Mixed up: Alcohol and Society

[bilby]

Alcohol IS a normal part of human life. For almost all of the last 5,000 years (or more), daily alcohol consumption was the norm for everyone* who was too old to drink their mother's milk.

This modern idea that you might spend some waking hours completely sober really only began to get any widespread traction with the industrial revolution, as it rapidly became clear that operating heavy machinery was a task best performed with a clear head, at least if you wanted to survive the experience.

Even then, beer was provided and/or considered perfectly normal at lunchtime for many workplaces until the late 20th Century. One place I worked as recently as the 1980s, it was practically mandatory for all the office staff to have a few pints with the boss at lunchtime in the pub next door.

These days having a few pints at lunchtime would get you fired.











*Apart from the odd religious nutter. Charles I was so keen to dodge puritan rumours that his wife was pushing him towards catholicism, that he let it be known that he drank only water. This was considered seriously unusual at the time; His subjects almost invariably drank beer for hydration, and gin to get drunk.

Smoking was also once a pervasively normal part of society.

I don't disagree that alcohol should be an intrinsic part of the human experience, but there is some subtlety there that we aren't accounting for.

Outside the Americas, smoking is a very modern phenomenon; It didn't really become common in Europe until the sixteenth century, or in Asia and Africa until the eighteenth - so it's been widespread for less than a tenth as long as drinking alcohol.

 

[rousseau]

Alcohol IS a normal part of human life. For almost all of the last 5,000 years (or more), daily alcohol consumption was the norm for everyone* who was too old to drink their mother's milk.

This modern idea that you might spend some waking hours completely sober really only began to get any widespread traction with the industrial revolution, as it rapidly became clear that operating heavy machinery was a task best performed with a clear head, at least if you wanted to survive the experience.

Even then, beer was provided and/or considered perfectly normal at lunchtime for many workplaces until the late 20th Century. One place I worked as recently as the 1980s, it was practically mandatory for all the office staff to have a few pints with the boss at lunchtime in the pub next door.

These days having a few pints at lunchtime would get you fired.











*Apart from the odd religious nutter. Charles I was so keen to dodge puritan rumours that his wife was pushing him towards catholicism, that he let it be known that he drank only water. This was considered seriously unusual at the time; His subjects almost invariably drank beer for hydration, and gin to get drunk.

Smoking was also once a pervasively normal part of society.

I don't disagree that alcohol should be an intrinsic part of the human experience, but there is some subtlety there that we aren't accounting for.

Outside the Americas, smoking is a very modern phenomenon; It didn't really become common in Europe until the sixteenth century, or in Asia and Africa until the eighteenth - so it's been widespread for less than a tenth as long as drinking alcohol.

Ok can we stray back to the point rather than away from it?

Yes the normalization and culture exists because we put it there, but there is no reason why we can't make gains to change this culture, or if not, just make people more aware of what their own relationship with alcohol actually is, and what the real health effects are.

 

[Sarpedon]

I disagree that drunkenness was the norm before the 20th century. After all, Islam was founded in the 700s and it bans alcohol consumption. While that prohibition is often ignored, the idea that sobriety was unheard of is absolutely false.

 

[ronburgundy]

To me, advertising's biggest effect is to normalize alcohol use. It isn't necessarily the associative, unconscious signals, but rather the idea that alcohol is an unquestionable part of human life.

Except the data I presented suggests that any role of such advertising is very small and weak at best. Cultural norms do have a big influence on behavior. But if ads were the primary shapers of cultural norms of drinking consumption, then the data I presented would be the opposite of what it is.
The evidence suggests that both individual behavior and the culture norms of behavior are not the product of ads.

With that in mind, I'd argue that a sizable component of those who drink, do so only because they haven't considered the possibility of doing otherwise.

That's an odd way to put it. They drink because it has natural appeal to them. Perhaps some of them haven't stopped because it there are so few non-drinkers to socialize with. But that is only the case because the vast majority of people like it. Also, I suspect that most drinkers do know people who don't drink and have met people don't and had the chance to revise the social circles to be less alcohol focused, yet they choose not to. Also, most drinkers go through periods of non-drinking for various reasons from losing weight, to getting over an illness, to being too busy with responsibilities. So, they have experience with variation in drinking and its impact on their well being, yet continue to return to drinking. So, I think you are talking about a small minority of drinkers.

Drinking is such a pervasive and accepted part of almost every culture in the world that people accept it as a way of life.

Ok, granted, people like alcohol because it's a lot of fun. But almost the entirety of humanity in 2018 will go through their lives without a single person saying to them: 'you know, maybe you only like alcohol because you're addicted to it, and you'd probably be happier if you just stopped'.

Yes the normalization and culture exists because we put it there, but there is no reason why we can't make gains to change this culture, or if not, just make people more aware of what their own relationship with alcohol actually is, and what the real health effects are.

Yes, drinking is the pervasive norm in all free societies, but advertising has played little role in that normalization. In fact, that very pervasiveness of drinking in every culture where it is not prohibited is just what is predicted by the theory that ads have little to do with it, and it is a natural byproduct of human nature and to innate appeal of its consumption.

Cultural norms can arise from top-down social coercion or be a byproduct of most people being naturally drawn to that act or idea. The only cultures where drinking is not the norm are those with the highest top-down authoritarian coercion against it (e.g., Islamic and other conservatively religious cultures). When people are more free to choose to drink or not a "drinking culture" naturally arises out of each person finding it intrinsically appealing, and if most people are personally inclined to do something than that is the "norm" as a simple matter of statistical artifact, and is not something that was "created by us" any more than cats have created cultural norms whereby most cats like tuna.

Sure, there is a minority of people who don't intrinsically like to drink but do so because most others do. They might be happier if they stopped drinking. But even they are not obeying the norm because of advertising. Going with the norms is also human nature, so if most people also naturally enjoy drinking then the minority that don't will naturally go along with it, without needing propaganda to do so. If anything propaganda is needed to get people to go against their natural tendencies. So, if you want to get people who are drinking only because it's "normal" to stop drinking, then that's where propaganda would be most needed.

But I would caution against propaganda that (like most anti-drug propaganda) overplays the "addiction" angle. It doesn't help the sobriety cause to throw around that word without sound scientific biological basis (i.e,, one's body reacts negatively to the absence of the substance and the person feels ill when not using) .
Unless "addiction" is tautologically defined to simply mean doing it alot or enjoying it (which sadly it often is used that way), then most drinkers are not drinking b/c they are addicted, any moreso than most people who exercise are only doing it because they are "addicted". Heck, even many of the people with a real addiction to alcohol are drinking for other reasons and the addiction is just a byproduct that would keep them from quitting if they wanted to, which they don't.

 

[bilby]

I disagree that drunkenness was the norm before the 20th century. After all, Islam was founded in the 700s and it bans alcohol consumption. While that prohibition is often ignored, the idea that sobriety was unheard of is absolutely false.

Nobody ever bans people from doing something that they are not in the habit of doing.

A prohibition on drinking is a very good indication that drinking is widespread behaviour.

You should note that I was quite clear that religious puritanism often led to abstinence; It also leads to celibacy and other such aberrations - but the fact that this occurs is more evidence for the normality of not abstaining. There's no point in demonstrating your devotion to God by doing what all the ordinary folk are doing, is there?

Puritanism is not limited to Christianity, and religions often ban things that people appear to be enjoying too much.

 

[ronburgundy]

I disagree that drunkenness was the norm before the 20th century. After all, Islam was founded in the 700s and it bans alcohol consumption. While that prohibition is often ignored, the idea that sobriety was unheard of is absolutely false.

Correct. Cultures like Islam that use violent authoritarianism to prohibit people from doing what they would prefer to do had and have "non drinking" as the norm. That only demonstrates that the prevailing norm of drinking is, unlike norms of non-drinking, a inherent byproduct of people doing what they want and since most want to drink that becomes the norm by statistical definition.

Throughout Europe the oldest buildings that are not churches are very often taverns, because for centuries they have been the most popular place for people to socialize and drinking is so widely valued for so long that more effort has been made to preserve houses of drink than most other structures.

 

[bilby]

I disagree that drunkenness was the norm before the 20th century. After all, Islam was founded in the 700s and it bans alcohol consumption. While that prohibition is often ignored, the idea that sobriety was unheard of is absolutely false.

Correct. Cultures like Islam that use violent authoritarianism to prohibit people from doing what they would prefer to do had and have "non drinking" as the norm. That only demonstrates that the prevailing norm of drinking is, unlike norms of non-drinking, a inherent byproduct of people doing what they want and since most want to drink that becomes the norm by statistical definition.

Throughout Europe the oldest buildings that are not churches are very often taverns, because for centuries they have been the most popular place for people to socialize and drinking is so widely valued for so long that more effort has been made to preserve houses of drink than most other structures.

...and hence a prime target for priests (including imams, rabbis, etc), who want a monopoly on, and control over, such socialization.

 

[rousseau]

Except the data I presented suggests that any role of such advertising is very small and weak at best. Cultural norms do have a big influence on behavior. But if ads were the primary shapers of cultural norms of drinking consumption, then the data I presented would be the opposite of what it is.
The evidence suggests that both individual behavior and the culture norms of behavior are not the product of ads.



That's an odd way to put it. They drink because it has natural appeal to them. Perhaps some of them haven't stopped because it there are so few non-drinkers to socialize with. But that is only the case because the vast majority of people like it. Also, I suspect that most drinkers do know people who don't drink and have met people don't and had the chance to revise the social circles to be less alcohol focused, yet they choose not to. Also, most drinkers go through periods of non-drinking for various reasons from losing weight, to getting over an illness, to being too busy with responsibilities. So, they have experience with variation in drinking and its impact on their well being, yet continue to return to drinking. So, I think you are talking about a small minority of drinkers.

Drinking is such a pervasive and accepted part of almost every culture in the world that people accept it as a way of life.

Ok, granted, people like alcohol because it's a lot of fun. But almost the entirety of humanity in 2018 will go through their lives without a single person saying to them: 'you know, maybe you only like alcohol because you're addicted to it, and you'd probably be happier if you just stopped'.

Yes the normalization and culture exists because we put it there, but there is no reason why we can't make gains to change this culture, or if not, just make people more aware of what their own relationship with alcohol actually is, and what the real health effects are.

Yes, drinking is the pervasive norm in all free societies, but advertising has played little role in that normalization. In fact, that very pervasiveness of drinking in every culture where it is not prohibited is just what is predicted by the theory that ads have little to do with it, and it is a natural byproduct of human nature and to innate appeal of its consumption.

Cultural norms can arise from top-down social coercion or be a byproduct of most people being naturally drawn to that act or idea. The only cultures where drinking is not the norm are those with the highest top-down authoritarian coercion against it (e.g., Islamic and other conservatively religious cultures). When people are more free to choose to drink or not a "drinking culture" naturally arises out of each person finding it intrinsically appealing, and if most people are personally inclined to do something than that is the "norm" as a simple matter of statistical artifact, and is not something that was "created by us" any more than cats have created cultural norms whereby most cats like tuna.

Sure, there is a minority of people who don't intrinsically like to drink but do so because most others do. They might be happier if they stopped drinking. But even they are not obeying the norm because of advertising. Going with the norms is also human nature, so if most people also naturally enjoy drinking then the minority that don't will naturally go along with it, without needing propaganda to do so. If anything propaganda is needed to get people to go against their natural tendencies. So, if you want to get people who are drinking only because it's "normal" to stop drinking, then that's where propaganda would be most needed.

But I would caution against propaganda that (like most anti-drug propaganda) overplays the "addiction" angle. It doesn't help the sobriety cause to throw around that word without sound scientific biological basis (i.e,, one's body reacts negatively to the absence of the substance and the person feels ill when not using) .
Unless "addiction" is tautologically defined to simply mean doing it alot or enjoying it (which sadly it often is used that way), then most drinkers are not drinking b/c they are addicted, any moreso than most people who exercise are only doing it because they are "addicted". Heck, even many of the people with a real addiction to alcohol are drinking for other reasons and the addiction is just a byproduct that would keep them from quitting if they wanted to, which they don't.

Yea, I already said I agree with you, and again with much of what you've just stated above. Essentially my point is 'just because it's normal doesn't mean we can't be smarter about it'.

The world was a thoroughly fucked up place as late as a few decades ago, and in many regions still is. And alcohol is something I don't think many societies have really thought critically about yet, in the same way we hadn't yet thought critically about smoking in the 50s and 60s.

- - - Updated - - -

Alcohol appeared early in human civilization.

In the 19th century in America alcohol was consumed daily as a pain killer in hard farm work. In the late 19th century alcoholism align with opium adduction became epidemic. Opium was a trade commodity. It led to prohibition and govt regulation of drugs. We are awash in movies, TV shows, and TV ads that equate alcohol with youth and vitality.

It is essentially insidious propaganda like repetitive programming sating with the young. James Dean appearing in a movie with a cigarette pack rolled up in a T-shirt sleeve was mimicked by young men.

Modern video advertising is essentially brainwashing. Reputation of image and message getting embedded in the brain. The movie Animal House undoubtedly popularized binge drinking as fun.

Pop media and advertising have little to do with alcohol consumption. IF they did, the US would lead the world in consumption since we lead the world in amount of media and advertising consumption. Yet in per capita consumption, the US is actually behind most of the developed world, including the UK, most of Western Europe, Russia, and Australia.

Humans in every corner of the globe have figured out how to turn everything they can into consumable alcohol and have been doing it for longer than they have been making leavened bread. Most humans who have the freedom, means and access to drink alcohol do so on a semi regular basis. This is because intoxication has innate appeal to most humans.

Binge drinking was popularized as fun by the fact that it is fun, as are many things that are also harmful. Animal House was a reflection of already existing reality. Keg party ragers had been going on among high school and college students well before 1978.
If anything binge drinking among adolescents and young adults in the US is increased by restrictive attitudes about alcohol consumption and prohibitions against them consuming it. They are never allowed to have any, so when they get the opportunity they go whole hog.

I don't disagree with any of this, but I think there is still a point to be made.

To me, advertising's biggest effect is to normalize alcohol use. It isn't necessarily the associative, unconscious signals, but rather the idea that alcohol is an unquestionable part of human life. With that in mind, I'd argue that a sizable component of those who drink, do so only because they haven't considered the possibility of doing otherwise. Drinking is such a pervasive and accepted part of almost every culture in the world that people accept it as a way of life.

Ok, granted, people like alcohol because it's a lot of fun. But almost the entirety of humanity in 2018 will go through their lives without a single person saying to them: 'you know, maybe you only like alcohol because you're addicted to it, and you'd probably be happier if you just stopped'.

Yes the normalization and culture exists because we put it there, but there is no reason why we can't make gains to change this culture, or if not, just make people more aware of what their own relationship with alcohol actually is, and what the real health effects are.

Also, granted it's not clear to me that any of that would make an iota of difference.

..

 

[rousseau]

Heck, even many of the people with a real addiction to alcohol are drinking for other reasons and the addiction is just a byproduct that would keep them from quitting if they wanted to, which they don't.

I think it would be fair to say that people would be served by understanding what addiction actually is.

Many people conflate desire and addiction. Usually the desire only exists because of the addiction, but literally nobody gets that. If you understand that and still choose to drink, fair enough. But people should at least be taught that being addicted to something isn't the same thing as intrinsically liking it.

 

[ronburgundy]

Heck, even many of the people with a real addiction to alcohol are drinking for other reasons and the addiction is just a byproduct that would keep them from quitting if they wanted to, which they don't.

I think it would be fair to say that people would be served by understanding what addiction actually is.

Many people conflate desire and addiction. Usually the desire only exists because of the addiction, but literally nobody gets that. If you understand that and still choose to drink, fair enough. But people should at least be taught that being addicted to something isn't the same thing as intrinsically liking it.

It is true that people conflate desire and addiction, which is wrong because the vast majority of desire is not addiction nor caused by addiction. Thus, the conflation leads to people throwing around "addiction" when most of the time it does not apply. Basically, take two desires and their related actions that are psychologically not very different and neither have a biological addiction for the person. If someone thinks that people should not engage in one of the behaviors, they'll label that an "addiction" to try and shame people out of it.

This invalid overuse of "addiction" make it easier for those who actually do have and addiction to dismiss such claims about themselves since so many of such claims are reasonably dismissable.

 

[rousseau]

Heck, even many of the people with a real addiction to alcohol are drinking for other reasons and the addiction is just a byproduct that would keep them from quitting if they wanted to, which they don't.

I think it would be fair to say that people would be served by understanding what addiction actually is.

Many people conflate desire and addiction. Usually the desire only exists because of the addiction, but literally nobody gets that. If you understand that and still choose to drink, fair enough. But people should at least be taught that being addicted to something isn't the same thing as intrinsically liking it.

It is true that people conflate desire and addiction, which is wrong because the vast majority of desire is not addiction nor caused by addiction. Thus, the conflation leads to people throwing around "addiction" when most of the time it does not apply. Basically, take two desires and their related actions that are psychologically not very different and neither have a biological addiction for the person. If someone thinks that people should not engage in one of the behaviors, they'll label that an "addiction" to try and shame people out of it.

This invalid overuse of "addiction" make it easier for those who actually do have and addiction to dismiss such claims about themselves since so many of such claims are reasonably dismissable.

Sure, but I'm not talking about invalid claims of addiction, I'm talking about literal addiction, which I still think is much more prevalent in the world of alcohol than we realize. Sure, I see your point that the addiction is sometimes a corollary of the desire, but I also think the converse is more true than people realize.

Case in point, when I was a smoker I was convinced that I loved smoking, and could never go without it. Once I beat the addiction I had no craving for cigarettes at all. The desire in that case was most definitely contingent on the addiction. My body was physiologically dependent on tobacco, so I craved tobacco.

The same is true of alcohol, and the same is true with almost everything else we consume that alters the physiology of our brain. If you change the habit, you change the desire because your brain becomes attuned to the new set of things you're consuming.

But with alcohol social inertia often hooks people at a young age, and they become physiologically dependent throughout life, just like any other thing, Coke, Candy, you name it. Ok fair enough, people still like drinking. From the very start of this thread I've accepted that. But I don't think many consumers are aware of this model of addiction.

With this model in mind I've quite literally changed my entire life, and have architected my own habits, by changing the things my body craves. I rarely eat candy, rarely drink, eat very healthy, and I enjoy it because that's what I've made my neurophysiology contingent on.

With the level of scientific literacy out there these days, this isn't a thing many people understand.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The people I know who enjoy alcohol have a low tolerance for alcohol. IOW if they drink too much they get sick and regret it for days afterwards. But they enjoy the buzz and imbibe regularly.

The people I know who are addicted or who drink too much for their own good have a high tolerance for alcohol. They cannot drink themselves to a point of sickness. They can certainly drink themselves to a point of intoxication but will not be talking to the porcelain god that evening.

The people I know who drink too much always have alcohol breath.

Alcohol is a poison, just like every other medication we may take.

 

[Tharmas]

[snip]

Alcohol is a poison, just like every other medication we may take.

Note that the root of "intoxication" is "toxic".

 

[steve_bank]

That is utterly ignorant.

If I say King Of Beers or cola what comes to mind? You are programed with unconscious connections. That is what advertising does. Before WWII and the Nazis propaganda was a common term in advertising.

Yes, I have that word association, and yet haven't drank Budweiser in 35 years, despite that association being far stronger now than when I did drink it at age 16, and despite that association being as strong in my mind as it is in people who drink it everyday, and it is also strong in the minds of people who never drink beer or drink alcohol at all.

The very fact you could expect that I have that association and yet have no idea how much I drink of Budweiser or in general is because there is very little relationship between such word associations created by that advertising and what alcohol people drink, and even less on how much they drink or if they drink at all. The influence of such ads is largely limited to getting people who are already going to drink alcohol and drink something very close to that specific type of alcohol at that price point to be slightly more likely to choose a specific brand rather than randomly choose between Bud and Miller. Even that brand loyalty effect is very weak, but the sheer amount of beer consumed due to its innate appeal means that the weak effect can mean millions in extra profit for a specific brand.
Since 99% of the people who see the ad will be unaffected, it is only profitable to advertise if that 1% amount to alot of people, which is why 99% of TV ads are by already large companies whose product is readily available to everyone who might see the ad. Only then, does an impact on 1% of viewers result in a net profit of advertising.

Again, if your theory that ads and media were a major cause for the prevalence of drinking or even if there was any sizable causal impact of such ads on drinking, then the countries, such as the US, where people are exposed more of such advertising b/c we watch more TV would drink more per capita. It doesn't matter that these countries differ in other ways. A meaningful impact of advertising would still produce a modest correlation with the US near the top of alcohol consumption. Yet this is not only not the case, but it is the opposite of what is true, with the US watching more alcohol ads yet drinking less per capita than almost all countries in Europe plus Russia, Australia, and Canada.

The same is true when you look at these variables at level of states within the US. The 10 states with highest per-capita consumption are New Hampshire, North and South Dakota, Wisconsin, Vermont, Montana, Colorado, Delaware, Alaska, and Idaho (not counting Nevada b/c Vegas makes it highly atypical) . Yet, 4 of those 10 states are among the lowest in TV viewing, while another 4 are also below average. In contrast, with the exception of the unusual case of Mormon controlled Utah, the 5 states with the lowest levels of TV ad exposure at are all above the national average and mostly near the very top in per capita alcohol consumption (e.g., AK, KS, OK, GA, KY, and WV). IOW, if anything there is a negative correlation at the state and national levels between amount of exposure to TV alcohol ads and amount of alcohol consumption, which doesn't bode well for your theory that ads are a primary cause of alcohol use.

Notice what does relate to which states drink the most? How cold and rural they are. People drink mostly because it is naturally fun and feels good to do so and they don't need Budweiser to tell them this. That is why the less other forms of entertainment and distraction there are due to being in rural areas where its often too cold to be outdoors, the more people use drink as a form of entertainment.

Alcohol has been around since the dawn of civilization. Before water purification it was a safe source for water, and was also a source of nutrition. Same with drugs.

People consumed alchohol; because it killed pain in a physcaly hardh world.

I read a history of winemaking. At the peak winemakers and field workers for wine were in high regard. They had special contracts with perks.

Well before Rome wine was a major trading commodity in the Mediterranean. Wine was the soda pop of the times. Everybody drank.\\Intoxication and socialization go far back. Drugs and alchohol.

I think Bud is crap, haven't had it in decades. Henry Weinhardt and some other regional beers. I sopped drinking after my heart failure a few years ago. I had been sipping whine and weak whiskey for pain.

You can google The Whiskey Rebellion. Under Washington as POTUS a tax was placed on stills, even private stills farmers used to make their own alcohol. There was an uprising and Washington used the militia to deal with it.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vino_veritas


Sun dial in the Chateau de Pommard, France
In vino veritas, also written as in uino ueritas, is a Latin phrase that means "in wine lies the truth", suggesting a person under the influence of alcohol is more likely to speak their hidden thoughts and desires. The phrase is sometimes continued as, "In vino veritas, in aqua sanitas", i.e., "In wine there is truth, in water there is health." Similar phrases exist across cultures and languages.

The expression, together with its counterpart in Greek, "Ἐν οἴνῳ ἀλήθεια" (En oinōi alētheia), is found in Erasmus' Adagia, I.vii.17.[1] Pliny the Elder's Naturalis historia contains an early allusion to the phrase.[2] The Greek expression is quoted by Athenaeus of Naucratis in his Deipnosophistae ; it is now traced back to a poem by Alcaeus.[3]

Herodotus asserts that if the Persians decided something while drunk, they made a rule to reconsider it when sober. Authors after Herodotus have added that if the Persians made a decision while sober, they made a rule to reconsider it when they were drunk (Histories, book 1, section 133).[4] The Roman historian Tacitus described how the Germanic peoples kept council at feasts, where they believed that drunkenness prevented the participants from dissembling.[5]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soma_(drink)


Part of a series on
Hinduism
Om symbol.svg
Hindu History
Concepts[show]
Schools[show]
Deities[show]
Texts[show]
Practices[show]
Gurus, saints, philosophers[show]
Society[show]
Other topics[show]
Glossary of Hinduism terms
Aum Om red.svg Hinduism portal
vte
In Vedic tradition, soma (Sanskrit: सोम) or haoma (Avestan) is a ritual drink[1] of importance among the early Indians. The Rigveda mentions it, particularly in the Soma Mandala. In the Avestan literature, the entire Yasht 20 and Yasna 9–11 treat of haoma.

The texts describe the preparation of soma by means of extracting the juice from a plant, the identity of which is now unknown and debated among scholars. In both the ancient religions of Historical Vedic religion and Zoroastrianism, the name of the drink and the plant are the same.[citation needed]

There has been much speculation about the most likely identity of the original plant. Traditional accounts with unbroken continuity in Southern India, from Ayurveda and Siddha medicine practitioners and Somayajna ritualists undoubtedly use "Somalata" (Sarcostemma acidum).[2] Non-Indian researchers have proposed candidates including Amanita muscaria, Psilocybe cubensis, Peganum harmala and Ephedra sinica.

 

[barbos]

Alcohol has been around since the dawn of civilization. Before water purification it was a safe source for water, and was also a source of nutrition. Same with drugs.

People consumed alchohol; because it killed pain in a physcaly hardh world.

White people maybe and not even all of them. Folk in Italy and Caucasus evolved to tolerate alcohol rather well. Asians are very bad at it.

 

[Tigers!]

Alcohol IS a normal part of human life. For almost all of the last 5,000 years (or more), daily alcohol consumption was the norm for everyone* who was too old to drink their mother's milk.

This modern idea that you might spend some waking hours completely sober really only began to get any widespread traction with the industrial revolution, as it rapidly became clear that operating heavy machinery was a task best performed with a clear head, at least if you wanted to survive the experience.

Even then, beer was provided and/or considered perfectly normal at lunchtime for many workplaces until the late 20th Century. One place I worked as recently as the 1980s, it was practically mandatory for all the office staff to have a few pints with the boss at lunchtime in the pub next door.

When I joined Telecom Australia in 1983 that was the expected behaivour. Being a non-drinker was hard - you were treated with suspicion. Until about 1985 when 2 court cases involved drunken Telecom workers who assaulted women after their lunch drinking. I nearly lost my job in one of those cases as I was the supervisor of one of those men. After that Telecom banned lunch drinking and it was a better place to work at. > 30 years later I still do not like dealing with drunks or those under the influence.

These days having a few pints at lunchtime would get you fired.

Amen to that. Despite the scare campaign no one has died because they could not get ad rink at lunch time.