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

101–110 of 232 posts

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#101

Post by wahnfrieden »

starkd wrote: post #57
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm generally in favor of drug legalization and/or decriminalization, but I'd draw a line at meth. There is a reason for the "Meth, not even once" PSAs and memes. The drug is really just that addictive that it can ruin people's lives by getting them hooked after just one session. Even if you disagree with my stance, I think it would be a grave mistake to not acknowledge that different drugs have different capacities…

Libertarians tend to take potential solutions to the extreme, but seldom is anything so ideologically pure. Still, the idea that government can protect people from themselves is a noxious one. Drug legalization is an attractive one for that reason alone, but there are limits. Drug addicts are by definition not rational actors.

the question isn't whether or not a substance should be in use in a society, but whether its users/producers should be caged

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#102

Post by xrd »

mypalmike wrote: post #80
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".

First heard that term in the movie "Killing Zoe." Takes me back.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#103

Post by SilasX »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #83
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…

> an alarming trend of young people reading “harm reduction” material online and assuming they know the full picture of the risks of drug use Is anyone attempting to harm-reductively try meth?

I'm not sure about meth specifically, but there were billboards in SF telling people safer ways to use drugs:

https://www.ktvu.com/news/san-francisco-supervisor-drug-over...

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#104

Post by alpineidyll3 »

starkd wrote: post #77
alpineidyll3 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Calling doctors men of science is extraordinarily generous. Scientists do things like collect data to test hypotheses.

The ama lobbies aggressively against national medical record standardization etc.

At the end of the day, it's about whether the person making decisions has good incentives. And that's not the case in the present system.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#105

Post by photochemsyn »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #48
j_m_b wrote: post #13

It's interesting to note that as methamphetamine and amphetamine were more regulated in the 50s and 60s, it became more prevalent. Then in order to stamp out illegal production, the precursor chemicals were monitored. So what happens? Production becomes more dangerous. Solution: Just make every kind of drug legal to produce, but regulate the purity. Be very explicit about the dangers. The only thing prohibition does…

I'm generally in favor of drug legalization and/or decriminalization, but I'd draw a line at meth. There is a reason for the "Meth, not even once" PSAs and memes. The drug is really just that addictive that it can ruin people's lives by getting them hooked after just one session. Even if you disagree with my stance, I think it would be a grave mistake to not acknowledge that different drugs have different capacities…

The amphetamines are all similarly addictive, it's just that methamphetamine is more active at smaller doses. This general class of drugs is widely prescribed to children and adults to treat ADHD in the United States (many argue over-prescribed).

People who use amphetamines 'recreationally' seem to mix it with alcohol, with very bad long-term effects on health. It also seems to drive people towards reckless and poorly-considered behavior, which is similar to the effect cocaine has on many people.

It's a wise life decision to not associate with cocaine and amphetamine addicts, certainly. However it is also curious that people in treatment for ADHD also develop a dependency on the drug, although perhaps in a more controlled manner due to it being prescribed, yet few people in the medical-pharmacological world seem to be that concerned about it.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#106

Post by starkd »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #93
starkd wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not so sure about that. If you've ever talked with a full-blown alcoholic, the allure of drinking is almost a reflex with no consideration for its effects. I don't think they even remember having to lie in their own vomit or the severe hangover they will have to endure. The hangover is enough of a deterrent for myself, but they don't even think twice about it. Its amazing, really. I'm convinced the only reason al…

I didn’t think I’d have to follow up a post on using a qualifier “often” with another post about using a different qualifier “most” which obviously doesn’t encompass “all”. Counter examples are clearly presumed necessary given the aforementioned damage.

I understand your point that most people who drink alcohol do not become alcoholics. But that is true for all drugs, really. I think the thing that separates alcohol is the long cultural acceptance.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#107

Post by xyzzyz »

beebmam wrote: post #78
rlt wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do you react similarly to left wing propaganda, or is your “partisan sources do not provide honest perspectives” limited to right wing sources?

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#108

Post by starkd »

porknubbins wrote: post #94
starkd wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libertarians tend to take potential solutions to the extreme, but seldom is anything so ideologically pure. Still, the idea that government can protect people from themselves is a noxious one. Drug legalization is an attractive one for that reason alone, but there are limits. Drug addicts are by definition not rational actors.

Yes as libertarian who was offended by the idea of regulating what adults can put in their bodies at home, I have changed my mind after seeing real world consequences. As a young college student its easy to believe some kind of naive model of humans as basically well-intentioned or rational or at least a blank slate. Experience tells me that most illegal drug (and heavy alcohol) use has negative externalities and ten…

You just described my history on the subject. I once believed that too.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#109

Post by jeffreyrogers »

j_m_b wrote: post #13

It's interesting to note that as methamphetamine and amphetamine were more regulated in the 50s and 60s, it became more prevalent. Then in order to stamp out illegal production, the precursor chemicals were monitored. So what happens? Production becomes more dangerous. Solution: Just make every kind of drug legal to produce, but regulate the purity. Be very explicit about the dangers. The only thing prohibition does…

There have been countries like China in the Opium Wars period that had limited restrictions on drug consumption. It ended up with a substantial fraction of their population being addicted to opium and basically non-productive.

HN is full of smart people who (wrongly I think) assume that because they have the self-control and discipline to either avoid drugs or to use them relatively safely that the rest of the population does too. This does not seem true in my experience. I forget the exact stats but roughly 1 in 20 Americans is an alcoholic, and that's with a drug that humans have been consuming for thousands of years and that has established social rituals around consumption. It seems likely to me that increasing access to and decreasing stigma of highly addictive drugs like opioids or amphetamines will lead to substantial increases in addiction rates.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#110

Post by photochemsyn »

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…

I disagree entirely with this viewpoint - alcohol is one of the most dangerous and addictive substances available, with serious long-term health consequences. While the opiate epidemic has made a lot of headlines, CDC data IIRC points to the alcohol resulting in the premature deaths of about five times as many people (not by direct overdose as with opiates, but via associated medical conditions like liver failure).

Alcohol has a complex set of biochemical effects, but note that part of the issue is that it's similar to opiates, i.e. it triggers the release of an endorphin-like molecule that people get addicted to in the same way as with morphine or heroin.

I still don't think alcohol should be made illegal, but in terms of long-term medical effects, it's certainly more dangerous than cannabis/THC and psychedelic drugs like mushrooms/psilocybine. It really belongs in the same class with amphetamines, cocaine, benzos, and opiates.

Post reply on HN