DARE: The Anti-Drug Program That Never Actually Worked • Hacker News Board

Re: DARE: The Anti-Drug Program That Never Actually Worked

#91

Post by user_0001 » Sat, Oct 03, 2015, 1:15 PM UTC

pstuart wrote: post #50

hristov wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody has ever done any great writing while stoned. Even Hunter S. Thompson, one of the most pro-drug writers ever, said that pot is the only drug that prevents him from doing any good work. And no, people should not try LSD. LSD leads to a high danger of psychosis or schizophrenia, and that is no fun at all. It is better not to risk it. Just because you may have gotten lucky so far, there is no reason to invite oth…

> LSD leads to a high danger of psychosis or schizophrenia Citations please. It's a powerful drug but has incredible value when used properly. If you're going to start wringing your hands over dangerous drugs, start with the killers of today: alcohol, tobacco, and prescription drugs.

Don't forget the bigger killers

* crossing the road

* driving a car

* choking on

etc etc

Re: DARE: The Anti-Drug Program That Never Actually Worked

#92

Post by jessaustin » Sat, Oct 03, 2015, 1:15 PM UTC

DARE rolled out at just the right time so that I wasn't subjected to it but my sister two years younger was. By the time I was a senior in high school, it was clear to everyone that the DARE-exposed classes were using at much higher rates than previous classes. (Not my sister though!) This was 1994. There is no such thing as a "temporary" government program. Programs that do harm will do so for decades.

Re: DARE: The Anti-Drug Program That Never Actually Worked

#93

Post by user_0001 » Sat, Oct 03, 2015, 1:22 PM UTC

stuaxo wrote: post #67

MichaelGG wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh Trainspotting has a decent chance of encouraging heroin use. At least that was my (apparently not too uncommon) reaction to the film. Requiem seemed too nonsensical. And all they really do is show that you should have money and the real problems aren't the drugs but finances and society.

I'm curious about how, it seemed pretty horrible what thy were going through.

"wow the fun bits look fun, as long as I don't get addicted....."

If you are a drug user, reading / watching something that others may thing would turn people away from drugs, a certain kind of drug user (perhaps more adventurous) will be thinking, "yeah I'd like to try that".

Used to be like that for me and others I knew. Case in point, all the PCP scare stories, "man gets super human strength, fights off 10 police, gets naked". I would just focus on the "gets super human strength" - yeah should get some of that.

But at the end of the day, drugs are pretty stupid. Fun. But stupid. Doesn't mean we should stop people taking them. Lots of things are stupid - really, if you think about it. Riding your bike down mountains, any of the more "extreme" sports, rock climbing. Anything with a risk that isn't necessary. But it is up to the individual to weigh the risk, the "fun" reward and decide what they want to do

Re: DARE: The Anti-Drug Program That Never Actually Worked

#94

Post by cardamomo » Sat, Oct 03, 2015, 1:35 PM UTC

As a side effect of DARE's eventual disappearance from schools, one of my favorite (bad) jokes no longer works with younger listeners. (Wait for the third punchline.)

    Q: Why did the monkey fall out of the tree?
    A: It was dead.

    Q: Why did the second monkey fall out of the tree?
    A: It was stapled to the first one.
    
    Q: Why did the third monkey fall out of the tree?
    A: Peer pressure.

Alas, I'll have to save my bad jokes for other adults and come up with some new ones for the kiddos.

EDIT: Formatting.

Re: DARE: The Anti-Drug Program That Never Actually Worked

#95

Post by andrepd » Sat, Oct 03, 2015, 2:07 PM UTC

astazangasta wrote: post #36

Vexs wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, the only things that have ever made me think a second time about drugs are the honest descriptions of it, not the "I did drugs and now I have no teeth" kinda descriptions, but the ones that go, "When you're on meth, meth feels great! Everything is amazing, you feel like you can do so much, but when you're off it everything seems boring! So you go back for more, and eventually you're addicted." kinda descri…

Or, just do drugs. I mean, LSD is great, and people should try it. Smoking pot is also nice, I've done some great writing while stoned. Heck, Paul Erdos did amphetamines his whole life. Why are we trying to convince everyone not to do drugs again?

"LSD is great, and people should try it" is as dishonest and misleading and agenda-pushing as "pot makes your teeth fall off".

Re: DARE: The Anti-Drug Program That Never Actually Worked

#96

Post by andrepd » Sat, Oct 03, 2015, 2:10 PM UTC

TelmoMenezes wrote: post #88

kalleboo wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are numerous counter-examples to this I'm not saying the GP is correct (I'd rather see a study than "something a cartoon said"), but there are "numerous counter-examples" to everything . Pack-a-day smokers who lived to 110, high-functional alcoholics, people who lived long lives around lead, mercury and asbestos. That doesn't mean you don't want to encourage people to not try to beat the odds.

Tobacco smoking, alcohol abuse and exposure to lead, mercury and asbestos have been shown to have strong negative health effects by extensive studies with a lot of statistical power and grounded in theory. This is not the case for cannabis use. The public perception of cannabis as having horrible negative health consequences comes from state propaganda, not science. Look it up yourself. But look for scientific articl…

There is a high barrier to research about pot and other drugs such as LSD, for obvious reason. This means that while you have a gigantic corpus of data about alcohol usage, for instance, you have next to nothing to work with on pot.

Just because you don't have studies showing pot is harmful it doesn't mean pot isn't harmful. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Re: DARE: The Anti-Drug Program That Never Actually Worked

#97

Post by TelmoMenezes » Sat, Oct 03, 2015, 2:20 PM UTC

TelmoMenezes wrote: post #88

kalleboo wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are numerous counter-examples to this I'm not saying the GP is correct (I'd rather see a study than "something a cartoon said"), but there are "numerous counter-examples" to everything . Pack-a-day smokers who lived to 110, high-functional alcoholics, people who lived long lives around lead, mercury and asbestos. That doesn't mean you don't want to encourage people to not try to beat the odds.

Tobacco smoking, alcohol abuse and exposure to lead, mercury and asbestos have been shown to have strong negative health effects by extensive studies with a lot of statistical power and grounded in theory. This is not the case for cannabis use. The public perception of cannabis as having horrible negative health consequences comes from state propaganda, not science. Look it up yourself. But look for scientific articl…

> There is a high barrier to research about pot and other drugs such as LSD, for obvious reason. This means that while you have a gigantic corpus of data about alcohol usage, for instance, you have next to nothing to work with on pot.

Prohibition prevents scientific research, but it is not true that there isn't a lot of indirect data. One of them is cause of death at emergency rooms. While alcohol produces a large number of deaths daily, cannabis produced zero so far (in the history of modern medicine).

> Just because you don't have studies showing pot is harmful it doesn't mean pot isn't harmful. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Sure, but this applies to everything. Maybe having brown curtains in your living room increases your chances of suffering from depression. Let's make brown curtains illegal until we know more?

Re: DARE: The Anti-Drug Program That Never Actually Worked

#98

Post by swayvil » Sat, Oct 03, 2015, 2:51 PM UTC

But it did work. Millions have an irrational antipathy towards drugs. Indoctrination works, especially when you get em while they're young.

The effects of DARE will echo through our society for generations. Just like the effects of a war or a natural disaster.

Re: DARE: The Anti-Drug Program That Never Actually Worked

#99

Post by danschumann » Sat, Oct 03, 2015, 3:07 PM UTC

It's a SELF IMAGE THING! If your mom came into your room every day and had a talk about how SCARED SHE WAS that you were GOING TO MAKE A BILLION DOLLARS.. Likely you'd go out there and make a billion dollars. People often rebel just for the sake of defining their own boundaries!!!!

Re: DARE: The Anti-Drug Program That Never Actually Worked

#100

Post by Retric » Sat, Oct 03, 2015, 3:14 PM UTC

TelmoMenezes wrote: post #97

TelmoMenezes wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tobacco smoking, alcohol abuse and exposure to lead, mercury and asbestos have been shown to have strong negative health effects by extensive studies with a lot of statistical power and grounded in theory. This is not the case for cannabis use. The public perception of cannabis as having horrible negative health consequences comes from state propaganda, not science. Look it up yourself. But look for scientific articl…

> There is a high barrier to research about pot and other drugs such as LSD, for obvious reason. This means that while you have a gigantic corpus of data about alcohol usage, for instance, you have next to nothing to work with on pot. Prohibition prevents scientific research, but it is not true that there isn't a lot of indirect data. One of them is cause of death at emergency rooms. While alcohol produces a large nu…

Pot has produced cancer deaths just like other forms of smoke inhalation. Incense is also harmful for similar reasons.

THC is fairly safe, inhaling smoke is stupid.

PS: As far as I know eating it is ok, but many things become harmful when you do them for 30+ years. Ex: Runniners often have knee problems over the long term.