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

It’s not the chemicals that cause addiction (2017)

dancesafe.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 151 posts

Re: It’s not the chemicals that cause addiction (2017)

#101

Post by benatkin »

quacked wrote: post #100
benatkin wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to see a sincere take on it, read the writings of Thich Nhat Hanh. https://www.lionsroar.com/food-for-thought/#:~:text=I%20hear... I still tend to disagree because I have a hard time finding balance and not going too far in restricting the media I consume, but it's a nice vision. A lot of the religious right in the US, especially the part that is led by televangelists like the late Pat Robertson, just wan…

After reading this article, I agree with the words of Thich Nhat Hanh, thank you for the recommendation. > The religious right in the US just wants to suppress it out of ignorance I tend to agree that the religious right in the US is a legislative force that does more harm than good, and that many people who campaign against drugs don't have a solid understanding of drugs or drug culture. However, I don't think that…

Good point, I ninja edited just before you posted to say that a chunk of them have been mislead by televangelists and such.

I can tell Thich Nhat Hanh appreciated the people you're talking about, having read about him traveling all around the world and meeting people from the US (where he lived for quite some time) and countless other countries.

Re: It’s not the chemicals that cause addiction (2017)

#102

Post by p0pcult »

nick_ wrote: post #71
throw-4e451c8 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He owned four cab licenses in Portland. Then Uber came in and shredded his retirement plan. I am sorry for your friend, but not for him losing out on his rent seeker plans.

The folks flagging your post would hunt the poor for sport if it was legally and socially acceptable.

[dead]

Re: It’s not the chemicals that cause addiction (2017)

#103

Post by quacked »

benatkin wrote: post #101
quacked wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After reading this article, I agree with the words of Thich Nhat Hanh, thank you for the recommendation. > The religious right in the US just wants to suppress it out of ignorance I tend to agree that the religious right in the US is a legislative force that does more harm than good, and that many people who campaign against drugs don't have a solid understanding of drugs or drug culture. However, I don't think that…

Good point, I ninja edited just before you posted to say that a chunk of them have been mislead by televangelists and such. I can tell Thich Nhat Hanh appreciated the people you're talking about, having read about him traveling all around the world and meeting people from the US (where he lived for quite some time) and countless other countries.

Ah, there's the edit, right.

One of the principles that I hold to pretty strongly is that the more performatively famous someone is surrounding a certain idea, the more likely it is that they don't have any real principles, and they're just beating whatever drum allows them to continue to hold influence over people. So someone like Pat Robertson doesn't actually believe what he's saying in private, but if he kept banging that drum he kept his lifestyle and acolytes. I think the majority of US politicians that people recognize by name are like that, and certainly most religious leaders like Pat or Joel Osteen.

Re: It’s not the chemicals that cause addiction (2017)

#104

Post by pas »

davelondon wrote: post #55

It's a nice story but it's actually a load of rubbish... https://theoutline.com/post/2205/this-38-year-old-study-is-s... "Despite his claims of a revolutionary breakthrough, Alexander had trouble finding a journal to publish his results. Both Science and Nature rejected the study for publication, likely due to significant problems with the methodology and results. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior published the…

why is it a load of rubbish?

it's inconclusive. it seems there's no strong independent evidence either for or against the strong addiction model.

Re: It’s not the chemicals that cause addiction (2017)

#105

Post by norir »

civilitty wrote: post #85
quacked wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously he doesn't mean that, there's an enormous body of media and art that glamorizes drug dealing and using. It stretches across ethnicity and class. It begins with alcohol and weed, stretches into cocaine and hallucinogens, and from there gets into the heavy drugs. If the only input into drug addiction was the modern medical industry over-prescribing opioids, the landscape of modern drug use would look very dif…

Does any recent media actually glorify the drugs that are causing the worst problems right now? I watch a lot of TV but have less exposure to popular music so I'm genuinely unsure. There's plenty of alcohol, weed, cocaine, and hallucinogens, I'll give you that, but they're not gateways to opioid addiction. Breaking Bad glorifying the manufacture and sale of meth is the only except I can think of - Oxy, fentanyl, and…

I would argue that if one watches Breaking Bad to its conclusion that it's hard to say that it glorified the manufacture and sale of meth. Everyone involved has huge negative consequences in their lives as a result. The collateral damage is staggering. By the end, Walt seems as addicted to the sense of power that making meth gives him as the user of meth desperately seeking their next hit. He sabotages himself and ultimately gets himself shot (probably killed -- though I think this is open to interpretation) chasing his last hit.

Re: It’s not the chemicals that cause addiction (2017)

#106

Post by benatkin »

norir wrote: post #105
civilitty wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does any recent media actually glorify the drugs that are causing the worst problems right now? I watch a lot of TV but have less exposure to popular music so I'm genuinely unsure. There's plenty of alcohol, weed, cocaine, and hallucinogens, I'll give you that, but they're not gateways to opioid addiction. Breaking Bad glorifying the manufacture and sale of meth is the only except I can think of - Oxy, fentanyl, and…

I would argue that if one watches Breaking Bad to its conclusion that it's hard to say that it glorified the manufacture and sale of meth. Everyone involved has huge negative consequences in their lives as a result. The collateral damage is staggering. By the end, Walt seems as addicted to the sense of power that making meth gives him as the user of meth desperately seeking their next hit. He sabotages himself and ul…

It does the antihero bit pretty well. It shows life going on after Walt's brother in-law is killed. In real life people would be a lot more torn apart by it, and not just sad.

The main thing it glorifies I think is that boys will be boys, not drugs per se.

Re: It’s not the chemicals that cause addiction (2017)

#107

Post by pas »

stan_kirdey wrote: post #42
johnea wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if every addict had good opportunity for a prosperous life, do you think the number of overdoses would increase or descrease? The brain highjakcking still occurrs in a context. While some people simply use for kicks, many others are trying to escape some intractable situtaion. Improving life opportunities would only help reduce extreme addiction and overdose...

I think opportunities might help people avoid taking the drug in the first place, but from observations, even folks with seemingly great jobs and families often fall to opioids once they try them.

obviously (!) it means that the more things look like everything should be fine the less people find ways to be, to feel, to act as they actually are - non-fine, and due to this the more they can end up using more and more.

Re: It’s not the chemicals that cause addiction (2017)

#109

Post by VeninVidiaVicii »

version_five wrote: post #72

Just want to mention my experience quitting smoking (which is notably hard, but I have no point of reference having not used other drugs). Physical addition is easy. With nicotine there are not really strong symptoms anyway, irritability mainly and inability to focus. I know other drugs are worse but in principle, battling withdrawl is not that tough, people are good at physical hardships. For nicotine it's a few day…

I used to smoke and chew tobacco quite infrequently once a day or so, but for about ten years, but decided to stop about three years ago.

During the past several years I’ve come back to realize I was using tobacco therapeutically — specifically to actually focus and as a relief from constipation.

And, since then I’ve been “trying to get healthy” - especially mentally. But just feel endlessly stuck trying to get some kind of ADHD diagnosis — having seen 4 separate mental health professionals for problems I never had on tobacco.

Sadly I’ve relapsed and for the first time in those three years since I quit I actually don’t feel constipated when I chew in the evenings. Also, I’ve found the ability to sit down and finish my manuscript.

Meh, I feel much healthier chewing once a day.

Re: It’s not the chemicals that cause addiction (2017)

#110

Post by stillbourne »

pas wrote: post #104
davelondon wrote: post #55

It's a nice story but it's actually a load of rubbish... https://theoutline.com/post/2205/this-38-year-old-study-is-s... "Despite his claims of a revolutionary breakthrough, Alexander had trouble finding a journal to publish his results. Both Science and Nature rejected the study for publication, likely due to significant problems with the methodology and results. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior published the…

why is it a load of rubbish? it's inconclusive. it seems there's no strong independent evidence either for or against the strong addiction model.

Science operates on a system of checks and balances, not a free speech model. If your paper can't pass peer review then your paper is what is clinically referred to as bullshit. Now there are people who bypass the system of checks and balances by publishing on pay to play journals but scientist came up with a solution to that too, Impact Factor. They took all the journals and rated them by how much of the content that they publish has an high impact on science and how much of it is bullshit. If you can't get your paper to publish in a journal with an impact factor higher than say 3.5 then you're probably bullshit.
Post reply on HN