Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DARE: The Anti-Drug Program That Never Actually Worked

priceonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 132 posts

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

#111

Post by thrwyycombinatr »

throwawaymonoid wrote: post #70
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…

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 rec…

Since you used some anecdotal evidence, I felt I could provide some anecdotal stuff back.

LSD: I've tried it a handful of times. The last time resulted in a strip so strongly horrifying I nearly stole a car with people in it to escape my extreme schizophrenic trip.

Note: I've never had any symptom of it before in my life, and it doesn't run in my family. Nor do I believe I ever will. It was so extremely out of character, I know for a fact it was induced by the drug. In fact I think the dealer who gave it to my gave me a hugely high dose, which is a big danger of taking LSD from dealers.

Cannabis: It may be good for pain relief, I had stomach issues that I used it to help with for years. Then a doctor told me it could be causing my stomach pain. Look up "cannabinoid hyperemesis". It was horrifying. The worst stomach flu you could imagine that lasted for weeks, and didn't leave me for years. I don't know if it was the weed, but I stay away from it now. I've had three different doctors talk about it (in different states), and all told me they have seen big spikes in stomach problems due to weed.

So, yea. Nothings black and white. Drugs are an "arbitrary" definition (as all definitions are) for "something that affects you strongly". And anything that effects you strongly deserves a massive warning: if at all possible, don't rely on it.

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

#112

Post by NPMaxwell »

A point of the article is that major investments of money and work may be completely ineffective. Almost everyone involved in such projects perceives first hand that the project works. The illusion is very compelling. Efforts to stop the waste are not met with cooperative collaboration. As technology advances, we will not have more leisure time. Instead will will spend more and more effort working at jobs like DARE instructor.

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

#113

Post by thrwyycombinatr »

Cryptokeeper wrote: post #60
hristov wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That article is 50 years old. Perhaps this one from 2013: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... "21,967 respondents (13.4% weighted) reported lifetime psychedelic use. There were no significant associations between lifetime use of any psychedelics, lifetime use of specific psychedelics (LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, peyote), or past year use of LSD and increased rate of any of the mental healt…

But temporary schizophrenia is very common. Cmon guys, this is ridiculous. I've seen it so many times. It literally re-wires your brain.

And yes, temporary schizophrenia can be extremely dangerous. This is something no one can argue. I hate pedants.

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

#114

Post by mtanski »

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.

> 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 think many socio-economists would agree with that statement.

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

#115

Post by s73v3r »

astazangasta wrote: post #109
qmalxp wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a bit misleading to simply say "LSD is great and you should try it". It can be interesting, but also can be scary as fuck, and you should be in a good place mentally before trying it.

"Snorkeling is great and you should try it," is a similar statement I might make with no qualifications or equivocation from you. Many pleasurable activities have attendant dangers that you should be aware of before engaging in them. Drugs are no different, except we surround them with the stink of moral judgment and refuse to educate people on how to use them safely.

Snorkeling and psychotropic drugs are two completely different things.

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

#116

Post by throwawaymonoid »

thrwyycombinatr wrote: post #113
Cryptokeeper wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That article is 50 years old. Perhaps this one from 2013: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... "21,967 respondents (13.4% weighted) reported lifetime psychedelic use. There were no significant associations between lifetime use of any psychedelics, lifetime use of specific psychedelics (LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, peyote), or past year use of LSD and increased rate of any of the mental healt…

But temporary schizophrenia is very common . Cmon guys, this is ridiculous. I've seen it so many times. It literally re-wires your brain. And yes, temporary schizophrenia can be extremely dangerous. This is something no one can argue. I hate pedants.

Your brain literally re-wires itself constantly.

There's no such thing as "temporary schizophrenia." If you're referring to acute psychosis, as you seemingly experienced, then yes it's certainly a possible side effect--though never a permanent one.

Bad experiences are usually triggered by an uncomfortable setting, or a dose for which you were not prepared. I'm sorry that was your experience, but concerned your reaction doesn't add to the scientific discussion.

LSD increases glutamate and modulates the 5HTA (seratonin) subtypes, as well as having modulatory effects on D2 (dopamine) receptors--it alters conscious processes and lowers the inhibitory threshold of the action potential, allowing "new" neuronal pathways to develop. While we don't know the specific pharmacokinetic MOA, we do know it has a favorable toxicological and therapeutic profile, and that the content of one's hallucinations depend far more on the individual and the setting than the substance.

Yes, it can be dangerous. Yes, you can take steps to effectively minimize the danger like you do in every other area of your life (seatbelts? helmets?). Like anything there's a cost-benefit ratio for each individual to consider--are you willing to risk a potentially terrifying experience for a chance at novel insight?

I think that's a choice everyone should be able to make for themselves.

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

#117

Post by Houshalter »

pantalaimon wrote: post #110
Houshalter wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

C0nc0rdance is a scientist who makes well researched videos about various subjects, and did a few videos on the health effects of marijuana: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnNPm5cG85c It may not be the most harmful drug, but it's certainly not harmless or non-addictive. LSD can cause mental illness to emerge in some people. I also remember a study that gave LSD to 10 people during a religious sermon. 9 of them went…

> anything with that powerful an effect on the mind is concerning. I find that statement absurd, anything with an effect that powerful should be cherished! Would life be desirable if it were stripped from all emotions, as they too have a powerful effect on the mind? Even if you agreed to that, it wouldn't be feasible as we are biological creatures and not pure rational beings. Denying that our biological self exists,…

I believe those 9 people wasted their lives. Religion isn't remotely rational and is a plague on society. The fact that a single experience with a drug can cause people to completely devote themselves to it is terrifying.

What if it became widespread and our society became super religious? What other irrational things can it convince people of?

I don't know if they should be banned or not. I'm just saying they are not safe

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

#118

Post by throwawaymonoid »

thrwyycombinatr wrote: post #111
throwawaymonoid wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rec…

Since you used some anecdotal evidence, I felt I could provide some anecdotal stuff back. LSD: I've tried it a handful of times. The last time resulted in a strip so strongly horrifying I nearly stole a car with people in it to escape my extreme schizophrenic trip. Note: I've never had any symptom of it before in my life, and it doesn't run in my family. Nor do I believe I ever will. It was so extremely out of charac…

I have no doubt your episode was induced by the drug. I also see clear indications that the lack of a safe setting and "sitter" means you set yourself up for a much higher risk of a bad experience. Sorry it was so uncomfortable for you.

As for cannabis, the condition you're referencing is exceedingly rare. In most cases the ER attendants I've known treating individuals with these symptoms have traced them back to synthetic "legal high" cannabinoid analogues, most of which are untested with an unknown toxicological profile. Their proliferation is a symptom of criminalization, and it is a burgeoning epidemic.

I can assure you your 'stomach flu' was not caused by cannabis, however there is some data to back up the link between dysphoria at high dosages and ghrelin (the precursor hormone that makes you hungry) deregulation with consistent usage. My extensive research has turned up no link between cannabis use and an altered micro-biome, but I think it's fair to say both acute and chronic usage can lead to altered/dysfunctional eating patterns. It is also well-known for causing dry mouth, which makes oral hygiene especially important if one wishes to avoid candida-related side effects (occasionally linked with GI upset).

Also worth noting, cannabis use in adolescence is correlated with a higher prevalence of anxiety disorders, and can trigger or accelerate latent conditions in those already predisposed to mental illness. It's not all fun and games, but it has a comparatively favorable side-effect profile to most similarly-indicated pharmaceuticals.

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

#119

Post by Houshalter »

forgetsusername wrote: post #82
Houshalter wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

C0nc0rdance is a scientist who makes well researched videos about various subjects, and did a few videos on the health effects of marijuana: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnNPm5cG85c It may not be the most harmful drug, but it's certainly not harmless or non-addictive. LSD can cause mental illness to emerge in some people. I also remember a study that gave LSD to 10 people during a religious sermon. 9 of them went…

> It may not be the most harmful drug, but it's certainly not harmless I'm no advocate of the claims that marijuana is "harmless" or, as some even claim, "good for you". But harm is relative. Sitting in your chair all day is harmful. Eating half the food we do is harmful, as are most medications. Arguing that marijuana is "not harmless" isn't much of an argument at all.

According to that video, it increases cancer risk at a higher rate than cigarettes, and it is very addictive to some percent of the population.

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

#120

Post by njbooher »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #40
carbide wrote: post #18

I remember DARE. A message delivered to us by people we didn't respect. A police officer that no one trusted and videos of teens we perceived to be losers telling us that drugs were bad. The program seemed to focus on social pressure not to do drugs, but social pressure is meaningless and ineffective when it's coming from somewhere beneath you. It had the effect of making my peers want to get high to distinguish them…

It is very stupid to scare youth with health consequences. For young people, the world "health" means nothing. It's very blank. It means a lot for senior demographics, and so they happily push measures involving scaring young people with health problems. Which then won't work.

The video of the kid who had been drinking and driving, got in a wreck, and had to have a hole drilled in his skull to relieve the buildup of blood was pretty effective for me.
Post reply on HN