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

111–120 of 232 posts

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#111

Post by ifyoubuildit »

pantalaimon wrote: post #97
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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), a…

What negative consequences are there to doing MDMA or LSD a couple times a year? Especially when comparing with the negative consequences of doing alcohol. The argument that any drug use is bad is pretty blown out of proportion.

> Especially when comparing with the negative consequences of doing alcohol.

This sentiment is confusing to me. I get that alcohol is bad. But how is that relevant to whether or not MDMA or LSD are bad?

I see it come up in these conversations pretty regularly, so there's probably a point there I'm missing. But I can't help but read it as "this thing I like to do isn't bad because other people do a different bad thing".

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#112

Post by starkd »

alpineidyll3 wrote: post #104
starkd wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I was being a bit facetious in using the term, but that was the image given to doctors once upon a time. Nevertheless, my point is that doctors are not mere technicians applying handbook remedies. They are generally given wide latitude to try novel ideas when appropriate. Unfortunately, that appears to be changing.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#113

Post by cjbgkagh »

GoldenRacer wrote: post #99
cjbgkagh wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Criminal gangs use this tactic fairly frequently as an alternative to killing someone but I believe it should solicit the same punishment. Criminal gangs tend to take the more active holding people down and injecting people with drugs approach than the slow sneaky process. But once addicted the addict is now reliant on the gang for their continued supply and can be controlled. The real life instances I’m aware of w…

Gotcha. I guess I don't understand why you'd expect that behavior to become more common as a result of drug legalization. All that would still be very illegal (I imagine injecting someone with even a completely safe saline solution without their consent would be considered assault in most jurisdictions). The type of people that are comfortable doing that clearly don't care about the law. I just don't see drugs being…

Safe saline is the least of the victims worries, water quality isn’t that important to the extent that many safe injection packs no longer include it. Tap water is usually fine, puddle water is usually fine. In medical settings the law of large numbers mean that usually isn’t good enough but for one offs it’s ‘usually’ ok.

It’s the action of adding chemicals to your brain that can and likely do have harmful long term effects, not limited to addiction, and many still unknown. If such an act was done to me I would consider it within my rights to kill that person in retribution.

I’m less confident on the expected drop in organized crime as taxes on the drugs usually means there is now money in tax evasion. Without tax it may become so cheap that other problems start to dominate.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#114

Post by cjbgkagh »

gumby wrote: post #96
cjbgkagh wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that if we legalize dangerous addictive drugs then we might as well legalize all medications/drugs by which point the medical establishment loses a big chunk of the income that it gets from being a monopoly supplier. I wish society was mature enough for full legalization, but often those pushing for legalization underplay the negative problems associated with drug use. Particularly for that 'harmless plant' m…

> I think that if we legalize dangerous addictive drugs then we might as well legalize all medications/drugs by which point the medical establishment loses a big chunk of the income that it gets from being a monopoly supplier. Do you seriously think this is why medication is regulated? In most developed countries prescribing and dispensing are separated (doctor/pharmacy) in part to prevent this. Japan is a notable ex…

I would include pharmacy in the medical establishment, and yes I expect them to place significant lobby pressure to maintain their monopoly.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#115

Post by Alex3917 »

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…

> It's interesting to note that as methamphetamine and amphetamine were more regulated in the 50s and 60s, it became more prevalent.

~0.2% of Americans had ever used marijuana when it was first made illegal, whereas ~90% of American adults have used it now.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#116

Post by MobiusHorizons »

hgsgm wrote: post #52
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…

"harm reduction" doesn't mean "good addiction" or even "risk reduction" . It means dying more slowly with less collateral damage. It means what the name says.

Unfortunately it doesn’t mean just one thing. People use a slogan like “harm reduction” to describe a wide array of beliefs and practices ranging from the very practical (don’t make sobriety a condition of care) to the very dogmatic (it’s not ok to discourage drug use of any kind, anyone who suggests otherwise is part of the problem). Most people will be somewhere in between those extremes. Once a slogan has been in use for some time, you can’t take the words at face value anymore. The mean whatever people use them for, not what they would mean in plain English.

As an aside this is true about language more generally. There is no true meaning of any given string of words. Language is a communication tool (and a lossy one at that). History of use gives words and phrases additional contextual meaning beyond any dictionary definition. Feedback is often necessary to avoid misunderstanding.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#117

Post by photochemsyn »

Metacelsus wrote: post #2

As a soon-to-be PhD graduate, I'm perversely curious as to how much these clandestine chemistry jobs actually pay . . .

Making opiates for the Sackler family with the blessing of the US government for distribution to addicts via 'pain clinics' probably pays about the same as making opiates for the Guzman cartel down in Mexico for transport over the border into the US for distribution to addicts on street corners.

In both cases you probably want to keep paying your taxes, however. In the latter case you'll need some cover story to explain where you got the money from.

Really the drug situation in the USA is pretty farcical. You can manufacture amphetamines and opiates at scale for the ADHD/chronic pain market, with relatively few restrictions, but the prisons are full of people involved in the clandestine trade in the very same substances.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#118

Post by gmtx725 »

ifyoubuildit wrote: post #111
pantalaimon wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What negative consequences are there to doing MDMA or LSD a couple times a year? Especially when comparing with the negative consequences of doing alcohol. The argument that any drug use is bad is pretty blown out of proportion.

> Especially when comparing with the negative consequences of doing alcohol. This sentiment is confusing to me. I get that alcohol is bad. But how is that relevant to whether or not MDMA or LSD are bad? I see it come up in these conversations pretty regularly, so there's probably a point there I'm missing. But I can't help but read it as "this thing I like to do isn't bad because other people do a different bad thing…

I think the point is people disproportionately tsk tsk about the harms of drug use compared to the harms of alcohol.

Personally I think most substances in moderate quantities taken only occasionally are no big deal. Yes there is probably some minute health impact visible in long term longitudinal studies but it's probably dwarfed by other lifestyle factors. I would rather be someone who exercises regularly, eats a healthy diet and uses MDMA or cocaine a few times a year than a sedentary obese teetolar who's never touched drugs.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#119

Post by subradios »

ifyoubuildit wrote: post #111
pantalaimon wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What negative consequences are there to doing MDMA or LSD a couple times a year? Especially when comparing with the negative consequences of doing alcohol. The argument that any drug use is bad is pretty blown out of proportion.

> Especially when comparing with the negative consequences of doing alcohol. This sentiment is confusing to me. I get that alcohol is bad. But how is that relevant to whether or not MDMA or LSD are bad? I see it come up in these conversations pretty regularly, so there's probably a point there I'm missing. But I can't help but read it as "this thing I like to do isn't bad because other people do a different bad thing…

Smart, well adjusted drug people will frequently point out that most common drugs they use (LSD, MDMA, MDAA, psilocybin, etc) have an orders of magnitude better risk profile than smoking or drinking. The latter is essentially socially ubiquitous.

That community has an ongoing bitterness about this double standard.

Usually though, people making this point are not advocating for heroin or meth (although there's a reasonable argument there that the drug is not what does most of the damage in those situations - krokodil is just heroin manufactured with an extremely dirty process. It's perceived as being much worse, but what's "much worse" are the impurities from using gasoline as a solvent.

MDMA and LSD in particular have the advantage of no fast, cheap ways to synthesize at the expense of safety or purity.

Re: Not-such-better-living through chemistry

#120

Post by cjbgkagh »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #71
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…

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.

At no point did I advocate prohibition of alcohol, I am suggesting that others pointing out the incredible harm alcohol does doesn’t do a great job in making the case that more drugs should be legal.
Post reply on HN