This is a common refrain but at the same time it seems to be the one substance commonly used across most of the world since ancient times. None of the other supposedly less harmful, banned drugs are so ubiquitous. Perhaps there's a good reason for this (besides varying availability of other substances)?
Nope, I'm quite convinced it's the varying availability of the other substances.
Coffee, tea, and tobacco, became at least as widespread once global trade made that possible. Coca was late to the party because it doesn't grow well outside of its native region.
Cannabis is an odd one, in that it was extremely widespread and making solid inroads in Europe and North America, when it became a weapon for United States racial policy, and a jobs program for federal police after the repeal of Prohibition. Coca and cocaine got caught up in the same dragnet.
Opium and its derivatives are genuinely pernicious and attempts to normalize their use outside of medicine have been resisted repeatedly throughout history.
Which leaves psychedelics, which are... weird, and also were largely unknown until some anthropologists in the 40s and 50s drew attention to them.
The history of 'modern' drug prohibition owes more to politics than the inherent properties of the substances in question.
You left out refined sugar in its many forms. In total deaths and disease as well as cost to society dwarfs everything. The combination of being legal, advertised, and by some measures as addictive as any others is tough to beat.
One good reason is because alcoholic beverages could be stored for long periods of time and be safe for drinking. Water can become contaminated over time if bacteria is allowed to grow while it’s being stored, so it has to be relatively fresh to drink. Other options like milk would spoil quickly. Alcohol generally didn’t have these issues, giving it some utility that outweighed its advantages.
In an age where other beverages are as easily accessible for people living in the modern world, it’s utility isn’t there any more and you are left with all the downsides.
is it plausible humans initially hated the taste of alcohol and suffered worse hangovers, but in a manner of a few thousand years descend from ancestors who selected for high euphoria and strong livers.... all because alcohol was healthier than water?
> None of the other supposedly less harmful, banned drugs are so ubiquitous
You get alcohol when fruit spoils. Our experience with it is quite literally as old as foraging. This doesn't tell us anything about how harmful or not harmful alcohol is.
As far as ubiquity, plant-based substances had to follow migration or trade routes to gain use outside of their native habitats. Alcohol was coextensive with any food .
The fact that alcohol has been a part of human existence for so long might support my hypothesis, if you believe that humans physiology is at least partly shaped by human dietary habits over many thousands of years.
Fermentation is a great way to store excess food, which is why there's a ton of fermented foods across cultures. For civilizations centered around cereal crops, it makes sense that you'd see a lot of fermented cereal crops such as beer.
You can definitely see the benefit for an ancient civilization, since you're able to store many more calories which allows you to grow a much larger population base. But like many things associated with the move to agrarian civilizations, being good for the civilization doesn't necessarilly correlate with being good for the individual.
I'm sorry, which pathogens are killed by imbibing alcohol? I've never heard of such a thing, even historically.
Edit: Next time I'll do a cursory googling before commenting. This is apparently an existing hypothesis for common types of bacteria such as e coli, salmonella, etc in the drink itself, not in the body.
Alcohol is more dangerous than all other drugs, in my experience (been addicted to alcohol and heroin in the past, and have abused every common drug) and in my opinion.
The addiction rate for cocaine/heroin/meth may be higher, but the negative effects of those drugs mostly stem from the high cost (theft) and insane profit margins (murder). If a heroin addict could get their supply for $5/day (and have it be pure heroin w no fentanyl) then nearly all of the negatives would disappear.
It's somewhat more subtle, pure medical grade methamphetamine (desoxyn) taken orally is theoretically the best ADD medicine available but it's almost never prescribed for political reasons.
Meth has lot less sympathetic side effects than dextroamphetamine per unit of dopaminergic stimulation, this simple difference enables abuser to consume ridiculously large dose and those high doses are destructive.
Amphetamine-like drugs are used as pills or capsules, powder, or fluid, and can be ingested orally, smoked, insufflated, or injected intravenously. They cause euphoria but tolerance develops rapidly. Clinically evident effects of the two drugs are nearly indistinguishable, but methamphetamine appears to be a more potent stimulant. Amphetamine and methamphetamine induce euphoria, increased energy, alertness and libido, agitation and anxiety, increased locomotor activity and stereotypical movements, as well as hyperthermia, increased heart rate and blood pressure, vasoconstriction, bronchodilatation, hyperglycemia, and suppress appetite. Psychosis, hyperkinesia, seizures, and coma have been described in emergency patients. Chronic users may develop behavioral disorders, impulsivity, punding (non-goal directed repetitive activities), hallucinations, tremor, choreoathetosis, dystonias, ataxia, and gait disturbances (41–43). Stereotyped involuntary choreoathetotic hyperkinesias are characteristic in arms, neck and head, and usually disappear during sleep, while teeth grinding (bruxism) may occur during day and night. Movement disorders may develop during abuse or abstinence, and though they a usually resolve within few days, they may remain for a long time in some cases, even after the abuse of amphetamines is stopped. Treatment with benzodiazepines or neuroleptics may be of benefit (43–45). Choreiform movements have developed as an adverse effect in the therapeutic setting of amphetamine used in the treatment of ADHD in adult and pediatric patients (46, 47).
Yes, the dose makes the poison and yes medicl amphetamines are sometimes abused but the literature you cited¹ isn't really about the medical use of amphetamines. Those papers are about the abuse of amphetamines.
From my experience with Vyvanse I find that amphetamines have a dose response function with linear and exponential steps. 15mg is barely perceptible, 30mg is like a coffee without the anxiety but it last 8 hours. 45mg is like 30mg but a little longer. 60mg in 2 doses (first pill at 7am and next one at 9am) is a perfect treatment against my ADD. Once I tried 90mg and it was terrible, I experienced bruxism, anxiety and hyperacidity for 18 hours. I am sure that I would develop the problems you listed if I were to take 90mg a day but 90mg of Vyvanse is supratherapeutic...
1:
Link 41 is about abuse (supratherapeutic and frequent doses).
Link 43 I can't comment as I don't have acces but it's an old paper from 1988...
Link 45 is about abuse again.
Link 46 is about accidental ingestion by a baby. (a therapeutic dose for a teenager is clearly supratherapeutic in a 8months infant)
Link 47 is probably about abuse (the abstract talk of reversible consequences of dose escalation) but I don't have acces to the paper.
You can't avoid capillary vasoconstriction at any dose and that's what makes your teeth rot and gums go bad. Nothing you can do about that. I've used Adderall and Vyvanse many many years ago for "ADHD" as well. Bad breath and increased gum issues made me stop well before any damage occurred.
I remember seeing a study a few years ago that showed a lot of the negatives from Meth weren't inherent in the drug but from behaviors it encourages; like not sleeping.
I don't think I would say it "encourages" not sleeping. Rather it makes sleeping impossible. And that has bad effects. Drug causes something which causes something else, so you could say it is not the drug but its effects, but I would say that means it is the drug that causes it all. Don't take it if you don't want those "side-effects".
This is a terrible solution. Writing is part of the developers job requirements. And writing doesn't just happen in documentation. It happens in emails, technical specs, presentations, code comments. Developers should maybe just get better at their job because documenting and writing is part of it.
Writing is part of developer job requirements, sure.
Is technical writing part of your interviews? do you hire, promote or fire people based on technical writing performance? Is documentation taken as seriously as other code deliverables?
Why paying an expensive senior developer to maintain documentation in a non-commited way when you can pay a technical writer to do it better and for cheaper than the engineer can?
And with real ownership and accountability over documentation, unlike the engineers.
Technical writers are cost efficient and pay themselves very quickly.
A majority of credit card fees goes to the issuing bank. Like a huge percentage of it. Visa and credit card processors take a much smaller percentage relative to the banks.
Yes - the banks then hand a substantial portion of these fees back to the customer via credit card rewards.
We have a bizarre system where retailers mark everything up an extra 2%, to give their more well-off customers (that pay with decent credit cards) an effective 2% discount and the ability to dispute charges.
I think retailers would love a new system with less transaction fees, but banks definitely would not, and some customers may not either if it means sacrificing their credit card rewards and perks.
Miami has had a nice cultural revolution in the last 10 years or so. A lot more art and culture than before and tons of things to do besides partying on South Beach. Many areas of Miami feel more like SF in LA than Trump country.
