[HN Gopher] Cocaine Paraphernalia Ads in the 70s
___________________________________________________________________
Cocaine Paraphernalia Ads in the 70s
Author : mrzool
Score : 477 points
Date : 2021-11-23 09:58 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (rarehistoricalphotos.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (rarehistoricalphotos.com)
| elliekelly wrote:
| > In 1986, under Ronald Reagan, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act was
| passed. [...] The act also created the first laws against money
| laundering or moving illegally obtained money (such as drug sale
| proceeds) into or out of bank accounts.
|
| The Bank Secrecy Act was enacted in 1970. Money laundering had
| already been on the books. Reagan's drug law widened the scope
| and increased the record-keeping and reporting requirements. I
| think Nixon is the one who has the distinction of enacting the
| "first" AML law.
| cmaggiulli wrote:
| I've seen ads on Facebook for Etizolam ( and other
| thienodiazepines which are nearly identical in effect to Xanax )
| as well as ads for products that contain 4-fluoromethamphetamine
| and other amphetamines analogs. I took screenshots if anyone is
| interested. So honestly this doesn't really shock me at all. Back
| then it was at least paraphernalia. Now you can find drug
| suppliers through mainstream ads. Not to mention the plethora of
| ads for SARMs and other performance enhancing drugs ( to which
| some of them are actually non regulated anabolic steroids, not
| SARMs )
| R0b0t1 wrote:
| You might want to leave contact info in your bio so people
| don't have to post in public for the images. If you have a
| place to put them up you probably should.
| shoulderfake wrote:
| why do you have a fb account?
| standardUser wrote:
| There's plenty of "weight loss clinics" these days that are
| just thinly veiled prescription speed dealers, to give another
| example.
| throwaway5752 wrote:
| https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MgX_VMXj3Sc/YZvryBNXhUI/AAAAAAAAg...
| "finest center cuts of imported African ivory"
|
| Wow. That and
| https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-w3Xc47mDO8E/YZvrzIxkirI/AAAAAAAAg...
| ("solid Honduras mahogany") really hit me.
|
| I wonder what they see 50 years from now and shake their heads
| about what we squandered. My guess is "wild caught salmon" and
| atoll beach resorts.
| dotancohen wrote:
| Film and games glorifying defiance of authority.
| pjbeam wrote:
| Defying authority is glorious much of the time.
| frostburg wrote:
| Everyone listens to the gods in ancient myth, as we know.
| germinalphrase wrote:
| Typically, they paid for it. Hubris was sin, you know, and
| the myths were didactic.
| [deleted]
| notreallyserio wrote:
| It's funny that these are marketed as luxury products that sell
| for under $40. I mean, I know inflation is a thing, but $40 was
| not a lot of money back then.
| andruby wrote:
| $40 in 1970 would be $269.50 today. That seems like a luxury
| straw..
|
| https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=40usd+1970+in+2021
| notreallyserio wrote:
| That's about the price of a previous-gen video game console
| with a game or two, not really a luxury good IMO.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| If you're getting as much entertainment out of a straw as
| a video game console and 2 games, you might be in the
| target audience for these ads.
| Forbo wrote:
| When a literal post-it note will achieve the same
| function, it most definitely is a luxury. It's just
| another form of peacocking.
| mahogany wrote:
| As a side note: the 70s saw a particularly high level of
| inflation. Note that the equivalent price in 1980 was ~$85,
| so it doubled in one decade. If that level of inflation
| stayed constant (doubling every decade), then it would be
| equivalent to about $1,280 today.
|
| https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=40usd+1970+in+1980
| beaconstudios wrote:
| many products promoted as "luxury" are about telling middle
| class people that their products imitate upper class signals,
| without that actually being true. Thus they're usually
| expensive for a salaried worker but not beyond affordable -
| whereas products that the upper class genuinely use to signal
| are well beyond the balance of wage labourers.
| dsizzle wrote:
| Might take longer than 50 years, but I would bet things go even
| further to simply "salmon" -- the not-lab-grown variety, that
| is, and same for other meat.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| Nah, all they will eat is salmon, it will be excess from the
| iron fertilization they use to counteract global warming.
| They will have to harvest the salmon boom to protect the
| algae bloom or the albedo will drop and cook everyone.
| ubermonkey wrote:
| I feel like this is a place where I should share this bit of
| weirdness:
|
| https://www.retrojunk.com/commercial/show/2788/synth-coke
| mackwell wrote:
| My Dad invented one of the products advertised in these. Imagine
| my surprise the first time I saw a collection like this pop up.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| "For tobacco use only"
| yummypaint wrote:
| Doug Demuro famously pointed out that the Lamborghini Jalpa had
| fully removable vanity mirrors in the 1980s
| kpmcc wrote:
| Related: https://twitter.com/CocaineDecor/
| durnygbur wrote:
| Social media, likes, followers, and notifications are today's
| cocaine... and soft drinks.
| radicalcentrist wrote:
| Don't forget video games and rock & roll.
| froidpink wrote:
| honestly i'd say cocaine is today's cocaine
| Bud wrote:
| We were a lot better off as a society with cocaine than we
| are now with meth and fentanyl.
| znpy wrote:
| Jesus christ that is immensely disturbing.
| dmd wrote:
| My dad [0] was a technology columnist in from the 80s to mid 00s,
| and related this story:
|
| Ken worked for what was then a first-tier Japanese hifi company.
| At the time -- it was the eighties -- companies exhibiting at CES
| gave shit away. Shirts, pens, calculators... you know: trade show
| crap. Rather than have his giveaway get lost in that sea of crap,
| my friend decided to give out pocket-sized mirrors, each encased
| in a blue silicon sleeve emblazoned with the company logo. His
| Japanese masters said "Ken-san, why you give away small mirror.
| We don't understand." And Ken-san said "trust me, they'll love
| it." And they did, because a) it was the eighties, and 2) while
| some preparatory activities are best done on a cardboard record
| jacket, others require an unyielding surface. I should add that
| the notion of including a single-edge razor blade in the package
| crossed his mind, but was rejected as being too on-the-nose.
|
| [0]
| https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/04/how-m...
| jgrimm wrote:
| Too "on the nose" indeed ;)
| canbus wrote:
| I like the poster that says "this is a natural product" as if
| it's good for you or something
| platz wrote:
| it's natural
| canbus wrote:
| so is cyanide!
| 0des wrote:
| It's so curious that cocaine is still illegal, one could assume
| purely as a side effect of the nations that produce it and the
| complications that are involved with those in charge of
| distributing it, which some might argue is a byproduct of it
| being illegal in the first place.
|
| When taken on its own, it's a surprisingly mild stimulant as a
| nasal snuff, not at all like in the movies. When taken nasally,
| it has a short half life, low potential for adverse side effects
| in normal adults, and only causes alcohol like euphoria in the
| highest doses. I can see why it is still used in medicine, it is
| highly efficacious, and some day I can see it being tolerated, if
| not legalized.
|
| It might just be me being old, as we tend to remember the
| positives more than the negatives, but this was a nice trip down
| memory lane. It is unfortunate that the hobby has
| settled/devolved into its lowest element, these days.
| malfist wrote:
| Doesn't a coke habit permanently mess with your dopamine
| receptors? Literally makes it harder for you to function as a
| human, even after you stop.
|
| Please correct me if I'm wrong.
| billjings wrote:
| Yep. Same as a regular Ritalin or Adderall habit: when you
| stop taking them, you have a withdrawal effect. That
| convinces many that the drugs work. ("Look at what a mess I
| am without it!")
|
| The withdrawal from a serious coke addiction has got to be
| much more severe, though.
| whalesalad wrote:
| Same is true for any stimulant, like legally prescribed ADHD
| medication.
| rkk3 wrote:
| > Doesn't a coke habit permanently mess with your dopamine
| receptors? Literally makes it harder for you to function as a
| human, even after you stop.
|
| Not really... Your body is really good at adapting and your
| body will compensate when drugs put it out of homeostasis,
| when your you stop taking those drugs your body will stop
| compensating for it. You won't be "permanently" depressed
| after quitting a coke habit and you won't have "permanently"
| shrunk balls after quitting steroids etc. etc.
| dr_kiszonka wrote:
| I don't know about permanence, but some former steroid
| users suffer from prolonged hypogonadism, which causes
| testicular atrophy.
|
| 0. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23764075/
|
| 1. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/jou
| rnal...
| pessimizer wrote:
| This is actually downplaying it. This would happen to
| 100% of steroid users, but thank god for the internet: it
| allowed people 1) to share the science about _how_ to do
| steroids (and auxiliary drugs) in a way that avoids this,
| and 2) to order the necessary products from overseas with
| confidence in their authenticity.
| 0des wrote:
| _post hoc ergo proctor hoc_
| JasonFruit wrote:
| Don't Latin if you can't Latin. English would have been
| just as good.
| standardUser wrote:
| Cocaine is a far more mild stimulant than most prescription
| speed.
| standardUser wrote:
| Cocaine is a far more mild stimulant than most prescription
| speed. Though it is sometimes cut with more potent
| stimulants.
| d0gsg0w00f wrote:
| I respectfully disagree that it should be legal. In my younger
| years I went through a month of hard use. It was awful. It
| makes you act completely out of character-more aggressive, less
| inhibitions when performing risky activities (e.g., speeding,
| theft, approaching members of the opposite sex), and you can
| actually do a lot of damage because, unlike alcohol, you are
| high functioning the whole time. I don't want to think about
| living in a society where that's legal.
| sojournerc wrote:
| Respectfully, you learned that it's not for you, but do you
| think you deserved to go to jail for trying it?
|
| For me, everyone is entitled to make that decision, and if
| legal, a lot of the problems the black market creates go
| away, the largest of which is not imprisoning people for a
| victimless crime.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| > low potential for adverse side effects
|
| Something like 5% get heart attacks from it.
|
| Imagine going to a bar and 2-3 people just dying that night,
| every night.
| abvdj wrote:
| citattion needed
| standardUser wrote:
| Are you suggesting that out of every 100 people who consume
| cocaine on a given night, 5 of them have a heart attack? Even
| DARE didn't lie that outrageously.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Or the the LD50 for doing coke is 20 times?
| mhh__ wrote:
| Source?
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Deeply unpopular opinion here but I can attest to a few friends
| that sought help for Marijuana addiction. There is a whole
| community that's helping people get off of Marijuana:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/leaves/
|
| I am fine with legalization of many drugs but one has to watch
| out for excess and lack of moderation. And the stench, I smell
| Marijuana in my apartment complex and it has sort of ruined a
| beautiful courtyard. I wish it was not so potent and people
| really need to be courteous (same with Tobacco).
| exolymph wrote:
| There is also /r/Petioles for people who want to moderate
| their usage :) https://www.reddit.com/r/Petioles/
| unethical_ban wrote:
| I haven't used it, but I am in principle tolerant of drug use.
| The three metrics of legalization/safety I have heard are:
| Level of addiction, Ease of overdose, and long term health
| impact.
|
| You say cocaine in small amounts is a dandy stimulant. I take
| Adderall for ADHD occasionally, and I've been told by those who
| have used both that the differences in effect are smaller than
| one might guess. And while I suppose I could OD by taking a
| bunch of Adderall pills, I don't have a "drive" to keep on
| taking more for a short term hit.
|
| My rambling is to say: My impression of cocaine use is that it
| does long term damage to the body and the nasal cavity, and
| that its short-term high makes people chase it more and thus is
| ripe for OD.
|
| So I'm not too shocked that it's a controlled substance vs.
| something like cannabis.
| kortex wrote:
| Cocaine also induces microischemia - basically constricts
| your capillaries and starves the neurons/glia of oxygen. This
| happens slowly over time and is cumulative.
|
| As mentioned, coke is high on the abuse potential scale due
| to its rapid onset and withdrawal, short loop between
| behavior and reward.
|
| https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/brains-blood-cocaine
| ycombinete wrote:
| Not to mention that people are highly functional while high
| on it. So there's no downtime on when you can be high.
| runnerup wrote:
| Alcohol also causes ischemia. Prescription amphetamines
| also cause ischemia but are legal.
|
| > As mentioned, coke is high on the abuse potential scale
| due to its rapid onset and withdrawal, short loop between
| behavior and reward.
|
| I wonder if attaching an amino acid (a la Vyvanse) would
| improve its pharmacokinetic profile to reduce this
| addiction potential. We'll never know, because its not
| legal to do research on medical potential for Schedule I
| drugs.
| TylerE wrote:
| You, adderall is litwrallymphramacuetical grade amphetamine.
| Jonovono wrote:
| Of course it should be legal. But the way you talk about it is
| so bizarre. Cocaine has ruined so many lives. It's incredibly
| addicting to some. It can destroy your nose, literally putting
| holes inside of it.
| R0b0t1 wrote:
| It's a lot safer if you just eat it, similar effects and
| method of action to Ritalin.
| spurgu wrote:
| Yup, that's my preferred method of intake. Quick, easy,
| clean. I don't understand why people bother making lines,
| or using spoons or whatnot. Sure, the onset is a bit
| slower, but I'm rarely in _that_ kind of a hurry.
| 0des wrote:
| Misuse of anything is going to have ill effects. People with
| improper hygiene and care will develop all kinds of
| adversities from its use. Assuming you checked out the link,
| there are several devices dedicated to nasal hygiene as
| evidence that these people exist. Liquid cocaine is popular
| for a reason, allow me to explain:
|
| Cocaine by itself is a desiccant, it seeks moisture, which is
| why it gets clumpy in humid areas. When it is used nasally,
| it dries the nasal mucosa, and triggers a mucous secretion
| response, which then dissolves it and allows it to pass into
| the capillaries in the sinuses, throat, and lungs. This cycle
| of drying repeatedly can cause a sclerosis of the nasal
| membrane, which can eventually erode the tissues affected by
| it.
|
| Conversely, when proper hygiene is observed, like with nasal
| washes, or using liquid cocaine directly, the desiccant
| properties are eliminated and damage is avoided: this is how
| ocular cocaine is prepared and used with no adverse effects
| in medicine - eye surgery, etc.
|
| I take exception to your comment about it being 'bizarre', it
| doesn't help the conversation to begin with an adversarial
| tone.
| Jonovono wrote:
| All fair, and I didn't mean that to be 'adversarial'. It
| was just bizarre in that, I have never seen someone speak
| so positively about cocaine lol. I was pointing out is I
| think, when talking about the pros, it might be worth
| mentioning the cons for some stuff
| 0des wrote:
| Other than being illegal, there is not a whole lot wrong
| with it, relatively speaking. Let's disregard cigarettes
| and alcohol, those are too easy. Look at food, the
| majority of my country is eating themselves to their
| early deaths, and experience all manner of outcomes worse
| - diabetes, cancers, immobility, sudden heart attacks.
|
| I'm not saying it doesn't have some risks, but I am
| saying with all other things considered, these are the
| same risks associated with running, sex, and spirited
| debates.
|
| Consider this: It's normal for people to do this thing
| where they feign not being able to function without
| coffee in the AM but it is somehow not socially
| acceptable to have a bit of cocaine on some weekends. Let
| us consider that it's a dual standard for what is
| essentially the same thing, enhanced attentiveness, a
| brief euphoria, better focus, and an urge to poop.
|
| If all addictions are equal, isn't the person who can't
| function without coffee or cigarette the same as people
| who can't go without a line? So you might ask "I've never
| seen someone steal to buy coffee, but I've seen people
| steal to buy coke, why is that?"
|
| My estimate is that it is because one is normalized and
| one isn't, you simply have a subset of people who are
| self admittedly okay with breaking 'the law' by doing
| coke, so naturally they might normalize theft as well
| since it is a hobby that is so highly penalized only
| those with the shakiest hold on reality/morality is
| likely to do it. That distorts the image of it, and we
| then begin to develop this social stigma.
|
| Ergo, legalize it, you won't have more of this any more
| than you have coffee-heads who happen to also be thieves.
| novok wrote:
| You don't go psychotic and destroy your brain from
| neurotoxic doses from chronic caffiene abuse. In the past
| you could take cocaine like you took coffee, but only
| stimulants were the ones to be pretty much universally
| controlled. Many countries do not even allow the entire
| category of stimulants to be prescribed as a medication
| for ADHD, such as Japan or Germany.
| edm0nd wrote:
| Tobacco and Alcohol have ruined an infinite number more of
| lives VS cocaine yet are legal.
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| Should we make MDMA, opium, heroin and crack legal to
| purchase and broadly available for all adults without any
| form of prescription? After all, Tobacco and Alcohol is
| legal...
|
| Here is the thing, some highs are much more potent and
| addictive than others. Growing up in the 90's and having
| seen the damages of heroin, I'd say no, it doesn't matter
| whether Tobacco or Alcohol are also legal.
| spurgu wrote:
| My decision to not use heroin has zero to do with its
| legality status.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Yes, definitely. If you're talking about instantly
| killing the fentanyl problem dead, bringing a bunch of
| people who have marginalized back into the community,
| reducing property crime, and saving a lot of lives, you
| couldn't make a better choice.
|
| Legalizing drugs would make drug addicts far more
| accessible to drug treatment schemes. Regulating the
| supply would additionally make being a drug addict a lot
| safer and less dominating for one's life. Heroin is safe.
| It's the universe of things around heroin that kill. Lots
| of being murdered, and going to prison; fent ods, MRSA
| infections, liver failure from Hep C, AIDS; doing crime
| and betraying everyone you know to get a substance that
| costs a nickel a dose to manufacture. All of these are
| symptoms of drug enforcement, not heroin.
| standardUser wrote:
| I'd hope its clear to most people by now that opioids are
| viciously addictive in a way virtually no other
| substances are. Lumping them together with other drugs is
| disingenuous.
| Jonovono wrote:
| I never said they haven't? They have indeed!
| antiterra wrote:
| I have a friend who dabbled in coke for a few weeks. I hung out
| with her once while she was high, and she was
| uncharacteristically mean. At some point she decided her life
| was becoming too focused on doing coke and told me she was
| selling what she had left. It took a while for her to finally
| commit to her last dose, but she managed to get rid of the
| cocaine, largely motivated by the money she would recover.
|
| For weeks after, she would crave and daydream about cocaine.
| The fact that, despite being able to quit, she missed it that
| much made me decide to never ever try it. I know people get
| addicted to games or gambling or whatever else, but it seemed
| pretty bad.
| stef25 wrote:
| Coke's reputation is WAY worse than what it deserves.
|
| I guarantee you these "I tried it a few times and can't stop
| thinking about it" stories are complete BS.
|
| The effects are very short lived and the more you take the
| more edgy, nervous and wired you get. It becomes really hard
| to enjoy.
|
| I guesstimate that 80% of all coke is consumed by completely
| "normal" people after a few drinks in a bar on the weekends,
| and that's that. No craving, character changes and all that
| stuff.
| standardUser wrote:
| There have been studies that show certain people are far
| more susceptible to cocaine addiction than others. Same as
| with alcohol. But for most people, developing a problematic
| addiction seems very rare.
| 01100011 wrote:
| Generally yes. The people I've hung out with while they were
| doing coke were pushy, mildly aggressive, and would just.
| not. shut. the. fuck. up. Being sober around cokeheads is not
| a pleasant experience.
|
| That said, I did coke once(well, twice, but I'm pretty sure
| the second time was foot powder). It was absolutely serene. I
| felt crystal clear, dialed in, and perfectly zen. I didn't
| have a desire to talk, but to just observe. I felt like I had
| the hearing of a cat. Then again, I probably have unmedicated
| ADHD. No commercial stimulants have ever made me feel like
| that though.
| __alexs wrote:
| Everyone I have ever met who is on cocaine has been a
| complete ass for the duration. Even people that I normally
| get on with just become utterly intolerable and blind to the
| damage it's doing to their relationships with people aren't
| taking.
| kbenson wrote:
| From my limited experience, it removes filters sort of like
| being drunk, except without as much debilitation. The mean
| things being said could have been someone that enjoys being
| a bit mean (snarky/biting) but refrains from friends, or
| someone that is sometimes unintentionally insensitive but
| is more cautious in their speech normally to prevent it,
| and that caution is lost.
|
| For me, it was a chance for me to ask a bunch of questions
| of people about things I was curious about but were
| probably none of my business or impolite to talk about, so
| I suspect to some degree I was guilty of the latter one.
|
| I will say that it was incredibly enjoyable when I took it
| with the people I was with, which were in mostly safe and
| contained environments. If the draw to both _immediately_
| do more and to seek it out weeks and months later to repeat
| the experience wasn 't so strong, I would recommend it to
| everyone to try at least once. As it is, I would be
| cautious if trying for the first time and space out usage
| if you tend to overindulge and/or aren't one to naturally
| self-regulate.
| staticautomatic wrote:
| It's not exactly free of side effects, but a lot of the
| adverse affects on mood come from doing it when you already
| feel bad and from sleep deprivation.
| thrashh wrote:
| I don't condone cocaine but I can bet you a lot more people
| aren't telling you that they're on cocaine.
| [deleted]
| __alexs wrote:
| Buddy we know when you're on cocaine were just polite
| about it.
| standardUser wrote:
| You're clearly projecting in a massive way. I know plenty
| of people who do coke, some regularly some rarely, and
| they are among the nicest people I know, primarily
| because I don't associate with people who aren't
| generally nice.
|
| Sounds like you were just associating with pricks and
| those pricks happened to use a popular drug.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| It's like selling selfie sticks in the '10s
| jdthedisciple wrote:
| Hopefully we will consider today's gay hookup ads just as
| disturbing in a few years ...
|
| Edit in response to flag: Who would've thought even the damn ADS
| have become sacred and immune to criticism ... ow well,
| interesting times we live in
| capableweb wrote:
| The opposite seems true, we'll just get more and more liberal
| around sexuality as time goes on, so saddle up cowboy!
| rfrey wrote:
| I kinda disagree, feels like we're on a neo-Victorian swing
| at the minute.
| watwut wrote:
| We are not. You can sleep around and no one cares. "Slut
| shaming" is considered that bad thing. You can be a single
| mom without that massive stigma or punishment to child. Sex
| within marriage is considered good thing, unlike Victorian
| "sex for procreation only" philosophy.
|
| Literally the only thing where it is getting more tight are
| boss/underling teacher/student relationships. Plus there is
| more focus on whether both participants agree with whatever
| is going on. And then again, it is not like that era would
| be particularly good for victims of harassement or rape.
| jdthedisciple wrote:
| No worries I'm up for the ride, but biologically speaking it
| will be lost for those who advocate homosexuality, abortion,
| are anti-children and anti natural-families - all at the same
| time.
|
| So I'm truly not worried, nature will take care, I'm sure I
| don't have to explain why ;)
| kaskakokos wrote:
| Nature will take care of all of us for sure ;) A bit off
| topic but... I am struck by your point of view on various
| subjects, as if you feel very sure about what Nature is or
| is not:
|
| - Natural families are natural? where? when? in which
| species?
|
| - Abortion is not natural, Ok, I got it, but converting
| planetary biomass into human biomass is less natural and
| dangerous... lot of human cultures have known this since
| ever
|
| - Drugs are not natural... Where? When? In what species?
|
| - Anti-children... idem
|
| - Homosexuality... idem
|
| Any of these points is deep as the ocean, but if you are
| interested in these topics.... Anthropology or Ethology can
| be your friends ;)
| jdthedisciple wrote:
| Maybe cancer is just natural too then? I'm not sure why
| you are playing words, you know exactly what I mean -
| male + female and together they make children, everybody
| understands that as the natural way. You know where, when
| and in which species - What's the point of your
| meaningless, pseudo-sophisticated questions?
|
| Ofc nature produces aberrations sometimes, and those
| individuals are not blameworthy for that, but we should
| help the affected instead of spreading these anomalies by
| selling them as mere "choice".
|
| I never said drugs aren't natural.
| refurb wrote:
| Converting biomass into human biomass isn't natural?
|
| Humans are just as natural as any other species. Beavers
| build damns that flood rivers and alter the ecosystem and
| human build nuclear reactors that alter the ecosystem.
|
| It's only human judgement that makes that different.
|
| You think beavers weep over all the ecosystem they kill
| when they flood a river?
| 5e92cb50239222b wrote:
| You really think those are inherited traits? Not a single
| homosexual in conservative families?
| jdthedisciple wrote:
| Ofc there are, but conservative families have more
| children in general, hows that for starters?
| trasz wrote:
| How did you conflate cocaine use with getting rid of
| harmful superstitions?
| [deleted]
| jdthedisciple wrote:
| No superstitions friend, I don't need to explain the
| biology behind my post to you, do I? ;)
| trasz wrote:
| Your post has nothing to do with biology; it's just a set
| of superstitions, possibly religiously motivated, as it's
| suspiciously aligned with Catholic hate speech.
| jdthedisciple wrote:
| I'm not hating on anybody, just on gay hookup ADS for
| goodness' sake, it's the ADS. Are even they too sacred
| for you to allow me to despise them, the friggin ADS?!
| trasz wrote:
| How are they any different from any other hookup ads?
| kreeben wrote:
| Non-practicing bisexual here, looking for a way into the
| whole gay sex thing. "Gay hookup ads", I've never heard
| of such a thing. What are they and where can I find them?
| What ad network should I de-block to see them?
| jdthedisciple wrote:
| I like your humurous tone.
|
| Sometimes they are plastered all over public billboards.
| the_only_law wrote:
| One may begin to wonder why GP is seeing so many...
| refurb wrote:
| Not sure that's guaranteed at all. It's not like sexual mores
| were always conservative up until now.
|
| No reason why they won't go back.
|
| That won't stop people, but it will make it more socially
| unacceptable.
| MisterTea wrote:
| I remember all the little "coffee stirrers" with the comically
| tiny spoon like ends. Of course the explanation was it's for
| stirring your coffee or adding a little sugar. Though who adds a
| tiny bump of sugar to their coffee? Turns out it was for coke and
| they were commonly available everywhere. The McDonalds ones were
| semi famous for that.
|
| Its similar to those little fake flowers in a glass tube on
| counters in corner stores which make great crack pipes (same with
| those short cheap tire pressure gauges). Or the cheap looking
| socks they oddly sell which are useful for tie off before
| shooting heroin.
| jowsie wrote:
| The socks are for huffing paint/other solvents. Most junkies
| won't even need to tie off, and if they do they'll buy the
| shoelaces that are sold right next to the socks!
| derefr wrote:
| > little "coffee stirrers" with the comically tiny spoon like
| ends
|
| The real industrial product, that these are the "recreational
| version" of, is the _lab scoop_ or _lab spatula_. See e.g.
| https://www.amazon.com/Aozita-Pack-Lab-Spatula-Nickel-Stainl...
|
| If you do your own compounding of supplement powders,
| nootropics, etc. into gelcaps, you probably own one of these.
|
| Bonus fact: there's a brand of lab scoops with a very fun name
| -- the _scoopula_ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoopula).
| It's so fun to say that that's just what many people call lab
| scoops, not realizing it's a brand.
| feintruled wrote:
| Love the product description!
|
| "Works great for scientists or people working with small
| amounts of the powder "
| wonderwonder wrote:
| There is a whole other world going on right in front of me that
| I had no idea existed.
| vmception wrote:
| yeah a lot of people are dying right now from fentanyl
| polluted cocaine, and it is fairly obvious from the reports
| but every thread goes the same way:
|
| "its so insensitive to suggest this person I respected did
| _drugs_ , how dare you!"
|
| ++20 comments of arguing
|
| <toxicology article comes out>: It was fentanyl in their
| cocaine.
|
| until this aspect of supply chain control gets taken
| seriously by the government without worrying about
| acknowledgment equalling condoning, the ignorance is going to
| keep perpetuating because the education was done so poorly.
| abstinence-only education doesn't work.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| Saw that there is fentanyl laced pot in US states now,
| especially in Connecticut which is very surprising as
| Connecticut is a legal state. Articles were all light on
| details so I wonder where the marijuana is purchased from.
| I would be surprised if it was a dispensary. If not a
| dispensary though, why are people buying pot from street
| level dealers when anyone can just walk into a dispensary
| and buy lab tested legal marijuana?
| Forbo wrote:
| DanceSafe, a harm reduction focused non-profit, had this
| to say regarding the recent news about it:
|
| "We've gotten a lot of inquiries about the recent
| Connecticut statement confirming the presence of
| #fentanyl in a lab-tested cannabis sample. This article
| breaks this down in a way that we align with, but we have
| some additional comments.
|
| Regarding the issue of this lab report as a whole: 1. It
| is unclear why the lab report designates that the sample
| contained delta-9 THC, marijuana, and fentanyl. We are
| confused by the separate designation of delta-9 THC and
| marijuana, since THC is a component of marijuana (along
| with over 100 other cannabinoids). We will be contacting
| the lab to inquire further. 2. As elucidated in this
| article, the circumstances around this test are unclear
| and we are missing additional information. We are
| tentatively agreeing that this appears to be a confirmed
| report of fentanyl in cannabis, but we do not believe
| that this represents any sort of market trend at this
| time, and more information is required to determine how
| and why this might have happened.
|
| Regarding this article, we have some disclaimers about
| language/content that we disagree with: 1. It is
| technically possible to "smoke" fentanyl. Fentanyl can be
| burned and destroyed in direct contact with flame, but it
| is feasible for fentanyl to be close enough to a flame to
| vaporize. 2. We're not happy about the choice to say "All
| it takes is one idiot who thinks it's a good idea to mix
| fentanyl in marijuana and we can have a cluster of
| overdoses." People have been speedballing all kinds of
| drugs for ages. This can be a risky behavior, but we
| still do not condone calling people idiots - especially
| when drug education has been made intentionally
| inaccessible and healthcare is prohibitively expensive
| and difficult to acquire.
|
| Additional general notes: 1. If someone wanted to
| intentionally mix fentanyl into their weed, they'd most
| likely dissolve it in alcohol and spray it on, not just
| crumble a tiny and possibly lethal dose of it on top of a
| random part of a nug. 2. You cannot use fentanyl test
| strips on cannabis (or any other organic material). We
| are not concerned about fentanyl in cannabis at this
| time. 3. The risk of cannabis being contaminated with
| fentanyl remains astronomically low, if it exists at all.
| Until additional information arises, we can assume that
| there was indeed fentanyl present in this cannabis. For
| now, we don't know anything about the how or why. 4.
| Strong, harsh taste when smoking illicit market cannabis
| is most likely an indicator that you have picked up
| synthetic cannabis of some sort. Synthetic cannabinoids
| are sprayed onto potpourri and other plant matter. It is
| very unlikely that you would have smoked anything sprayed
| with PCP (which is virtually nonexistent in the U.S.),
| and nearly statistically impossible that you would be
| smoking something containing fentanyl."
| asdff wrote:
| Because people actually want to buy fentanyl laced
| products. I've known people addicted to stimulants that
| they buy knowing that they are cut with fentanyl just to
| get that combination with the opioid high.
| vmception wrote:
| > If not a dispensary though, why are people buying pot
| from street level dealers when anyone can just walk into
| a dispensary and buy lab tested legal marijuana?
|
| Many frameworks are doing heavy ID data collection in the
| stores, instead of just glancing at your ID. This makes a
| lot of people uncomfortable, whether it is an anti-
| establishment user avoiding the government their whole
| life, to school teachers or religious leaders, or one of
| the 20 million Americans working for the federal
| government let alone someone with a clearance or a
| federal contract.
|
| Secondly, the cost and punitive taxes are high to many
| people.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Exactly. Many people are one regulatory change away from
| alot of problems. Another potential issue is insurance -
| if your life insurer obtains records that you're buying
| marijuana, your family may see their insurance claim
| challenged if you carry a non-smoker policy.
|
| "Background Checks" are the magical non-solution for many
| problems. Between work, church activities and youth
| sports, I probably have 6-8 entities running background
| checks of varying levels of intrusiveness on me annually.
| I'm sure that information is shared with all sorts of
| third parties.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| Seems like the cure for all of this is for politicians to
| get around to making it federally legal. That would
| involve going against their lobbyists / donors so not
| sure its going to happen any time soon. Would be
| pleasantly surprised if it did though.
| jmacd wrote:
| I live a life of ignorance.
| brutusborn wrote:
| Ignorance is bliss.
| frankfrankfrank wrote:
| Except that it heavily contributes to supporting foolish
| policies and the bliss quickly wears off and requires ever
| increasing amount of ignorance to achieve the same bliss
| ... see today's policies for reference.
| brutusborn wrote:
| We are talking about different "ignorance".
|
| I.e. ignorance of the drug underworld vs social ignorance
| of policy makers
|
| To get "true" knowledge (lack of ignorance) on the
| suffering of drug abuse, one must experience it in some
| way, so avoiding this experience is the "ignorance" that
| leads to the "bliss"
|
| Or at least that is my interpretation of the saying :)
| prepend wrote:
| > those short cheap tire pressure gauges
|
| Oh funny, I wondered why they had so many of these at the gas
| station by the checkout. I bought one and it was terrible for
| telling my tire pressure. I could not understand why so many
| people wanted to measure their tire pressure.
| JasonFruit wrote:
| Same. Mine flew apart on first use, and now I feel naive.
| qq4 wrote:
| Plenty of people, including me, fill tires with free air at
| gas stations which gets them in the door. It's not surprising
| that cheap tire pressure gauges would be sold near the
| checkout, unrelated to drug use.
| jacquesm wrote:
| You're on a list somewhere.
| kccqzy wrote:
| Same. I promptly threw it away and bought an actual tire
| pressure gauge from a car dealer.
| 13of40 wrote:
| Many, many years ago, naive me bought my girlfriend one of
| those roses at a 7-Eleven, and I still remember her response:
| "Oh, Honey, you bought me a craaack pipe!" We're not together
| anymore.
| tomerv wrote:
| Those all sound like urban legends.
|
| The coffee stirrers are for ... stirring your coffee. They look
| like a small spoon just because that shape works well for
| stirring the beverage.
| MisterTea wrote:
| https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/642413/mcdonalds-
| cocaine...
|
| The others were listed in a similar article. The small tire
| pressure gauge was told to me by a friend who at one point
| had a crack habit and used said items to smoke crack and said
| it was a well known item to use for such a purpose.
| hinkley wrote:
| I think I was 15 when I called bullshit on that coffee
| spoon. I didn't understand what was going on exactly, but
| part of me knew that was a stupid size for coffee. I may
| have even joked about it being for cocaine, but I don't
| think I was serious about that. Nobody where I lived used
| cocaine, right?
|
| Right?
| tomerv wrote:
| Your original comment makes it sound like the main purpose
| of the small spoon is for cocaine - "Turns out it was for
| coke". But it's not "for coke", it's for stirring your
| coffee, and it's just that cocaine users found an
| alternative use for it. The article makes this pretty
| clear.
| marzell wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_rose
| tomerv wrote:
| Okay, you convinced me about that one (I haven't heard
| about this love rose thing before, and I don't live in
| the US). But my point about the stirrers still stands.
|
| I also think that the cheap socks are just that. But
| maybe they're popular due to their additional unintended
| use.
| simtel20 wrote:
| The size of the clientele for many of these things
| probably would have been much smaller without the illicit
| uses, and they probably were created without illicit
| motives. Once there is demand, however, the further use
| was probably quantifiable as legit vs. off-brand use and
| even if one maker of glass tubes (for e.g.) stops because
| they're useful as rock pipes of some kind, someone else
| would be happy to pick up the slack.
| jccalhoun wrote:
| thanks for the link. I have seen full sized roses in
| plastic tubes at gas stations and I was trying to figure
| out how those could be used for drugs. These little ones
| make more sense.
| ThinkingGuy wrote:
| Every once in a while, even urban legends can turn out to be
| true:
|
| https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/stirring-response/
| astura wrote:
| That link actually throughly refutes what the OP claimed.
|
| They claimed that drug paraphernalia was being sold as
| "coffee stirrers" (wink, wink) that nobody would actually
| use for coffee.
|
| That link says people were using actual coffee stirrers to
| also snort cocaine. Their original intended use was as
| coffee stirrers, not drug paraphernalia.
|
| There's a gigantic difference.
| SamBam wrote:
| Indeed, and for all the people scoffing at how they can't
| possibly be coffee stirrers, most coffee shops nowadays
| give you tiny plastic or wooden twigs, which are _far_
| less effective at actually stirring, and yet still get
| the job done ok.
|
| A small spoon at the end of a modern stirrer would be
| much more effective, yet I guess people would accuse them
| of selling drug paraphernalia.
| pessimizer wrote:
| No, there's an absurdly minor difference. Plenty of
| "coffee stirrers" were intentionally manufactured as coke
| spoons, and plenty of earnest coffee stirrers were used
| instead as coke spoons.
|
| McDonald's was obviously not intentionally trying to
| manufacture coke spooks for absolutely no conceivable
| gain, but I bet their packaging designers looked at a lot
| of random coffee stirrers and tried to make one that
| looked like the fanciest of those.
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| Worked 3rd shift for a gas station for a year and a half.
| Seedy elements would come in and ask for the glass roses
| regularly, but we didn't sell them because they were known
| paraphernalia.
| howLongHowLong wrote:
| The glass rose is definitely for smoking crack. Else why is
| it ofen sold as a combo with a peice of (also-required)
| chore-boy. 5 bucks for both. Usually on the same shelf with
| the round-ended meth pipes which dont seem to require any
| cover but being called "oil burner"
| derefr wrote:
| Don't forget the modern incarnation, borosilicate-glass
| "reusable drinking straws." Now up-market grocery stores
| can get in on the action!
| pessimizer wrote:
| Not that they can't be repurposed, but imo the main
| reason for those is that it's hard to tell when your
| steel straw is dirty.
| hinkley wrote:
| I feel like this is a parable for A/B testing without
| considering the consequences.
|
| For McDonald's, straws and stirrers are provided gratis, so you
| aren't succeeding if you raise demand for the stirrer. If a
| stirrer sold you more coffee, then it was a success. Just like
| the thicker straw sold more shakes (some of their competitors
| never figured that out, and one wonders if they ever actually
| talked to a customer or just sat in smoky meeting rooms
| bullshitting all day).
|
| However coffee being a stimulant, there is probably some
| overlap between the two demographics. It'd be hard to track if
| a lot of stirrers left with a coffee drinker but were unused
| for coffee. So perhaps in fact they did sell extra coffee to
| cocaine users and just patted themselves on the back for the
| increased revenue.
| steviedotboston wrote:
| This is really depressing for some reason. Just very bleak
| 4wsn wrote:
| My sentiments as well. It gives the impression of a society
| where the only sentiment not scoffed at is satisfying one's
| urges and impulses. It's so hollow and empty.
| stickfigure wrote:
| It feels like common advertising at the time. See also "Rich
| Corinthian Leather":
|
| https://youtu.be/tfKHBB4vt4c?t=9
| TeaDude wrote:
| The ivory ads are probably the best.
|
| "The drugs you consume fund an international racket of abuse. Why
| not display it with the abuse of animals?"
| grouphugs wrote:
| i should be selling cocaine and cocaine accessories, i could also
| use some myself
| jack_riminton wrote:
| Reminds me of the 'valentine love roses'
| https://www.reddit.com/r/trashy/comments/8pq62j/the_fact_tha...
| vadfa wrote:
| San Andreas throwback:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LabNcVpyvAc
| sergioisidoro wrote:
| Many times I think "what today will sound absurd in the future?".
|
| Our widespread and normalised alcohol abuse is one of the things
| crossing my mind, and I wonder if many ads related to vaping,
| smoking and alcohol will look like this for us in a few years.
|
| Edit: To clarify, what I mean with normalising alcohol abuse is
| not getting a bit of a buzz with a few glasses of wine or beer in
| a social setting. It's how we've normalised getting completely
| hammered every weekend, and even celebrate people who can drink a
| lot.
| zikduruqe wrote:
| > what today will sound absurd in the future?
|
| Lawns. We spend an unnecessary amount of money, time, energy,
| chemicals and water on a plant that does not produce food nor
| any benefit other than it is visually pleasing. It is totally
| dumb.
| macinjosh wrote:
| Me, my dog and my two year old beg to differ that lawns are
| only about visuals.
| kown7 wrote:
| It has always been a sign of wealth, i.e. no need to grow
| crops in front of your castle because you can afford it.
| fullstop wrote:
| Eh, I'm halfway there. I spend about 45 minutes a week, in
| the summer, cutting my grass. I don't use fertilizer or weed
| killer, so a lot of my lawn is actually clover. The benefits
| of this, for me are: * A place for my kids
| to play * Friends and family gather there *
| There are a few raised garden beds, so I get tomatoes, peas,
| peppers, and lettuce * It isolates me from the wooded
| area near me. Mice and other pests generally stay over there
| and not in my house.
| mywittyname wrote:
| * It isolates me from the wooded area near me. Mice and
| other pests generally stay over there and not in my house.
|
| Yes, it turns out that lawns serve an enormously practical
| purposes. Beyond this, they are required by code in certain
| places, as grasses serve to inhibit soil erosion.
|
| The original complaint should be amended to state something
| like, lawns in places where lawns can't be sustained by
| natural means. Lawns in places like arid regions are
| terrible. But a good portion of the USA has a climate
| capable of maintaining large lawns with little more than
| mowing.
|
| In these places, you can't have large gravel expanses like
| you can in the south west, because grasses will naturally
| overtake it, leaving a nasty looking, patchy mess that
| can't be mowed without the risk of high-speed projectiles
| being shot from the mower deck.
|
| So yeah, lawns aren't going anywhere, except in places
| where they are wholly artificial.
| OliverM wrote:
| Lawns do have a flood control benefit in areas with lots of
| rainfall or that are prone to intense rainstorms. But so
| would the same land left to grow wild.
| apozem wrote:
| If anyone reading this is interested in more environmentally
| friendly ways to maintain a lawn, look into xeriscaping. If
| you pick good plants it can turn out really well.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeriscaping
| mracette wrote:
| That's far from the only benefit. Lawns have immense
| recreational value especially for families with children.
| mmcgaha wrote:
| If you don't have trees blocking the sun, something will grow
| in your yard and it will look a lot like a lawn.
| [deleted]
| millzlane wrote:
| Hunger or worldwide famine comes to mind for me.
| gherkinnn wrote:
| Humans have been boozing forever. It will stay, to one degree
| or another.
|
| Us painting all sorts of phantasies using crypto and meta-
| things will be very funny to look back upon. Give it 5 years.
| Oh the naivete.
|
| Adtech and addiction machines will be another two (partially
| related) areas that we'll be shaking our heads at.
| telesilla wrote:
| As do many birds and other mammals! Giraffes and that fat New
| Zealand pigeon come to mind.
| throwanem wrote:
| Not just mammals, either! Wasps aren't averse to getting
| lit up when it's late enough in the season for fruit to
| have fermented. Sometimes they get too wasted to fly home,
| like the bald-faced yellowjacket I found sleeping it off on
| one of my porch windows a few months back - there's a fig
| tree in my side yard with some branches too high to reach,
| and it was very popular with her and her sisters for a
| while this year.
| XCSme wrote:
| Eating animals.
| misja111 wrote:
| The amount of opioids prescribed by dentists and family
| practitioners.
| bennysomething wrote:
| Though alcohol has been normal in western society for 1000s of
| years, cocaine not really. But yeah booze is awful for people.
| But I like beer and wine :(
| odiroot wrote:
| I really hope we're going to treat sugar consumption like that.
| donkeyd wrote:
| 50 years from now, I'll go with factory farming. I'm guessing
| that lab grown meat will be our main source of meat for daily
| cooking and things like burgers, hot dogs, etc. Maybe we'll all
| get some meat from free roaming animals for special occasions.
| RalfWausE wrote:
| What could be more absurd than using a vehicle that weights
| more than a ton for moving (mostly) a single person?
| Hoasi wrote:
| > Many times I think "what today will sound absurd in the
| future?".
|
| NFTs? The just is still out.
| boredumb wrote:
| There is a reasonable possibility that in 50 years the
| absurdity will be how taken back by cocaine and it's
| paraphernalia is if we do go the way of more and more drug
| legalization. We will look like pearl clutchers or a smug
| living version of Reefer Madness.
| patrickk wrote:
| Gambling ads across much of Europe. It's pervasive especially
| around football ad breaks.
|
| I have a theory that at some stage VOCs (in furniture, carpets,
| laminated wood products, paints etc) that lead to sick building
| syndrome will be heavily clamped down on, but nowadays nobody
| bats an eyelid at new couches laden with formaldehyde or other
| substances.
| mattowen_uk wrote:
| > _Gambling ads across much of Europe. It's pervasive
| especially around football ad breaks_
|
| This. It's awful in the UK. Non-stop gambling adverts
| everywhere. They have to have a disclaimer on them and link
| to https://www.begambleaware.org/ but there's no rules it
| seems on how short or small the link needs to be. On some ads
| it literally flashes up for only 1 second at the end.
| telotortium wrote:
| > sick building syndrome
|
| A lot of that, at least in the US, is due to having houses
| built more tightly for insulation, which stopped the natural
| air exchange from drafts that would normally occur. Now the
| building codes have been revised to mandate that a certain
| rate of air changes occurs even in houses, usually done using
| a heat exchanger: https://bcapcodes.org/tools/code-
| builder/residential/ventila...
| platz wrote:
| Just pick anything anything only invented in the last 5 years.
| It has a high probability of dying out.
| spodek wrote:
| 1. Flying at a whim, large vehicles, a/c 24/7, and related
| profligate fossil fuel burning. Today we think we're living at
| the peak of progress so far and that people in any other time
| would wish they were us.
|
| Future generations will look back at horror at how we chose
| temporary indulgence over what makes us most human: caring for
| each other, especially the helpless and vulnerable, and
| stewarding nature.
|
| 2. Plastic, at least single-use, forever chemicals, and similar
| chemicals. Soon we will see them like asbestos or marketing
| cigarettes to kids. Yes, they increase the GDP, but they kill.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| Social media vanity and self-promotion is insane compared to
| any other era in history. It will look absurd in a decade.
| fsloth wrote:
| What social circles in which country celebrates binge drinking
| of alcohol? I would claim there is a huge variance in age
| groups and global populations of that.
| intrasight wrote:
| >normalised alcohol abuse
|
| Which the alcohol lobby is obviously fine with. I watched The
| Expanse this year, and it's something that stands out - the
| consumption of alcohol.
| wallaBBB wrote:
| >what today will sound absurd in the future?
|
| incarcerating people for little weed
| demosito666 wrote:
| Or any other substance for that matter.
| it_does_follow wrote:
| > what today will sound absurd in the future?
|
| I quite seriously suspect that answer will be "24 hour
| electricity and grocery stores where you can buy food from
| anywhere in the world"
|
| > Our widespread and normalised alcohol abuse
|
| Until pandemic we've lived in a fairly teetotaling era. I
| suspect for the next decade we'll see an _increase_ in casual
| drinking, becoming more similar to the 1950s. If you watch any
| films from that era very strong cocktails are basically a
| standard for just about any social occasion, any time of the
| day. The pandemic has instantly changed peoples views on
| alcohol and other drugs, what 's coming the immediate future
| will likely continue this trend.
|
| The immediate future generations will likely look back on ours
| as a bizarre blend of incredibly wasteful prudes. A generation
| of people who gluttonously destroyed the planet while at the
| same time being too timid to let themselves enjoy it. I think
| the reaction will be a large one of revulsion "you destroyed
| the planet and you didn't even let yourself have fun doing it?
| you lived at work for what?"
| JohnWhigham wrote:
| _I quite seriously suspect that answer will be "24 hour
| electricity and grocery stores were you can buy food from
| anywhere in the world"_
|
| Uh, I think that's going to be the norm in the future if
| anything...
| dougmwne wrote:
| I'm curious what you've been seeing that's given you the view
| that drug and alcohol use has increased a lot post-pandemic.
| I assume you mean in the US context?
|
| I truly hope the answer isn't 24 hour electricity, given how
| cheap it is to produce. That would represent a major
| backslide in human capability. I'm not fully against other
| drawdown strategies, but surely we can leave the lights on.
|
| And yes, we are simultaneously so destructive and so unhappy.
| What a terrible waste.
| it_does_follow wrote:
| > that's given you the view that drug and alcohol use has
| increased a lot post-pandemic.
|
| It's fairly well studied in the medical literature [0, 1]
| and reported on pretty regularly in popular media as well
| [2]
|
| 0. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7763183/
|
| 1. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullart
| icle...
|
| 2. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/09/22/co
| vid-...
| dougmwne wrote:
| Interesting. I wonder how this will have changed after
| vaccines became widely available. If it was a temporary
| increase vs long term.
|
| Personally, I bought a nice 1.5 l bottle of scotch a week
| before lockdowns began, but never bought any hard liquor
| since I got my vaccine.
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| >Our widespread and normalised alcohol abuse is one of the
| things crossing my mind
|
| At least in Australia (not known for drinking responsibly!),
| this was already starting to die off in my generation and the
| death is just accelerating amongst the next.
|
| I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of Aussies born in 2050
| didn't regularly drink at all.
| ramblerman wrote:
| The lindy effect would argue it's far more unlikely for
| opinions to change on alcohol than vaping/cocaine in the
| western world.
|
| Lightly abusing some red wine goes back some ways.
| Aidevah wrote:
| That's an interesting point, although the ancient Greeks only
| ever drank diluted wine, and they did believe that you could
| die from drinking wine at full strength. Undiluted wine was
| given to the helots so that their drunkenness served as a
| warning to the spartiates, and the death of one of the
| Spartan kings was partially attributed to madness caused by
| drinking undiluted wine, a habit which he picked up from the
| barbarians (although I admit that particular episode lends
| itself to many different interpretations).
| adrianN wrote:
| Burning fossil fuels. ICEs producing noxious gases right where
| people live.
| dkdk8283 wrote:
| What's the beef with alcohol?
|
| Some people like to get fucked up, it's irritating when I
| encounter opinions that shame it or otherwise imply that it
| needs to be stopped. Let those who want it have it.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| >Let those who want it have it.
|
| And then heavily advertise it to those who don't. I'm not in
| favor of a return to prohibition, but it's strange how
| massive alcohol advertising is.
| dkdk8283 wrote:
| I ignore advertising I don't agree with, just like I ignore
| opinionated news I disagree with.
|
| I'd still fight for both to exist regardless of my beliefs.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| I wouldn't fight for any advertising to exist - I want it
| all gone.
| watwut wrote:
| There is ultra puritanic abstitential strain on HN.
|
| Not a sarcasm, last week there was a person fully seriously
| that alcohol is as addictive as heroin. I am not exaggerating
| and it did not seemed as wink wink trolling either.
| michaelt wrote:
| From a European perspective, America has a strange attitude
| to drinking, not just HN.
|
| On one hand, America has counties where you can't buy
| alcohol at all, laws banning 20-year-old adults from buying
| alcohol, planning laws keeping pubs away from where people
| live, and even had a national alcohol ban at one time.
|
| On the other hand, apparently the age laws are widely
| flouted? And everyone knows it but turns a blind eye? And
| drink-driving is so common that even if you kill someone,
| it's barely punished?
| watwut wrote:
| > On the other hand, apparently the age laws are widely
| flouted? And everyone knows it but turns a blind eye? And
| drink-driving is so common that even if you kill someone,
| it's barely punished?
|
| In my experience, it perfectly describes Europe too.
| Maybe not drink-driving being common in all countries,
| but age laws being ignored is something I find normal.
|
| If anything, in USA they make much much bigger deal over
| age laws then in Europe.
| hprotagonist wrote:
| teatotalism is one of those horseshoe topics. Always has
| been.
| wayoutthere wrote:
| I would say given the age range on here (informally feels
| like majority ~35-45) there are also probably a lot of
| reformed alcoholics on HN. I wouldn't say it's as addictive
| as heroin, but is more dangerous in some ways (heroin
| withdrawal sucks but won't kill you; alcohol withdrawal
| will.)
|
| Personally, alcohol is related to some traumatic
| experiences so I don't like feeling remotely drunk. I
| definitely had a problem when I quit.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| During prohibition, there were companies that sold "wine
| bricks", or concentrated grape juice bricks.
|
| They came with a warning that read: "Do NOT dissolve and
| leave on a cool cupboard for 21 days or it would turn it into
| wine".
|
| It would be impossible to outlaw alcohol today. You can make
| alcohol out of anything.
| 5e92cb50239222b wrote:
| I like alcohol despite all its flaws, but it's hard to argue
| that it's doing an immense amount of damage even to those who
| don't drink it at all.
| dkdk8283 wrote:
| Behavior shouldn't be projected on others.
|
| If someone in your life is negatively affecting you
| consider changing who's in your life.
|
| We are only responsible for ourselves.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Except children are a thing, and they both can't easily
| change who's in their lives and their parents are also
| responsible for them.
| dkdk8283 wrote:
| I can't take that argument seriously. "Think of the
| children" is a dead horse.
|
| Parents can also abuse emotions, marijuana, etc. Haven't
| seen anyone advocating to curb marijuana here yet.
| [deleted]
| jeromegv wrote:
| The fact that you can't understand the argument that
| alcohol and drug abuse can have serious impact on
| children means that you have serious blind spots in your
| life.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| > Haven't seen anyone advocating to curb marijuana here
| yet.
|
| You don't think a drug that's illegal in large parts of
| the world and for which legalization is a highly
| controversial topic is curbed?
|
| Also, the parent comment clearly took children as an
| example of people who's live can be drastically worsened
| by someone else consuming alcohol. Drivers and and
| passerbys endangered by drunk drivers would be another
| good example.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| > We are only responsible for ourselves.
|
| Not when your actions have consequences, which they do.
| Violence following alcohol abuse, or loss of family
| members due to alcohol abuse, is a thing.
| OneTimePetes wrote:
| Atomized Individuals Propaganda without any love or
| attachment to others.
|
| I know its the state/corpos wish that we are all
| interchangeable people-toner easy to pack into
| cartridges, easy to produce, easy to consume, but some of
| us cling to the old ways and others.
|
| Sorry. Clingy, sticky, nasty, humans. The new man, you
| want to go towards will surely not have this flaws. What
| a marvellous ideal sociopath that will be.
| xnx wrote:
| Drunk driving kills 10k/year in the US.
| fullstop wrote:
| > If someone in your life is negatively affecting you
| consider changing who's in your life.
|
| Great idea! Now how do I get drunk people off of the
| roads?
| darkwater wrote:
| But it's the same with cocaine and almost any other drug.
| Alcohol IS a drug by all means. I agree with you that if
| someone wants to be fucked up and enjoy themselves, obviously
| not harming any other individual in the process (driving,
| getting into a fight etc), they should be free to do it.
| There should be a full disclosure of what long-term effects
| can be and regulated enough to avoid scams and shady
| marketing strategies but beside that...
| losvedir wrote:
| It's about the same magnitude of an issue as with guns, I
| think. In both cases you have the vast majority of people
| responsibly partaking, but you can't deny that their presence
| makes some things much worse.
|
| I think the dynamics and beliefs are similar between the two:
| your primary exposure to alcohol could be having fun with it
| and friends, or it could be from growing up in an alcoholic
| family. You could grow up thinking guns are just a normal, if
| somewhat dangerous, tool (like a lawnmower), or most exposure
| could come from salacious gun news stories. It will all color
| how you feel about the topics.
|
| (stats from memory, but I think order of magnitude correct).
| 30k gun deaths a year, of which 20k are suicide. Self-
| inflicted death from alcohol dwarfs 20k, and deaths to others
| from, e.g., drunk driving are comparable to gun homicides.
| Then you have the splashy things like school shootings, which
| I think are roughly comparable to driving a car through a
| Christmas parade while intoxicated.
| thrwyoilarticle wrote:
| It's not a new beef, Islam is over 1000 years old.
| anodari wrote:
| Car accidents.
| si1entstill wrote:
| > what today will sound absurd in the future?
|
| The social acceptability of reliance on caffeine has always
| struck me as a bit odd. The effects aren't as stark, but I
| regularly have conversations with friends and coworkers who
| talk about how miserable they are if they don't get their three
| cups of coffee in the morning. I also feel that I see a
| correlation between those who feel they have low energy after
| the work-day and heavy caffeine users.
| tomhunters wrote:
| That's a nice way of thinking. My mind eventually think of
| different things that will create different impact in our
| world.
| jl6 wrote:
| > what today will sound absurd in the future?
|
| Mark my words:
|
| 1. Eating meat
|
| 2. Valorizing excess
|
| 3. Bonfires and fireworks
|
| 4. Anonymity
|
| 5. Air, noise, and light pollution
|
| 6. Having more than 2 kids
|
| 7. Proof of work
|
| 8. Buying new stuff all the time
|
| 9. Suits, ties and other western formalwear
|
| 10. Non-synthetic pornography
|
| 11. Academic papers
|
| 12. Golf
|
| 13. Body modification and tattoos
|
| 14. Lawns
|
| 15. Running unaudited code
|
| 16. Non-tailored medicine
|
| 17. Tribal politics
|
| 18. Daylight savings time
|
| 19. Circumcision
|
| 20. Burial
|
| 21. Men standing to pee
|
| 22. Treating 18-year-olds as full adults
|
| 23. Tipping
|
| 24. Advertizing
|
| 25. Imperial units
|
| 26. Coffee fetishization
|
| 27. Changing your name when marrying
|
| 28. Work-or-starve as the two primary options
|
| 29. Cosmetic products
|
| 30. Gender
|
| 31. Automotive fatalities
|
| 32. Demarcation between Movies and TV
| newbamboo wrote:
| 21 is highly dubious and therefore 30 is too.
| cataphract wrote:
| If having more than 2 kids is absurd, there won't be much of
| a future, since the population will eventually decline to 0.
| it_does_follow wrote:
| I'm not sure you're aware of the future we're facing right
| now.
|
| Continued unchecked growth coupled with increasing
| consumption is heading us towards an ecological catastrophe
| that quite seriously threatens the possibility of
| extinction, and at the very least looks like complete
| collapse of industrial civilization.
|
| There is nothing worse you can do for the environment than
| bring another life into the world, especially if you live
| in the developed world.
| mmmpop wrote:
| This list is complete nonsense because you didn't stick a
| year on it.
|
| Love love love the golf haters though. Sorry it's too hard
| for you.
| nickkell wrote:
| Thousands of years of evolution and we're still swinging
| clubs
| astrojams wrote:
| I would love to live in this world.
| reedf1 wrote:
| I agree with some (especially meat) but many of these seem
| like personal moralization.
| intrasight wrote:
| OMG - what a coincidence is the timing of this thread as I
| happen to re-watch Demolition Man last night. Fun movie from
| 1993 that touches on the absurdity of both things we allow
| and things we don't allow.
| donkeyd wrote:
| With this list, you're guaranteed to be right about at least
| one thing. I'm pretty sure you'll be wrong about more than
| that though.
|
| Unless of course, you're hinting that humanity will go
| extinct.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| Given long enough, he'll be right on all accounts.
| LocalH wrote:
| Given long enough, it won't matter, because there won't
| be anyone around to consider those things "absurd"
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| And at that point, all 0 people will agree on the
| absurdity of the list
| nickkell wrote:
| > 13. Body modification and tattoos
|
| Why do you say that? People have been doing it for hundreds
| of years and in the west it has become completely acceptable.
|
| > 22. Treating 18-year-olds as full adults
|
| In the US this isn't absurd even now!
| jl6 wrote:
| Re body modification, I'm sure you'll appreciate that
| people have been doing all manner of terrible things for
| centuries and many of those remain acceptable, even
| increasingly so. The pendulum may yet swing the other way.
| I'm betting on this one becoming viewed the same way we
| view testing in production.
| Bjartr wrote:
| "centuries" undershoots the persistence of tattooing by
| several millennia. Direct evidence of humans having
| tattoos dates back to ~3200 BC with the remains of Otzi
| "the Iceman".
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi#Skeletal_details_
| and...
| snarf21 wrote:
| Go over to The Long Now and place some bets on those. I think
| you will be wrong on almost all of these.
| mda wrote:
| Mark my words, at least 60% of your list is BS.
| jl6 wrote:
| Which 20 items do you think will never sound absurd?
| [deleted]
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| A decent chunk of those appeal to fundamental desires that
| (for better or worse) are a part of the human condition and I
| can't imagine them disappearing any time soon.
|
| I really do hope we move away from an economy that relies on
| advertising to produce consumer demand at an unhealthy scale,
| though.
| linspace wrote:
| You are obviously talking about point 15, running unaudited
| code. Who knows, the future can be surprising.
| sergioisidoro wrote:
| The only thing I disagree is "Body modification and tattoos".
| If any they will pick up a lot from here, with implantable
| technology. We will want to break free from our meat
| hardware, and body modifications is a step towards that.
| LocalH wrote:
| Not to mention body modification has a rich, long history
| in humanity that's not going away anytime soon.
| celeritascelery wrote:
| As do most other things on that list
| anthk wrote:
| Most of those do not apply in lots of Europe:
|
| At least 2, 14, 19, 23 and 25.
| tomerv wrote:
| I seriously doubt many of your predictions.
|
| 2. Valorizing excess
|
| Not sure what exactly you mean by this, but having more than
| you need and showing off is basic human behavior, and I don't
| see a reason that will change.
|
| 3. Bonfires and fireworks
|
| Bonfires are fun and so are fireworks. They have some
| downsides, but not more than many other fun things we allow.
|
| 4. Anonymity
|
| There will always be places where you can act anonymously or
| pseudo anonymously. See 4chan and bitcoin for example.
|
| 5. Air, noise, and light pollution
|
| There will always be the next kind of not-yet-illegal
| pollution, and the person to profit from inflicting it upon
| the rest of us.
|
| 6. Having more than 2 kids
|
| Most people will have 1-3 kids, some will have more. Nothing
| absurd about reproducing.
|
| 8. Buying new stuff all the time
|
| See 1
|
| 12. Golf
|
| Might be less popular, but why absurd?
|
| 13. Body modification and tattoos
|
| Basic human desire to control your body and what you look
| like. If anything it will be more popular as technology
| improves.
|
| 15. Running unaudited code
|
| With the halting problem on one hand (making automatic
| auditing impossible) and the high value of software on the
| other, I don't see any way around this anytime soon. Maybe
| some AI based solution.
|
| 16. Non-tailored medicine
|
| One prediction I fully agree with! Especially many invasive
| examinations we consider standard today.
|
| 17. Tribal politics
|
| Human nature...
|
| 20. Burial
|
| Also human nature. Not the American style burial with the
| huge casket and embalming and whatnot. But some kind of
| burial will always be the norm.
|
| 21. Men standing to pee
|
| ???
|
| 23. Tipping 24. Advertizing
|
| Human nature...
|
| 31. Automotive fatalities
|
| Maybe on the road. But what about space fatalities?
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| I think we'll break the association between sex and gender,
| and we'll create contexts of more-than-two human genders, but
| types are too popular a feature in programming languages for
| me to believe that genders will ever find their way out of
| human languages--they both provide useful ways to reduce
| uncertainty while making concise references.
|
| If everybody is a "they" then pronouns become less useful.
| Maybe we'll go through a stage like that while we rebel
| against binary-only gendered thinking, but eventually we'll
| want useful pronouns again and we'll reinvent gender.
| the_gipsy wrote:
| Maybe Social Network addiction?
| __void wrote:
| > normalised alcohol abuse
|
| I don't think alcohol will ever be banned, man has been using
| alcohol for more than 10k years[0] and according to some
| theories[1] it was the consumption of alcohol and protein that
| favored brain development
|
| (disclosure: I come from an Italian region that has the use and
| abuse of alcohol as one of cornerstones of society, so maybe
| I'm biased)
|
| [0]https://www.foodtimeline.org/foodbeverages.html#winebeer
|
| [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunken_monkey_hypothesis
| JohnJamesRambo wrote:
| I think thinking "stonks only go up" will feel very absurd in
| the next decade.
|
| https://www.currentmarketvaluation.com/models/s&p500-mean-re...
| throwaway47292 wrote:
| Alcohol is like the oil of the giant social machine, I believe
| everything will crumble without it. How many of the jobs that
| keep the world running can be done if people don't drink to
| forget?
|
| Just imagine the people that have to pee in bottles, being
| abused on daily basis by their boss, by their customers, and
| then they cant take drugs? for how long?
|
| The facebook moderators, or the call center oberators..
|
| As bad as it is, without some real changes, alcohol is almost
| mandatory.
|
| ps: I don't drink, but most of my friends drink.
|
| pps: what i think will sound absurd is the horrific ways of
| industrial animal farming.
| platz wrote:
| I get it, you're special because you don't drink.
| [deleted]
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| There are many reasons to not drink, including personal
| convictions, family history of alcohol abuse, health
| reasons, religious/belief reasons, not enjoying the feeling
| of being drunk, or simple lack of interest in drinking in
| the first place. Do not assume that parent is somehow
| trying to elevate themselves over anyone, you or drinkers
| in general.
| throwaway47292 wrote:
| i used to be borderline alcoholic, and managed to quit.
| mainly because my job allowed me to do so.
| rfrey wrote:
| I re-read your parent four or five times, searching for the
| smugness or self-righteousness that seemed to offend you. I
| could not find it.
| adriand wrote:
| It's not just the jobs, it's also the awareness of what we're
| doing to the planet and our future. When you get seized by
| the panicky feeling that we're on track to end it all, one
| solution is to say "fuck it" and get drunk. I do it. I'm sure
| I'm not the only one.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| Facebook just hires the wrong people for moderators. There is
| a massive untapped talent pool on 4chan and they wouldn't
| even see it as work.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| Come to Utah if you want to observe that reality because most
| of the locals don't drink alcohol. You'll find safe,
| perfectly manicured suburban neighborhoods where young kids
| ride bikes in the street, a fast growing economy, and the
| highest birth rate of any US state.
|
| I'm personally not religious, I drink and so on, but it has
| me thinking that maybe some of the things society tells us to
| value are greatly misguided.
| enriquto wrote:
| > what today will sound absurd in the future?
|
| The incredible amount of sugar that we eat and give to our
| kids. There is already a clear trend of "hiding" sugar from the
| ingredients. The label "No sugars added" gives a really
| positive meaning. But most processed foods are still chock-full
| of sugar. I guess in 20 or 30 years sugar products will be
| labeled with scary labels like tobacco is today.
|
| As for alcohol, I don't think so. People will still want to get
| wasted, even knowing that it is bad for the health.
| papito wrote:
| The book "The Dorito Effect" goes into this a lot. Basically,
| the sugar substitutes are often discovered in food labs by
| accident (someone didn't wash their hands and licked their
| fingers, ew). These substances are tens of thousands of times
| more sweet than sugar, allowing for "zero" amount in the
| final product.
| ponyous wrote:
| Especially in US, I don't think people realise how bad they
| have it there in terms of sugar. Even pizzas tasted sweet
| when I was in a random fast food place...
| TheJoeMan wrote:
| There are large black hexagonal warnings on Coca-Cola cans
| for sale in Mexico. It doesn't seem to change much except
| look ugly.
| collaborative wrote:
| I hope you are right about sugar. People are doling out candy
| to kids like it's their duty these days
| drewg123 wrote:
| The sad thing is that sugar is _everywhere_ , not just in
| candy. I was in the local hospital for surgery, and the
| "juice" they gave me to drink when I was recovering was so
| sweet that it could have doubled for syrup. The first 2
| ingredients were 2 different kinds of sugar.
|
| I think its because they were purchasing the cheapest
| "juice" they could find, but my friends joked that they
| were trying to give people diabetes to increase business.
| chimprich wrote:
| > As for alcohol, I don't think so. People will still want to
| get wasted, even knowing that it is bad for the health.
|
| In a better world we'd have a good substitute for alcohol
| that had similar effects but much less serious health
| concerns. This should be a major research target, but for
| stupid political reasons it isn't.
| brutusborn wrote:
| It _is_ a research target, and progress is going well!
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt
|
| I'm interested as to where you got the idea of "stupid
| political reasons" blocking research, he literally released
| a good substitute this year.
| chimprich wrote:
| Nutt's work was indeed one of the things I was thinking
| about. However, I think they're going to have a huge
| challenge to get their compound licensed.
|
| From the article you link to: "Nutt is also campaigning
| for a change in UK drug laws to allow for more research
| opportunities".
| GDC7 wrote:
| > In a better world we'd have a good substitute for alcohol
| that had similar effects but much less serious health
| concerns
|
| You are thinking about self administration of GHB, but
| people need to be really careful because 2 mL is a recipe
| for a fun night, whereas 7 mL will get you in ICU.
|
| Bur vis-a-vis alcohol it has big advantages. No liver
| problems, no kidney problems, no clogging of arteries, no
| cardiomiopathy or inflammation...
|
| But again people need to be paranoid before its use, in
| order to diligently respect the quantities.
|
| The administration at a party would be a gig for companies,
| because you'd need the same level of professionality as say
| the security services for a VIP party.
| enriquto wrote:
| > need to be really careful because 2 mL is a recipe for
| a fun night, whereas 7 mL will get you in ICU.
|
| But it's the same thing with regular alcohol, isn't it?
| Half a bottle of liquor is a fun night, whereas three
| bottles surely will kill you. As long as it is diluted in
| practical quantities it doesn't seem like a big deal.
|
| That said, they'll pry my saturday evening glass of
| scotch from my cold, dead hands.
| GDC7 wrote:
| The problem is that it's really really hard to gulp down
| 3 bottles of liquor.
|
| Plus unlike G you are not involved in the preparation, a
| better comparison would be having a substance called
| super-duper-liquor that you'd have to dilute yourself
| with water in order to make sure that it's indeed 3
| bottles of liquor needed to send you in ICU.
|
| If you screw up the dilution of the super-duper-liquor
| you can end up in ICU after just a sip, and you'd not
| notice because it doesn't have a taste or a smell.
|
| Plus let's face it, humans were never made to deal with
| liquid quantities in mL , we were made to deal in liters
| or even deca-liters, because that's the measuring unit of
| the most important liquid for humans: H2O
|
| Few mL of water aren't good for anything.
| erikbye wrote:
| > super-duper-liquor that you'd have to dilute yourself
|
| We have that in Norway, hjemmebrent, we just call it 9 6
| (96%), aka moonshine.
| codetrotter wrote:
| Also illegal and not sold in stores.
| kaslai wrote:
| In the US, 95% ABV Everclear is readily available in most
| states. 75.5% ABV Everclear is available in even more.
| It's the easiest way to get near azeotropic food safe
| ethanol for making extracts.
| mjbeswick wrote:
| You mention GHB, but as you mention to dosing in ml I
| expect you actually mean GBL.
|
| It's really not as safe as you make out, as the dose
| needed to OD isn't much more than a recreational dose.
| When you overdose on GHB you can become aggressive, lose
| consciousness, lose all short term memories; and worse
| case fall into a coma and even die. The margin of error
| is just too small!
|
| If you take GHB for a long time you can build up a
| tolerance and become dependant one it. The withdrawal is
| terrible and depending on how dependant some os can
| result in post acute withdrawal syndrome, in which case
| you can't just stop taking it as the result could be
| fatal.
| kevinmchugh wrote:
| We often choose to consume alcohol in a setting with
| trained, paid drug administrators. There's some safety
| features to that.
|
| But we also can self-administer, in large part because
| you can see how strong a drink is, right on the package.
|
| I think GP is suggesting that, absent the lobbying power
| of the alcohol industry, you might see commercial
| development of safer ways of dosing alternatives.
|
| If you could go to the store and buy a sealed bottle with
| 0.5mg ghb that might be compelling for some folks?
| dylan604 wrote:
| Are you calling bar tenders trained paid drug
| administrators making it sound like they have medical
| training? I want to go to the bars you visit. Of all the
| bar tenders or waitstaff that I have ever met, the
| closest to medical training were from the ones attending
| med school and working at the bar to pay for it. I don't
| think that qualifies.
| kevinmchugh wrote:
| It's more that I've known friends who think it's
| appropriate to put 3oz vodka in lemonade and call that a
| single drink, or they don't measure at all and one drink
| has 1oz of vodka and the next has 2.5.
|
| At bars you get pretty consistent pours, bartenders are
| watching for overconsumption and often for potential
| DUIs. And you don't, typically, have to worry about a
| bartender spiking a drink with something else.
|
| All of that helps make alcohol consumption with strangers
| safer.
|
| A lot of the drug safety education for alcohol boils down
| to knowing how much alcohol is in each drink, and that
| there's nothing else intoxicating in it.
| dylan604 wrote:
| >A lot of the drug safety education for alcohol boils
| down to knowing how much alcohol is in each drink, and
| that there's nothing else intoxicating in it.
|
| A lot of drug saftey education for anything boils down to
| knowing how much of it is in each serving, and that
| there's nothing else surprising in it. Knowing your drugs
| are important whether that's ibuprofen, alcohol, MDMA,
| etc. Obviously, much more risky with recreational drugs
| with people looking to spike with other things for the
| pizzazz or cutting costs, or buying pharma drugs from
| less than reputible sources.
|
| However, there were a rash of people getting sick/hurt
| from receiving alcohol from bars at resorts in Mexico. So
| edge cases are always going to be there.
| mjbeswick wrote:
| It's a nice idea, but GHB really isn't safe.
|
| While it's pretty hard to kill yourself with alcohol, but
| very easy using GHB. Even experienced users mess up with
| GHB, as it matters how much you are taking over time, and
| how much is being absorbed.
| GDC7 wrote:
| > I think GP is suggesting that, absent the lobbying
| power of the alcohol industry, you might see commercial
| development of safer ways of dosing alternatives.
|
| Well yes, substances are like religions, and alcohol is
| like Christianity.
|
| Nobody knows how or why it emerged, maybe one of the
| reason is that you could ballpark doses and unless you
| really screw up or have a deathwish you'd be able to
| survive and reproduce.
|
| Same thing for Christianity, there is not a whole lot of
| stuff in there that prompts people to get in harms way.
|
| Whatever the reason, it's now grandfathered in and it
| will be really hard to change this.
|
| The fact that the alcohol lobby tries to fight
| alternatives, and also the fact that there is an alcohol
| lobby at all...is somehow embedded in society.
|
| I honestly don't know why we are managing to get rid of
| cigarettes which were similarly grandfathered in and are
| much lower risk than alcohol
| hoffspot wrote:
| I think a helpful contributing factor is that cigarettes
| are immediately annoying and unhealthy to the people
| around the user so you had the non users motivated to
| stop the users.
| GDC7 wrote:
| A drunk person is also annoying , no?
|
| Being around a drunk person maybe also statistically
| unhealthy given the increased risk of falls, accidents,
| psychological damage?
|
| I don't know, it's one of those things where I can't
| point which was the reason.
|
| If I had to guess, maybe it was babies, kids and pregnant
| women. People don't get shitfaced around those categories
| but they had to endure passive smoke.
|
| And the reduction in cigarette consumption is to be
| ascribed to that, plus society being less and less fond
| of stimulants due to risk averseness (this includes
| nictoine and also cocaine consumption which are both way
| down compared to the 70s-80s-90s)
| kevinmchugh wrote:
| Intoxication can be annoying and dangerous. Changing the
| intoxicant doesn't help much.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > A drunk person is also annoying , no?
|
| The vast majority of people who drink aren't drunk, and
| not everyone who is drunk is unpleasant; everyone who
| smokes is putting out irritating smoke.
| QuercusMax wrote:
| Alcohol is naturally occurring and ridiculously easy to
| make. Squeeze some fruit juice and let it sit, and it
| will ferment just from the wild yeasts on the fruit
| skins. All kinds of animals like alcohol, and will get
| drunk from fermenting fruit fallen from trees. There's no
| mystery here.
| donkeyd wrote:
| GHB is a horrible alternative to alcohol. I really don't
| understand why you think that is not the case. GHB is
| highly addictive, dosing is hard, it's really unhealthy
| with long term use and is nearly impossible to stop doing
| once you're addicted.
|
| In the Netherlands, the percentage of people that relapse
| after rehabilitating from GHB is the highest of all
| drugs, including alcohol.
| GDC7 wrote:
| > In the Netherlands, the percentage of people that
| relapse after rehabilitating from GHB is the highest of
| all drugs, including alcohol.
|
| Humans love alcohol-like feelings, so the comparison is
| vis-a-vis against alcohol.
|
| Alcohol relapse statistics are on a much higer sample
| given how widespread it is, whereas for G the sample is
| much smaller.
|
| Also among the people who don't relapse are also included
| in those who die or have their bodies so screwed up that
| have no alternative but quitting if they want to keep
| living. Alcohol does that to a whole lot of people who
| technically don't relapse....but don't breath anymore
| either.
|
| G doesn't cause any liver, heart, kidney, cardiac,
| valvular, stomach, arterial, testicular damage, so of
| course people will come back for more.
|
| If the only negative effects are psychological then it's
| a testimony to the amazing proprieties of the substance.
|
| Also in science the standard practice is that if you
| can't measure it then there is no point talking about it
| or even discussing it.
|
| We don't know what happens inside our brains, the
| mechanisms of addiction and so forth.. we can only
| evaluate the effects.
| donkeyd wrote:
| > Alcohol relapse statistics are on a much higer sample
| given how widespread it is, whereas for G the sample is
| much smaller.
|
| Does that imply we can never compare smaller data sets
| with larger ones? GHB is becoming a huge issue in the
| Netherlands to the point that there aren't enough rehab
| spots. So I would assume the amount of data is not
| insignificant and can therefore be compared.
|
| > Alcohol does that to a whole lot of people who
| technically don't relapse....but don't breath anymore
| either.
|
| So does GHB.
|
| > G doesn't cause any liver, heart, kidney, cardiac,
| valvular, stomach, arterial, testicular damage, so of
| course people will come back for more.
|
| You retort to my argument was that the data set for GHB
| was much smaller. How does that not matter with your
| argument?
|
| Also, GHB is associated with cognitive changes and
| potential brain damage. So you might come back for more,
| but you won't be the same person:
|
| https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/18100810462
| 8.h...
|
| > Also in science the standard practice is that if you
| can't measure it then there is no point talking about it
| or even discussing it.
|
| Which part can't you measure? You can measure relapse
| percentages. You can measure addiction rates. You can
| measure the length of an addiction. You can measure the
| physiological and metal impact of an addiction.
|
| And it's not like nobody is doing that either.
| GDC7 wrote:
| > So does GHB.
|
| No, the only way to die via GHB is to overdose on it.
| Alcohol instead sets you body on fire with inflammation
| and such inflammation attacks all tissues including vital
| ones which I mentioned and will repeat: heart, liver,
| kidneys, arteries, pancreas...
|
| > You retort to my argument was that the data set for GHB
| was much smaller. How does that not matter with your
| argument?
|
| Because we know that the cause for all that damage is
| inflammation, between alcohol and G only the former
| causes inflammation.
|
| > Also, GHB is associated with cognitive changes and
| potential brain damage. So you might come back for more,
| but you won't be the same person:
|
| Leave aside the brain, except for physical phenomenons
| such as blood, plaques, cancer....we really don't know
| what happens in there or why. We can't even predict our
| own thoughts 10 seconds from now..leave alone complex
| things such as cognition on a general scale and most
| importantly the ability to measure it.
|
| Also let's assume we did know, say all that we know today
| is effectively what happens in the brain. Given that
| premise we also have to take for good the data that we
| have about the depression/anxiety epidemic, which is very
| widespread according to today's research.
|
| Today research also tells us that prolonged
| anxiety/depression causes damage to the body, reduces
| cognition and IQ and trims years off a person's life.
|
| Well, considering all the above...both alcohol and G seem
| a better alternative than becoming subject to the
| depression epidemic which causes both a reduction in
| quality of life, as well as a reduction in quantity of
| life. Alcohol is superior in terms of quality of life,
| unfortunately it also shortens quantity of life, but G
| has them both beaten because it prevents depression AND
| doesn't cause inflammation to tissues, so G is better for
| both quality and quantity of life.
|
| Of course if you are a person who is naturally on cloud 9
| all the time and essentially immune to the depression
| epidemic (meaning that you are essentially clueless about
| the world), then you are better off not taking anything.
|
| But at that point you are also better off not leaving the
| house because leaving the house also has risks, and why
| would you take risks if you are essentially a buddha who
| is always on cloud 9 and perfectly happy and content the
| way things are and everything else is pushing on a
| string?
|
| So even if we allowed for a perfect knowledge of our
| brains, if we take into consideration the median urban
| Western citizen who is always on the brink of depression
| then G is better than alcohol and all the other drugs
| used to solve depression, both prescribed (benzo,
| SSRIs...) and those used for self-medication purposes
| (alcohol, cocaine, MDMA, crack, weed..)
| dylan604 wrote:
| >Humans love alcohol-like feelings, so the comparison is
| vis-a-vis against alcohol.
|
| Some humans love the feeling of being in an inebriated
| state commonly brought on by the use of alcohol. The
| amount of people addicted to other drugs shows it is not
| just the drunkeness of alcohol people are after. However,
| the simple fact that alcohol is legal and readily
| available means that's the thing people use to achieve
| this inebriated state. Allow other substances to be legal
| and destigmatized the way alcohol has been, and you will
| see numbers change.
| GDC7 wrote:
| You have it the other way around.
|
| Alcohol is legal because people love to be inebiated more
| than they like being stoned or on a paranoid coke binge,
| or nodding off due to heroin
|
| Majority rules , and so the preference with regards to
| the feeling of being inebriated + collective risk
| tolerance of society + the variability of alcoholic
| beverages + the low cost of the substance made it so that
| alcohol emerged .
| engineeringwoke wrote:
| No, it's because primates have been eating rotten fruit
| for tens of thousands of years to get high, and primates
| can't run a chemistry lab.
| gavinray wrote:
| Came here to say this, GHB is what the commenter is
| asking for.
|
| My partner is legally prescribed it for narcolepsy
| (Xyrem), and takes 4.5mL twice a night.
| engineeringwoke wrote:
| I can think of few stranger things that I have
| experienced in my life than being around a group of G
| hounds. It's like the Twilight Zone, and no, G is not
| safe and the effects are quite different than alcohol. It
| would never be widely popular to do a drug that so easily
| creates lapses in short-term memory... I think it is
| well-known why that is.
| gavinray wrote:
| You can make the same argument about alcohol.
|
| Plenty of homeless drunkards in the streets, alcoholism
| is rampant. > G is not safe
|
| Sure. Side effects of alcohol overdose include death by
| alcohol poisoning.
|
| Side effects of GHB overdose include death by central
| nervous system depression + consequent respiratory
| arrest.
|
| Side effects of Tylenol overdose include an
| excruciatingly painful, multi-day death from multiple
| organ failure.
|
| See the pattern?
|
| Both drinking and GHB are capable of causing memory loss.
| > The effects are quite different than alcohol
|
| This is subjective. To me, it feels exactly like _" More
| euphoric alcohol, without the stupidity/reduced cognitive
| facilities drinking brings, and not toxic-feeling on my
| body."_
|
| YMMV.
| engineeringwoke wrote:
| It takes a whole lot of alcohol to get the equivalent of
| that G zombie look. And the latter can easily kill you.
| GHB is not a panacea. It can turn people into animals.
| somehnacct3757 wrote:
| I think cannabis will eclipse alcohol once enough states
| legalize, and the federal winds shift in response.
|
| It has no hangover. Its long term effects are not
| understood (a boon vs alcohol where they're known and bad.)
| It's edible and drinkable. And it makes your patrons buy
| food. The bar of tomorrow will serve cannabis infused
| cocktails alongside alcohol. From the moment of federal
| deregulation it will only take a few years, like the
| arrival and commoditization of boozy seltzers. Today's
| cannabis manufacturers in legalized states are already
| building the infrastructure to hit the ground running.
| fossuser wrote:
| I'm not so sure, it seems to make people more delusional
| over time and more paranoid and anxious even from low
| dose usage.
| antihero wrote:
| Yeah no, being high is a totally different and
| unpredictable thing to being buzzed on alcohol.
| tlb wrote:
| What has been preventing this happening in legal states
| already? Green bars and restaurants exist, but are a tiny
| segment of the market.
|
| I suspect it's that alcohol and socialization go well
| together, while cannabis doesn't so it's better to enjoy
| it at home than at a bar.
| EvRev wrote:
| The current breeding techniques have produced varieties
| that are not conducive to the socialization (i.e. sativa
| vs indica). After legalization the market will need to
| have the marketing for sativas/socialization strains that
| will drive the development of happy/euphoric/uplifiting
| strains that do not promote sleep.
| guythedudebro wrote:
| Lol. Society just hasn't tried the right strain yet
| hoffspot wrote:
| One contributing factor could be social stigma. The
| soccer moms of the world were brought up to "say No to
| drugs" where cannabis was one of those drugs. You can pry
| their glass of wine out of their cold, dead hands but
| I've personally seen them very nervous about a low dose
| edible. Perhaps some time and federal legalization will
| change that.
| mracette wrote:
| Yea I think you're underestimating the euphoric effects
| of alcohol.
| mywittyname wrote:
| With pot, there are various types of highs that can be
| produced. With alcohol, there's just one.
|
| Plus, there are people out there who don't experience
| euphoria from alcohol, it instead throws them into a
| depressive spiral.
| zwirbl wrote:
| You can definitely produce different highs with alcohol,
| getting drunk from vodka is different to wine is
| different to beer. In the end one is drunk, yes, but
| feeling is still quite distinct. So pretty much the same
| as with pot, where you can have vastly different highs
| but in the end are just that: high
| JohnWhigham wrote:
| Not my experience at all. Give weed to 10 different
| people, and they'll experience 12 different reactions to
| it. With alcohol, it's more or less roughly the same for
| everyone.
| bikingbismuth wrote:
| I wonder if the economics will align to make this
| attractive to bar owners. When I go to the bar I will
| usually spend around $50-100 on drinks depending if I am
| drinking cocktails or wine.
|
| Given that THC seems to be hard to precisely dose, I am
| not sure that a bar could figure out how to make
| cocktails or edibles that give a sufficiently small
| amount to encourage patrons to buy multiple items.
|
| Also, alcohol works in a few minutes, but THC takes a lot
| longer. I wonder if we would see an increase of over
| consumption because people are impatient to get their
| buzz.
|
| Fwiw, I like THC is small quantities from time to time,
| but I consume at home and watch a movie. Being in a loud
| public space which high seems like a nightmare to me.
|
| Either way, it will be interesting to see what the future
| holds.
| QuercusMax wrote:
| Some of the newer THC drinks take effect pretty quickly
| in my experience - maybe as fast as drinking alcohol.
|
| It's certainly more processed than homemade weed
| brownies, but much more reliable and much quicker
| (minutes for effect vs hours).
| bikingbismuth wrote:
| Interesting, I was not aware of that. I have noticed that
| drinking mushroom tea as opposed to eating dried
| mushrooms does have a quicker onset, so that makes sense
| to me. (Sadly, it is also consistent in making me vomit.)
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| There's a whole zoo of recreational drugs that are safer to
| do in moderation than alcohol is to do consistently. Rather
| than replace alcohol, I think we should just get better at
| educating:
|
| - when is it safe to use a given drug?
|
| so we can get to the business of exploring:
|
| - which drugs are best paired with which intentions, moods,
| environments, etc?
| chimprich wrote:
| > There's a whole zoo of recreational drugs that are
| safer to do in moderation than alcohol is to do
| consistently
|
| Which ones are you thinking of? Are any of them similar
| to alcohol in effects? (Light euphoria, increased
| socialisation, mild confidence boost, pleasant method of
| application?)
| kilroy123 wrote:
| I sure hope so. I went sugar free a few years ago and I have
| zero regrets.
| hattar wrote:
| I have tried doing this a few times but always ended up
| stumped and eventually gave up. It's difficult to find
| processed foods (e.g. yogurt, cereal, peanut butter)
| without sugar and so easy to mistakenly get foods with
| sugar on accident. Baked goods of almost all kinds have
| sugar by necessity, so they're generally out. This doesn't
| even account for the natural sugars in fruits and the like.
|
| How committed are you to no sugar and how have you
| addressed all that? I'd love to try again with some better
| strategies.
| crdrost wrote:
| I see this comment and feel so bad for past you!
|
| Why are we treating all sugars as the same? They are not
| the same.
|
| Some baked goods have sugar in order to feed yeast,
| rather than humans... Pizza dough, bagels, croissants.
| Yes these all come in dessert varieties, but it's not the
| default option.
|
| Especially when you start getting to dumping on fresh
| fruit, it's like, no, please don't commit yourself to a
| bland beige life like that! Plants are masters of poisons
| and trickery, e.g. capsaicin (what makes peppers spicy)
| makes our mouths burn, but not the mouths of birds--who
| spread their seeds. Plants use fructose specifically
| because it's not dextrose and therefore it's hard for
| bacteria to digest: because they _want_ us to eat this
| fruit and scatter the pit. Indeed they make the fruit
| sweet rather rapidly, "now now, it 's ready now!", to
| signal an optimal "it's not poisonous! now you-scratch-
| my-back-I'll-scratch-yours" moment to us.
|
| Plants even look out for our longer-term health, those
| bright colors that we find so attractive are usually
| signaling to us these really important antioxidants that
| we need. As long as we don't freeze or puree the cell
| walls into oblivion, the resulting fiber traps some
| sugars and feeds it not to us but to our gut bacteria,
| who then don't starve and eat our GI linings...
|
| "let's not eat foods that I know are healthy, to satisfy
| arbitrary rules I made up to keep myself healthy"...
| really?
|
| So if zero tolerance is out, what remains?
|
| * Set a low sugar target, "no more than 10% of my
| calories from sugars."
|
| * Prefer stuff with a shelf life. If it has an expiration
| date rather than a nutrition label, great!
|
| * Don't worry about the natural sugar in yogurt, the
| lactose, unless you're lactose-intolerant. But don't buy
| the flavored versions as they are sugary enough to
| classify as desserts for breakfast. Instead do what the
| Dutch do--buy the plain stuff and cut the sour yourself
| with added whole grains and fresh fruit.
|
| * "Don't even let it in your house" the other stuff.
| Guilty pleasures for me include chocolate and jam, I try
| to make sure that I don't have these in-stock...
|
| * The grocer is a pilgrimage. What I mean is, it's
| tempting to zigzag your way through and see everything,
| and this is also why shopping takes forever! But pilgrims
| usually make a big walk around a structure before diving
| into the middle for a brief flirtation/unveiling of
| divinity. A good grocery run too walks around the aisles
| at the edges, fresh fruit and veg, fresh baked goods,
| meat and poultry, dairy... And it makes targeted trips
| into the middle only for things that it needs. You've got
| a list of the things you'll dip into the middle for,
| after all, and if your grocery trips are short then if
| you miss something, you can take another short grocery
| trip later in the week and still save time and money.
| Small batch sizes, lean manufacturing!
| enriquto wrote:
| > I'd love to try again with some better strategies.
|
| In my case I have found it helpful to not quit sugar cold
| turkey, but gradually. First I stopped buying and using
| refined sugar at all (putting it in coffee, yogurt, etc.)
| This is quite easy. Then, avoid buying products whose
| ingredient list starts with sugar, like marmalade, "milk"
| chocolate, cereals and the like. This is a bit harder
| since it requires to pay attention to most products you
| buy, but still quite feasible. Then, once I was used to
| spot sugar at the beginning of the ingredient list, I
| began to read the whole list of ingredients, and avoid
| products that contained any sugar at all. For example:
| pre-cut carrots with lemon and ciboulette? whole wheat
| bread loafs? what on earth can be healthier than those
| things? Yet both of them contain sugar, in all the brands
| that I checked!
|
| I started this "program" about three years ago and now I
| feel slightly healthier, nothing spectacular, but still.
| The thing is that now I notice immediately when something
| is too sugary. To the point of it being disgusting. For
| example, I have real trouble finishing a piece of cake in
| a birthday party (after fighting my urge to be a jerk
| about it and refuse it altogether).
| account42 wrote:
| One negative consequences of the "no sugars added" is that it
| makes it harder to see how sweet something is because now
| instead of sugar its all artificial sweeteners in many things
| that don't need them at all.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Or, like, filtered apple juice instead of sugar. Which is
| the same thing as sugar (well actually fructose) but with a
| little apple essence thrown in.
| Ma8ee wrote:
| It's not that hard to read the nutrition facts label on
| your food packaging.
|
| https://www.fda.gov/food/new-nutrition-facts-label/how-
| under...
| millzlane wrote:
| What about the labels that doesn't list the sugar in the
| facts but lists Aspartame in the ingredients? It says it
| has a sweetener but doesn't say how much. Funny enough
| Aspartame doesn't appear anywhere on the page you linked
| to.
| Ma8ee wrote:
| What about them? What is it you would like to know and
| how would the information help?
| millzlane wrote:
| Artificial sweeteners effect your health. It would be
| nice to know how much is in there. The information would
| help a person to avoid the food combinations with
| Aspartame that decrease the rate of metabolism. But yea I
| guess a person could just read the label and just believe
| whatever it tells them.
| Ma8ee wrote:
| Are you suggesting that there is common and widespread
| fraud with how food is labelled, to the extent that
| labels no longer can be trusted?
| barrkel wrote:
| From the comment you first replied to: _harder to see how
| sweet something is_
|
| It was never about sugar content, but how sweet something
| is.
|
| Overly sweet things can be unpleasant to an adult palate,
| or one accustomed to a culture of less sweet things. In
| simpler times, sugar content was a somewhat reliable
| metric of sweetness (of course it can be balanced by
| acid, tannins, salt etc.), so you could select a product
| without needing to taste it first.
| watwut wrote:
| > In simpler times, sugar content was a somewhat reliable
| metric of sweetness (of course it can be balanced by
| acid, tannins, salt etc.),
|
| In simpler times, there were no labels to judge sugary
| content. The regulation in USA came in 2011. In simpler
| times, you bought the thing and did not cared about sugar
| at all. Later on, you engaged in culture war whether
| calories should be on labeling or whether such regulation
| is nanny statism.
|
| Plus, I will go out and say that amount of people who
| would regularly check packages to learn how _sweet_ it is
| and thus estimate taste before buying was super low. It
| is not a great proxy in the first place.
| barrkel wrote:
| Carbohydrates have been shown in Ireland ever since I can
| remember, at least 30 years. For many things - drinks
| especially - carbohydrates is a straight proxy for
| sugars.
|
| I still rely on it. Fruit juices touting how natural they
| are, but bulking out on sugar via apple or orange juice,
| is really common. You learn to watch out for it in
| various snacks for toddlers too.
| Ma8ee wrote:
| You can quite confidently conclude that if it contains
| artificial sweeteners, it is quite sweet, and way too
| sweet for my taste.
| FourthProtocol wrote:
| What about just buying fresh fruit, vegetables and if
| meat it your thing, fresh, unprocessed meat?
| millzlane wrote:
| I buy and eat all of those things. We're talking about
| Nutrition fact labels and sweeteners friend.
| platz wrote:
| if artificial sweetner is calorically inert why do you
| care
| DougWebb wrote:
| Because calorically inert and metabolically inert are not
| the same thing.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| I don't think it's a direct metabolic effect but an
| effect on how hunger it makes you and how it effects the
| sensation of other things you consume.
| dagw wrote:
| Because it has a very strong, unpleasant and overpowering
| taste in too large quantities.
| Timpy wrote:
| Calorie is not the only metric for health
| wonderwonder wrote:
| Some people like to know what they are putting in their
| bodies.
| Sharlin wrote:
| > As for alcohol, I don't think so. People will still want to
| get wasted, even knowing that it is bad for the health.
|
| Alcohol advertising is already highly regulated compared to
| past decades. Smoking even more. Even professional magazines
| in the 60s and 70s used to have alcohol and cigarette ads
| every few pages. Not to mention that alcohol use was much
| less frowned upon at the workplace, especially in certain
| fields.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| I feel like the thing missing here is which magazines. Just like
| you can find unlawful/illegal websites before the web were
| magazines and books. So, were these in mainstream publications or
| were they in already outlawed publications?
|
| Curiously the website is called "Rare Historical Photos" but the
| premise under which this is [so] shocking is that these are not
| rare adverts.
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| I belive Husler. I seem to have 70's Hustler graphics stuck in
| my brain stem? It seemed like all the nudie magazines, except
| Playboy, and Penthouse, had a lot of drug paraphernalia. (My
| dad had a stash of Playboys, and the kid down the street's
| father favored Hustler.)
|
| As a kid, I remember seeing 5000 Sudafed (actually the main
| chemical ingredient) for $20. I was always confused. Why would
| anyone want so much cold medicine, and later on--they must be
| for confusing the drug buyers.
|
| Even with all the advertising, and copious amounts of Sudafed,
| making meth was an unknown to many drug dealers.
|
| I had a chem teacher in college who liked to tell about the
| student he had who made meth, and sold it. Forget his name?
| Anyway, the word was he ruined his eyesight because early on he
| worked with too much mercury. There was one student who kept
| her book open during the test. He would walk up/down the isles
| and couldn't spot her cheating.
|
| Low grade coke was everywhere. I tried it three times in my
| twenties. I was offered it at parties. All three times off duty
| cops offered it to me. Yea--probally evidence. I never felt
| anything though? It was weak, or my constitution was different?
|
| A lot of people smoked cigarettes. Coke was around. Drinking
| was like today, but one for the road was real. Opiates were
| only for the down, and out.
| asdff wrote:
| Half the ads say "Find it at your nearest headshop" or
| something to that effect. These were in stoner magazines and
| these adverts and products never really went away from that
| space to be fair.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| I miss advertising like this... where it actually talks about the
| product and why you need it instead of blowing emotional smoke up
| your ass
| antihero wrote:
| You can still buy these kits as "snuff kits".
|
| https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_nkw=snuff+snorting+kit&_s...
| ankraft wrote:
| You can buy most of these gadgets (cheap replicas) at smartshops
| in The Netherlands.
| PopAlongKid wrote:
| In the late 1970s, I worked in a record store (selling new
| vinyl records), we had a display case at the register with many
| of these same products available (as well as pipes and bongs),
| it wasn't that unusual in the U.S. Even today, I suspect most
| smoke/vape shops have similar items, although powder cocaine
| does not seem as common today as it was back then.
|
| I remember one device in particular, it was a small metal
| cylinder, shaped like an overgrown bullet, designed so that you
| could fill the main chamber with powder, screw the top on, then
| by rotating a smaller cylinder inside, deliver one snort into
| the upper chamber with an opening at the top for pressing
| against your nostril. It allowed you to snort almost using just
| one hand, with no chance of spillage. I'd still have one, but I
| gave it to a friend a long time ago.
| pak9rabid wrote:
| lol, a buddy of mine was just showing off his he bought a few
| weeks ago.
| derefr wrote:
| > While traditionally cocaine was a rich man's drug (due to the
| large expense of a cocaine habit), by the late 1980s, cocaine was
| no longer thought of as the drug of choice for the wealthy.
|
| This phrasing seems to suggest that something else _displaced_
| cocaine as "the drug of choice for the wealthy."
|
| If something did, what was it?
|
| And if nothing did -- i.e. if young-rich-people parties just
| shifted away from being drug-fueled -- then what caused that?
| Because that feels like a very surprising shift; drug-fueled
| parties were a staple of decadent wealth for hundreds of years as
| of that point. I wouldn't expect that a single drug losing its
| perception of "classiness" would lead to a wholesale abandonment
| of drug use by an entire class of people.
| mhh__ wrote:
| I also share this doubt, however I can believe that people who
| are wealthy but not wall street types, have moved on to pills
| like MDMA etc.
|
| There's a difference between wealthy-wealthy and wealthy-enough
| to retire early and live like a 19-year-old until they "retire"
| properly: The latter category I would imagine is not the kind
| to do Coke on holiday versus some pills.
| asdff wrote:
| Cocaine never really went away.
| cik2e wrote:
| I remember learning this fun fact from a Netflix documentary.
| Nominal prices for coke have remained stable since the 70s. So
| adjusted for inflation, it's gotten progressively less
| expensive. I've witnessed 5his personally. A gram in the 2000s
| would run about 70 bucks in my area, and that's still the case
| today.
|
| So it's likely that over time more and more not so rich people
| entered the market and coke lost its cachet. But I'm sure the
| rich remained quite fond of it.
| stef25 wrote:
| Coke never went away but the quality went down substantially,
| not aided by the fact that it's all produced in the jungle
| under some guys plastic boots who just eyeballs the reagents
| used to make the end product. So you'll never get "pure" stuff
| like you would meth or mdma.
|
| In his bio Keith Richards says he quit all that stuff when the
| quality when down. All those 80s bands that were fueled by coke
| ... you don't get that anymore. Basically because it's not that
| "nice" of a drug anymore.
|
| In S-America from what I've heard is that all the posh party
| people take mdma to go out and coke is more for the low to
| middle class. So it's definitely less classy there, probably
| not in the least because of all the horrible crime associated
| with it (something that's out of sight for Westerners).
| kbenson wrote:
| If something replaced cocaine, my guess would be pills, both
| repurposed medical grade ones and things like ecstasy. Being
| completely manufactured allows for an arbitrary distinction in
| quality based on packaging, and that's obviously something
| people like to buy into.
|
| That said, I'm not sure I believe cocaine ever lost favor with
| the wealthy. Maybe they just shifted from open semi-public use
| to more private and small groups doing it within the whole?
| Instead of open use in the big common room, maybe people just
| split off into side rooms in small groups that are interested
| to do it and rejoin the main group later.
| eof wrote:
| I take it to mean that the primary cultural association with
| cocaine was no longer "rich person drug," while not saying
| anything at all about the drug of choice for the wealthy.
| JoeyBananas wrote:
| Of course, you can still buy drug paraphernalia. For example
| there are plastic Roses in a glass vase sold at gas stations that
| are really crack pipes. And there are lots of shady "tobacco
| shops" out there.
|
| Some of these products seem pretty nice, I'd buy a couple of them
| if I did cocaine.
| BasilPH wrote:
| Interesting to see that delivery times of 4-6 weeks were
| something that was advertised.
| nemo44x wrote:
| When I was a kid I'd order things from magazine ad's whenever I
| could, usually gags and gimmicks, etc. It would take forever
| from the time you sent in the order form and money. It was
| always so exciting the day the package arrived and your goods
| were finally in your possession.
| PebblesRox wrote:
| https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1989/03/03
| Max_Ehrlich wrote:
| I thought widespread cocaine usage in the 70s was just a joke.
|
| Turns out it was actually a thing.
| emmelaich wrote:
| It was a thing.
|
| It still is, too.
| barry-cotter wrote:
| The 70s were crazy in more ways than one.
|
| _"People have completely forgotten that in 1972 we had over
| nineteen hundred domestic bombings in the United States." --
| Max Noel, FBI (ret.)_
|
| https://status451.com/2017/01/20/days-of-rage/
| vegetablepotpie wrote:
| I read your article, and it seems like the primary thesis is
| that large institutions (primarily universities) act as a
| sheltering mechanism for leftist radicals who promote violent
| social change.
|
| I'm not assuming you wrote the article, but I want to ask to
| try to gain insight. If this is true, why is it that business
| institutions, that have a lot to lose from social upheavals,
| require 4-year degrees for professional positions, from these
| leftist institutions?
| asdff wrote:
| Business institutions are hiring kids who majored in
| business and don't look like hippies.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| Possibly as a hold over from a time when a degree carried
| more weight.
| motohagiography wrote:
| Hadn't read this before, thank you. Mind blown. It's the
| missing articulation of why some of this stuff today is so
| serious.
| dymax78 wrote:
| I've always been fascinated by the depiction of the 70's in
| media: an era of excess and debauchery. the linked article
| (thanks!) reinforces the notion "truth is stranger than
| fiction, but it is because fiction is obliged to stick to
| possibilities; truth isn't." Each rabbit hole feels more
| bewildering than the former.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| That was a wild read. I want more articles in this style.
| kilroy123 wrote:
| Which perfectly coincides with this:
|
| https://wtfhappenedin1971.com
| wikidani wrote:
| Wow, what exactly happened then? Is there anymore I could
| read about it?
| colanderman wrote:
| Arbitrary knees in exponentially-growing metrics lined up
| with the introduction of fiat currency due to carefully
| chosen Y-axis scales by someone who makes money when you
| invest in Bitcoin.
|
| (Some of those graphs -- especially the first one --
| probably have interesting stories behind them, which may
| or may not relate to fiat currency. But all we get from
| that page is a Hayek quote structured to suggest he too
| would love Bitcoin so...)
| captainredbeard wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock
| captainredbeard wrote:
| US moved to fiat money and they started inflating us all
| to hell
| capableweb wrote:
| In more industries than not, it's still a thing. There is a lot
| of companies (that I've worked with at least) where coke usage
| is still happening at relaxed events, especially when it's a
| "management-only" event.
| teddyh wrote:
| I get that same feeling now when people casually mention
| cannabis use.
| bitxbitxbitcoin wrote:
| The history of cannabis use is orders of magnitudes longer
| than the history of cocaine use.
| capableweb wrote:
| Not sure about magnitude. Well, maybe Cocaine yeah
| magnitude, but when it comes to Coca, I'm pretty sure
| tribes in South America have been using them for as long as
| people been using Cannabis. At the very least, the Incas
| were using Coca back in the day.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The history of cannabis use is orders of magnitudes
| longer than the history of cocaine use.
|
| Not unless you narrowly restrict the latter to _refined_
| cocaine, while not restricting the former to (say) refined
| THC.
|
| The history of cannabis use is not orders of magnitude
| longer than the history of coca leaf use.
| bitxbitxbitcoin wrote:
| Definitely not comparing to coca leaf use. To your point
| though, refined THC in the form of hashish has a much
| longer history than refined coca leaves. As has breeding
| for more THC.
| Bud wrote:
| Hashish does not actually have to be "refined" at all.
| There's zero chemical process involved. You're just
| taking the resin glands off the surface of the plant.
| Refining cocaine is starkly different from this, of
| course.
| jmcgough wrote:
| I don't think I understood the extent until I watched a Studio
| 54 documentary - iconic, super popular NYC nightclub where
| everyone did loads of cocaine out in the open all night.
| PopAlongKid wrote:
| The cocaine culture and the disco culture were very much
| intertwined. Maybe it was not as much in the open as at
| Studio 54, but it wasn't limited to just NYC.
| antihero wrote:
| Heh, you should check out London in 2021.
| soco wrote:
| Was? It's almost on the job description of a banking manager...
| dkdk8283 wrote:
| It's very much alive, the war on drugs is a racket.
|
| A friend sold car stereos in the 80s, he would get tips in
| coke. He was paid a lot to cut a early projection tv in half so
| it could fit in his airplane and be taken back to South
| America.
| whalesalad wrote:
| I yearn for the day where all drugs are legal.
|
| No difference between cocaine and caffeine or alcohol. They're
| all drugs if you remove your bias and conditioning.
| seiferteric wrote:
| I want to agree but my area is rather "methy" and contributes
| so much to crime and bad behavior. In an ideal world people
| would be able to do whatever they want as long as they don't
| bother anyone else. Unfortunately it is a daily occurrence
| around here of meth addicts breaking into peoples yards and
| houses trying to steal stuff, aggressive behavior etc.
| pille wrote:
| But meth is already illegal, and your neighborhood is still
| in that situation. That sounds awful, but not really like a
| reason for sticking with the current policy.
| [deleted]
| throwaway5752 wrote:
| Bias and conditioning? There is large and measurable
| variability in potency, effect, and dependency formation.
| Anyone with any sense sees the difference between coffee,
| marijuana, pcp, and heroin.
| [deleted]
| Jerrrry wrote:
| I'm on three of those right now, two more to boot.
|
| It's the dose that makes the potency and effect.
|
| The dose available to the end-user is determined from the
| drug itself and the supply chain, since it is unregulated. If
| it were regulated, the individual doses would be more
| controlled, allowing for less habitual redosing, and less
| acute mental and physical dependency.
|
| Imagine you want a beer but hafta volumetrically dose it from
| 100% grain alcohol and cider. It'd be easier to become an
| alcoholic. Similarly, it is harder to "responsibility" enjoy
| heroin/fent or coke/meth because every time I want a small
| amount, I have to stare at a weeks worth for a brief moment.
|
| The illegality of drugs itself becomes tautologically
| entwined with the reasons they are illegal. It is becoming
| more difficult to diffuse as our culture leans to polarity on
| drug issues.
| dumpHero2 wrote:
| Ever heard of coffee destroying families or someone's career?
| Yeah, me neither.
| batushka3 wrote:
| It does if you keep banging your barista
| whalesalad wrote:
| One man's trash is another man's treasure. Shouldn't punish
| the entire world for a subset of people who are incapable
| of being responsible.
| ihumanable wrote:
| How about sugar? Sure it seems innocuous enough, but some
| people get effectively addicted to it, developing diseases
| and conditions that can prevent them from working their
| chosen profession or die and "destroy" their family unit.
|
| Have I heard about diabetics refusing to change their diets
| and dying, yes.
|
| Does that mean we should outlaw sugar? Probably not, plenty
| of people struggle with obesity and sugar is a major
| contributing factor, but there's plenty of responsible
| adults that can consume sugar in moderation.
|
| I also imagine there are a non-zero number of people that
| begin using more pure forms of caffeine in ways that are
| damaging to their relationships, health, and careers.
| dom96 wrote:
| If that's the criteria then we still have an inconsistency:
| tobacco and alcohol should be banned. The alternative is to
| be consistent in the other direction (which to some that
| are after "freedom" sounds more appropriate).
| whalesalad wrote:
| Precisely. Anyone who stands up for alcohol while putting
| down cocaine or cannabis is fooling themselves and
| refusing to see truth.
| ambrozk wrote:
| Yeah, there's a logical inconsistency. So what? Just
| because our society has so far failed to ban two
| addictive, harmful drugs, does not mean we must legalize
| every other addictive, harmful drug.
| shmel wrote:
| I see it differently: despite alcohol having absolutely
| horrible safety profile the vast majority of people
| manage to use it responsibly and don't let it ruin their
| lives. We all know that some people become alcoholics and
| yet it stops virtually nobody from enjoying Friday beer.
|
| The drug prohibition made it difficult to know how many
| people use drugs responsibly. It is linked to legal weed
| actually: it is being legalized not because research
| showed it is not too dangerous (we knew it for a while),
| but because more and more people become aware that you
| can totally use weed and remain a respectable member of
| society.
|
| For me it is a question of personal freedom. Everything
| has risks. Going hiking in mountains can kill you, for
| example, or almost any outdoor activity really. And some
| people die there pretty much every day. But I really
| don't want the state banning it just because some people
| fuck up.
| WillyF wrote:
| What about antibiotics?
| dekerta wrote:
| No difference? Seriously? I have never heard of someone
| destroying their life over a coffee addiction
| nick__m wrote:
| It is quite uncommon and usually doesn't devolves into a life
| destroying situation but it exist : The
| first published report of caffeinism -- essentially an
| anxiety disorder based on chronic high caffeine consumption
| -- appeared in 1967 and described the case of a woman thought
| to have an anxiety disorder until it was determined that she
| was consuming 15 to 18 cups of brewed coffee per day. She
| showed rapid improvement when her caffeine intake was
| drastically reduced.
|
| https://www.pharmacologicalsciences.us/caffeine/ccaffeinism..
| ..
| tehjoker wrote:
| I will say that I didn't read the directions on some new
| freeze dried instant coffee I got and was accidentally
| brewing 2x the recommended concentration and felt like I
| was losing my mind for months until I figured it out.
| ihumanable wrote:
| I didn't start drinking coffee until well into my 20s,
| just never developed a taste for it.
|
| One day after I had started drinking coffee a friend
| wanted to go to Starbucks. They were excited that I
| finally started drinking coffee and we could go for a
| walk and grab a cup. I had heard Starbucks was pretty
| awful coffee but the coffee was a side point, so I went
| and got a cup of coffee.
|
| I was wildly caffeinated the rest of the day. My brain
| had made an incorrect association that "awful coffee" ==
| "weak coffee" so I got the largest one because I was a
| bit tired. That was WAY TOO MUCH caffeine, a Venti coffee
| at Starbucks has 225mg of caffeine and the standard cup I
| was brewing at home / in the office was closer to 90mg.
|
| That was a difficult afternoon at work, unable to sit
| still, agitated, but I learned a good lesson. Starbucks
| didn't get rich from flavor, they did it the old
| fashioned way, massive quantities of addictive
| substances, caffeine and sugar.
| kache_ wrote:
| Peak hackernews hot takes right here folks
| unethical_ban wrote:
| - Long term health risks (normal use as well as abuse)
|
| - Short term health risks (ease of overdose)
|
| - Level of addiction
|
| using those three metrics, there are some very large
| differences between cocaine, THC, tobacco, caffeine, alcohol,
| and say, heroin.
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| A little digging and it appears these ads were in magazines like
| Hustler, Penthouse and High Times - not the The New York Review
| of Books or more mainstream titles, which makes much more sense.
|
| https://flashbak.com/cocaine-advertising-of-the-1970s-1980s-...
| https://dangerousminds.net/comments/magazine_ads_from_the_he...
| kevinmchugh wrote:
| Thank you, there's a bit of sensationalism in the article and
| that it wouldn't say where the ads ran was part of that. I was
| sure it wasn't in Time, and probably not Playboy.
| IncRnd wrote:
| I was curious whether the little spoons are still sold, since
| until now I had been unaware of the true purpose of those
| little things. Apparently, as of today they are the first
| item on Amazon when searching for miniature coke spoons.
|
| "Tiny Snuff Spoon, Metal Micro Scoops Medicine Powder Spoon
| for Filling Vials, Spoon Pendants Necklace Loop, Set of 6"
|
| The things people do.
| Zak wrote:
| This company specializing in flashlights and pocket gadgets
| would like to sell you a fancy titanium "ear pick".
|
| https://shopmecarmy.com/products/ei2-titanium-edc-
| keychain-e...
| InitialLastName wrote:
| Maybe I'm confused, but on [1], is the "fun" the bearing
| on top is meant to be used for a euphemism for some
| obscure act of violence, or do they actually just mean
| it's part pen part fidget toy?
|
| [1] https://shopmecarmy.com/collections/featured-
| product/product...
| akiselev wrote:
| Anyone who wants a weapon would likely just use the
| nearest available plastic pen, a humble but likely more
| effective instrument in all cases. However, can you
| imagine buying a $130 titanium jumbopen only to find out
| that it doesn't even spin? I would be absolutely livid.
| Wars have been started over less!
| IncRnd wrote:
| I think they were absolutely not saying it is for an act
| of violence.
| h2odragon wrote:
| The mainstream ads never mentioned what the product was for.
|
| My mom had almost collected someones "US States" mini spoons
| set, when someone told her they were coke spoons she lost her
| enthusiasm for getting the full set. Some truck stop or
| something had sold them as a promotional thing, coulda been
| anything but "mini spoons" were a popular utensil right then.
|
| It was also amusing, as a kid in the 80s, when these things
| would come out at yard sales and such. Pop up with "how much
| for this?" and watch someone turn deep pink; or alternately get
| the last bit of someones antique stash that the rest of their
| family was unaware of.
| Tagbert wrote:
| McDonald's briefly had these small plastic spoons as coffee
| stirrers in the 70's. They really looked almost designed for
| coke. We made a lot of fun about it. By the next year they
| had switched to a flat plastic stirrer that could not hold
| anything. I think they heard all the jokes about getting a
| Big Mac and a Coke.
|
| https://dangerousminds.net/content/uploads/images/made/conte.
| ..
| Stratoscope wrote:
| Harry Turtledove wrote a great SF short story in 1988 that
| relates to this:
|
| https://archive.org/stream/New_Destinies_06_1988-Winter_Gor
| g...
| ZanyProgrammer wrote:
| I'm not even sure many/any of those ads in the link were in
| anything resembling a mainstream publication in the first
| place.
| Multiplayer wrote:
| These ads showed up in rock magazines like Creem and
| rolling stone, playboy, oui, counter culture newspapers,
| etc.
| frankfrankfrank wrote:
| I am not sure if there is a name for this phenomenon, but
| it seems to be a frequent issue where, e.g., in this case
| some probably very limited run ads in obscure magazines
| only the fringe of society every even possibly saw are
| now in the future interpreted and assumed to have been
| seen by everyone, all the time, and were of far greater
| importance or impact than they really were in reality.
|
| Does anyone know if there is a term for that kind of
| "bias" or self-deception?
|
| The odd reflexive impact of that seems to be that today's
| historians and social sciences people are prone to
| falling prey to the "bias" and then weaving it into
| preconceived notions and narratives due to other biases
| like confirmation bias.
| h2odragon wrote:
| In this case, the ads were seen by far more people than
| understood them. Even those that asked and found out,
| many of them weren't interested and tuned it out mostly;
| so its not surprising if they do not remember it decades
| later.
|
| History never has much to do with what actually happened,
| anyhow.
| vkou wrote:
| It's just shoddy analysis of sources.
|
| You see it all the time on Facebook, or reddit, or
| wherever people post things like 'Did you know <group of
| ancient people believed> <something utterly ridiculous>
| without quantifying whether or not this was a common
| belief, or just a drinking story that they told.
|
| An outsider who isn't careful about this might make a
| similar claim that modern Americans believe in a heroic
| lumberjack giant called Paul Bunyan, who has a giant pet
| blue ox. This is technically correct, but is also utterly
| useless as a description of modern Americans.
| pessimizer wrote:
| All of the magazines mentioned had massive circulations
| and were available at every 7-11 in the country.
|
| A more interesting phenomenon is where media consumed by
| a tiny group of well-educated wealthy elites is
| considered universal or common. There's no way the New
| Yorker had a bigger circulation than Hustler in the 80s.
|
| edit: according to wikipedia, Hustler's peak circulation
| in the 80s was 3 million copies a month.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I remember buying one of those little "paper rose in a glass
| tube" things, at a 7-11, once. Someone told me what it's
| actually for (crack stem).
|
| In the 1970s (and eighties), people would grow their right
| pinky nail long.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7Nuac_rwgc&t=380s
| david_allison wrote:
| > I remember buying one of those little "paper rose in a
| glass tube" things, at a 7-11, once.
|
| Even has a Wikipedia article:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_rose
| [deleted]
| pessimizer wrote:
| My regular ice cream truck driver, in the very early 80s
| when I was maybe 7 years old, also dealt drugs out of the
| truck and had this long coke nail I was fascinated with.
| Everybody liked him, and he would front kids ice cream when
| they were broke.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Like so?
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIzRGHuJt_I
| kevinmchugh wrote:
| I can't picture which spoons you mean, but decorative or
| souvenir spoons are definitely a thing.
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Souvenir_spoon
| cj wrote:
| He's referring to the coke spoons pictured in the article.
|
| They're miniature size (e.g. only big enough for doing a
| bump of coke). Not full teaspoon size.
| matthewmcg wrote:
| I guess there's a fine line between drug innuendo and explicit
| promotion of drug use. A fine, powdered line...
| Tagbert wrote:
| I would follow Occam's Razor to choose one or the other.
| jacquesm wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7Nuac_rwgc
| krylon wrote:
| Most of those ads are bit ... on the nose.
| Lucasoato wrote:
| They snorted even that one.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| Curious fact: in the late 1880s there were about 300 opium dens
| in San Francisco.
| asdff wrote:
| There's probably more than 300 today in the tenderloin alone if
| you call a tent a den
| kabes wrote:
| Is it actually illegal to sell these kind of gadgets today in the
| US? Could you still advertise them?
| 7402 wrote:
| 21 U.S. Code SS 863 - Drug paraphernalia
|
| (a) In general It is unlawful for any person--
|
| (1) to sell or offer for sale drug paraphernalia; (2) to use
| the mails or any other facility of interstate commerce to
| transport drug paraphernalia; or (3) to import or export drug
| paraphernalia.
|
| (b) Penalties
|
| Anyone convicted of an offense under subsection (a) of this
| section shall be imprisoned for not more than three years and
| fined under title 18.
|
| (c) Seizure and forfeiture
|
| Any drug paraphernalia involved in any violation of subsection
| (a) of this section shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture
| upon the conviction of a person for such violation. Any such
| paraphernalia shall be delivered to the Administrator of
| General Services, General Services Administration, who may
| order such paraphernalia destroyed or may authorize its use for
| law enforcement or educational purposes by Federal, State, or
| local authorities.
|
| (d) "Drug paraphernalia" defined
|
| The term "drug paraphernalia" means any equipment, product, or
| material of any kind which is primarily intended or designed
| for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, concealing,
| producing, processing, preparing, injecting, ingesting,
| inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a
| controlled substance, possession of which is unlawful under
| this subchapter. It includes items primarily intended or
| designed for use in ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise
| introducing marijuana,[1] cocaine, hashish, hashish oil, PCP,
| methamphetamine, or amphetamines into the human body, such as--
| (1) metal, wooden, acrylic, glass, stone, plastic, or ceramic
| pipes with or without screens, permanent screens, hashish
| heads, or punctured metal bowls; (2) water pipes; (3)
| carburetion tubes and devices; (4) smoking and carburetion
| masks; (5) roach clips: meaning objects used to hold burning
| material, such as a marihuana cigarette, that has become too
| small or too short to be held in the hand; (6) miniature spoons
| with level capacities of one-tenth cubic centimeter or less;
| (7) chamber pipes; (8) carburetor pipes; (9) electric pipes;
| (10) air-driven pipes; (11) chillums; (12) bongs; (13) ice
| pipes or chillers; (14) wired cigarette papers; or (15) cocaine
| freebase kits.
|
| (e) Matters considered in determination of what constitutes
| drug paraphernalia In determining whether an item constitutes
| drug paraphernalia, in addition to all other logically relevant
| factors, the following may be considered:
|
| (1) instructions, oral or written, provided with the item
| concerning its use; (2) descriptive materials accompanying the
| item which explain or depict its use; (3) national and local
| advertising concerning its use; (4) the manner in which the
| item is displayed for sale; (5) whether the owner, or anyone in
| control of the item, is a legitimate supplier of like or
| related items to the community, such as a licensed distributor
| or dealer of tobacco products; (6) direct or circumstantial
| evidence of the ratio of sales of the item(s) to the total
| sales of the business enterprise; (7) the existence and scope
| of legitimate uses of the item in the community; and (8) expert
| testimony concerning its use.
|
| (f) Exemptions
|
| This section shall not apply to-- (1) any person authorized by
| local, State, or Federal law to manufacture, possess, or
| distribute such items; or (2) any item that, in the normal
| lawful course of business, is imported, exported, transported,
| or sold through the mail or by any other means, and
| traditionally intended for use with tobacco products, including
| any pipe, paper, or accessory.
|
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/863
| asdff wrote:
| Yet you can buy a huge bong in any headshop in the country.
| They still sell this stuff. It's not going to say "For
| Cocaine use only" or anything like that obviously.
| the_only_law wrote:
| I don't know about selling them, but you could maybe get
| charged for having them in many places, even without the
| respective drugs.
| antihero wrote:
| They are sold in the UK on eBay
| ulzeraj wrote:
| > These vintage ads for cocaine and cocaine paraphernalia show
| how crazy and disturbing the 1970s were.
|
| Things are more disturbing nowadays because people go through
| violent routes to get their drugs. Its still there and its worse
| but at least the sensible eyes of the millennial browsing the
| internet from his brand new M1 is protected. Hooray for the war
| on drugs.
| standardUser wrote:
| "Things are more disturbing nowadays because people go through
| violent routes to get their drugs. "
|
| As an avid drug user and part of a sprawling social group of
| avid drug users, we have no f*cking idea what you are talking
| about.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > Things are more disturbing nowadays because people go through
| violent routes to get their drugs.
|
| What?
|
| People seem to buy drugs online with cryptocurrency and receive
| it in the mail, an option which obviously didn't exist in the
| 70s.
|
| I have some friends involved in the treatment/recovery space.
| It's actually very challenging because the old technique of
| cutting ties with the user/dealer social circles is much less
| effective when reordering drugs online for delivery is just a
| few clicks away.
| j-pb wrote:
| The current iteration of the war on drugs is a "Greatest
| Generation" (Nixon et al.) invention and every generation since
| has suffered for it, but it goes back way further to
| prohibition times.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-23 23:00 UTC)