5 ms·

People treat drug users as if this was something that they chose to do. In fact, most drug addicts are in this situation because they suffer from a tendency to

People treat drug users as if this was something that they chose to do. In fact, most drug addicts are in this situation because they suffer from a tendency to drug abuse. Many of them had good jobs and lost them because of this condition. Holding up on the UBI program for everyone else because of the behavior of a few that need treatment is absurd.

vorpalhex 8y ago
Nobody is compelled to take methamphetamines or heroin, especially not the first time. Yes, physical addiction is a beastly problem beyond simply quitting cold turkey - but you sort of put yourself in that boat to begin with. It's a bit like not knowing how to swim, and deciding to jump into the ocean. If you don't know how to swim, don't jump in the ocean.
- Kluny 8y ago
  If they started taking prescription painkillers for chronic pain or post-surgery, then they kind of were compelled to do it, weren't they?
- clint 8y ago
  Since we're using bad analogies I would argue its more like being offered a piece of delicious candy and its great and you continue to eat the candy and its fine. Eventually you wake up one day and decide you've been gaining too much weight and you try to stop eating the candy but to your surprise, over the past several months or years your brain chemistry has been subtly changed and now your physical well-being and mental state is literally tied to you continuing to eat the candy. You can't stop and if you do you're in horrible pain and can't go to work, if you don't go to work you lose your job and if you want to keep working and not be homeless you keep eating the candy.
  - vorpalhex 8y ago
    Except most people know that heroin isn't like candy. The side effects and consequences of snorting a few lines of cocaine isn't some secret.
    - LitFan 8y ago
      Most people think heroin isn't like candy. The physical dependence is the same, and there are 4 times as many deaths that can be linked to sugar as drugs per year in the US. The only difference is that heroin is illegal and costs a lot more than candy.
      - kazinator 8y ago
        Firstly, "linked to sugar" is not "squarely caused by sugar". Secondly, sugar use is extremely widespread. Much more so than use of heroin. Few people avoid ingesting some sugar. Even if there were 4 times as many deaths confirmed to be squarely caused by sugar, that alone shows sugar to be far safer, since it has far more than 4 times the users. But never mind, let's look at, oh, the lethal dose (LD50) info. For sugar, that is supposedly something like 30 g/kg. The LD50 for heroin (intravenous) is something like 20 mg/kg: more than a thousand times less. Plus there is copious sugar in your bloodstream without which you'd be in hypoglycemic shock leading to death.
        LitFan 8y ago
        > Firstly, "linked to sugar" is not "squarely caused by sugar". Correct - the same goes for "Linked to drugs" and "squarely caused by drugs". > that alone shows sugar to be far safer Sugar is safer than cocaine, but that does not make it safe. I shouldn't have said the only difference - sorry. > But never mind, let's look at, oh, the lethal dose (LD50) info This is too narrowly focused - the LD50 only refers to the immediate effects of a substance, not the long lasting effects. I'd argue that long lasting effects are more dangerous as they're less apparent. > Plus there is copious sugar in your bloodstream without which you'd be in hypoglycemic shock leading to death. Yes, our bodies need sugar and create it from the food we eat. I was talking about the food we call sugar ("Sugar is the generic name for sweet-tasting, soluble carbohydrates, many of which are used in food.) I should use "added sugar" or "refined sugar".
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - 8y ago
- 0d311 8y ago
  "A study of young, urban injection drug users interviewed in 2008 and 2009 found that 86 percent had used opioid pain relievers nonmedically prior to using heroin... Of people entering treatment for heroin addiction who began abusing opioids in the 1960s, more than 80 percent started with heroin. Of those who began abusing opioids in the 2000s, 75 percent reported that their first opioid was a prescription drug."[0] What if they're being intentionally coerced by pharma? [0]: https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/relationship-between-prescription-drug-heroin-abuse/prescription-opioid-use-risk-factor-heroin-use https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/rela...
  - vorpalhex 8y ago
    That seems like a correlation argument. I'm sure at least 86% of those users had also been exposed to cell phones and sugar. Even if that correlation shows causation, that's a big jump to: > What if they're being intentionally coerced by pharma?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
goldcd 8y ago
I disagree. Of course there are many people with great jobs, that then developed a drug dependency that cost them. However, I'd counter that initial poverty (financial, parental, societal, educational - take your pick) is something that provides a fertile group to grow addiction. UBI would help remedy this. And quite frankly if somebody wishes to use their UBI to pay towards a crack addiction, then it works out cheaper for society than cleaning up their mess.
toasterlovin 8y ago
No, it's not absurd. Most people don't want to give money to people who are not immediate family. And they especially don't want to give money to people who are not immediate family and who are pissing their lives away. And I wouldn't count on this changing anytime soon, since it's probably a trait which evolved to counteract cheaters and free-riders in the small-scale societies that defined our evolutionary past.

vorpalhex 8y ago

Nobody is compelled to take methamphetamines or heroin, especially not the first time. Yes, physical addiction is a beastly problem beyond simply quitting cold turkey - but you sort of put yourself in that boat to begin with. It's a bit like not knowing how to swim, and deciding to jump into the ocean. If you don't know how to swim, don't jump in the ocean.

Kluny 8y ago
If they started taking prescription painkillers for chronic pain or post-surgery, then they kind of were compelled to do it, weren't they?
clint 8y ago
Since we're using bad analogies I would argue its more like being offered a piece of delicious candy and its great and you continue to eat the candy and its fine. Eventually you wake up one day and decide you've been gaining too much weight and you try to stop eating the candy but to your surprise, over the past several months or years your brain chemistry has been subtly changed and now your physical well-being and mental state is literally tied to you continuing to eat the candy. You can't stop and if you do you're in horrible pain and can't go to work, if you don't go to work you lose your job and if you want to keep working and not be homeless you keep eating the candy.
- vorpalhex 8y ago
  Except most people know that heroin isn't like candy. The side effects and consequences of snorting a few lines of cocaine isn't some secret.
  - LitFan 8y ago
    Most people think heroin isn't like candy. The physical dependence is the same, and there are 4 times as many deaths that can be linked to sugar as drugs per year in the US. The only difference is that heroin is illegal and costs a lot more than candy.
    - kazinator 8y ago
      Firstly, "linked to sugar" is not "squarely caused by sugar". Secondly, sugar use is extremely widespread. Much more so than use of heroin. Few people avoid ingesting some sugar. Even if there were 4 times as many deaths confirmed to be squarely caused by sugar, that alone shows sugar to be far safer, since it has far more than 4 times the users. But never mind, let's look at, oh, the lethal dose (LD50) info. For sugar, that is supposedly something like 30 g/kg. The LD50 for heroin (intravenous) is something like 20 mg/kg: more than a thousand times less. Plus there is copious sugar in your bloodstream without which you'd be in hypoglycemic shock leading to death.
      - LitFan 8y ago
        > Firstly, "linked to sugar" is not "squarely caused by sugar". Correct - the same goes for "Linked to drugs" and "squarely caused by drugs". > that alone shows sugar to be far safer Sugar is safer than cocaine, but that does not make it safe. I shouldn't have said the only difference - sorry. > But never mind, let's look at, oh, the lethal dose (LD50) info This is too narrowly focused - the LD50 only refers to the immediate effects of a substance, not the long lasting effects. I'd argue that long lasting effects are more dangerous as they're less apparent. > Plus there is copious sugar in your bloodstream without which you'd be in hypoglycemic shock leading to death. Yes, our bodies need sugar and create it from the food we eat. I was talking about the food we call sugar ("Sugar is the generic name for sweet-tasting, soluble carbohydrates, many of which are used in food.) I should use "added sugar" or "refined sugar".
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - 8y ago
0d311 8y ago
"A study of young, urban injection drug users interviewed in 2008 and 2009 found that 86 percent had used opioid pain relievers nonmedically prior to using heroin... Of people entering treatment for heroin addiction who began abusing opioids in the 1960s, more than 80 percent started with heroin. Of those who began abusing opioids in the 2000s, 75 percent reported that their first opioid was a prescription drug."[0] What if they're being intentionally coerced by pharma? [0]: https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/relationship-between-prescription-drug-heroin-abuse/prescription-opioid-use-risk-factor-heroin-use https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/rela...
- vorpalhex 8y ago
  That seems like a correlation argument. I'm sure at least 86% of those users had also been exposed to cell phones and sugar. Even if that correlation shows causation, that's a big jump to: > What if they're being intentionally coerced by pharma?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

goldcd 8y ago

I disagree. Of course there are many people with great jobs, that then developed a drug dependency that cost them. However, I'd counter that initial poverty (financial, parental, societal, educational - take your pick) is something that provides a fertile group to grow addiction. UBI would help remedy this. And quite frankly if somebody wishes to use their UBI to pay towards a crack addiction, then it works out cheaper for society than cleaning up their mess.

toasterlovin 8y ago

No, it's not absurd. Most people don't want to give money to people who are not immediate family. And they especially don't want to give money to people who are not immediate family and who are pissing their lives away. And I wouldn't count on this changing anytime soon, since it's probably a trait which evolved to counteract cheaters and free-riders in the small-scale societies that defined our evolutionary past.