To be clear, within a given category, the addictive substance will prevail: there are clove cigarettes and there are tobacco cigarettes, and I’d contend tobacco sells more than cloves simply due to the addictive properties of nicotine. (Keep in mind that whatever mild euphoria caused by nicotine affects only new smokers... after several months of smoking, there are no euphoric effects: you smoke to get rid of the craving.)
As to your point, I’ll go one step further... while it’s an interesting article and all, the embarrassingly obvious alternative that was sort of glossed over is that, frankly, psychedelics aren’t very fun. The reason they didn’t spread, perhaps, is because not many people like them. Could be as simple as that. Why hasn’t escargot spread across the globe like beef has? Why Tuna but not calamari? No deep reason... it’s just that the majority of people don’t like snails or squids or — in this case — zoning out and watching walls melt.
More concisely, psychedelics are in a different category from alcohol and nicotine.
It’s apples and oranges. Or, more accurately, barley and mushrooms.
Alcohol and cocaine don't incapacitate you? Millions of drunks who completely pass out regularly might disagree.
I have heard of people claiming that psychedelics enhance their senses and there are professional surfers who have talked about taking LSD to improve their performance. Never heard of anyone doping with alcohol, though. Your comment made me curious and I did look it up: There are four sports that used to or still do test for alcohol as a banned substance in competitions. They are archery, air sports, motor racing and powerboating. It's easy to guess why.
Public intoxication is illegal in many places. My point is that you can be out in public (comfortably) while drinking whereas that’s less the case with other drugs like LSD. It’s not an absolute claim. I’m just saying the alternative explanation is at least plausible. I think I succeeded.
Can you be out drinking comfortably in Iran or Saudi Arabia? The legal situation and societal perception make a big difference. LSD doesn't exactly animate most to go out and seek large groups of people, but it's perfectly possible to be out and about and you likely wouldn't even know the person is tripping in most cases, unless you know them well or can tell by their pupils. It all depends on the cultural context. Drunks in public cause a ton of problems, hence why you mention yourself it's even illegal in some places to be drunk in public. Yet this is tolerated and hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by drunk people accidentally or even intentionally killing people are shrugged off by many in countries where drinking is accepted as a normal part of life.
Don't want to go all Joe Rogan on you but have you ever taken LSD? Apart from the fear of being on LSD in public, there's nothing stopping you from going out and having a good time while on it.
We seem to agree. LSD is not animating people to seek out groups of sober people. Alcohol is more likely to do that. The drug is incapacitating in a way the other isn’t. Plausibility for the alternative hypothesis is established. Last reply here.
LSD doesn't "animate" people to do anything else either. It's not incapacitating in any way (unlike alcohol), there are people doing extreme sports while on LSD. https://maps.org/news-letters/v21n1/v21n1-25to29.pdf
I understand you seem to think that psychedelics make people stay home and isolate but this is simply not the case.
To be clear, within a given category, the addictive substance will prevail: there are clove cigarettes and there are tobacco cigarettes, and I’d contend tobacco sells more than cloves simply due to the addictive properties of nicotine. (Keep in mind that whatever mild euphoria caused by nicotine affects only new smokers... after several months of smoking, there are no euphoric effects: you smoke to get rid of the craving.)
As to your point, I’ll go one step further... while it’s an interesting article and all, the embarrassingly obvious alternative that was sort of glossed over is that, frankly, psychedelics aren’t very fun. The reason they didn’t spread, perhaps, is because not many people like them. Could be as simple as that. Why hasn’t escargot spread across the globe like beef has? Why Tuna but not calamari? No deep reason... it’s just that the majority of people don’t like snails or squids or — in this case — zoning out and watching walls melt.
More concisely, psychedelics are in a different category from alcohol and nicotine.
It’s apples and oranges. Or, more accurately, barley and mushrooms.