38 ms·

I am a heroin user. I do not have a drug problem

• coldtea 6y ago
  Well, needing to use a drug is already a drug problem (addiction or not).
  • emsy 6y ago
    Do insulin users have a drug problem? I think at the core of the issue is that our society generally regards psychological ailments as a personal flaw, rather than a health issue. (I’m talking generally, not about the professor from the article)
    • Solid_Applaud 6y ago
      Yes, they do for the most part. Most insulin users are T2DM, and a large portion of these are able to get off of it over time. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5357144/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5357144/
    • pessimizer 6y ago
      Even worse, I think it's treated as a modern version of demonic possession, where the cure killing the patient isn't considered enough of a reason not to deliver the cure.
    • coldtea 6y ago
      >Do insulin users have a drug problem? Insulin users don't just need to have insulin for the sake of it. They have a medical issue that forces them to take it. >I think at the core of the issue is that our society generally regards psychological ailments as a personal flaw, rather than a health issue I think that our society tends to do the inverse: tends to see all kinds of personal flaws as issues beyond the control of the person.
    • DanBC 6y ago
      > Do insulin users have a drug problem? How many insulin users lose their jobs, lose their homes, turn to acquisitive crime or prostitution to fund their insulin habit? We can talk about how many people who use heroin this happens to, and how much it's caused by current drug prohibition laws, but it's more than zero. Decriminalisation makes a lot of sense but we need to be realistic about the harm caused to about 10% of people who become addicts.
      • JumpCrisscross 6y ago
        > How many insulin users lose their jobs, lose their homes, turn to acquisitive crime or prostitution to fund their insulin habit? It’s really difficult to disentangle this from the illegality of the drug.
      • werber 6y ago
        Unfortunately, insulin users in the United States are sometimes forced to turn to more nefarious means of getting money to support their body from dying. I've known 2 people who died that were unisured and broke who died from not being able to support their dependency on it. Universal Healthcare should cover those dependent on Insulin and Heroin
    • gdsdfe 6y ago
      insulin doesn't make you suck dick in an alley to get a fix
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    • ChrisRR 6y ago
      That's a false equivalence and you know it. Insulin is not a recreational drug This article is very clearly about recreational drug use
      • emsy 6y ago
        I was not talking about recreational drug use. Please read my full comment before replying.
  • adrr 6y ago
    Drugs have a pleasure effect on the brain. Food does too. So do experiences or playing sports. Winning a sports game feels exactly the same as doing cocaine. Issue with drugs is the risk. Risk of damage to your body or your mind. But the other activities have associated risk. For example, I ski and including back country. I risk avalanches and injury. I've broken a rib and have countless other injuries. I have friends with permanent injuries and have seen deaths on the ski slope. No one says skiing is a national problem.
• lqet 6y ago
  > One of the major reasons people can’t overcome it is because we’re not very good at treating addiction in this country. I am often wondering about how addiction "feels". I don't consider myself being addicted to anything, and always wonder how an addiction actually manifests itself. Is it a pain? Is it comparable to being extremely hungry or thirsty? Slightly related: a few years ago, I overheard a conversation between a fairly large woman and a child. The child said that it was hungry. The woman said: "Oh yes, that hurts". That struck me as odd, because even after eating nothing for 1-2 days, I never actually felt pain when I was hungry. It was surprising to me that some people seem to do, and it would have certainly explained why the woman was so heavy: I, too, would of course eat much more if being hungry was painful.
  • rmac 6y ago
    there could be some underlying pain or trauma or anxiety, and when you find a chemical that obfuscates it, your brain goes "oh I like this new feeling", and you start using that chemical as a way to mute the negative, often without realizing it OR realizing those underlying issues even exist. then, the press secretary in your brain (the thing between your subconscious & conscious mind) goes into hyper-rationalization (denial) mode and you start to defend the amount and type of chemicals you use, even when they are literally killing you and those around you If you're asking about what physical or psychological withdrawal from a drug feels like, it depends on the person, the chemical, and other variables. The worst opiates (Suboxone / Methadone) have 6 month+ withdrawal symptoms, and the faster ones are ~7 days. Hellish times. However, while abstinence frees you from withdrawal symptoms, unless the underlying mental issues are addressed it's likely you'll go back to the very same substance that got you here.
  • aktiur 6y ago
    Ever read a good book, or played a video game, and known that you have to stop now but thought "I'll just read another chapter / play one more turn"? I would say that's basically how addiction manifests itself: even if you know that you're dealing with substance abuse, come on, one more time won't matter, will it? And then there's also the comfort aspect: you're getting back from a hard day's work, you're feeling tired and cranky, you do deserve something nice, don't you? N.B.: I'm not saying that not being able to drop the book or stop playing that game IS addiction, just that substance addiction might feel the same way. N.B. 2:And I'm not talking here about the medical aspects of withdrawal, because that's not the thing an addict would usually experience (withdrawal would only happen because you're trying to stop or cannot get access to the substance you need).
• criley2 6y ago
  :| > Hart presents himself as a model drug user. “I am now entering my fifth year as a regular heroin user,” he writes. “I do not have a drug-use problem. Never have. Each day, I meet my parental, personal, and professional responsibilities. I pay my taxes, serve as a volunteer in my community on a regular basis, and contribute to the global community as an informed and engaged citizen. I am better for my drug use.” Anyone who has plumbed the depths of addiction either with a family member or personally has spoken this exact paragraph, potentially word for word. It's a rationalization for addiction, and honestly the most common and basic one. Good luck to him as he descends through addiction. He's extremely educated and very assured of his self-perception so for him to hit Step 1: Realize you have a Problem, is going to be a lot harder than the average person.
  • FDSGSG 6y ago
    If he can afford it, a problem may not exist. Heroin use has few if any negative physical effects in the long term.
    • JohnJamesRambo 6y ago
      Death is pretty long term. Pardon me if I’m pessimistic on this topic, I just watched a Janis Joplin documentary.
      • nvilcins 6y ago
        Death comes from _mis_use, which usually stems from _mis_information ("drugs are bad, let's not talk about them"). People die when they over-dose (which more often than not happens because they don't know exactly what they're getting, or the purity of it) or mix with other substances that they shouldn't.
        • FDSGSG 6y ago
          Another common cause of overdoses which stems from a lack of education: A person quits for a while, decides to start using again and shoots up their usual dose for which they no longer have sufficient tolerance. If that person knew that this is a common way people end up killing themselves, they probably wouldn't make this mistake.
• rmac 6y ago
  Man, I read this as someone who tried to use opioids and I just couldn't chip. It spiraled into full blown physical dependence. I guess i'm the type with an underlying psychiatric illness which drove my usage and denial. That there exists people like this person who can chip (controlled use of opiates) always intrigues me -- as this drug was the ultimate pathway to euphoria and thus I became the mouse hitting the button for more more more. If you're on the chipping path I hope you can find peace just for today. I am pro-legalization of all drugs with some FDA oversight on quality.
  • koheripbal 6y ago
    Opioids are insanely and ~~instantly~~ quickly addictive. I accidentally became addicted after knee surgery. When the pain subsided, I stopped taking them, and within a day I found myself curled up in a ball and wanting to rip my own skin off. It's really true when addicts describe it as "being uncomfortable in your own skin". The moment I realized I was experiencing withdrawal, I flushed the meds down the toilet and just suffered through it for a couple days. Never ever touch heroin. Stay away from prescription opioids unless it's really really needed, and make sure it's short term only.
    • sneak 6y ago
      > Opioids are insanely and instantly addictive. This is the kind of FUD that TFA is specifically addressing. Namely, that this is not always a true statement. Of course, for many people, it is, which is why people make such sweeping (and incorrect) statements. Your warning is valid, your claimed facts are not.
      • treeman79 6y ago
        A gun is always loaded. Even if it has no bullets.
        • mod 6y ago
          I think you're trying to argue GP's point, but you've only confirmed it, because you're misrepresenting both the facts and the traditional advice. "Treat every gun as if it were loaded" is the traditional advice, and is a wonderful attitude to have about firearms. But if it's not loaded, it's not loaded, those are the facts. Perhaps the same with opiods: treat them as if they are highly addictive, in a rapid manner. But if (for you) they aren't, they aren't.
• aminozuur 6y ago
  I remember the early days of the Silk Road market. The members posted thoughtful reviews of their orders, sometimes containing lab-tests results of the drugs they'd ordered. It was a small community whose members looked more like the Hacker News crowds than the meth heads you'd see in the news.
  • temp0826 6y ago
    Considering how early in the bitcoin days that SilkRoad came along, it makes sense that it was a more technically-minded crowd to begin with.
  • achairapart 6y ago
    Meanwhile the Hacker News community has just flagged this "scandalous" article. How ironic. [edit]: My bad, now it's back!
  • jtxx 6y ago
    yeah that was amazing. it felt like a lot of people on there were also fans of Erowid, which I now realize probably had a lot of the same people submitting experiences
• refurb 6y ago
  Drug addiction is a continuum not a binary state of being (addict or not an addict). Addiction can run from someone who uses every night after work because that’s how they relax (and they feel like something is missing if they don’t) to a person who compulsively uses to the exclusion of sleep and eating. And it can vary over an addicts life time. The one drug that has interestingly been demonized is meth. It’s used as a prescription drug and was commonly used recreationally in the 70’s. Now it’s viewed as a one way road to destitution and death. Drugs are illegal so the media covers the train wrecks. The users who aren’t train wrecks don’t make the news. Can you imagine if alcohol was illegal and the only stories you heard about users were the people who drank themselves to death? You’d assume nobody could use alcohol in moderation, which isn’t true.
• ddelt 6y ago
  I wish I’d see more discussion and analysis like this over the recreational use of anabolic steroids (read: not for professional sports or contests, but rather for physical appearance). You want to talk about some shit that gets demonized for no reason? Testosterone replacement therapy is legal, but if you decide that you want to use an extra 100mg, suddenly it’s a criminal offense and you are a bad person. For what? Wanting to have bigger biceps or train harder in the gym? What is the alternative? Drink alcohol which has a measurable death rate per year, or smoke some legal cigarettes and second hand smoke poison countless people?
  • huffmsa 6y ago
    This'll get downvoted, but it strikes me how hypocritical it is that you can say you don't feel comfortable in your body they'll put you on test blockers and estrogen replacement to help you look like how you identify, but saying you think you need to look like Adonis is illegal. Controlled use of anabolic steroids is demonstrably safe and effective.
    • thgaway17 6y ago
      Who is the “they” you’re referring to? Both groups in your example need therapy, not hormones.
      • huffmsa 6y ago
        Doctors
  • insickness 6y ago
    There's a good book on this called Better Than Well that discusses the use of medicine for life improvement rather than treating disease. One of the most interesting chapters was on amputees by choice, people who want to cut off a limb to become handicapped. Doctors were left with the painful decision of helping these people achieve this or having them do it on their own in a much more dangerous way. While most would agree the behavior of amputees by choice is in some way pathological, it presents an interesting question about whether people have the right to do to their own bodies what they want and the role of medicine in helping them achieve those aims.
• pfortuny 6y ago
  But... he gives no counter-research references to the research he critizices... so I’ll pass on this one.
  • Hnrobert42 6y ago
    Yeah. I am disappointed in Nautilus presenting such a controversial position with no scrutiny and very few probing or challenging questions.
• Babiker 6y ago
  > Hart reports that more than 70 percent of drug users—whether they use alcohol, cocaine, prescription medications, or heroin—do not meet the health criteria for drug addiction. I don't think it's about health criteria. It's about whether you want to add yet another item to things you depend on just to feel normal. Also, the need is a symptom of a real issue that needs to be addressed instead of just numbed and berried i.e., unhappy at a job or a situation etc that needs to be addressed.
• yladiz 6y ago
  > Hart strives to “present a more realistic image of the typical drug user: a responsible professional who happens to use drugs in his pursuit of happiness.” I think this is likely wrong. I guess it partly depends on the definition of a "drug user" (like, does it include alcohol drinkers) but I would be very surprised if most heroin users are responsible professionals - how can you do anything when you're high on heroin? I'd go so far as to say that saying people that are addicted are "typically responsible professionals" is a little disrespectful and downplays the reality of those that are actually afflicted with addiction, as it feels like it's just pushing the "burden" onto the drug user, which reinforces negative stereotypes and makes it harder to get people on the side of treating addiction as a health issue and not a moral failing.
  • avisser 6y ago
    > how can you do anything when you're high on heroin? It is a straw-man to assume that drug users are high during work. There are plenty of hours in the day. Erowid puts the duration of a heroin high at 2-4 hours. https://erowid.org/chemicals/heroin/heroin_basics.shtml https://erowid.org/chemicals/heroin/heroin_basics.shtml
    • swirepe 6y ago
      8 hours for sleeping 8 hours for getting your $80 for the day to get high 4 hours to get high 4 hours for...I don't know, working on a novel or something
  • rkachowski 6y ago
    From my reading, alcohol drinkers are absolutely included in his definition of a "drug user" and the exact same objection would apply - how can you do anything when you're drunk on alcohol?
    • Mediterraneo10 6y ago
      > how can you do anything when you're drunk on alcohol? The statistics for alcohol consumption in the Nordic countries in the 19th century are staggering, adult males were basically drinking hard liquor all day every day as they went about their work. Alcohol definitely has its effects on the body and is a huge safety risk, but apparently men were still able regardless to run their farms, build the buildings they needed, chop wood, etc.
• juskrey 6y ago
  It did not take a while to understand all drug experiences are deeply fake comparing to living full life. And if they enrich you, you life is probably fake. Like in Russian group Splin lyrics: "Я наяву вижу то, что многим даже не снилось, Hе являлось под кайфом". Rough translation: "I see the things in reality, others don't even when dreaming, when getting high"
  • insickness 6y ago
    I used to smoke weed every day. At the end of the day after work, I would vape until I was fairly intoxicated. Almost everything was better on weed--sex, food, television, etc. I would be out with friends and look forward to getting home and smoking weed. In essence, it made being bored fun. But I started to question who I really was when I smoked weed. I was in a different state mentally, a state that in many ways was disconnected to my sober state. Almost as if I were a different person. I eventually completely quit because it seemed like a black hole in my day and in my life, where the sober me just lost valuable time and focus. It also dampened my motivation. Part of it may have been physiological, I would be less focused the next day. But part of it was also that compared to being on weed, life was just not as enjoyable when I was sober. I did not like that contrast.
  • rkachowski 6y ago
    The same could be said about any experience from reading fiction, watching movies or enjoying art.
    • juskrey 6y ago
      I must say I've stopped watching movies too, and reading most fiction (except at least 100 years old), after diving deeper into life. Certainly not only drugs are fake or toxic.
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  • ZoomZoomZoom 6y ago
• konfusinomicon 6y ago
  It's only a problem when you don't have any right?
• lmilcin 6y ago
  I am Coca Cola and coffee user. I am not addicted. That is, until I try to leave it for a while and then even if I succeed it still takes a lot of willpower. Addiction is a force that counteracts your will power. You may not have drug problem but you are an addict if you feel compulsion to use the drug. Today you may have enough willpower to counteract that force to consume more alcohol or drugs. But the next day may be worse, you may find some family or work problem and your will power may decrease enough that you will run into drug problem and have really hard time getting rid of it if at all. It is called slippery slope for a reason.
  • Etheryte 6y ago
    I'm not entirely sure if I follow the narrative here, perhaps you can clarify what you mean. Occasionally I have a beer, either socially or to try out a new beer — does this make me an addict? I would argue no, this alone is not a good definition. I don't have a better definition myself, and surely this is a subject many people have put a lot of effort into figuring out, but I don't think this approach has merit.
    • lmilcin 6y ago
      It is up to you. People have different levels of willpower regarding different things. Don't dismiss power of addiction just because you "don't have a problem now". Our willpower levels change so what isn't a problem now may become another day. You may loose your job and have hard time finding new one and try to use something that has been giving you comfort to lighten your day. And because your "bigger" worries you may not be paying attention to it or you may need that extra comfort so much you will just say "yeah, it will not hurt if I do this for a while". This is frequently how these things start. It doesn't happen that you are completely normal one day and die hard alcoholic or drug user the next. Now, I wouldn't call what you described even remotely close to a problem. I also consume alcohol socially and even privately. I pay attention to whether I "crave" alcohol and when this happened I cut it instantly. I have a test for this. Even if you don't drink alcohol, are you constantly thinking about it? If you are not using but constantly thinking about it it means there exists a force (addiction) that you are currently able to overcome.
• supr_strudl 6y ago
  >When you’re at a wedding reception, alcohol serves as a social lubricant. People are more gregarious. They talk, they interact. The same is true with cocaine at parties, heroin among friends, or opium among friends, NDMA among lovers. It enhances empathy, openness, and forgiveness, all of these pro-social attributes. Please, don't take this horrible advice. Drugs are harmful and can do fatal damage to you and those around you. I mean, is this guy advocating drug use? It sounds like he wants to justify his dependency.
  • quattrofan 6y ago
    Do you drink alcohol? If so you're a drug user... We've just decided for myriad, commercial, political and historical reasons to legitimise some and make others illegal. Note I never used the word "scientific" in that sentence.
    • supr_strudl 6y ago
      I don't drink alcohol. The best advocates of drug use are drug users. They're quite passionate about it. Where I come from, they make fun of you if you don't drink and sing a song about how you're "too weak to drink." Every occasion calls for a drink: childbirth, Friday, getting married, getting divorced. It is so common that you're the weird one for not drinking.
      • swirepe 6y ago
        For what it's worth, I don't think it's weird that you don't drink alcohol.
      • selimthegrim 6y ago
        Bavaria? (Oh I see your profile. I’ve been to NG some years ago - my uncle’s family is from Maribor I think)
  • diegoperini 6y ago
    It doesn't look like an advice but a simple, neutral observation of the pluses. Of course there are also minuses but this quote doesn't seem it rejects those.
• etempleton 6y ago
  All the luck to him. I have seen enough of heroin use second hand to know that this is how it starts and is rationalized for many. Some people spiral immediately, others after a few years, others after a decade. Eventually, if you keep using, it will catch up to you and you risk losing everything.
• Etheryte 6y ago
  Even this comment section alone demonstrates that this is a very loaded topic and that's one of the main reasons purely logical argumentation won't help drive the discussion far. If someone has a person close to them that's had (or has) issues with drug abuse, it won't be easy to have a neutral discussion on the matter. What I find contrasting though, is that this doesn't seem to be the case with alcohol abuse. This probably stems from a number of reasons, normalization of alcohol being one of the largest, but I would also argue that lack of education is probably one of the highest contributing factors. Without delving into the subject of whether regular heroin use is or isn't healthy, as I simply don't know enough about the matter, I think it's good to educate people on the topic. Educated people make better choices, regardless of what they choose to do in the end.
• m0llusk 6y ago
  This is interesting personal testimony. For anyone curious about a more scientific view of this issue I would recommend the book High Price by Dr. Carl Hart. While it is common for people to believe strongly that drugs are bad and addictive, actual scientific observation of drug users finds in many cases there is little evidence of harm and instead of forming an enduring habit they follow a progression which is more like a hobby. There are plenty of comparisons that might be made, but driving seems an apt comparison. Driving is extremely dangerous, magnifies even small mistakes, and kills or maims very large numbers of people on a regular basis. And yet even with similar evidence of harm and habit formation people do not treat driving with the same fear but instead face driving with irrational positivity and optimism. Scientists using rigorous observations and mathematical analysis do not see drug use and driving as having risk profiles that are completely different.
  • undecisive 6y ago
    I'm assuming that's the same Dr. Carl Hart from this interview? Driving was my go-to analogy too (I've got a longer post where I go into it) Surely there's the concept of legal drugs though too? You're allowed to have wine, but not drive at 120 miles per hour past school gates. My feeling is that there's a difference between "safe" and "worth the risk". And as far as lawmakers are concerned, for most drugs there's not case where it's worth the risks.
    • m0llusk 6y ago
      Yes, that is the same guy. I misread his name with my early morning scanning. Time for some caffeine maybe?
• throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  This guy's whole viewpoint seems to be pinned on "it's not addiction if it's not negatively affecting the rest of your life" (yes, I know this is a major criteria for a lot of medical diagnosis, addiction included). The problem is that what it takes "negatively affect the rest of your life" depends a lot on what role you have in society. Short of pornography producer, fantasy fiction author, songwriter and other professions where copious drug use fit one's "brand image" or potentially enhance one's work, a tenured college professor gets about about as much leeway from the rest of society as a white collar professional can get. He can be "eccentric" and nobody blinks twice. But for other professions the standards of behavior are different (and generally get more permissive as you go down the economic ladder). Defining the difference between acceptable use and addiction, and by proxy who's problems are bad enough to be considered problems and therefore in need of solving in a way that is relative to one's place in society is very dangerous. If you're blind in one eye you're still blind in one eye even if it doesn't negatively affect you. Addiction (and a multitude of other conditions) are the same.
  • pessimizer 6y ago
    This is not about refusing people treatment who want it, this is about not forcing treatment on people who don't.
  • JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > a tenured college professor gets about about as much leeway from the rest of society as a white collar professional can get Doesn’t this bolster the argument that the principal damage from this type of drug use is social, not chemical?
    • throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      >Doesn’t this bolster the argument that the principal damage from this type of drug use is social, not chemical? Most people would rather not be debilitated than have society be accommodating.
    • altcognito 6y ago
      A better way to say that is that if the tenured professor accidentally takes 5mg more, or has an off day, he doesn't kill somebody while driving a truck, or someone who programs a circuit wrong and causes a dump of chemical into a water supply.
• viraptor 6y ago
  I found this quote pretty strange: > Despite the current false narrative, the addiction rate among people prescribed opioids for pain in the United States, for example, ranges from less than 1 percent to 8 percent. What's the threshold where it's a problem? 1% of prescription drug users getting addicted sounds like a terrible situation to me. Let alone 8%. Especially if they're already in a situation where finding a way to escape is tempting.
  • pessimizer 6y ago
    If heroin were cheap and accessible to addicts, there would be no need to escape until the user were ready. It's so bizarre how laws against heroin get to be the Gallant against the Goofus of anti-pot laws when virtually all societal problems springing from heroin spring from the drug war. There would be few to no deaths, suffering, or crime associated with heroin if it were cheap and accessible, and if addicts were under the care of a doctor or social worker. It would be a mild burden to public health services tasked with helping people quit, but far cheaper than tobacco smoking or alcoholism.
    • xzel 6y ago
      Heroin is already relatively cheap and accessible to addicts. The bigger issue right now is the latter part, helping people get off the drug and contamination, ex. fentanyl. I agree with everything else though.
      • forgotmypw17 6y ago
        It's cheap, accessible, and totally fucking unpredictable. You never know what dosage you're going to get, and, as you mentioned, whether it's laced with something else much stronger. I think legalizing it to the point where an addict had access to predictable dosage would save countless lives.
  • ChrisRR 6y ago
    That's exactly why prescriptions exist, so that doctors can limit the time taking the opioids and reduce the risk of addiction If anyone were left to their own devices and still in pain, I suspect a lot more than 8% would continue to take the painkillers.
• Zenst 6y ago
  Whilst I'm sure there are many functional `users` of heroin, there are many more who think they are functional and yet they are not and just don't see it themselves. I've lived near many heroin `users` and I will say that the biggest issue is that if they can lie about their habits to themselves, then others are a given. Equally, whilst they may not see their usage of as a problem, they neglect to see the impact upon others - be that antisocial noise, keeping odd hours so again, noise or shady dealer meetings in the streets that scare the parents across the road to not allow their kids to play out in the park near there. That's just the good part of the spectrum. Then you have those who buy on-line and feel like their not supporting criminal activities, well until heroin comes with a fair trade logo, or you know the farmer, producer and workers personally - it's easy to say you don't have a problem and yet create problems for others when you look at the bigger picture. As for knowing any functional, well I've seen many have functional phases would be the best I could attest to that from experience and out of about 30 heroin addicts I've endured in the past 2 decades, I'd say only 2 would be close to being classed as functional. Really gets down to if somebody who is using drugs can just stop and take a break every now and then, then in that clean period - still hold the same mentalities towards their usage and if they can come to the same conclusion - bravo as that is what I would call somebody with their head working well for them. What really is the issue for many drug users is the point in which the drugs use them - that's the turning point of addiction I'd say. Yet all that said, you can't help but accept that the brain is driven by chemical stimulus and there lays the hard barrier of having the will power to quite. I've personally never done heroin, no desire too as like a fine wine, I might like it and it is easier to miss what you never had and one step I've become very mindful never to take having learned from others, many who's lifestyle choices I had thrust upon me and I will say, not best neibours to have from my numerous experiences.
  • peteretep 6y ago
    Hot take: anyone writing articles about how they’re sensibly using heroin is an addict in denial
    • leetcrew 6y ago
      not really a hot take, this is more or less the mainstream opinion. it's also unfalsifiable. you can take anyone who chimes in to say they use heroin responsibly as more evidence for your claim. personally I lean more in the direction that heroin and friends are significantly more addictive than most other drugs. but I have to say, if there were a sizable group of recreational users, they would probably know better than to ever say anything about it in public.
• undecisive 6y ago
  Reminds me of a quote from Love Actually: > Hiya kids. Here is an important message from your Uncle Bill. Don't buy drugs. Become a pop star, and they give you them for free. ... except in this case the message is don't do drugs kids, but "grown ups" should (as defined as a state of maturity where you know how the drugs behave, know your limits and can balance your experimentation with fulfilling your societal obligations) I see this as a bit like speeding. The government sets fairly arbitrary speed limits for different types of road. They do it based on what they think the majority of people can cope with, versus the likelihood of risks, vs the need to get from A to B in a reasonable amount of time. The government hasn't been amazingly scientific about the speed limits, and don't take into account time of day, traffic, weather conditions etc. A healthy, fully-alert person can probably go at 150% of the speed limit on an ambient clear day on an empty road - and do so perfectly safely. But that isn't the message they give people, because it would be impossible to assess person-by-person, minute-by-minute. And yet, some would consider the above information to be recklessly given, because some people will on read "go at 150% of the speed limit... perfectly safely" and take that as my advice. So the question is, should it be legal to travel at any speed, provided you feel like you're doing a good job of it? In both cases, misjudgement can be disastrous for yourself and the people around you (and innocent bystanders too) And when you are talking about something that can alter your perceptions, you would surely need a non-drug-taking associate with you at all times who could give you an honest blow-by-blow assessment of where you are dropping the ball as a "normal" human being, and where your drug-fuelled failings are happening? When the potential downsides so vastly outweigh the benefits, I can understand why laws take the side they do. That said, I absolutely do think that there are massive downsides to making drugs illegal when taken responsibly. Countries should be realistic about what they can and can't do. If they can't eradicate drug use - and most countries can't - they need to put effort into safeguarding above incarceration. But I think that's the consensus anyway on most social issues. And it seems to be a lesson that governments globally are very slow to learn.
• altcognito 6y ago
  Because one person thinks he has it under control at this time, I don't see how advocating for wider acceptance of drug classes that have killed and destroyed the lives of millions every year is even a story that deserves a platform. This was a good story to flag.
  • yboris 6y ago
    It is interesting to me how ready we sometimes are to dismiss others' self-reports. This is akin to doctors in early 1900's (and even now) simply ignoring women's self reports of pain. When a person reports something about their own life and internal state, you need to have overwhelming evidence before you can dismiss what they are saying. On what grounds do you dismiss the author's claims about their life? He clearly has his life well-enough-together to get an essay published in a reputable science magazine.
    • altcognito 6y ago
      I'm not dismissing his account, so you should read my comment closer. I don't think I would use getting published as evidence that somebody "has their life together". Again, I don't care if he does have his life together. It may entirely fake, it can be temporary, and it can be one account. Look, I'm wholly for the idea of not shaming people who use drugs. I am also wholly against treating drugs which have established track records of destroying lives as recreational or not a problem when used regularly, especially to avoid personal problems. So I'm strongly against publishing essays which tell a soft story to play down the millions of other stories, which this absolutely does. Why doesn't he talk about how this impairs his motor or thinking? Is he somehow magic, isn't the entire point to alter his conciousness? No, it's all positive about drugs. Ridiculous. Why doesn't he point to the side effects? Using alcohol as an example of how "harmless" drugs are is obscene. Alcohol destroys millions of lives every year as well. If he wants to sell tolerance of people's choices in the name of the freedom to ruin your own life, then so be it. Don't soft peddle me bullshit. Could we have a story about all the men and women who had their entire lives destroyed by drugs as a counter example?
      • 6y ago
• alexashka 6y ago
  There's an excellent recent Joe Rogan podcast episode on Spotify with Carl Hart - the fella in this article, for those who want to get a more comprehensive understanding of his position. He's basically for personal freedom and responsibility, drugs included. His position is really hard to argue with, given the disaster that alcohol prohibition and this 'war on drugs' has been. The word heroin has triggered a lot of comments here - just because you've known someone who has ruined their life and feel strongly about it, does not make you qualified to draw conclusions on the effects of drug use at large.
  • crescentfresh 6y ago
    More recently he appeared on the Toure Show podcast: https://play.acast.com/s/toureshow/dr.carlhart-idodrugs https://play.acast.com/s/toureshow/dr.carlhart-idodrugs
• umvi 6y ago
  > “My heroin use is as rational as my alcohol use” What an incredibly dangerous idea to promote. Do not mess with opioids. You think you are in control, until you are not.
  • lostgame 6y ago
    Ugh. Come on. Be part of the solution, not the problem. We should be promoting safe use and harm reduction education, not these bullshit blanket statements such as 'do not mess with opioids'/'say no to drugs', and stop using them quick. Otherwise the people who inevitably will/do use, only hear and have only heard, 'don't do it to start' or get ostracized instead of getting the help they need or the education they need to know when they are overdoing it or not in control any more. We also need more clinics and support for safely quitting or managing drugs and tools for it similar to what we have for tobacco. Shamefully, here in Canada, some of these clinics in Vancouver are getting shut down, rather than more of them popping up, during the worst opioid crisis this country has ever seen. These closures are a direct result of a 'don't ever do/touch drugs' policy and the stigma and ostracization that come with it. Speaking from experience...education is better than 'don't'. I have had friends who have died from using drugs, and I have many, many friends who are regular users but not abusers - pull an insane variety of different full-time jobs. (And well!) The huge difference between these two groups of people for me is education (for instance, preexisting mental health conditions that would be made worse by a particular substance and the knowledge to avoid it), and having a support system, etc.. It is fascinating and inspiring that someone has chosen to put themselves in the very vulnerable position of coming out about their personal use, and I believe the intention is to help remove the stigma around drug use, so education can be bettered. :) Edit: Maybe better to say 'Drugs can be extremely harmful and addictive. If you choose to use them, please be sure you are educated, safe, and have someone nearby.' In fact, that doesn't seem dissimilar to the surgeon general warnings on cigarette packs, anyway. What kind of warning labels will we see on cocaine, heroin, etc - in countries where its sale will inevitably be legalized? These are the kinds of statements we should be making rather than 'just stay away from opioids.'
    • umvi 6y ago
      > We should be promoting safe use and harm reduction education for existing users. We should not tempt people who would have otherwise never used them with false fantasies that they will be able to dabble and remain in control without getting addicted
• joemazerino 6y ago
  This is legitimately dangerous reporting. Heroin is ranked in the top 3 of addictive chemicals and all this article reports about is this anecdotal nonsense. I've too many friends to Heroin to know the reality of the drug.
  • capableweb 6y ago
    I think you're missing the point of the article a bit. Everyone knows Heroin is dangerous and it's iterated on in the article as well. Only responsible and healthy individuals should self-use drugs, generally speaking. Then you can also argue that you might not have lost your friends only because of Heroin the substance, but also how people with heroin addiction is "treated" and frowned upon in society. I think what the article is trying to say is that harm reduction is a much more human and possibly effective approach to fighting real addition. Compared to other ways, which some of them include "there is no such thing as responsible drug use, it's all addiction" and treating people as such.
    • rovr138 6y ago
      I think the tone of the article is dangerous. That coupled with the fact of how heroin is treated in society makes it worse. On top of that, add that not everyone that uses it is healthy and responsible, makes it even worse providing some bad validation. And then, not everyone is capable of making the distinction between fun or addiction early on when an addiction is starting. I too think it's dangerous.
      • capableweb 6y ago
        The tone is dangerous? What does that even mean? The article is an interview with a Heroin user. It's as dangerous as an interview with a sex-worker. The interviewer even seems to bring up some interesting counter-points to the interviewee. In the end, the interview is just providing a voice for the person getting interviewed. Are you saying that interviewing people who might do harm to world is dangerous?
        • 6y ago
• originalvichy 6y ago
  I’ve listened to Hart a few times on JRE podcast. His heart might be in a good place – trying to destigmatize/humanize drug users, but the flip side is he is making actually addictive substances seem like no big deal. Irresponsible.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • capableweb 6y ago
    On the flip-flip side, he's one person spreading harm reduction about drugs that are currently frowned upon. If you look in society right now, you have people (and businesses!) marketing much more harmful drugs to people of all ages with fancy ads and more. Not a lot of people are reacting to that though.
• ChrisRR 6y ago
  This sounds like dangerous clickbait. It's entirely expected that someone whose job it is to study the effect of drugs would have a much better understanding of how to not become addicted His assertion the 70% of all drug users including alcohol and prescription users aren't addicted if anything seems extremely low to me. I'd say the vast majority of my friends drink alcohol and are more than likely on prescription drugs but I don't think any of them are addicts Which means that the other less common drugs must be a lot more addictive to bring the number down to 70% I get the point the article is trying to make, but its headline and opening paragraphs frame it more as a "decriminalise all drugs" article
  • np- 6y ago
    While I do agree with your underlying point that it's likely less common drugs are dangerous, I just want to say that a lot of alcohol addiction and abuse is often completely hidden in plain sight, due to social and cultural acceptance and the way it's portrayed in media.
  • SamBam 6y ago
    > His assertion the 70% of all drug users including alcohol and prescription users aren't addicted if anything seems extremely low to me. I'd say the vast majority of my friends drink alcohol and are more than likely on prescription drugs but I don't think any of them are addicts Actually, I'm not sure. 30% of alcohol drinkers being addicted might be roughly right (though surprising to me as well). In the US, 50% of Americans hardly drink at all (under 0.15 drinks/week). But 10% of Americans drink a staggering 75 drinks a week, or over ten drinks a day every day (where a drink is a can of beer, glass of wine, or equivalent). [1] Of course you can't determine from that alone whether those people are clinically addicted, but it sound reasonable to me that most are. Further, probably some proportion of people in the other groups are also addicted, but not drinking nearly as much. So that's 10%, and only 50% of Americans are drinking at all, so that's 20% of drinkers are drinking 10+ drinks a day, and some unknown proportion have alcohol problems while drinking less. 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/25/think-you-drink-a-lot-this-chart-will-tell-you/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/25/think...
• dionian 6y ago
  I'm very worried about heroin addiction, but I am also worried about a pro-censorship culture. Reading the comments here, I see a lot of people worried about this 'dangerous' information. I think this kind of opinion is potentially dangerous, but I am very glad we are able to have it aired in public and discuss it rationally.
• bigwheeler 6y ago
  Weird that he claims to be a heroin user. Anyone that would write this and publish it to the world comes off more like a crackhead to me.
• achairapart 6y ago
  I can see addiction like unpaid debt. Just like everyone may need a bank loan (which is totally socially acceptable), sometime you may need a happiness/energy/relief/whatever loan. The thing is, just like a money loan, you should be ready to pay your debt after. The day you think you can run away without paying, it's where the trouble begin. This is true even with alcohol: Go to a party, drink a few glasses. One or two more. Have fun. The day after you pay it with a little (or even big) hangover. Just drink a lot of water and you will be ok. Obviously this is more difficult with some drugs. They are dangerous because they are more subtle, somehow you think you're still in charge, until it's too late and your debt is out of control. Now, I'm aware that this is quite complex, but still I wonder how many people there are out there who can self-control themself and diligently keep their debt in order. I guess, compared to "meth-heads" and other rock bottom abusers, they just don't make the news. Plus they may want to avoid a lot of social rejection.
  • mettamage 6y ago
    I disagree with this view. I think the metaphor captures some elements of the experience, but it doesn't capture enough. A craving feeling arises to have fun. The craving exists there because it feels nice. This also implies that you feel less nice than you'd like to feel. This craving doesn't happen that often, but often enough that you're curious about taking drugs. You try cocaine. Suddenly you feel energized and amazing, this is how you always want to feel! The effect wanes after 20 minutes, you take it again and you feel amazing. You're starting to do this every weekend. Cocaine gets associated with the craving feeling for fun. After a few months, whenever you feel like your normal self, a craving feeling arises. This feeling is now a mix of wanting to have fun and wanting cocaine. The thing is, where I think the debt metaphor breaks down is that this increase in craving acts a bit different than actual debt. Many addicts feel strong cravings for years afterwards, and it only very slowly decreases. Once hooked again to the substance, it's easily back to previous all-time high levels. Psychologists claim that in conditioning processes, it's impossible to delete conditioning (called extinction). So you can never truly repay our debt. Moreover, once your craving is extinct (for as much as possible) it's really only dormant in reality. Make one wrong move and you're quickly back to rock bottom. With debt, if I pay back my debt of $50K, then splurge for another $1K, I am not back in debt with $50K. This is however how addiction works. Finally, the debt metaphor doesn't capture the uncontrollableness of cravings that are arising. You have no free will in what spontaneous thought or feeling arises. This is quite easily seen when you're sitting still and try to do nothing: your mind will still chatter away, you'll still feel things based on that chatter. In quite a few cases it's impossible what your mind will show you next. The same is true for the cravings that an addict gets with a drug. Sure, the craving will arise when one starts to talk about it, but it may also arise when somebody twitches their leg, because the muscle tension is super vaguely associated to a memory when one was partying with the drug, but the person is not even aware of that association or that it's part of a memory. Disclaimer: I'm not a drug addict, but based on my personal life experiences, I think it's fair to say that I have enough experience how it must feel like (I experience a mild pull to alcohol, a strong pull to caffeine and an overwhelming pull to videos and video games).
• CapitalistCartr 6y ago
  Three years ago, I decided, for New Years, to try getting addicted to caffeine and alcohol. The caffeine was a rapid success, the effects of which which I still enjoy. After half a dozen bottles of bourbon, I gave up on the alcohol for a lack of interest/effect. Peoples bodies and neurochemistry are simply different.
  • ohnemint 6y ago
    > I decided, for New Years, to try getting addicted to caffeine and alcohol Why did you decide this?
    • CapitalistCartr 6y ago
      I wanted to better understand the experience. I've known several addicts in my family. My wife and I adopted a deeply addicted family member's son, who was born with severe problems from her drug use. Bear in mind, I am willing to take vacation from work and go cold turkey as needed. I do this a couple times a year for caffeine, just to be sure, and the headaches are brutal.
      • superkuh 6y ago
        It's easy to become dependent on caffine. But caffeine itself is not intrinsically addictive. It does not directly interact with the systems in the brain associated with predicting reward.
• coding123 6y ago
  > Some people don’t know not to mix specific sedatives with opioids. For example, they don’t know not to mix large amounts of alcohol or large amounts of antihistamines. Specific combinations can lead to respiratory depression, which can lead to death. Another point of ignorance involves people who buy street drugs and don’t necessarily know if the drugs contain contaminants. That’s the kind of ignorance I’m talking about. I feel like he just wrote off 450000 deaths from 1990-2019 with people don't know how to mix alcohol and opioids correctly. https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/analysis.html https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/analysis.html
• oezi 6y ago
  Obligatory link to "Drugs without the hot air" [1] which begs to differ. Heroin is terribly addictive and destructive. [1] https://www.uit.co.uk/drugs-without-the-hot-air https://www.uit.co.uk/drugs-without-the-hot-air https://www.amazon.com/Drugs-without-hot-air-illegal/dp/0857844946 https://www.amazon.com/Drugs-without-hot-air-illegal/dp/0857...
• say_it_as_it_is 6y ago
  Your brain is physically changed the first time you use heroin. There's no going back to normal. There was the person who you were before heroin and the person who you are after using heroin. If you manage to quit heroin, ten years after kicking your heroin habit, you're still thinking about heroin. Twenty years later, you're still thinking about heroin. You never stop thinking about heroin until you die. Every painful event in your life triggers the impulse to reach for the heroin, just as you did the first time. You get to collect sobriety tokens and tell strangers how you've been living life on the straight and narrow. The only redemption you may find is by helping other people cope with addiction. Heroin addiction isn't overcome. You learn how to live with it.
  • yboris 6y ago
    Your brain is physically changed the first time you try a strawberry. There is no going back to normal. There was the person who you were before you tried a strawberry and the person who you are after you tried a strawberry. If you manage to never eat another strawberry, ten years later you're still thinking about what a tasty berry it was. You will fondly remember that taste until you die ...
    • say_it_as_it_is 6y ago
      I need to know where you get your strawberries, for a friend.
      • yboris 6y ago
        I just think it's a nice parallel. Drugs are experiences. Visiting Paris, or visiting a visually-inventive part of your mind while on LSD - from a certain perspective, these are the same thing. The claim that a drug changes your brain forever is trivially true - it is literally true of strawberries. Once you've had the taste, you'll likely remember the experience of tasting it (and if you're not too young, you might remember the place and people that were there during your first bite). For all the hysteria about the harms of drugs, we seldom hear a level-headed point of view about the possibility of them being a(nother) wonderful aspect of life.
• Pulcinella 6y ago
  This is not a particularly hard hitting interview. I wish the interviewer pushed back more against Dr. Hart. E.g. do some digging on who funds his research. Push back against minimizing the opioid crisis. A lot of these questions are real softballs.
• sillysaurusx 6y ago
  How many of you want to decriminalize drug use? Be honest –– raise your hand. Now, how do you square that with almost everyone here universally claiming that these words are dangerous? > The statements that make people mad are the ones they worry might be believed. I suspect the statements that make people maddest are those they worry might be true.
  • loves_mangoes 6y ago
    Hey there! Hand raised, and happy to disagree =) Giving people the autonomy to live their life, means there are many dangerous things you can say about things that are legal, and should be legal. I believe people should be responsible enough to drive a car, drink alcohol, and with or without prescription take a drug without risking a prison sentence. Now my advice is: It's not okay to drive while extremely tired, it's not healthy to drink yourself uncounscious (even if you're not an alcoholic), and you should probably continue to not treat heroin lightly. I'm okay with all those things being legal. I'm not okay with people equating legal with safe. Of course words can be dangerous. That's why we call them out, but that's not a reason to send people to federal 'technically your life is not over' prison.
    • sillysaurusx 6y ago
      Happy to hear your disagreement! (Also, please have a wonderful day this fine Thursday.) The thing is, wouldn't you agree that if something isn't criminal, then it should be fine to talk about the act of doing that thing? Because that's all this interview seems to be.
      • loves_mangoes 6y ago
        Thank you, a wonderful day to you too! I think it's completely okay to talk about drugs, creating taboos around dangerous things has rarely been helpful in the past. However, I think people's reaction to this piece shows what's missing: more warnings around it than seem entirely necessary to the average person. You just don't want today's lucky 10,000 [0] to come away with the impression that heroin is a pretty casual thing, and while the fact of talking about it is great, the words themselves can be dangerous if they promote unsafe behavior without adequate warnings. All that being said, I have to admit that people might be over-reacting a smidge to the interview, but I can't really fault them. I haven't personally lost anyone to heroin addiction, but I imagine I might read the article less generously if I had. Cheers! [0]: https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/
• werber 6y ago
  I've done heroin a handful of times and enjoyed it. The last time I did it was laced with fentanyl and I nearly died. I don't agree with everything in this article but I've lost so many friends to laced heroin, and they were addicted and I really believe they would have somewhat normal lives after their addiction. The demonization and misinformation surrounding the drug is staggering, I wish we treated it more like alcoholism, for a lot of people it's not instant addiction, but for some one sip or snort and they're on an isolating and destructive path that could kill them. People don't have a way of knowing the equivalent of one shot of alcohol in heroin because it's illegal. There is no way for most people to consistently and rationally use it and most people have no interest in doing so. But for the minority who are going to throw caution to the wind (which at one point in my life included me) I strongly believe we should remove as much risk as possible
• yters 6y ago
  There is a possibility that drugs being illegal has resulted in many less addicted and dead drug users. Supposedly, prohibition back in the day was quite successful keeping people from becoming alcoholics.
• ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  When I read these sort of accounts, it helps to keep in mind the diversity of human condition, physique and psycology. There are people immune to some poison, people that don't feel pain at all, a woman which has two vaginas, there were people that never stopped growing, people that don't sleep, etc. Thats before we get into psycology and personal experiences that shaped them. I willing to believe that ther are some people who can abuse drugs, and not become adicts. However odds are I am not one of them, and its not worth finding out by experiment.
• globular-toast 6y ago
  I recommend David Nutt for more logical analysis of drugs and their dangers. Essentially the way drugs are classified makes no sense and is mostly a result of corruption and political, religious and even racist ideologies. Drugs have had a profound effect on my life. Like many, I started with alcohol - the most boring and most dangerous drug there is. I later used cannabis, which I decided had an overall negative effect on my life, and MDMA. The latter I only used a few times but it changed me. I don't need to take it any more but it has improved my life no end. Now I only use caffeine (in tea and coffee). I haven't used other drugs for almost two years at this point (my last drink was around May 2019 and it ruined my sleep, as it always does, for the last time).
• kneel 6y ago
  This man will eventually die of overdose, calling it now. It’s one thing to be a user, it’s another to be a delusional user that thinks they’re immune to addiction.
• cryptica 6y ago
  My experience with drug users in the workplace is that the drugs make them seem more empathetic in a superficial way but in fact reduce their real empathy in the sense that they're less likely to help others in need; when they do help others, it's often to get attention to boost their personal image so that they can get more money and/or power. I think drug use also encourages people to seek out more thrills in their personal lives. It takes away their ability to enjoy a simple life and makes them greedier for endorphins. I wouldn't be surprised if the current narcissistic, monopolistic corporate economic environment is a result of heavy drug use among executives. They can never get enough money or power because they can never get the life satisfaction that their brains need to match the highs provided by drugs; even given the fact that their regular life experiences are far better than the average person; it still doesn't compare to the drugs. The best possible life experiences they can get don't meet their new baseline for happiness. Drug use also seems to encourage cheating and other unethical behaviours since these behaviours deliver a natural high (alas, it still falls short of their drug baseline).
• wrongdonf 6y ago
  I’ve lost a close friend to heroin. But the vast majority or Vietnam soldiers who were doing heroin overseas stopped using without issue after coming home — an inconvenient truth for the chemical-centric model of addiction. In reality, it’s deep emotional pain or psychological distress that makes the difference between a person who gets addicted to drugs and a person who doesn’t, basically. Like everything else that is touched by dogma and epidemiology, this fact has been lost.
• marcosscriven 6y ago
  He states he’s been a regular user for five years AMD is not addicted. I’ll believe him when he writes an article saying he just happened to not have it for at least several months just because he decided to.
• mothsonasloth 6y ago
  This is postmodernism 101, "there is no objective truth, we are shackled by subjectivity" This is dangerous!
• major505 6y ago
  To be honest, is what I expect someone with a drug problem to say.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• drewmassey 6y ago
  Oh man I've seen Hart making the rounds. The obvious privilege of being a tenured Ivy League professor aside, a few things jump out - Yes it would be nice if drugs were decriminalized ... but they aren't ... and the supply chain for heroin causes a lot of suffering in the world. - Shrugging and leading with "only 30% of people have addictions" is astoundingly innumerate. If there were a 30% chance of a potentially fatal outcome in almost any other context it would be a big deal.
  • mrwh 6y ago
    Yes, this. If 1% of airline passengers died we would ground all planes immediately. 30% is awful.
• BannedQuick 6y ago
  I am a civilization user. I do not have a racism problem.
• balozi 6y ago
  Your mind is playing tricks on you, my dear. The biggest problem in addiction is the rationalization.
• jack_riminton 6y ago
  I saw this guy on Rogan and his claim that opioids weren't addictive just isn't born out by the facts
• mmlkrx 6y ago
  There is a subreddit called /r/MuseumOfReddit that is "dedicated to cataloguing the posts and comments that will go down in reddit history." One of the more chilling posts on there[1] is the account of a user who randomly tried Heroin one day, got addicted within 2 weeks, overdosed and was clinically dead within a month, got revived and admitted, came clean, then posted an update to his story 7 years later. I would personally suggest trying meditation first before trying opioids to alter consciousness and feel euphoric. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/MuseumOfReddit/comments/68srty/spontaneoush_uses_heroin_gets_addicted_dies_gets/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MuseumOfReddit/comments/68srty/spon...
  • biolurker1 6y ago
    I'm reading Freud book "civilization and it's discontent" and he says that some people can experience what others experience with substances, only by yoga and meditation. I'm really curious cause I have only done "simple yoga" and simple meditation like just breathing exercises.
  • amvalo 6y ago
    Fake story -- that's way too fast.
    • mmlkrx 6y ago
      You're correct, he actually overdosed roughly a year after his first use of heroin, not a month like I remembered: >I overdosed on a combination of (mostly) fentanyl, plus I had a lot of diphenhydramine, pregabalin, temezepam, and maybe some lingering oxymorphone in my system. I stopped breathing with several fentanyl patches in my mouth (they were previously used and I thought they had much less left in them) partially blocking my airway and would have been dead dead if I was found 10 minutes later according to EMS. It took multiple shots of Narcan to revive me. https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/dw6u0/iama_patient_in_a_psychiatric_hospital_i_was_also/c13ds7j/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/dw6u0/iama_patient_in...
• omginternets 6y ago
  Let's check in on this guy in a few years.
• f0ff 6y ago
  When you rationalize your drug habit so hard you write a book
• tibbydudeza 6y ago
  A functioning heroin addict does not exist , he might just be an outlier.
• vagrantJin 6y ago
  I've done my fair bit in the underbelly of night-life and not a single drug has caught me out. Partly because I may have a weird pleasure in feeling like crap the day after and likely because I view life as contempt for misery. No matter how terrible I feel - I'll crank out the work.
• ballballball 6y ago
  Rationalization is a helluva drug.
• mmmBacon 6y ago
  I had a group of college friends who started taking heroin in the 90’s who thought like this. It upset me and I told them so. At the time they said I was “being uptight.” We fell out over their heroin use. About a year later, one of these former friends died from an overdose. He was a generous person with a great future ahead of him. He’s been dead 25 years now. When I think about it now, it still saddens me. He missed so much.
• hapless 6y ago
  "I am a heroin user. I suffer from delusions."
• CyberRabbi 6y ago
  Can we ban “nautilus” from HN? This blog post is both clickbait and the post itself is deceptive and harmful to the general public. This is not the first time either.
• Stronico 6y ago
  The book Never Enough by Judith Grisel is a good addition this field, and probably this book. Short version - your body longs to be at equilibrium/homeostasis and drugs (alcohol, stimulants, opiates, etc) upset that equilibrium, so your body attempts to return you to your previous state. There is no free lunch, and a high will be accompanied by a low. The lows come in numerous and surprising forms. The book is significantly better than my description.
• Out_of_Characte 6y ago
  "If you’re not wearing a mask, when we have this highly communicable disease, then you’re potentially impacting the rights of other people." The same argument could be made for heroin. The point is that 'not wearing a mask' does not endanger someone's life in any way unless someone is infected with covid. yet the author suggests that not wearing a mask is "potentially impacting the rights of other people" Then surely the same argument could be made for people using heroin, you're not endangering anyones life by using heroin unless you're causing drug-related crimes. Which is the exact argument the government used to declare war on drugs. This is quite a contradiction by equavalency. The rest of the article is reasonable. I dont think he has said anything that fell outside the mainstream medical and psychological view.
  • didibus 6y ago
    > you're not endangering anyones life by using heroin unless you're causing drug-related crimes Are you saying heroin causes people to commit crime? > This is quite a contradiction by equavalency. I thought he meant it similarly. We created the war on drugs from this logic, yet do not have a war on people not wearing masks. You're right in that mask wearing is a tricky situation, and I think so is hard drug usage. He brushed that off maybe a little too quickly. I think smoking and covid masks are a better equivalence. Second hand smoking can cause you to maybe affect others, so areas where you are allowed to smoke were restricted. I see masks in a similar fashion.
    • Out_of_Characte 6y ago
      >I thought he meant it similarly. There was no ambiguity, from the article "Your birthright to use drugs is part of the pursuit of happiness, you write." The author consideres it a birthright to use drugs irrespective of the consequences drugs have for a percentage of the population. To wear or not to wear masks however is "... potentially impacting the rights of other people." which is why I think its a slight contradiction. >Are you saying heroin causes people to commit crime? I dont understand what you're asking, drug-related crimes are drug related, using heroin in the states is a crime so the continued habit also constitutes committing crimes? My point was that anyone could be a heroin user who commits crimes or a heroin user and write an article, there's no way of predicting the future, mainstream society has deemed the 'risk' too great and instituted a method of preventing heroin use by making the use of the substance illegal. The article goes against that narrative with a libertarian point of view. I think I prefer the libertarian on this one.
• f430 6y ago
  This article is just sheer irresponsible. Heroin especially now is risky because so many dealers are cutting it with Fentanyl and the users won't even know the difference until its too late. Our blind catering to individual freedoms is really unbecoming and I question why this author wanted to bring attention to himself and his own private struggles. I thought the UBC professor who faked being indigenous and doxxed Asian Canadian students for being white supremacist and threatened another professor topped it. Just what in the hell is going on with North American academia and educators? How did it fall from grace like this?
• mavsman 6y ago
  He says only 1% to 8% of opioid prescriptions result in addiction (and that this is often misreported as being higher). If knew it was even this high I would never accept a bottle.
  • confidantlake 6y ago
    Absolutely. 8% is incredibly high.
• mdip 6y ago
  All I can say about this is "Good Luck with That". I have never been addicted to heroine, so I cannot speak from personal experience. But I have seen its impact first-hand, thankfully, a number of times I can only count with one of my hands. The way I explain addiction to my kids is the way it was explained to me by an addict (alcohol, Vicodin and others): (1) There's no difference between "Psychologically Addictive" and "Physically Addictive" -- he said this in the context that he was an abuser of alcohol, every day, but was not chemically addicted to it and required no medicine to quit, but it was easily as difficult as quitting Vicodin. (2) Addicts don't love their drugs more than their family/kids/morals -- your body uses addiction to make you eat, drink, etc -- go without those things for long enough and you will start to sacrifice things that are otherwise more important. Imagine your desire to do this particular drug is substantially stronger than your desire to eat or drink. Having the benefit of a few decades away from childhood and been witness to some really incredible individuals' lives being flushed down the toilet, I don't believe either of those two statements to be sensationalized in any way. It's internalizing these things and understanding that the people I know who became addicts were very strong people. One was a person I counted among the "Great Men"[0] in my life (and still do). Politically speaking, I tend to fall pretty narrowly on the whole "victimless crime shouldn't be criminal[1]", so my puritanical beliefs that you should "just stay as far away from that stuff as you possibly can" doesn't translate into support for the War on Drugs(tm). Personally speaking, I've watched people maintain a heroine addiction for years, Vicodin for decades. In the early days, they managed OK. They all quit because the drug became it--the single need that remained. That's what it does. People nearing this stage delude themselves into thinking it's not affecting their lives/loved ones, but I'd be curious -- with the benefit of hindsight bias -- at what point a former addict[2] would admit their drug problem was out of control. [0] My measure is not just a man who can be counted on to do the right thing when nobody is looking, but who will do the right thing when the outcome will/might serve him poorly. [1] A person should not be able to be convicted of a crime if the criminal and the only victim are the same person. [2] Recovering addict is the phrase most frequently used. One acquaintance of mine (who didn't do 12-steps/rehab) corrected me and said he's "not an alcoholic anymore" or a "former alcoholic" because he quit a decade ago and has no desire/temptation to drink (whole household is extremely anti-alcohol; he couldn't hide it if he tried) and feels that claiming to have a problem he doesn't have feels too much like being a "pity whore". He wasn't chemically addicted, either. Can't please everyone, I guess.
• S_A_P 6y ago
  Im not sure how I feel about this. I do think that Dr Hart is probably right in an academic sense. What I worry about is that reality is messy. I think in the spectrum of people in the world there are likely people who can take heroin and only take it once in a while. He may even not be glossing over the harm drugs do in his life(I dont know him so I wont make that judgement). I know if I had a ready supply of clean heroin I would probably not just take it once in a while. Ive never done heroin, and that is because I know how much I like hydrocodone and its much weaker chemical cousins. I also know 2 people severely harmed by heroin use.(Brothers in fact) Maybe if they had a regimented way of copping it and safe supply of needles one of them wouldnt have Hep C now. The real problem with treating opiates or other drugs as a public health problem is that the US does not have that sort of infrastructure set up to deal with the problem. Why do you think the police are called in now for drug problems(non criminal)? There is literally nobody else to deal with it. I dont agree with locking up addicts, but is checking them into a hospital with no insurance a viable option?
• oreally 6y ago
  I get that you need outlets, but drugs are the worst you can choose amongst the many other outlets you have today. At least go play video games - at least you'll still be able to recover. With drugs you're risking so much of your health. Make the smart choice kids.
• mrwh 6y ago
  My only direct experience of opioids is a one week prescription for percocet after surgery. It got me through, and probably was safer short-term than taking massive amounts of Tylenol. But I was glad to stop taking it. It felt insidious: it didn't make the unpleasantness go away so much as remove my ability to care about the unpleasantness. Everything felt fine, kind of light and bouncy. I can easily imagine being trapped in that.
• wuxb 6y ago
  Just ask the man two questions: Would you like to give heroin to your children, relatives, and colleagues. Would you like to pay for them if they don't have the money to get enough doses in their life? Many "leaders" I know tell people "this company is great". But they ended up sending their kids to other (better) places.
• thezoginator 6y ago
  My dad used to say the exact same thing, until he lost his job his family, and his life. He used to pretend that he was "functioning", and that his drug use wasn't a problem. This is a classic example of someone who we will read about losing their job and life in 10 years or less. The only bit I will agree with is that addiction is not caused by the drug itself, and is typically the result of childhood trauma. With that drug use is not a solution for dealing with that trauma, dealing with that trauma directly through therapy and mediation is a much better solution.
  • gnagatomo 6y ago
    >The only bit I will agree with is that addiction is not caused by the drug itself, and is typically the result of childhood trauma. Traumatic experiences plays a big role on addiction, but purely chemical addiction should still be factored in. Heroine is extremely addictive not just because of traumatic experiences, but because it induces very high dopamine releases.
• frakkingcylons 6y ago
  So many comments in this thread are misconstruing Hart's arguments. He's not being open about his drug use in order to encourage everyone else to start using opiates and amphetamines willy-nilly. We can't just keep applying the same Reagan-era drug prohibition policies and expect anything to change. People are never going to stop using these drugs, so we should take steps to make their use safer. Thanks to widespread education, most people know the basics about how to drink safely (e.g. don't drink and then take NSAIDs). Because alcohol is sold legally, nobody has to worry about going blind or dying from moonshine. We should be applying the same principles to drugs like opioids. You should be able to buy them in precise dosages and know that they're not contaminated with something way too strong like fentanyl. People should be educated about unsafe drug combinations, which is the other major cause of overdoses.
  • mdoms 6y ago
    > He's not being open about his drug use in order to encourage everyone else to start using opiates and amphetamines willy-nilly. It doesn't matter if that's why he's doing it - that's still the effect.
• gojomo 6y ago
  The article, and "Carl", attribute this sentiment to Professor Carl Hart. But what if it's actually the heroin speaking?
• renewiltord 6y ago
  The fascinating thing about this stuff is that you can have outlier people. For instance, tobacco is supposed to be highly addictive. Well, I picked up smoking from a girlfriend in college and we used to smoke all the time. Like ten cigs a day for a year and a half. Real bad, right? Well, one day, I decided "Meh. I'll just stop" and I did. Not because of any reason. I just chose not to. Now cigarettes are way addictive but I just chose to stop. More addictive than Benzos and shit and I just stopped cold turkey without any other reason. Many of my friends struggled with quitting but eventually did. But I did it way easy. It's unlikely that I'm some super outlier, but clearly I'm some near the right edge of the bell curve in ease of exiting cigarette dependence. That makes me think there are other outliers. This guy must be a heroin outlier. And considering the dependence inducing strength of that drug, he must be a far outlier.
  • goat_whisperer 6y ago
    Yeah, I mean some people smoke all of their lives and live to be 90 and die of natural causes. Doesn't mean that smoking isn't incredibly dangerous and bad for you. edit: this is agreement with the original comment, not sure why I'm being down voted. Just highlighting how outliers can exist, but it doesn't reflect on the danger of the underlying activity in general
  • ecmascript 6y ago
    Same here, stopping to smoke was really easy but my candy addiction is real hard. It's like day and night for me. I struggle and have been struggling in not eating candy for years (or at least a lot less) but I have failed each time. I think different substances are differently addictive to people.
    • renewiltord 6y ago
      Likewise, I found it impossible to quit sugar. Fruits especially still ruin me. I'll eat any amount of fruit you place before me.
      • groby_b 6y ago
• pif 6y ago
  I'd like to understand where he buys his legal heroin. Because, if he is choosing to pour his money into the worst criminal businnes existing, either he is a piece of scum or he does have a drug problem!
  • leetcrew 6y ago
    kind of a weak jab. it's not that complicated to make heroin. morphine extraction is trivial; the conversion to heroin is just one more step. any chem major could probably do it if they had a way to source enough poppies without attracting attention. even if he does source his heroin through the usual channels, is that so much worse than the business practices we support when we buy clothes, iphones, meat, etc.?
• goat_whisperer 6y ago
  I'm all for re-thinking drug policy, but normalizing heroin use? Hell no. It's gonna catch up to this guy one day -- he says he's good now but just wait until he feels like he needs to stop.
• renewiltord 6y ago
  Yo, no one uses NDMA for that shit. You mean MDMA.
• gist 6y ago
  > Carl Hart is a neuroscientist and Ziff Professor of Psychology at Columbia University—he was the first tenured African-American professor of sciences at Columbia. This starts off reading like one of those spam emails of the past where some claim was made backed up by 'and my brother/sister/father/friend' 'is a professor at Harvard' (or similar) to get you to take it as authoritative and serious. [1] The issue with drug use is the outliers. Just like the issue with driving fast is the driver who is not you it's not about what you or most capable drivers can do under the best circumstances and driving a well equipped and responsive modern car it's about 'the other guy/gal'. [1] What is the name for the logical fallacy here?
• Spinnaker_ 6y ago
  I've been hearing about Carl Hart for a while. I can't find an answer to if he's ever tried stopping heroine use? I would expect one of the first things to come up in a the conversation would be something along the lines of "yeah, I took a break for a month last year. It was easy, I had no cravings or other problems."
• heyflyguy 6y ago
  I worked in an ad agency in the nineties that had a cocaine and amphetamine tidal wave going through it. I never realized the number of seemingly high functioning and reputable people that are utterly addicted. I don't love the article because I think it shows a statistical anomaly, but in that light, yes this is interesting.
• king_panic 6y ago
  Addiction engenders unresolved trauma. Can be drugs, shopping, sex, internet, or anything that gives you a temporary sense of relief from a deep underlying pain that usually forms in childhood. Check out the work of Gabor Mate. It's silly how simple it is. It's silly how misunderstood it is.
• codingdave 6y ago
  I've heard that statistic before, that 70% of drug users aren't addicted. But I've also heard that the 30% who do get addicted is less about good practices, and more of a genetic trait - if you have the brain chemistry to get addicted, you do. Most people don't, but 30% is non-trivial. If you are given a choice of "70% chance to feel good for a few hours with a 30% chance to ruin your life.", it doesn't feel like good odds to me. There surely are safer and more reliable ways to enjoy your life.
• moreranchplease 6y ago
  I agree with him. Only a small percentage of people who do cocaine become addicted. It's almost always those who are trying to escape shitty circumstances. While heroin is dangerous the uncertainty of what you're getting and its strength is the cause of most deaths.
• jeofken 6y ago
  A life hack for anyone here trying to quit is using lent which has just begun, to both set a time limit and to externalise quitting. “I’m giving X up for lent” isn’t so daunting, and something you can tell people. Changing your environment is also a good idea - if nothing else move change room to sleep in and move furniture to new places, and you’ve got a new “place”. I use it to quit my daily beer habit. Kindest regards to you internet friend who struggles with addiction.
• Noctem 6y ago
  It's bizarre to me that he would describe heroin as a "social lubricant." I've had the misfortune of attempting to socialize with people who were under the influence of heavy opioids and "social lubricant" is not how I would describe their vacant stares or frequent nodding off.
• mcguire 6y ago
  "Hart reports that more than 70 percent of drug users—whether they use alcohol, cocaine, prescription medications, or heroin—do not meet the health criteria for drug addiction." One would hope that would be well over 99%, given how many use asperin/acetaminophen/etc, caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, and so forth.
• munificent 6y ago
  If I try to synthesize the ancedotes in this thread, it seems: 1. Some people do not seem have an addictive response to opioids. It's roughly in the same safety category as alcohol and weed. 2. Some people become nearly-instantly profoundly physically addicted to the point that it will inexorably destroy their lives. The only way to figure which category you're in is to try it and find out. There's a personal liberty principle argument that if you are in the first category, you should have access to opioids just like you have access to other pursuits of happiness. But the inability to determine whether you're that category induces a significant risk at the aggregate level. People die and everyone, even those who can take opioids safely end up indirectly dealing with the negative consequences in terms of rising healthcare costs, dealing with homeless drug users on the street, etc. I can think of three philosophical approaches to this: * Communal: Say that since some fraction of people will be grievously harmed by opioids, the greatest good for all is to prohibit them universally. We ask the safe users to sacrifice the harmless positive experience to protect the unsafe users from harm. This is nominally what we do now by outlawing them. * Libertarian: Acknowledge that even trying is a roll of the dice and that if you choose to roll them, you have to take the consequences. This is effectively what we do now since the law enforcement is so ineffective. * Technological: Research a way to determine whether you can take opioids safely without having to try them. Imagine a test your doctor could give you that says "Yes, you'll be physically addicted." That increased certainty would remove much of the stigma of use, and make it easier for those that are at risk to stay away because they know they really are likely to get addicted. I don't usually lean towards tech solutions to societal problems, but this seems like a case where having more insight into an individual's physiology would help everyone make better choices. (Personally, after receiving fentanyl during a medical procedure, I am absolutely certain I should never be given easy access to opioids.)
• spaetzleesser 6y ago
  I used to know an engineer who used cocaine, heroin and drank a lot. He definitely wasn’t performing at his best and the long term outlook wasn’t good. But he was able to hold his job and didn’t miss work more often than other people with other health issues like cancer or back problems. This definitely convinced me that it doesn’t make sense to pull drug users out of productive society and either fire them or put them to jail. It’s just very unproductive that makes things only worse. It would be much cheaper to treat their addiction while they are working.
• Bakary 6y ago
  Grossly simplified, there are two very broad categories of users. Those who use in an assertive way because they are confident and naturally inclined to try new experiences tend to do quite well. Those who use to escape don't do well.
• jariel 6y ago
  So does your health insurer know, and how much are your premiums?
• JoelMcCracken 6y ago
  I read this a few hours ago and didn't decide to comment then. But I just have to. I just lost my brother-in-law to heroin overdose. He overdosed because he went into rehab, came out, and then used far more than his body could tolerate. This is unfortunately common. Not because he mixed it with alcohol or antihistamines or whatever. Overall, his entire life has been extremely tragic. He was a good guy at heart. He was a hard worker and did good work in general. However, he did did A LOT of crazy things. He was the poster child for "your emotional development stops at the point you got addicted to heroin". He basically acted like a troubled 13 yr old in a 40 yr old's body. This craziness has caused a LOT of problems over the years, especially for his daughters. I get that the popular notions of drug use are wrong, but when is that not true of anything? Drug use does itself cause a lot of problems. While some people may be able to use them without any issues, many cannot. The way a lot of this is phrased, it makes it sound like drugs are fine and there is a conspiracy to demonize them. While the popular notion of them isn't perfectly balanced, it is not the case that they are just fine for people to use.
  • fossuser 6y ago
    Yeah, the piece reads like a rationalization by a drug user still in the early stages of a problem. We'll see how things turn out in the end (maybe I'm wrong), but I'm pretty skeptical of a positive outcome.
    • pvitz 6y ago
      Agree! When he said that he meets his parental, personal [...] responsibilities, I thought I would like to hear if his partner and his children think the same. Maybe everything is really fine, but more often, the drug user doesn't realize how his (ab-)use affects his closest environment.
      • robin21 6y ago
        Even the phrasing is weird. To “meet my responsibilities” as of it’s a burden or a job. Not like: “as long as I can remain a great parent and partner”. Maybe I read too much into it.
• slk500 6y ago
  Guy is regular heroin user a he is trying to prove that drugs are ok. Who's paying for this bullshit research?
• tonymet 6y ago
  Let's see how he ends up in 10 years. Better yet, let's ask his wife and kids if they agree. Maybe he is the one out of 100k who can manage a Heroin habit. Well good for him, he can keep it to himself.
• pid_0 6y ago
  I don't have a problem I can stop whenever I want! God this is so stupid. Please, stop amplifying this nonsense.
• pedalpete 6y ago
  I enjoyed this piece as a controversial thought experiment, the "what do you believe that others don't" is strong with this one. I was struck by the point where he talked about how heroin had made him a better person. The description he gives sounds like meditation and mindfulness would be a better prescription/solution than heroin.
• ghego1 6y ago
  These kind of articles are truly disappointing. Downplaying how dangerous heroin is is simply criminal, at least morally. Unfortunately though these kind of positio are made possible by our stand against drugs. Currently nearly all western countries are simply banning all drugs. This war on drugs, however has proven to be ineffective at best. The truth is that the more we fight drugs the more problems we cause. We should aknowledge that drug use is not the problem, it's a symptom. So instead of prohibiting the drugs, we should be helping those that seek drugs, to cure the underlying problem. If we did that, we could even sell drugs in pharmacies. The point is curing and helping out people, not putting them in jail. Switzerland has done this for nearly 30 years with great results, we should learn from them.
• sadfev 6y ago
  Yeah, all drugs should be allowed. Just have sane programs for sanitary usage and perhaps a small tax on users so that the peripheral facilities can be run without taxing wider population. If one (adult) can’t handle drugs then help should be readily available as is for alcoholics. No need to get political and emotional about it, there’s a pragmatic way.
• throwawaymanbot 6y ago
  What a genuinely dangerous ans idiotic article.
• forgotmypw17 6y ago
  I have not used heroin, but I know several users, and have spoken with many more. Most of them started out with prescription pills, often legally prescribed, and switched to H when the pills ran out and the source ran dry. If they started shooting up, it was to use it more efficiently. The biggest danger with heroin is unpredictable dosage and lacing with fent. I would never advise anyone to use heroin, it's a terribly dangerous pursuit, and the payoff is burning out your pleasure receptors. I think it would save countless lives to somehow legalize it to the point of an addict being able to get predictable dosage and not off the street.
• thenoblesunfish 6y ago
  To oversimplify: 70% of drug users don’t have a “problem”. While the point is well taken that that number is higher than the media would imply, which might impede rational discussion, those still don’t seem like great odds to me, given how severe those “problems” can be.
• 5Qn8mNbc2FNCiVV 6y ago
  Small anecdote regarding how addiction works: I took ecstasy on this new year's eve together with my brothers and it felt amazing. It felt like my mind was free and I was way faster at phrasing my mind. Few hours later I went to the bank, got a few hundred euros and tried asking the dealer for a hundred tablets. That's how crazy ecstasy was for me. I am 100% sure if I would try heroine once I would fall for it, especially because as a tech guy I have the means to sustain it to a deadly degree.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• naewonawonga 6y ago
  Do not trust the credibility of an article about drugs that conflates NDMA with MDMA.