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

Not-such-better-living through chemistry

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 232 posts

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#71

Post by amanaplanacanal »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #33
awillen wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people who are against legalization make this argument that those who are for it ignore the negative consequences, but for large swathes of pro-legalization people, that's just not true. I know there are negative consequences, and I know that in a very small number of people marijuana can cause serious consequences (and in larger numbers of people, harder drugs like cocaine and heroin can cause more serious…

* I did use the qualifier 'often' which is not 'all' and to my opinion it's not enough. People readily forget the downsides and need constant reminders. Edit: please note that the following includes the qualifier “most” and please understand that this does not mean “all”. I think alcohol is a bad example as alcohol for most people has a way of punishing abuse on its own and quickly thereby maintaining a tight associa…

And the US tried that, and it was a complete failure. Yet we as a society somehow failed to learn that lesson and here we are.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#72

Post by starkd »

awillen wrote: post #68
cjbgkagh wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* I did use the qualifier 'often' which is not 'all' and to my opinion it's not enough. People readily forget the downsides and need constant reminders. Edit: please note that the following includes the qualifier “most” and please understand that this does not mean “all”. I think alcohol is a bad example as alcohol for most people has a way of punishing abuse on its own and quickly thereby maintaining a tight associa…

I encourage you to actually do some research on alcoholism - both the number of people it affects as well as the way it prevents itself. You're dangerously uninformed on the topic to be presenting these kinds of opinions.

oh, come on! I think you're right on this issue, but since when are opinions dangerous? He's giving his honest opinion of the issue according to his experience.

You will be much more effective if you simply try to enjoy the conversation than trying to call out people for having "dangerous opinions".

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#73

Post by cjbgkagh »

awillen wrote: post #68
cjbgkagh wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* I did use the qualifier 'often' which is not 'all' and to my opinion it's not enough. People readily forget the downsides and need constant reminders. Edit: please note that the following includes the qualifier “most” and please understand that this does not mean “all”. I think alcohol is a bad example as alcohol for most people has a way of punishing abuse on its own and quickly thereby maintaining a tight associa…

I encourage you to actually do some research on alcoholism - both the number of people it affects as well as the way it prevents itself. You're dangerously uninformed on the topic to be presenting these kinds of opinions.

Most =/ all. For some it doesn’t work this way and that is very costly to us all. Hence the great deal of damage that it causes. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, is alcohol too dangerous therefore we must legalize more drugs?

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#74

Post by ck2 »

What if instead of all the money poured into law enforcement and prosecution we instead make treatment for addiction completely frictionless, effortless and guilt-less.

Like walking into a supermarket easy.

Of course progressives have been begging for that to happen with mental health in the USA for decades, so all this is a fantasy to try to help people in society.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#75

Post by PragmaticPulp »

blanketlamp wrote: post #45
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #40

I have a friend who, fortunately, escaped the drug world and is happily recovered now. One of the many interesting things I learned through talking to him and his friends is the pervasive idea among addicted that street drugs were always better in the past. Everyone vividly remembers their drug being much better when they first got into drugs, with steadily declining effects over the years. Many of them had elaborate…

> A sobering reminder that the negative effects of recreational drugs last long after the hangover. I’m seeing an alarming trend of young people reading “harm reduction” material online and assuming they know the full picture of the risks of drug use. I don't think that's ever been in question. Harm reduction isn't some utopian ideal that safe drug use == nobody ever suffers long-term negative effects. Conquering tho…

> I don't think that's ever been in question. Harm reduction isn't some utopian ideal that safe drug use == nobody ever suffers long-term negative effects.

To you, maybe, but it only takes a cursory glance at drug-related subreddits to see numerous people suggesting that you just need to follow harm reduction websites, stick to some arbitrary rules (e.g. only do MDMA every N weeks and take X, Y, and Z supplements), and you can avoid the negative consequences. You may know that’s untrue, but it’s common to see among drug users.

It’s also common to blame drug users who experience problems on failure to follow harm reduction guides, as if the guides are a perfect guide for avoiding the harms.

> Harm reduction is about making sure you live long enough to hopefully get there.

Modern harm reduction websites are about education in general, not just helping addicts survive. You will find things like dosing guidelines for first time users, expectations for what to expect, how to prepare, and so on.

These things are targeted at beginner drug users or the drug curious.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#76

Post by annoyingnoob »

taxicabjesus wrote: post #58
annoyingnoob wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nixon declared the War on Drugs in 1971. https://www.britannica.com/topic/war-on-drugs

Humanity has a long history of self-medicating distress. At first this was mostly with alcohol. America's prohibition efforts started in the early 1900's: prohibition, Harrison Narcotic Tax Act, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chasing_the_Scream#Background_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs#20th_century

Is any regulation considered an act of 'war'?

I pay taxes, do you call that a War on Income? If so, when did it start?

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#77

Post by starkd »

alpineidyll3 wrote: post #32
brookst wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect that most people who understand the role AMA plays in prohibition and drug abuse also aren’t super interested in focusing on blame. The whole thing is a complicated system of perverse incentives and counterproductive policies. It doesn’t really matter if the AMA is 20% or 60% to blame.

Blame is a poor choice of words. Ideally we could stop letting physicians write their own regulations, and instead have at least one mechanism with incentive to promote national health, rather than the medical industry complex.

Traditionally, doctors, as men of science, have been given wide latitude to prescribe, since there is no one treatment that is good for everyone. Unfortunately, that seems to be changing, as doctors are expected to adhere to a standard regimen of treatment options. It is the dangers of institutionalization of our healthcare.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#78

Post by beebmam »

rlt wrote: post #67
blanketlamp wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A sobering reminder that the negative effects of recreational drugs last long after the hangover. I’m seeing an alarming trend of young people reading “harm reduction” material online and assuming they know the full picture of the risks of drug use. I don't think that's ever been in question. Harm reduction isn't some utopian ideal that safe drug use == nobody ever suffers long-term negative effects. Conquering tho…

Harm reduction itself isn't a bad thing, the problem is if it displaces other forms of help for drug users, or ends up encouraging more drug use. e.x. skip to 2:00 in this video https://twitter.com/sav_says_/status/1603512522509668352

I think your comment is an example of an important discussion we need to have around what are the consequences to our drug policies, whether they are tough-lovish or harm-reductionist. I can see value in both, in different circumstances.

However, the video you link to is from a notorious far right propaganda outlet. I don't think people will get an honest perspective from TPUSA, who clearly have an axe to grind (and bills to pay, which they accomplish by manufacturing outrage).

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#79

Post by awillen »

starkd wrote: post #72
awillen wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I encourage you to actually do some research on alcoholism - both the number of people it affects as well as the way it prevents itself. You're dangerously uninformed on the topic to be presenting these kinds of opinions.

oh, come on! I think you're right on this issue, but since when are opinions dangerous? He's giving his honest opinion of the issue according to his experience. You will be much more effective if you simply try to enjoy the conversation than trying to call out people for having "dangerous opinions".

You put quotes around "dangerous opinions" - you're wrong to do that, because I never used that phrase. I said he was dangerously uninformed.

There are times when people can have valid, personal opinions and times when there's just objective reality. Some people these days say that their opinion is that the 2020 election was stolen. That's not a valid opinion - it's just wrong. Saying that hangovers make alcohol self-regulating when >10M people in the US are alcoholics (for whom it is, as a point of fact, untrue that alcohol is a self-regulating substance) is not a valid opinion - it's a misunderstanding of reality.

As someone who knows people who have been very severely negatively affected by alcoholism, I do not enjoy conversations with people who make points about alcohol that are totally uninformed and suggest that we should base policy around those uninformed thoughts.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#80

Post by mypalmike »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #40

I have a friend who, fortunately, escaped the drug world and is happily recovered now. One of the many interesting things I learned through talking to him and his friends is the pervasive idea among addicted that street drugs were always better in the past. Everyone vividly remembers their drug being much better when they first got into drugs, with steadily declining effects over the years. Many of them had elaborate…

"accumulated tolerance and long term damage from drug abuse had blunted their response"

The succinct term for this phenomenon is "chasing the dragon".

Post reply on HN