4 ms·

> and the social infrastructures that have been deliberately set up by both dealers and drug/alcohol/pharmaceutical companies to get people addicted. I indirec

by 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?
- apta 6y ago
  Thank you for the thought-provoking discussion.

by apta 6y ago

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?

apta 6y ago
Thank you for the thought-provoking discussion.