DARE: The Anti-Drug Program That Never Actually Worked • Hacker News Board

Re: DARE: The Anti-Drug Program That Never Actually Worked

#61

Post by MichaelGG » Sat, Oct 03, 2015, 7:12 AM UTC

FireBeyond wrote: post #43

mratzloff wrote: post #6

I think Randy Marsh from "South Park" had the most effective anti-marijuana speech I've ever heard: Stan: I've been told a lot of things about pot, but I've come to find out a lot of those things aren't true! So I don't know what to believe! Randy: Well, Stan, the truth is marijuana probably isn't gonna make you kill people, and it most likely isn't gonna fund terrorism, but… well, son, pot makes you feel fine with b…

If you want to convince teenagers not to try (certain) drugs - have them watch Trainspotting and Requiem For A Dream. Emotionally punishing, both of them.

Eh Trainspotting has a decent chance of encouraging heroin use. At least that was my (apparently not too uncommon) reaction to the film. Requiem seemed too nonsensical.

And all they really do is show that you should have money and the real problems aren't the drugs but finances and society.

Re: DARE: The Anti-Drug Program That Never Actually Worked

#62

Post by MichaelGG » Sat, Oct 03, 2015, 7:12 AM UTC

hristov wrote: post #56

pstuart wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> LSD leads to a high danger of psychosis or schizophrenia Citations please. It's a powerful drug but has incredible value when used properly. If you're going to start wringing your hands over dangerous drugs, start with the killers of today: alcohol, tobacco, and prescription drugs.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM196512022732302

Do you have the text of it? Wikipedia has a small quote which doesn't back it up:

"The 3 patients in whom an extended psychosis followed a single ingestion of LSD clearly had long standing schizophrenia..."

The page on it is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD_and_schizophrenia - there doesn't seem to be any strong studies. A small increased risk is possible/likely.

On the flip side, many folks seem to feel LSD is one of the most meaningful experiences they've had in life. It seems reasonable that healthy people should seek out such an experience in a controlled, safe, environment.

Re: DARE: The Anti-Drug Program That Never Actually Worked

#63

Post by Bouncingsoul1 » Sat, Oct 03, 2015, 7:17 AM UTC

digi_owl wrote: post #58

hristov wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody has ever done any great writing while stoned. Even Hunter S. Thompson, one of the most pro-drug writers ever, said that pot is the only drug that prevents him from doing any good work. And no, people should not try LSD. LSD leads to a high danger of psychosis or schizophrenia, and that is no fun at all. It is better not to risk it. Just because you may have gotten lucky so far, there is no reason to invite oth…

> said that pot is the only drug that prevents him from doing any good work. And this is where i suspect the big anti-pot push is coming from. With alcohol you can go out for some beers after work, get buzzed, get up the next day with a nagging ache, and still come back to work. With pot it is more likely that you go "fuck work!". End result, pot is not good for business. Looking across history, there is a whole mess…

For me it is quite the opposite, I prefer to stay at home if I have nagging headache after having to much, on the other hand I never had such an issue with pot.

Re: DARE: The Anti-Drug Program That Never Actually Worked

#64

Post by joslin01 » Sat, Oct 03, 2015, 7:57 AM UTC

Haha DARE. Oh yes, I remember it well -- I got all the stickers you could by giving some bogus talks about God knows what. It made me pretty excited for middle school where I was being trained to Just Say No to all the random kids that would be coming up to me offering me drugs. Of course by the time I got to middle school, my DARE officer had been fired for smoking weed in his pimped out DARE cop car. A few years after that, I would be getting high nearly every day in high school. Great stickers though.

Re: DARE: The Anti-Drug Program That Never Actually Worked

#65

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 03, 2015, 8:06 AM UTC

cbgb wrote: post #35

ossreality wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I almost want to login to my non-throwaway/hellbanned account just to laugh at this notion. The times I've been most curious. Most engrossed in a piece of new tech has been when I'm high. Some night, I will go home from a 9-10 hour work day and get high to relax and make dinner and then go to bed... but will wind up reading about the latest and greatest in container tech, or whatever. The notion that pot makes you di…

I think that what you may be experiencing is a heightened sense of concentration toward a passion of yours that you were passionate about before you smoked pot. However, think about children who smoke pot from an early age and don't develop the kind of curiosity that I'm sure proceeded the pot smoking you're talking about. Did you first discover your passions while you were young, impressionable, and smoking pot? Or…

[deleted]

Re: DARE: The Anti-Drug Program That Never Actually Worked

#66

Post by sandworm101 » Sat, Oct 03, 2015, 8:15 AM UTC

The children were never the target audience. Programs like DARE always reflect the wants of those who fund them, not those they try to help. Nancy Reagan and countless othersi power believed abstinence was the best tool for most any vice. So DARE reflected that simple mindset.

My experience of DARE was that it had little to do with drugs. It seemed focused on getting cops into classrooms. The ones who came to our class were always horrible. They openly lied to us about drugs, cars and even the law. We played with them. The goal was to get the cop red-faced mad by asking simple questions. One handed out something he called cocaine, but we instantly discovered was just baking powder.

If any chief is reading this: Do not sent a bicycle cop in spandex shorts to talk to boys wearing blazers and ties.

Re: DARE: The Anti-Drug Program That Never Actually Worked

#67

Post by stuaxo » Sat, Oct 03, 2015, 8:31 AM UTC

MichaelGG wrote: post #61

FireBeyond wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to convince teenagers not to try (certain) drugs - have them watch Trainspotting and Requiem For A Dream. Emotionally punishing, both of them.

Eh Trainspotting has a decent chance of encouraging heroin use. At least that was my (apparently not too uncommon) reaction to the film. Requiem seemed too nonsensical. And all they really do is show that you should have money and the real problems aren't the drugs but finances and society.

I'm curious about how, it seemed pretty horrible what thy were going through.

Re: DARE: The Anti-Drug Program That Never Actually Worked

#68

Post by xj9 » Sat, Oct 03, 2015, 9:01 AM UTC

cbgb wrote: post #35

ossreality wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I almost want to login to my non-throwaway/hellbanned account just to laugh at this notion. The times I've been most curious. Most engrossed in a piece of new tech has been when I'm high. Some night, I will go home from a 9-10 hour work day and get high to relax and make dinner and then go to bed... but will wind up reading about the latest and greatest in container tech, or whatever. The notion that pot makes you di…

I think that what you may be experiencing is a heightened sense of concentration toward a passion of yours that you were passionate about before you smoked pot. However, think about children who smoke pot from an early age and don't develop the kind of curiosity that I'm sure proceeded the pot smoking you're talking about. Did you first discover your passions while you were young, impressionable, and smoking pot? Or…

Teenagers should not smoke cannabis or consume alcohol, not because it is harmful to adults, but because it is harmful to them. Teenagers should not consume any kind of mind-altering substance because it fucks their their brain development. There are very few proven negative side-effects of cannabis on healthy adults.

Re: DARE: The Anti-Drug Program That Never Actually Worked

#69

Post by Cthulhu_ » Sat, Oct 03, 2015, 9:06 AM UTC

hristov wrote: post #44

astazangasta wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, just do drugs. I mean, LSD is great, and people should try it. Smoking pot is also nice, I've done some great writing while stoned. Heck, Paul Erdos did amphetamines his whole life. Why are we trying to convince everyone not to do drugs again?

Nobody has ever done any great writing while stoned. Even Hunter S. Thompson, one of the most pro-drug writers ever, said that pot is the only drug that prevents him from doing any good work. And no, people should not try LSD. LSD leads to a high danger of psychosis or schizophrenia, and that is no fun at all. It is better not to risk it. Just because you may have gotten lucky so far, there is no reason to invite oth…

To everyone, you should read The Episode (http://www.stilldrinking.org/the-episode-part-1), a series of blog posts by Peter Welch, most famous for his 'Programming Sucks' post, in which he describes his experiences with going completely batshit insane after a week without sleep plus LSD. It's a great piece of one person's experiences with LSD use gone wrong.

edit: actually he's published it as as an ebook too, titled "And Then I Thought I Was A Fish": http://www.amazon.co.uk/And-Then-Thought-Was-Fish-ebook/dp/B...

Re: DARE: The Anti-Drug Program That Never Actually Worked

#70

Post by throwawaymonoid » Sat, Oct 03, 2015, 9:09 AM UTC

hristov wrote: post #44

astazangasta wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, just do drugs. I mean, LSD is great, and people should try it. Smoking pot is also nice, I've done some great writing while stoned. Heck, Paul Erdos did amphetamines his whole life. Why are we trying to convince everyone not to do drugs again?

Nobody has ever done any great writing while stoned. Even Hunter S. Thompson, one of the most pro-drug writers ever, said that pot is the only drug that prevents him from doing any good work. And no, people should not try LSD. LSD leads to a high danger of psychosis or schizophrenia, and that is no fun at all. It is better not to risk it. Just because you may have gotten lucky so far, there is no reason to invite oth…

I'd encourage you to re-think your views.

"Drugs" is a legal delineation, not one of substance. Like every substance you consume, amount, frequency--and sometimes intent--matter far more than molecular composition.

In regard to LSD specifically, please note that the link to schizophrenia has since been proven null, and the individuals studied were already displaying signs of the disorder. Further research in more recent years, while limited, has been unable to find any correlation between incidents of mental illness and the use of hallucinogenics.

As per cannabis... without it I'd most certainly be addicted to Rx painkillers. I like knowing that if I travel or go somewhere it's prohibited, I won't suffer crippling withdrawals. In fact, aside from the return of a dull aching pain from chronic hyper-flexion, I wouldn't notice anything other than increasingly vivid dreams caused by REM rebound. For me it's a clear choice. It allows me to function, and unlike other pain management regimens, after 7 years its minimum effective dose (MED) despite daily administration remains unchanged; if I skip a day or 6 months, my pain is not magnitudes above baseline.

I'm not here to tout the benefits of marijuana, but to explain how drugs are an indifferent tool, and just because they are harmful in one context doesn't mean we should discount their usefulness in another. Their value is relative.

Because of a substance, I can function. Because I can function, I've been able to nurture my business from 3 people to >500, and into the Fortune 1000. For others with traumatic disorders like PTSD, hallucinogenic therapy may hold promises anti-depressants have been unable to actualize. Regardless, generalizations like yours (while in good faith) prevent the regulatory changes needed to once again allow for open research.

In respect to the diversity of the human condition, I'd implore you to take a more laissez-faire approach: decide what's right for yourself, not for others.