Live data from Hacker News

Painkillers now kill more Americans than any illegal drug

vox.com

161–170 of 318 posts

Re: Painkillers now kill more Americans than any illegal drug

#161
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's really sad that you won't explore psychedelics because of personal idealism. You only get one life.

My personal idealism runs strongly in the opposite direction, but I would argue that the previous commenter's choice is not at all sad, for the same reason you use here! You only get one life, and it would be really sad to waste your limited, irreplaceable hours of consciousness pursuing activities you aren't interested in just because other people think you ought to.

Let's just say once the acid kicks in you'll realize why people said to try it ;)

Re: Painkillers now kill more Americans than any illegal drug

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is built into the assumptions of the country that some people will argue in their own self interest over that of the general public. In fact, it is expected that the majority will prefer their interest over the good of the whole. It is thenjob of Congress to mediate and ignore self-serving interests, but you can't even blame them for not doing their jobs, because it's the responsibility of the people to call out t…

But the federal system in the US seems to quite successfully have been coopted by politicians who spend most of their time raising funds, to stay where they are, in collaboration with companies who supply them with funds to get laws written to suite them. I know this is a bit of a caricature, but it seems to me that it now is really hard to change this system to something which takes the money out of the politics.

No, that's not a caricature at all, that's an extremely accurate description of our political process.

Re: Painkillers now kill more Americans than any illegal drug

#163

I've never taken an illegal drug in my life. I've smoked a cigarette about 5 times. I drank in college but lately I've cut that out of my life as well. I had a security clearance with drug testing requirements for a while and now I just don't like the feeling of a hangover from alcohol or the risk of ingesting random plants/chemicals made by shady people. In short: I'm the most vanilla, square, anti-drug person you c…

> Yet I can not for the life of me understand why drugs are illegal. Not just pot, all drugs. I'm totally onboard with making it our public policy that we want to reduce the use of drugs. That makes perfect sense to me. It does not make sense to me why anyone still believes that using the criminal justice system as the mechanism for getting to that goal is the right path. Look at other countries and you can see that…

Look at other countries and you can see that decriminalising it has no positive impact on the actual addicts.

That's not true though, they're not in prison. Though I've heard prison in Austria isn't as draconian as American prison.

But decriminalization is a half-assed solution. I think it is better than prohibition, because it doesn't result in treating the ill like criminals and doesn't criminalize responsible experimentation, but it only addresses a few of the deficiencies of prohibition.

We need legalization. This will help to combat the illegal distribution chains, which is where most of the real malice is found. It will also give the public a direct means toward helping addicts by regulating the drugs themselves. Regulation can combat overdose by having standard dose sizes so that users know exactly how much they are consuming. It can also guarantee purity — most of the damage to health that a lot of drugs cause, especially meth, are due to toxic impurities.

And instead of shoving addicts into rehab, we should accept that not everyone wants sobriety and you simply can't force it on them because they'll go right back to doing what they want. If you want to address the drug problem you have to accept that. Don't make people do things they don't want, instead, offer them the opportunity to do something they do want. Addicts want to have jobs, or at least some of them do, in order to pay for their drugs. So offer a program to help addicts manage their addiction so that they can be effective employees, and then just give them a job, without the pretense of helping them stop their usage. If you can get addicts back into society, and put them in a healthy environment where they have stability and a purpose, eventually some of them will want to expand on that positive part of their life and might even decide to go to quit completely. Even the ones who don't choose to quit, at least they're being productive, and they're in the care of experts on drug addiction. And the addicts who have no interest in a job will be affected indirectly as well, because addicts associate with other addicts, and if you can get a lot of addicts off the street, it will change the dynamics on the street as well. You can curtail the camaraderie between addicts, who's reciprocity enables them to have a stable source of dope without a stable source of income.

These programs would be expensive, but they can be funded by the money not going into enforcement of ridiculous laws and the taxes from selling drugs.

Re: Painkillers now kill more Americans than any illegal drug

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should your drug use, or anyone else's, create obligations for other people to support you, treat you, and help you overcome addiction? The libertarian case for legalizing drugs falls apart if society has to take responsibility for providing support systems as a reaction to the actions of individual drug users. Frankly, most people would rather continue to ban drugs than pay for treatment for people who abuse the…

Libertarians agree that society needs to take responsibility for providing a support system. It's just their definition of society differs from yours. They believe interested parties should take up the burden, where you apparently mean the government should provide those services, which means forcing people to provide those services.

This is the most important distinction that libertarians make: government and society are not the same thing. Most everyone else simply conflates the two. "What, as a society, should we do?"

Individuals are in society with one another; there is no such thing as "Society," in the collectivist sense.

Re: Painkillers now kill more Americans than any illegal drug

#165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should your drug use, or anyone else's, create obligations Where did you detect this suggestion? > The libertarian case for legalizing drugs falls apart if society has to take responsibility for providing support systems as a reaction to the actions of individual drug users. That's also where the libertarian case falls apart for legalizing cheeseburgers, and motorcycles.

> Where did you detect this suggestion? From evincarofautumn's post: > However, while proceeding with legalisation, we must also establish better social support systems so that people can safely enjoy drugs in moderation. Those social support systems will cost money. They will have to be funded by taxpayers. Unless they are cheaper than the current system of enforcement and incarceration, people will not support them…

> Those social support systems will cost money. They will have to be funded by taxpayers.

Why couldn't private industry or charities provide such services?

Perhaps this is not so evident to non-drug-users, but harm reduction/prevention is a very important component to using drugs safely. Along the lines of, "always use protection," and "don't drink and drive," drug companies can make helpful use guidelines like "don't mix this cocaine with that amphetamine capsule" and "don't share your needles with your buddies" and then implement services/programs to ensure the success of these guidelines.

Ask anyone who's smoked weed for more than a decade (and outside of California) what it was like to buy weed before legalization and medical marijuana became a thing. They'll tell you that you had usually no idea what kind of weed you were getting, and you had to be happy with whatever the dealer gave you. Today? There's a fucking weed strain review startup called Leafly.com and it's helpful!

The point is that as drugs become part of the mainstream due to our ability to perpetuate good use habits, support the procurement of high-purity substances (thanks to the dark net), and the legalization efforts in many parts of the world, harm reduction and addiction support services will crop up to address the new challenges presented. Whether the government forces this upon us, or if the industry does it itself, it will happen due to the huge number of stakeholders that directly benefit from doing so.

Re: Painkillers now kill more Americans than any illegal drug

#166
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should your drug use, or anyone else's, create obligations for other people to support you, treat you, and help you overcome addiction? The libertarian case for legalizing drugs falls apart if society has to take responsibility for providing support systems as a reaction to the actions of individual drug users. Frankly, most people would rather continue to ban drugs than pay for treatment for people who abuse the…

It's called the veil of ignorance. Locke was among its supporters, and while Locke was a staunch supporter of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, including property rights, he considered hoarding to be against nature. So it's possible to describe yourself as libertarian and still support publicly funded alcohol and drug rehab. In other words, how do you want a society work where you or a family member might have…

The "veil of ignorance" is John Rawls's term, not John Locke's. Please don't go using the one for the other. From your comment, what I can see is that you're using Rawls's philosophy far more than Locke's. It is not accurate to say that Locke supported this "veil of ignorance" idea. Locke was arguing about the nature of human beings. Rawls is doing something very different.

Re: Painkillers now kill more Americans than any illegal drug

#167

I've never taken an illegal drug in my life. I've smoked a cigarette about 5 times. I drank in college but lately I've cut that out of my life as well. I had a security clearance with drug testing requirements for a while and now I just don't like the feeling of a hangover from alcohol or the risk of ingesting random plants/chemicals made by shady people. In short: I'm the most vanilla, square, anti-drug person you c…

Drugs, gambling, and prostitution are all illegal, yet they are things that otherwise law-abiding people are going to do anyway. Hence, no matter how punitive the punishments, people do it anyway, and it spawns massive criminal industries to supply those desires.

Heck, you can get drugs even in prison. If the government can't stop that, how can they possibly stop it in the rest of society?

Re: Painkillers now kill more Americans than any illegal drug

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m an alcoholic. I’ve cut back on my use significantly, and I’m currently in a period of abstinence. Because alcohol is legal and socially accepted, it’s entirely my responsibility to manage my behaviour and keep my use to non-problematic levels. Not everyone has the social support to make that happen. I think legalisation would be beneficial, as you say, because the criminal justice system does not serve addicts. H…

Why should your drug use, or anyone else's, create obligations for other people to support you, treat you, and help you overcome addiction? The libertarian case for legalizing drugs falls apart if society has to take responsibility for providing support systems as a reaction to the actions of individual drug users. Frankly, most people would rather continue to ban drugs than pay for treatment for people who abuse the…

Nothing about libertarianism requires people to not help those in need of support.

Re: Painkillers now kill more Americans than any illegal drug

#169

Just so you know, opioid pain killers are actually not useful for chronic pain at all. Over the long term it actually makes patients sense of pain GO UP. It's excellent for non-chronic pain however.

Not the best choice, certainly, but I would question not useful. I suffer from chronic pain (mostly headaches), and opioids (tramadol/codeine) are the only drugs[1] that have given any relief. I've been using them for about two years; they are still useful, and when I stop using them the pain is about the same it was before. Fortunately I don't appear to find them addictive - I stopped taking the tramadol after about…

Just a suggestion because it is often missed by general practitioners: If you've not tried it already, talk to your dentist. Headaches and migraines are often related to teeth or the jaws. Particularly grinding and clenching. Often it can be reduced significantly or go away entirely with a simple night time biteguard.

Re: Painkillers now kill more Americans than any illegal drug

#170
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> overprescription of opioids because they're cheap It's a bit scary how eager doctors are to prescribe them. "Hey doc, I'm in pain" – "Here's a bottle of painkillers, NEXT" Bitch, I don't want painkillers, I want you to figure out why my body is hurting when it's not supposed to. It's surprisingly frustrating to talk doctors into looking for the cause instead of treating the symptom. Thankfully, the metamizole they…

> I don't want painkillers, I want you to figure out why my body is hurting when it's not supposed to. It's surprisingly frustrating to talk doctors into looking for the cause instead of treating the symptom. To be fair, this is related to the symptom you're asking them about. Pain often occurs with no apparent cause. As an extreme example, it is normal for amputees to experience the sensation of a "phantom hand" whe…

It's interesting that the more limited your knowledge is, the more things happen 'with no apparent cause'.

In middle ages, millions dies of plague 'with no apparent cause'. I guess humankind just said 'ah, these things happen, let's not investigate further'.

Post reply on HN