4 ms·

Thank you for at least engaging with what I actually said. Obviously, you must balance the harm of the intervention itself with the harm that the intervention

by dTal 6y ago

Thank you for at least engaging with what I actually said. Obviously, you must balance the harm of the intervention itself with the harm that the intervention is trying to mitigate. In fact many of your measures are already in place. Civilized society does control your diet, through food regulation. It controls what you watch to some extent - you'll have to go a bit out of your way to find sex and violence. Alcohol is indeed a restricted substance, and many injury-prone sports have been discontinued or modified to be safer, although some (like boxing) continue despite solid evidence of terrible cumulative injury - to great controversy. I'm not sure what you're going for with the pre-crime thing... There's no need to equate "my business" with "draconian control".

lambdaba 6y ago
Sugar costs way more in health consequences. It's easier to recover from abuse from most drugs than sugar, which is a slow poison, yet available everywhere and given to us since early childhood (actually, in the womb).
- nip180 6y ago
  That’s absurd and incorrect. It’s significantly safer to expose an unborn child to sugar than alcohol, cocaine, meth, or heroin.
  - lambdaba 6y ago
    That's why I said "most drugs". That being said, there is an epidemic of childhood diabetes and _newborn_ obesity, which is entirely due to mother's high sugar & processed foods diets. It's a serious matter. Also, it's possible to be a long-time user (obviously not a abuser) of heroin or meth (I know it's not exactly comparable but consider people taking adhd meds). I'd take that over abusing sugar, which will cause fatty liver, diabetes, and cancer.
    - nip180 6y ago
      If cost, purity, and consistency of supply (for the drug and all paraphernalia) wasn’t a problem it’s probably safer to consume heroin regularly than consume coca-coal regularly. With the realities as they are coca-coal is probably safer, but because it’s cheaper, won’t have unexpected adulterants, and you won’t have to invest much time or effort in finding a new supply if your favorite vending machine breaks down.
      - lambdaba 6y ago
        Yes, that what was I was thinking, particularly the Dutch example where heroin addiction is treated as a healthcare problem and addicts have long lives. I like that you spelled Coca-Cola "coca coal" :)
  - tchaffee 6y ago
    It is not significantly safer. If we are comparing like to like, then we are not talking about a one time exposure, we are talking about addiction and regular exposure. Addiction to sugar will almost always result in a high BMI. "Having a high BMI during pregnancy has been linked to an increased risk of various health problems for a baby, including: Birth defects Being significantly larger than average (fetal macrosomia) Impaired growth Childhood asthma Childhood obesity " [1] [1] https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/pregnancy-and-obesity/art-20044409 https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-...
    - nip180 6y ago
      People addicted and regularly consuming alcohol, meth (smoked, snorted, or injected), street heroin, and cocaine all suffer from significantly worse side effects than people addicted to sugar. I’ll grant you that sugar has a higher total social cost, because more people are addicted to it.
      - tchaffee 6y ago
        Street heroin isn't comparable because that's a complication of it being illegal. You would have to compare sugar to legalized heroin and safe injection sites like they have in Switzerland. In which case you are wrong. Heroin is a very safe drug once you eliminate the possibility of overdose, extremely well tolerated by the body aside from constipation. Which is why opiates are extremely common in hospitals and are used in great quantities all over the world. Diabetes is far more dangerous than legal and medically supervised heroin. So you got that wrong. What else did you get wrong? Alcohol addiction is worse than sugar addiction without a doubt, I can agree with that. Diabetes is a very serious disease. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out a cocaine addiction is safer long term. You would really need to back up your claim with stats instead of just continuing to insist.
        nip180 6y ago
        I used the term “street heroin” instead of heroin because of all the complications that come along with it being illegal. This is a thread about black markets after all. I don’t feel like my claims are controversial at all. Take cocaine. It’s use often leads to psychosis. Snorting cocaine damages the nose significantly. Injecting cocaine is probably the worse drug for the number of punctures a person will do because of the short high and incredible addictive nature of the drug. Cocaine damages the cardiovascular system. It leads to ulcers. It decreases appetite so strongly it often leads to malnutrition. Cocaine increases the risk for seizures and strokes. Cognitive impairment often occurs after long heavy use. This is completely ignoring the social costs of cocaine use, which are significantly higher than being diabetic. The cartels don’t profit from insulin. I’d rather be diabetic than have years of heavy cocaine use behind me. I’ve been close to people with type 2 diabetes and people that went through cocaine addiction.
tchaffee 6y ago
> Civilized society does control your diet, through food regulation. No they don't. I can grow my own food and it is perfectly legal and loads of people do exactly that. > you'll have to go a bit out of your way to find sex and violence. Hardly. It's all over the internet. Even teens easily find it. > Alcohol is indeed a restricted substance Not for adults though, which is what we are talking about here, right? > any injury-prone sports have been discontinued or modified to be safer Only commercially. I can engage in the vast majority of the more dangerous version of those sports in my own free time any time I want. Play American football without helmets in my own backyard? Who is going to stop me? So no, none of the things you mentioned are controlled to the point of being illegal. And even in rare cases where they are illegal (buying raw milk for example), no one gets thrown in jail for five years for doing it, and people do continue to do it and take those risks, and society does continue to pay when things go wrong. > Obviously, you must balance the harm of the intervention itself with the harm that the intervention is trying to mitigate. Who decides that? Because I find it difficult to put a measure on the cost of removing so many freedoms trying to make life risk free. It's not a society I would want to live in. I will temper that by saying I'm fully in favor of requiring people to wear masks in public. But only because it's a public emergency and in unusual circumstances I'm flexible. But what you are suggesting is long term and permanent policy.

by dTal 6y ago

lambdaba 6y ago

Sugar costs way more in health consequences. It's easier to recover from abuse from most drugs than sugar, which is a slow poison, yet available everywhere and given to us since early childhood (actually, in the womb).

nip180 6y ago
That’s absurd and incorrect. It’s significantly safer to expose an unborn child to sugar than alcohol, cocaine, meth, or heroin.
- lambdaba 6y ago
  That's why I said "most drugs". That being said, there is an epidemic of childhood diabetes and _newborn_ obesity, which is entirely due to mother's high sugar & processed foods diets. It's a serious matter. Also, it's possible to be a long-time user (obviously not a abuser) of heroin or meth (I know it's not exactly comparable but consider people taking adhd meds). I'd take that over abusing sugar, which will cause fatty liver, diabetes, and cancer.
  - nip180 6y ago
    If cost, purity, and consistency of supply (for the drug and all paraphernalia) wasn’t a problem it’s probably safer to consume heroin regularly than consume coca-coal regularly. With the realities as they are coca-coal is probably safer, but because it’s cheaper, won’t have unexpected adulterants, and you won’t have to invest much time or effort in finding a new supply if your favorite vending machine breaks down.
    - lambdaba 6y ago
      Yes, that what was I was thinking, particularly the Dutch example where heroin addiction is treated as a healthcare problem and addicts have long lives. I like that you spelled Coca-Cola "coca coal" :)
- tchaffee 6y ago
  It is not significantly safer. If we are comparing like to like, then we are not talking about a one time exposure, we are talking about addiction and regular exposure. Addiction to sugar will almost always result in a high BMI. "Having a high BMI during pregnancy has been linked to an increased risk of various health problems for a baby, including: Birth defects Being significantly larger than average (fetal macrosomia) Impaired growth Childhood asthma Childhood obesity " [1] [1] https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/pregnancy-and-obesity/art-20044409 https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-...
  - nip180 6y ago
    People addicted and regularly consuming alcohol, meth (smoked, snorted, or injected), street heroin, and cocaine all suffer from significantly worse side effects than people addicted to sugar. I’ll grant you that sugar has a higher total social cost, because more people are addicted to it.
    - tchaffee 6y ago
      Street heroin isn't comparable because that's a complication of it being illegal. You would have to compare sugar to legalized heroin and safe injection sites like they have in Switzerland. In which case you are wrong. Heroin is a very safe drug once you eliminate the possibility of overdose, extremely well tolerated by the body aside from constipation. Which is why opiates are extremely common in hospitals and are used in great quantities all over the world. Diabetes is far more dangerous than legal and medically supervised heroin. So you got that wrong. What else did you get wrong? Alcohol addiction is worse than sugar addiction without a doubt, I can agree with that. Diabetes is a very serious disease. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out a cocaine addiction is safer long term. You would really need to back up your claim with stats instead of just continuing to insist.
      - nip180 6y ago
        I used the term “street heroin” instead of heroin because of all the complications that come along with it being illegal. This is a thread about black markets after all. I don’t feel like my claims are controversial at all. Take cocaine. It’s use often leads to psychosis. Snorting cocaine damages the nose significantly. Injecting cocaine is probably the worse drug for the number of punctures a person will do because of the short high and incredible addictive nature of the drug. Cocaine damages the cardiovascular system. It leads to ulcers. It decreases appetite so strongly it often leads to malnutrition. Cocaine increases the risk for seizures and strokes. Cognitive impairment often occurs after long heavy use. This is completely ignoring the social costs of cocaine use, which are significantly higher than being diabetic. The cartels don’t profit from insulin. I’d rather be diabetic than have years of heavy cocaine use behind me. I’ve been close to people with type 2 diabetes and people that went through cocaine addiction.

tchaffee 6y ago

> Civilized society does control your diet, through food regulation. No they don't. I can grow my own food and it is perfectly legal and loads of people do exactly that. > you'll have to go a bit out of your way to find sex and violence. Hardly. It's all over the internet. Even teens easily find it. > Alcohol is indeed a restricted substance Not for adults though, which is what we are talking about here, right? > any injury-prone sports have been discontinued or modified to be safer Only commercially. I can engage in the vast majority of the more dangerous version of those sports in my own free time any time I want. Play American football without helmets in my own backyard? Who is going to stop me? So no, none of the things you mentioned are controlled to the point of being illegal. And even in rare cases where they are illegal (buying raw milk for example), no one gets thrown in jail for five years for doing it, and people do continue to do it and take those risks, and society does continue to pay when things go wrong. > Obviously, you must balance the harm of the intervention itself with the harm that the intervention is trying to mitigate. Who decides that? Because I find it difficult to put a measure on the cost of removing so many freedoms trying to make life risk free. It's not a society I would want to live in. I will temper that by saying I'm fully in favor of requiring people to wear masks in public. But only because it's a public emergency and in unusual circumstances I'm flexible. But what you are suggesting is long term and permanent policy.