using pot and there is no evidence that pot is related to any increase in railway accidents. Since drug testing was instituted, as a federal response to the alleged use of pot in the Amtrak crash, there has been no decline in railway accidents. The engineer accused of smoking pot was, in fact, drunk and had been convicted of driving under the influence a few months earlier.
Re:The Article, My Experiences, and Other Rumbling (Score:3)
Yes, I've seen a lot of stimulant abuse (and boy howdy do I mean abuse) in the techie crowd. There's a clearly lowered defense against stimulant use (and for the addictive ones, this usually ends up leading to abuse) among hackers due to odd-schedules and that drive to create that many hacker/coders have. I've been doing more and more coffee since my job moved to 1+1/2 hours from my home, and I'm starting to notice a bit of withdrawral over the weekends....
I've seen a lot of psychadellic use over the last 12 years of being in the hacker community. The drugs of choice seem to be psilocybe mushrooms ('shrooms) and LSD (acid). X (as in extacy, not X11) was never a very popular hacker drug on the east coast as far as I can tell. Many hackers come to psychadellics via simple experimentation, as they tend to be empirically minded and "Just say no" doesn't work very well against that mindset. After a short time, though, most hackers who do psychadellics get caught up in the "how does my brain work" game. Oddly enough I've never seen this have as much negative impact on one's life as a minor addiction to alcohol. Makes one wonder about the relative legallities, doesn't it?
One common thread among all of the hackers I know. None of them do the hard stimulants (e.g. cocaine et al.) or narcotics (e.g. opiates such as opium or morphine). I think this is because intelligent people of any sort tend to do a little research before taking any drug, and the side-effects of these drugs coupled with their massively addictive qualities makes bungie-jumping look like a nice safe passtime.
I feel like this post is an endorsement of drug use, and I want to be very clear: it's NOT. You have to live with your body and brain for the rest of your life, don't get stupid with it. "Just say no" isn't a terrible rule, but if you feel you need to live by another one, take all due caution. Do research. Say no the FIRST time, so you can think it over with a clear head and give it the same priority you would give any major life decision. And, most importantly: peer pressure to do anything you're not comfortable with indicates you have the wrong peers. Talk to them about it, or just find new friends.
If you're still confused, concerned or just want someone to talk to, send me some email [mailto], maybe some of what I've seen or been through can help, or maybe I can just help by listening.
Of course, these are all my thoughts and opinions, and my employer would probably be happier if I didn't state them, so there's little chance they agree.
Re:heh. (Score:2)
I suspect that you've seen different things than I have, but certainly there are massive problems out there that we're not dealing with.
For one, I think we need to get new terms. People say "drugs" to mean everything from marajuanna to cocaine to LSD to asprin. Then we say things like "drugs are addictive" (which they aren't as a whole, only some). This is a dangerous trap. I prefer the simple classifications of effects. Stimulants, psychadellics, narcotics, depressents and deleriants are a convinient set, though they too have ambiguity problems. At the very least, the narcotics and stimulants tend to be addictive, the depressents are a mixed bag, and psychadellics are not.
As for de-criminalization, I agree. Taxation would help, but much more so, applying the free market to psychoactives would eliminate a huge section of the black market (so much so that it might actually hurt our economy for a short time), and this would elliminate several sources of violence.
As to the law, I think Slashdotters tend to be the sort who will argue for A LAW, but not THE LAW. I feel that the ADA and electronic privacy act are important laws that need to be upheld, but I cheer challenges to the DMCA or descendants of the CDA. It's a matter of not being absolutist.
I speek for me... only.
Re:The Government (Score:2)
The Government is a large body; if one department calls Criptography a black art, it doesn't mean that is the position of the whole government. That would be like saying that slashdot is bad because some poster said something studpid in one of the forms.
Not exactly. It would be more like calling slashdot bad because everyone who posts stories for slashdot posts stupid ones. Id wouldn't matter (to the end user) how many others working for slashdot could post good stories if they were not responsable for content. The same applys to government, who cares if the dept. of agriculture understands the encryption, the encryption policy makers are all that matters to encryption, and they made bad policy.
Re:Woman... likes drugs. What's your opinion? (Score:2)
> agree with the earlier poster that computer
> people do less drugs. Maybe because mostly
> 'cool' kids do drugs and computer geeks don't
> fit that profile. Maybe because it's difficult
> to use a computer while high.
Well perhaps I can offer a differnt perspective
for you.
I was never "cool". There were always circles and
groups I was partially accepted in, I wasn't a
total outcast. However, I never truely felt I
fit in. I was always on the fringe, to sum I
prefered sitting with a few friends discussing
philosophy then throwing spitballs around at
lunch.
Ever since I first read about drugs, I was hooked.
It was over a year later when I smoked my first
joint, 5 years before my first hit of acid.
However, from the first text files I found, I knew
I had found something that I will spend the rest
of my life with.
The human mind and the mystic of the world of
drugs amazes and enthrawls me. It is like a whole
new world. It is a way for me to explore the
worlds within my own mind. A way to exist where
fantasy is reality.
In truth, I am not a heavy user. I smoke pot maybe
a couple of times a week at most, other drugs
maybe once a month (hardly ever less than 2
weeks apart). I am fascinated as much by my own
mind as by the computers I make my living
programming on.
To me a good drug is like a good book, or a good
poem, it takes you to a new realm and lets your
imagination take hold. That is the way I view
them.
Interestingly, DARE, the program in the US where
police are sent into schools to teach kids that
drugs are bad, has been shown to have a curious
effect. Kids who graduate from DARE are MORE
likely to use drugs as teenagers, than studtens
who didn't!
Why? Well some have postulated (and I agree)
that it is becuase DAREs founders, like many,
have forgotten that drugs are interesting. You
can't teach about them without exposing people
to the idea of them....and making many interested.
It was also postulated that in 20 years someone
will ask the Next Alexander Shulgin why he
became a chemist and began researching psychedelic
drugs and he will reply that he was interested
ever since he heard about acid in DARE.
(if you have an opionon about drugs...go read
Shulgins book Pihkal, it is likely to
change your perspective a bit)
-Steve
Re:One hit of LSD can ruin your life (Score:2)
> people) react badly to LSD
I don't think intelligence has much to
do with it. LSD projects your inner world to your
senses. It does some really amazing things.
I have found in my experiance with LSD (which
is personally limited, I have done it maybe
8-10 times so far) that the persons emotional
stability and self image are the most important
thing. If one takes LSD foolhardeled, not
believing that it has the power to alter them
forever in a real personal sense...they can be
shocked when it shows them what a mess their
internal world is.
You can't fight LSD. I have seen 2 differnt bad
trips where the person dealt with death. One
was a good friend with very low self image. He
crumbled. he tried to fight the drug and stop
the emminent death he percieved (its a long story,
he was in no real danger of death, all imagined
due to some stupid urban legends someone had
told him). This person was caught in loops (an
LSd effect) and caused himself long lasting
psychological trauma.
The other person realized they "were dead". They
lashed out and screamed violently. However,
after a time sat and "accepted death". They
realized (through some guidence of mine) that they
were dead and that it doesn't matter...that they
can not do anything about death comming and
they calmed down and stopped fighting it.
This second person suffered only some fear for a
day afterwards, and then settled back to
relative normalcy. She seems to have come out
better off for the experiance.
As I read at the bookstore today in a book whose
forward was written by the Dali Lama. Death is
inevitable. Once you realize that and accept it,
then you don't need to live your life in fear of
it. It is that outlook that separates, in my mind,
the person who will be traumatized by these
drugs easily, and one who wont.
LSD tho doesn't help matters. It is a very
"Pushy" drug. As one person I turned on recently
said, "This stuff has alot of pep to it". Its
not a drug that holds your hand and walks you
calmly through the doors of perception, it is
a drug that sneaks up behind you as you start
to peep through the door and kicks you through
the door and says "Deal with it bitch".
(of course...I love the stuff. So far it is
the favorite of anything I have tried...with the
possible exception of mescaline (well a cactus
preparation actually). which I only got a small
taste of but showed much beauty and promise))
Re:What I have observed. (Score:2)
> at 200, not done in 2yrs)
Not true...after any number of hits of acid you
are still legally sane. That is assuming you were
legally sane to begin with and the LSD didn't
trigger a latent psychosis....in those extreme
cases....you would be right for any amount of
LSD.
> Alcohol (Its addictive, I just don't like its
> effect.)
I don't mind its effect...well it does kind of
suck compared to others...but I am not big on
CNS depressants. However, I can't drink it because
OI have GERD and ethanol makes my stomac act
up worst than any other substance I have found.
> Shrooms (Fun, but it makes you sick)
Sickness, AFAIK, generally caused by the mushroom
bodies themselves. Method of ingestion matters.
extracted drug from the mushroom should mitigate
the stomac problems.
> Peyote (Quite fun.)
Mescaline and its related alkaloids from cacti
are very nice. Very "fun" and euphoric (least I
found). Profound compounds though, not for the
casual seeker.
> Robotussin
BTW Dextromethorphan (which I hate the effect of)
has been linked at least anecdotally to a
potentially severe form of brain damage. While
most users are relativly uaffected, extreme
moderation is recomended.
> The moral of the story, kids, don't do drugs at
> school.
I never used drugs when I had school the next
day. Most drugs I woulfn't use if I had work
the next day (maybe GHB or pot...but they are
relativly short acting and mild in moderation)
Other than pot or GHB...there isn't much I could
see doing more often then once a month or
a few times a year.
DXM (robo) is the second worst drug I have ever
done. I did dosages ranging from 200 mg up to
1 gram. I kept hoping with a larger dose maybe it
would stop sucking...never did. So I stopped.
Re:Drugs are a risk (Score:2)
> Definately a cult they have been in our
> newspapers quite a lot here in Perth, Australia.
Interesting. I have heard them accused of being a
cult and there have been allegations of abuse
etc. Really hard to say for an outsider. However
a friends mother is a former member and has told
me flat out they are a cult.
I feel kind of bad because I feel like I should
intervene and help my friend, yet at the same time
he truely NEEDS the guidence they give him on a
very personal level.
> P.S. I've never used illegal drugs myself, but
> I have a lot of friends (some of them geeks)
> who've really have screwed themselves up with
> drugs
I find that people who "screw themselves up" were
actually screwed up before they used drugs.
It is often easy to blame "drugs" when a user
suddenly becomes addicted and shirks their
normal responsibilities. However, the fact that
they do this, I think, underlines deeper problems
that the person has in dealing with life.
In short drug use is a symptome of problems, not
a cause. That is not to say ALL drug use is a
symptom of a problem. As I tried to point out,
it has more to do with the user themselves then
the drugs.
Re:Dune and Drugs (Score:2)
No real need to be ashamed, it isn't a crime, but then again you wouldn't want to go around claiming how significant it is and how it granted you great insight (unless you happen to be completely insane like Aleister Crowley). That's the point I was making about drug use.
I refuse to let anyone else dictate to me what I'm allowed to do to myself.
There are more important things to consider than what you want.
What if it were proven that widespread hard drug use caused a drop in national GDP? Or an increase in violent crime? Or an increased incidence of serious infectious diseases? Or an increase in teenage pregnancies? Or even just a generally perceived deterioration of moral values in society?
Society has the right to protect itself by outlawing substance abuse wherever possible because drug use robs people of their ability to exercise moral judgment and inclines them to act on impulse. (Of course alcohol is included in this category. But prohibition of alcohol was already tried and it caused more trouble than it was worth because alcohol is already too widely accepted).
In the words in Captain Spock (in the movie Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan:
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Re:of course there is a connection (Score:2)
Only one point I wanted to address really,
It's more plausible to say that creative, intelligent, sensitive people are more likely to seek refuge from stress by taking mind-altering drugs. Had you ever considered that?
Yes, I had. My point I think had little bearing on anything to begin with. Truly, the only reason I posted was out of boredom, and not really insight. A mistake I find myself making more and more often lately. No I wasn't attributing their creative thinking to drug use, but that was definately one thing that I had noticed about a great many of them. Perhaps it is that same creativity that has rationalized their continued drug use while the "rest of us" have matured and grown out of it. I would never be so foolish as to place the results of intellectuality of a person on one habitual trait, but quite often the opposite. Anyway, I'm beginning to lose my own intellect, and think I need to get away from this monitor.
Thank you for a(n obviously) well thought out reply. It actually made my day, after having been reading this article [slashdot.org]. Final note,
Nicotine is an addictive drug. Smoking is a stupid habit.
Okay, I'll concede that. I only do it to look cool anyway. : )