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

H - The surprising truth about heroin and addiction

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 90 posts

Re: H - The surprising truth about heroin and addiction

#71

Post by john_flintstone »

sverige wrote: post #60

Having struggled with addiction off and on for more than half my life, I would say that the opiates are some of the more enjoyable drugs, though they can be quite difficult to kick, and the legal and financial risks are very high. Cigarettes are far harder to kick. And pot isn't nearly as harmless as most make it out to be, since it literally makes people stupid with regular long-term use. I kicked everything except…

>The vast majority of those who experiment never become addicted. But for those who do, it is very costly, and fatal frequently enough that it is not worth the risk

Are you talking about heroin, or alcohol?

Re: H - The surprising truth about heroin and addiction

#72

Post by yarrel »

learc83 wrote: post #44
dinkumthinkum wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reason has an agenda they are trying to spread to you. They don't want to live in a world where something the government regulates, actually is dangerous. They want to have their cake and eat it to. "People should be able to destroy their bodies if they want. Oh yeah, and since that is not very convincing to you, here's some statistically insignificant reasons why heroin doesn't hurt you anyway, neener neener. Oh, an…

Libertarians believe that ending drug prohibition would reduce the harm to society--that the problems caused by drug use are exacerbated by prohibition. You can argue with libertarians all you want about whether you think their proposed actions will help or hurt society, but stop acting like libertarians are monsters who don't care about the welfare of others. >"I know this would destroy people's lives and society wo…

Legalisation and state provision of drugs would minimise harm both to drug users and to society.

Since this would result in a reduction in government (with the end of the War On Drugs), this is actually a Libertarian argument.

How Libertarians react to this says a lot about just how much of a caricature they are.

Re: H - The surprising truth about heroin and addiction

#73

Post by vidarh »

andrewfelix wrote: post #21

Had a good friend who was educated, healthy and ran his own business. He died from an heroin overdose shortly after selling off most of his business assets to pay for his addiction. Yes, this is one anecdote. But I bet you my anecdote is a fuck load more common than that of the successful New York business man cited in the article.

I used to work with someone who was a responsible, successful business man who nobody suspected might use heroin until a substantial change in heroin prices left him in panic chasing money to pay for his addiction. Had the drastic price change at the time not happened, chances are nobody would have found out. In other words:

You see the ones that ends up fucking up for one reason or another. You don't see the ones that manage, so you don't know whether nobody manages to deal with it, or if lots of people do.

(the other aspect of this is that his personal ruin, while facilitated by a heroin addiction, was triggered by the legal regime surrounding heroin that made it impossible for him to get at a low, predictable price; I've gradually come to believe that outlawing most drugs is ethically indefensible)

Re: H - The surprising truth about heroin and addiction

#74

Post by JackpotDen »

sverige wrote: post #61
ZoFreX wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder how this business man was doing with his teeth, pancreas and kidneys. Would uncut, correctly dosed heroin have an effect on those?

Where are you going to find uncut heroin? Are you going to join the Taliban?

People grow that stuff as well.

Re: H - The surprising truth about heroin and addiction

#75

Post by learc83 »

sverige wrote: post #66
learc83 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure who you are arguing with. OP said this: "if you can get high and be responsible you can probably cope with using in moderation. unfortunately, i imagine a majority of people are not like that." The article specifically refutes that. It cites studies that show the majority of heroin users are able to use heroin in moderation. Also you should edit your post to make it a bit easier to read. It's quite long…

I understand papaver's statement is contrary to the article's assertion that the majority of heroin users are able to use in moderation. My response is challenging the implicit assumption in the article (and in your reply) that the moderate use of heroin is worthwhile in light of the real risks that are entailed in that use. In other words, is the high really worth the chance of becoming dependent and/or possibly dyi…

>My response is challenging the implicit assumption in the article (and in your reply) that the moderate use of heroin is worthwhile in light of the real risks that are entailed in that use.

Oh I don't think that moderate use of heroin is worthwhile--I simply think it is possible.

I don't disagree that for most people the inherent risks of using heroin outweigh the benefits, but that doesn't preclude from believing that the risks of using heroin are still exaggerated.

For instance, I believe that it would be optimal if the majority of 10th graders didn't have sex, but I don't believe we should tell them sex will likely result in death.

Present the actual risks, not exaggerated propaganda.

I'm not sure if you're from the US, but here we have an anti drug program called D.A.R.E where police officers talk to young kids about the dangers of drugs.

The dangers presented are so ridiculously exaggerated, that when kids inevitably learn that smoking marijuana doesn't necessarily lead to death and destruction--they begin to question everything else they learned from the program. Lying in order to persuade children is almost never a good option.

Re: H - The surprising truth about heroin and addiction

#76

Post by shin_lao »

slurgfest wrote: post #37
cletus wrote: post #18

Addiction is a weird beast. As I understand it is has two parts: 1. Physiological dependence as evidenced by tolerance and withdrawal symptoms; and 2. Psychological addiction. (2) can manifest itself in many ways that go well beyond drugs--gambling, adrenalin junkies, even Farmville. The danger of some hard drugs is that they can, for some unfortunate segment of the population, be a potent mix of (1) and (2). Further…

Addiction is a valid folk concept: everyone is aware of someone who can't get off cigarettes or booze, for example, or gambling, or occasionally heroin or meth or crack - to the impairment of their life, past the point of ongoing pleasure. So there are real phenomena to study, of some social importance. And I don't dispute that many people lose control and mess up their lives in various ways, in addition to running a…

Withdrawal symptoms make it harder to quit.

Re: H - The surprising truth about heroin and addiction

#77

Post by EiZei »

lincolnq wrote: post #22
ilaksh wrote: post #20

I can't see any good reason why someone would go to so much trouble to defend heroin, other than to assume that this is some kind of PR requested by establishment and/or intelligence groups which profit from heroin grown in places like Afghanistan (or, in the previous era, India).

Reason.com is a libertarian blog, generally promoting reduced regulation in all forms.

In my opinion the funny thing is that when it comes to drugs libertarians are trying to promote some kind of reasonable fact-based regulatory approach rather than the current moralist view which pretty much is all about punishing people just for punishment's sake. Too bad they can't apply it on other issues as well.

Re: H - The surprising truth about heroin and addiction

#78

Post by shin_lao »

Deestan wrote: post #58

Disregarding the pro/con heroin issue, this article also illuminates that anti-drug campaigns are having a "facts crisis". If you say "x drug is bad for you", you should also be able to say why and how. To memory-quote from a pregnancy leaflet we got a few years back: - You should avoid drinking alcohol during pregnancy, because it can cause harm to the child's nervous system in the early stages. - You should avoid s…

That's very likely because there are many serious studies about the effects of tobacco and alcohol on the fetus, but not that many for hashish.

Re: H - The surprising truth about heroin and addiction

#79

Post by learc83 »

yarrel wrote: post #72
learc83 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libertarians believe that ending drug prohibition would reduce the harm to society--that the problems caused by drug use are exacerbated by prohibition. You can argue with libertarians all you want about whether you think their proposed actions will help or hurt society, but stop acting like libertarians are monsters who don't care about the welfare of others. >"I know this would destroy people's lives and society wo…

Legalisation and state provision of drugs would minimise harm both to drug users and to society. Since this would result in a reduction in government (with the end of the War On Drugs), this is actually a Libertarian argument. How Libertarians react to this says a lot about just how much of a caricature they are.

>state provision of drugs

Why do you think provision of drugs is necessary to minimize harm?

If drugs were legal (and not heavily taxed) the prices would drop to a level that even indigent beggars could afford.

Are you saying that drugs specifically should be provided, or are you arguing that in general all basic needs should be provided?

Because if that's the case, I'm not opposed to a guaranteed minimum income of the type supported by Milton Friedman in lieu of the current welfare system.

Incidentally, I think that by guaranteeing a minimum income we would be free to remove much of the regulation that ineffectually attempts the same outcome--resulting in an overall reduction in the size and scope of government.

Re: H - The surprising truth about heroin and addiction

#80

Post by robbiep »

refurb wrote: post #13
robbiep wrote: post #2

As someone in the medical field, this article does a very good up job of restoring the balance and correcting some preconceptions regarding substance dependence and addiction - ie. that not all substances are going to lead to lifelong dependence and addiction, and in fact it only occurs to a small percentage. This is established medical fact and is taught in all medical schools now. However I worry that it might make…

A couple comments: 1. Is chronic methadone usage really that bad? It's never great to be dependent on a substance to function, but if all it takes is a trip to the methadone clinic for your daily dose, but the rest of your life is relatively normal, is that so bad considering the alternative? 2. I've heard methadone withdrawal is much worse than withdrawal from heroin. Heroin WD symptoms are very intense, but last ab…

Chronic methadone usage has a number of problems associated with it, the ones I am most familiar with (From my experience working with D&A specialists) is poor teeth - easily chipped and broken, cavities etc (? related to bone mineral density changes? I am not entirely sure) as well as the significant hassle of going to a methadone clinic and having to deal with the social crowd and second hand drug market that usually exists just outside a hospital dispensary (In aust many pharmacies don't dispense methadone because of the crowd they think it attracts, and those that do charge for it, which can be a couple hundred a week, vs. free from a govt-provided system) However I did meet some people during my time at the methadone clinic that had what you are saying - a steady job, etc - but if you have a job and have to be at a clinic every day, which opens only from 8-1, and only serves 1 at a time, you better have an understanding boss...

with regard to 2, I don't know about methadone withdrawal being worse than heroin; worse here is perhaps relative; you are exactly spot-on regarding the aspects of both of them in terms of length - heroin withdrawal only lasts around a week, and incredibly you can't die from it, although it may feel like you will! - as an aside, the only drug you can withdraw from that can kill you is Alcohol (Delirium Tremens causing convulsions and death)

-- EDIT -- This image http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/9791/422a.jpg shows the biochemical effect of opiate withdrawal. This image shows enzyme activity levels in a specific part of the brain associated with perception of pain - Pain relief is correlated with the initial decrease in cAMP formation. However within a short period AC increases leading to cAMP returning to normal levels, and thus the return of pain; amplified by sudden withdrawal of the opiate - now AC acts uninhibited, there is a massive increase in cAMP and thus the 'pain' of withdrawal is experienced as physical pain, as real as being cut open

Post reply on HN