3 ms·

> What about folks with mental illnesses, physical impairments, advanced age, pregnancy, recovering from injuries, drug/alcohol addiction Drug and alcohol addi

by apta 6y ago

> What about folks with mental illnesses, physical impairments, advanced age, pregnancy, recovering from injuries, drug/alcohol addiction Drug and alcohol addition are definitely not in the same group as the rest.

danShumway 6y ago
Given how much we now know about the history of the opioid epidemic, how much we now know about how cigarettes/alcohol have been advertised throughout recent history and what the motivations were behind those advertisements, I feel like this is a particularly naive comment. Nobody gets up in the morning and says, "gee, I'd really like to introduce a high-cost, crippling dependency in my life." Understanding that and treating drug abuse like a physical/social disease has turned out to be a surprisingly effective social policy. It's not clear to me why addicted people should be treated differently than anyone else in any other challenging situation. Certainly once someone is addicted to a drug, there are obvious biological forces preventing them from quitting cold-turkey.
- apta 6y ago
  > Nobody gets up in the morning and says They don't, yet they "drink casually" or "do drugs casually". There's a reason certain religions ban intoxicating substances. Alas, people like to play with fire, then things go wrong, yet society still thinks that it's ok to keep marketing those dangerous substances. If society actually wants to fix the issue, there is a solution, but it doesn't sit well with the greedy and foolish.
  - danShumway 6y ago
    Again, you're ignoring nearly a decade of modern research into how addiction happens, and the social infrastructures that have been deliberately set up by both dealers and drug/alcohol/pharmaceutical companies to get people addicted. You say yourself: > yet society still thinks that it's ok to keep marketing those dangerous substances If you're acknowledging that society is pushing people into drugs, doesn't it kind of make sense to hold society responsible for getting them out? ---- But even ignoring the causes of addiction, your suggestion that we ban alcohol/drugs also doesn't have anything to do with whether we should help people who are physically addicted now. Okay, cool, let's ban heroin. It already is illegal, but whatever. We'll super-ban it. Even after the super-ban, we're still going to need to help the people who are addicted right now -- people who are suffering from both a biological and psychological dependency that is outside of their control to fix on their own. > people like to play with fire If you ride your bike without a helmet and accidentally suffer a brain injury, should society help you, even though you ignored safety advice? If you get distracted in your car and crash, should society help you, even though you weren't paying attention? Is your position that only people with birth defects have a legitimate claim to support/grace? When I was a young kid, my brother and I use to go out in the woods and pretend sword fight with sticks, even though our parents told us this was a stupid, dangerous thing to do. We got lucky, nothing ever happened. But if one of us had accidentally stabbed an eye out, would we have been entitled to any kind of social support? I still don't see anything that would make a drug addiction different from those scenarios.
    - apta 6y ago
      > and the social infrastructures that have been deliberately set up by both dealers and drug/alcohol/pharmaceutical companies to get people addicted. I indirectly mentioned that in my post. There is a solution to this problem, but it doesn't sit well with the foolish and the greedy. There is a vested interest that it doesn't get solved. > Okay, cool, let's ban heroin. It already is illegal, but whatever. We'll super-ban it. Should also add alcohol to the list. > I still don't see anything that would make a drug addiction different from those scenarios. It's very different. In the activities you mentioned, there is a positive outcome involved, or it is a natural part of growing up (kids do stupid things, but that's where the role of the parents come in). Whereas in doing drugs and alcohol, the risk/benefit ratios are so skewed, it's irrational to engage in them in the first place.
      - danShumway 6y ago
        But none of what you're saying solves the problem of what we're going to do with all of the people who have a physical addiction right now: people who can't fix their own problems without external help. You keep on kind of dancing around this "but they deserve it" argument. But who cares if they deserve it? They're not going to go away until someone else helps them. You can't just pass a law that people will stop being addicted to alcohol, that's not how biology works. How people got into a situation where they can't help themselves doesn't matter. They're still in a position where they can't fix their own problems. And on moralization, to go back to your own point: > There is a vested interest that it doesn't get solved. Do you have a plan to get rid of that vested interest? How long is that plan going to take to implement? A year? Two years? Should we just let addicts die on the street until you get around to getting elected to Congress? If society is at least partially (and arguably largely) to blame for these people's addictions, and if changing society is a difficult, long-term process that requires battling multiple vested interests, then why is it unethical for us to use social resources like taxes in the meantime to help people that society is hurting? You can't have this both ways. You can't argue that society is obsessed with drugs and that's why we have addiction, while simultaneously arguing that every addicted person is specifically getting what they deserve and isn't worthy of our help. > It's very different. There is a positive outcome involved, or it is a natural part of growing up There's a positive outcome involved in glancing at a phone while driving? Riding a bicycle without a helmet is a natural part of growing up? I strongly agree that kids often do stupid things. Trying drugs and alcohol is one of those stupid things. And to be honest, comparatively, riding a bicycle without a helmet is way more stupid and way more irrational than accidentally getting peer-pressured by a drug-obsessed society into a debilitating addiction. I don't see a difference here except that one of those activities is being labeled as harmless stupidity, and one of them is being labeled as a moral failing. Getting addicted to painkillers coming out of surgeries with badly dosed prescriptions is still a common worry for many people. I have friends that refuse to take any painkillers in a hospital specifically because they're frightened of that exact scenario. The best case scenario for people who get addicted to painkillers is for them to get 3rd-party help before they become addicted to more serious drugs. It's absurd to me to argue that their problems were caused by them being stupid or immoral, when I can directly see the role that doctors and the medical industry played in their addictions. Are those people worthy of getting help from society?
Pfhreak 6y ago
Why not? Addiction is basically an illness, whose causes are broad, and breaking an addiction requires a lot of support.
- apta 6y ago
  Because they consciously and purposely got themselves into it. They played with fire and got burnt. It's not like they woke up in some zombie state and started drinking and doing drugs. Many people abstain from drinking, gambling, etc. precisely because we know the outcomes, and it works.

by apta 6y ago

danShumway 6y ago

Given how much we now know about the history of the opioid epidemic, how much we now know about how cigarettes/alcohol have been advertised throughout recent history and what the motivations were behind those advertisements, I feel like this is a particularly naive comment. Nobody gets up in the morning and says, "gee, I'd really like to introduce a high-cost, crippling dependency in my life." Understanding that and treating drug abuse like a physical/social disease has turned out to be a surprisingly effective social policy. It's not clear to me why addicted people should be treated differently than anyone else in any other challenging situation. Certainly once someone is addicted to a drug, there are obvious biological forces preventing them from quitting cold-turkey.

apta 6y ago
> Nobody gets up in the morning and says They don't, yet they "drink casually" or "do drugs casually". There's a reason certain religions ban intoxicating substances. Alas, people like to play with fire, then things go wrong, yet society still thinks that it's ok to keep marketing those dangerous substances. If society actually wants to fix the issue, there is a solution, but it doesn't sit well with the greedy and foolish.
- danShumway 6y ago
  Again, you're ignoring nearly a decade of modern research into how addiction happens, and the social infrastructures that have been deliberately set up by both dealers and drug/alcohol/pharmaceutical companies to get people addicted. You say yourself: > yet society still thinks that it's ok to keep marketing those dangerous substances If you're acknowledging that society is pushing people into drugs, doesn't it kind of make sense to hold society responsible for getting them out? ---- But even ignoring the causes of addiction, your suggestion that we ban alcohol/drugs also doesn't have anything to do with whether we should help people who are physically addicted now. Okay, cool, let's ban heroin. It already is illegal, but whatever. We'll super-ban it. Even after the super-ban, we're still going to need to help the people who are addicted right now -- people who are suffering from both a biological and psychological dependency that is outside of their control to fix on their own. > people like to play with fire If you ride your bike without a helmet and accidentally suffer a brain injury, should society help you, even though you ignored safety advice? If you get distracted in your car and crash, should society help you, even though you weren't paying attention? Is your position that only people with birth defects have a legitimate claim to support/grace? When I was a young kid, my brother and I use to go out in the woods and pretend sword fight with sticks, even though our parents told us this was a stupid, dangerous thing to do. We got lucky, nothing ever happened. But if one of us had accidentally stabbed an eye out, would we have been entitled to any kind of social support? I still don't see anything that would make a drug addiction different from those scenarios.
  - apta 6y ago
    > and the social infrastructures that have been deliberately set up by both dealers and drug/alcohol/pharmaceutical companies to get people addicted. I indirectly mentioned that in my post. There is a solution to this problem, but it doesn't sit well with the foolish and the greedy. There is a vested interest that it doesn't get solved. > Okay, cool, let's ban heroin. It already is illegal, but whatever. We'll super-ban it. Should also add alcohol to the list. > I still don't see anything that would make a drug addiction different from those scenarios. It's very different. In the activities you mentioned, there is a positive outcome involved, or it is a natural part of growing up (kids do stupid things, but that's where the role of the parents come in). Whereas in doing drugs and alcohol, the risk/benefit ratios are so skewed, it's irrational to engage in them in the first place.
    - danShumway 6y ago
      But none of what you're saying solves the problem of what we're going to do with all of the people who have a physical addiction right now: people who can't fix their own problems without external help. You keep on kind of dancing around this "but they deserve it" argument. But who cares if they deserve it? They're not going to go away until someone else helps them. You can't just pass a law that people will stop being addicted to alcohol, that's not how biology works. How people got into a situation where they can't help themselves doesn't matter. They're still in a position where they can't fix their own problems. And on moralization, to go back to your own point: > There is a vested interest that it doesn't get solved. Do you have a plan to get rid of that vested interest? How long is that plan going to take to implement? A year? Two years? Should we just let addicts die on the street until you get around to getting elected to Congress? If society is at least partially (and arguably largely) to blame for these people's addictions, and if changing society is a difficult, long-term process that requires battling multiple vested interests, then why is it unethical for us to use social resources like taxes in the meantime to help people that society is hurting? You can't have this both ways. You can't argue that society is obsessed with drugs and that's why we have addiction, while simultaneously arguing that every addicted person is specifically getting what they deserve and isn't worthy of our help. > It's very different. There is a positive outcome involved, or it is a natural part of growing up There's a positive outcome involved in glancing at a phone while driving? Riding a bicycle without a helmet is a natural part of growing up? I strongly agree that kids often do stupid things. Trying drugs and alcohol is one of those stupid things. And to be honest, comparatively, riding a bicycle without a helmet is way more stupid and way more irrational than accidentally getting peer-pressured by a drug-obsessed society into a debilitating addiction. I don't see a difference here except that one of those activities is being labeled as harmless stupidity, and one of them is being labeled as a moral failing. Getting addicted to painkillers coming out of surgeries with badly dosed prescriptions is still a common worry for many people. I have friends that refuse to take any painkillers in a hospital specifically because they're frightened of that exact scenario. The best case scenario for people who get addicted to painkillers is for them to get 3rd-party help before they become addicted to more serious drugs. It's absurd to me to argue that their problems were caused by them being stupid or immoral, when I can directly see the role that doctors and the medical industry played in their addictions. Are those people worthy of getting help from society?

Pfhreak 6y ago

Why not? Addiction is basically an illness, whose causes are broad, and breaking an addiction requires a lot of support.

apta 6y ago
Because they consciously and purposely got themselves into it. They played with fire and got burnt. It's not like they woke up in some zombie state and started drinking and doing drugs. Many people abstain from drinking, gambling, etc. precisely because we know the outcomes, and it works.