51–60 of 118 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In terms of net human suffering we can execute everyone. No people -- no suffering
That would increase total suffering, as people condemned to be executed will under go a great deal of suffering.
Not for long, afterwards there would be nobody left to suffer.
This is why harm reduction is absolutely crucial. A lot of people will recover on their own given time, but you can't recover if you're dead. A moralistic model based primarily or solely on abstinence-based recovery fails addicts, their families and society.
I don't deny that there are some forms of harm reduction which are proven to be effective. But I also think it's a vague weasel word for just give them drugs or just make it all legal. Which is not a good policy as we have seen here.
Ironically just using vague terms like harm reduction without putting forward a specific strategy is a sort of moralizing of its own
Alternately, you just execute people for drug trafficking. A total win in terms of net human suffering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Addictions do not have to be life destroying. Plenty of people are addicted to various things but are fully functional and live fulfilled lives. It’s a bit unfair to ask whether OP wants words to have any meaning when it seems you’re a bit fuzzy on the definition of “addiction” yourself. Wikipedia: Addiction is a neuropsychological disorder characterized by a persistent and intense urge to use a drug or engage in a…
Wikipedia isn't really an authority on words, specifically, though. If one goes to Merriam-Webster, an actual dictionary, one sees: > a: exhibiting a compulsive, chronic, physiological or psychological need for a habit-forming substance, behavior, or activity > b: strongly inclined to do, use, or indulge in something repeatedly If one looks at the Oxford English Dictionary, one sees: > a state of dependence produced…
If addiction is not a psychological or physical dependency with harmful or destructive consequences, what should we call those that do?
The American Psychiatric Association has this to say about addiction, which tells me they view addiction as something worth fixing and hence is harmful: https://www.psychiatry.org/getmedia/e25c07ae-7333-4466-9add-...
I wonder about where habits end and addictions begin. I think once a ball is rolling it’s not easy to stop it, as it kinda does it on itself
The best definition I’ve read somewhere was along the lines: addiction is something you do repeatedly even though you know it’s harmful for you.
I wonder about where habits end and addictions begin. I think once a ball is rolling it’s not easy to stop it, as it kinda does it on itself
The best definition I’ve read somewhere was along the lines: addiction is something you do repeatedly even though you know it’s harmful for you.
This is why harm reduction is absolutely crucial. A lot of people will recover on their own given time, but you can't recover if you're dead. A moralistic model based primarily or solely on abstinence-based recovery fails addicts, their families and society.
To many ignorant people have an opinion on this though, as you can see in some of these comments. If you never used drugs, don't know people that died needlessly, you don't get to have an opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've heard the first-time heroin experience described as feeling like "being wrapped in a warm, wet blanket." What else feels like that? A lot of addiction is trying to get back to the comfort of the womb to escape from early childhood traumas and abuses. You get a taste of that with the use but never get close to it again after.
> What else feels like that? Probably being wrapped in an actual warm, wet blanket.
This is why harm reduction is absolutely crucial. A lot of people will recover on their own given time, but you can't recover if you're dead. A moralistic model based primarily or solely on abstinence-based recovery fails addicts, their families and society.
Without the moralism, harm reduction is a vague term. Here in Canada the government has been pushing safe supply as a part of harm reduction. We still get the same number of overdoses but our cities are now filled with tent encampments and people with addiction issues. It doesn't seem to have helped with anything it's just made things worse I don't deny that there are some forms of harm reduction which are proven to…
Every time I hear a politician talking about safe supply, they say it's not a silver bullet. Which is weird because nobody claims it's a silver bullet. Know what else isn't a silver bullet? Criminalization. Or, everything else that's ever been tried. It's a hard problem, there isn't a silver bullet solution, get over it.
What's harm reduction good for? Reducing harm. It isn't harm prevention, it isn't free housing, it isn't free addiction counseling, it doesn't fart roses.
Safe injection sites keep users close to medical professionals so we can keep people from dying alone. Safe supply would ensure that users aren't going to accidentally OD on kerfentanyl thinking it's ordinary fentanyl. Needle exchanges keep users supplied with sterile equipment to reduce risk of injections such as HIV and hepatitis C. Each policy is an example of harm reduction. The general philosophy is to not let perfect be the enemy of good.