7 ms·

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 heal

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?
  - sillysaurusx 6y ago
    Well, after all, interviewing a sex worker is dangerous too. People might have a bunch of sex and catch some nasty diseases. I think that's the logic, anyway. It's ironic that most people here are in the camp of "decriminalize drugs! Oh wait, no, not these drugs, just some drugs."
    - coryrc 6y ago
      As Portugal shows, decriminalizing drugs reduces their use. The position you are mocking is actually consistent.
      - sillysaurusx 6y ago
        Fair point. But, if something isn't criminal, then it should be fine to read about people doing that thing –– which is all that this article is. Railing against it like it's somehow an affront to post it seems neither productive nor fair.
      - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
        Portugal has a much more comprehensive set of programs to get people off hard drugs than any of the US jurisdictions that have decriminalized (or stopped enforcing through executive action) hard drugs.
      - jboog 6y ago
        I'm not sure we can take the results of a single experiment in an incredibly homogenous tiny country in Europe to mean an outcome is replicable across the world.
        capableweb 6y ago
        Indeed. The "experiment" in Portugal is not proving it works everywhere, but shows it can work, which indicates we should study it further and possibly deploy it in more countries across the world, to see if it works elsewhere and if we could possibly make it even more effective. While Portugal is probably the most famous example of decriminalizing working in humans favor, it's not the only example, it has been employed in other states too. Netherlands has de-facto decriminalized all drugs (in practice, not in law), Czech Republic has decriminalized all (most?) drugs as well.
        akiselev 6y ago
        We can, however, easily take the opposite conclusion: drug criminalization has been an unmitigated disaster in almost every country it’s been tried short of a few incredibly homogenous countries like Japan and countries for which no real data is available like North Korea.
- valuearb 6y ago
  Heroin isn’t dangerous. Illegal heroin is very dangerous.
- mdip 6y ago
  > That coupled with the fact of how heroin is treated in society makes it worse. So this is sort of a problem with treating the thing "Heroin" as bad, versus treating the Heroin Addict as bad. Society makes it worse, mainly, by tossing addicts in jail and I'm generally against drug laws as they stand[0]. But making "everything legal" doesn't reduce the impact of the law on drug users as much as you'd expect. At least, anecdotally, every addict that I've known personally has had run-ins with law enforcement because of their drug use but having nothing to do with the drugs, themselves. In one case, a friend ended up with an "impeding traffic" charge when he fell asleep in the left-turn lane at an intersection. The story, as it was told to me, was that he chased a few Vicodin with a single beer, which resulted in him registering a 0.03, but he fell asleep in an intersection with his foot on the brake pedal. Despite this, he passed the field sobriety test, but the officer judged him to be intoxicated, and he was arrested. Apparently he was supposed to get a blood test; he was taken in early on Saturday and held until Monday, but they didn't do the test until he was "on his way out". It turned up nothing and he got out with a lawyer bill. [0] I'm convinced that things are so bad/ineffective right now, that I'm pretty close to support of all-out decriminalization (of possession), simply because it reduces the impact of addiction on the addicted.
dfsegoat 6y ago
They all work by increasing dopamine. But 'Addictive potential' does vary by drug, and by the person [1]. 'All substances of abuse self-administered by humans that can result in addiction are believed to exert their reinforcing effects by increasing DA in the nucleus accumbens (NAc)' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050051/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050051/
lazide 6y ago
Who decides that someone is a responsible and healthy adult? Do we have any data on how many responsible and healthy adults try heroin? Anecdata and broad brush strokes of course - In my experience anyway, the actually responsible and heathy adults I know haven’t felt the need to use heroin. The people who somehow are able to delude themselves into thinking they are responsible and healthy while obviously in crippling mental and/or physical pain, have - and it’s been devastating to them. I’ve had prescription opioids before (hydrocodone, codeine, morphine) during medical emergencies. The feeling of peace and calm is amazing - which is exactly why it attracts people in pain and suffering, destructively so in many cases. It is difficult to know if that feeling is going to be magnetic or repulsive to you until you try it. It happens to be repulsive in my case (I know it’s a trap), thankfully. It’s a complicated story of course, and bad outcomes tend to get the press. Better treatment (including in many cases mental health treatment) is definitely needed. It is not the only substance like this - alcohol, tobacco, amphetamines, and others have track records of similar problems. Pretending that anyone and everyone could self evaluate and go for it without a decent percent of them having major problems for them and those around them is unfortunately just not a good idea.
- capableweb 6y ago
  > Who decides that someone is a responsible and healthy adult? You do. It's not up to someone to decide, you're responsible for your own body and your own decisions to improve/harm it. I don't think they are saying advising governments to setup some sort of screening process for this. It's more for the people who are interested in the drugs themselves. When I first started getting interested in drugs, many pushed the idea that I should be psychologically healthy first (mostly because my first interest was psychedelics and I have good and well-meaning friends). I think that's what the article is trying to signal here.
  - jessebro 6y ago
    The problem with that attitude is when the body count gets high enough, there is incredible pressure to 'do something' - because enough people are terrible at judging this (or don't have the right friend group, or whatever) that we end up with huge crime problems, destroyed lives, and other social ills. The libertarian 'you can do what you want and it's your own responsibility' is great until the people who obviously made the wrong decision stop quietly owning the results of their decisions and start murdering random people for money to fund their habit. An argument can be made that the answer is free heroin and mental health treatment of course, and maybe it is the right answer. It seems hard for societies to accept however, outside of some very niche locations (Netherlands) though.
hackermailman 6y ago
Anybody who thinks this harm reduction strategy works should go visit cities that have employed it for years like Vancouver, Canada where there are legal shooting galleries everywhere, no arrests for personal amounts, and prescribed heroin that thousands of drug addicts have been on for 10 years now and the problem gets worse everyday. There used to just be a contained area of people passed out all over the street now it extends to the rest of the city. There is even a drug takers union that demanded treatment options be removed from drug taking clinics as 'it shamed drug users'. So if you create an accomodating and encouraging area for taking heroin you will find it surges in population when heroin is freely available and detox discouraged. Everybody points to the European model but they must have done something different than just harm reduction, like proactive policing breaking up open air drug markets and shutting down slums teeming with addicts forcing them into detox.
- valuearb 6y ago
  Heroin is still illegal in Vancouver. Only a handful of addicts get free heroin. And because it’s illegal most addicts have to pay high prices for heroin of unknown potency, and frequent laced with Fentanyl. That directly leads to overdoses and hundreds of deaths, along with street crime to fund expensive habits.
  - hackermailman 6y ago
    It's been decrim unofficially for personal use for 5 years now, now officially decriminalized https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2020/11/28/vancouver-votes-to-decriminalize-all-drugs-a-first-for-canada/ https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2020/11/28/vancouver-votes-to-decri... Every bus stop since March last year in the drug slums also has instructions where to get prescribed opiates. Area only got worse
    - slavik81 6y ago
      From your link: > The Vancouver motion however for the moment has no force in law. A municipality doesn't have the authority to decriminalize drugs. They're just requesting the Federal government to act. It's not official, though it could eventually be.
duxup 6y ago
What is the success rate of folks who use heroin with some effort to not be addicted ... and what is the cost of getting them out of the cycle of addition? and what is even the success rate of getting them out of that cycle? The impact of failure to somehow prevent yourself from being addicted can be catastrophic ... even if you are successful in getting them out of the cycle of addition. And that impact can extend WAY beyond the individual. I'm open to the possibility that some drugs really can't be used responsibly by enough people that they absolutely should not be legal.
mannykannot 6y ago
> Only responsible and healthy individuals should self-use drugs, generally speaking. This not a very helpful observation, as we all know that this is far from what happens and is not going to become the norm. Furthermore, quite a lot of people became addicted to opiates through acting seemingly responsibly (at least initially taking the drugs under the supervision of a doctor whom they could reasonably assume was looking out for their best interests) and in the persuit of better health. I should add that Hart himself punted on this issue when the interviewer touched on it. In the interview, he does this a lot - for example, when the interviewer raised the question of physical addiction, Hart merely discussed the physiological basis, without touching the obvious issues it raises for the concept of responsible use. It may be telling that, in his description of himself as a responsible user, he avoided saying anything about this particular issue. > 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. This is also rather beside the point, as, while the way addiction is treated is also a problem, it is not an issue except where there is already a problem with addiction. That aside, there is such a thing as responsible addictive-drug use (including, but not necessarily limited to, people with chronic pain that only responds to such drugs) and the way we respond to addiction today is in many ways ineffective and in some ways very harmful. One cannot make a very good argument for reform, however, on the basis that some people can use some of these drugs responsibly.
kgwgk 6y ago
> Only responsible and healthy individuals should self-use drugs, generally speaking. Exposing oneself to developing a heroin addiction seems a somewhat irresponsible and unhealthy thing to do.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  Exactly. I always thought of myself as responsible and healthy (and I basically was). I never overused alcohol, never binge-drank etc. I absolutely had no understanding how people could not regulate drug use because I had no problem with it. A few years ago I had a lot of stress and started drinking to help me sleep. After only a few months I felt kind of agitated without a nightcap. I immediately stopped and now I just don't drink when I'm stressed. So maybe in one sense I was right about being responsible, but on the other hand it could have very easily become a habit and now I understand how people slowly slide into addiction. It's arrogant to assume anyone knows how they'll respond to a drug as habit forming as heroin.
ordu 6y ago
> Only responsible and healthy individuals should self-use drugs, generally speaking. The funny thing I've been reading the article and the tone of it reminded me of heroin addicts who was not hit by their addiction heavily yet. I mean, Carl Hart thinks he is a responsible user, that he have an ability to decide for himself. It doesn't seem so for me. It is hard to tell, having as a data only one interview with him. But... you know, I'm an addict also, a nicotine one. I know how it is. First ten years of my addiction I though that there is nothing wrong with that, it costs some money and gives an urge to smoke sometimes, but it brings some benefits too. A few years ago I stopped smoking, after a month of abstinence I saw no benefits in smoking at all. My abstinence lasted for a couple of years, now I'm smoking again. Seeing no benefits at all. I know what I'm speaking about, I know the signs, I see the signs, and I see Carl Hart as a fellow addict, though with a different substance. I drink alcohol sometimes, and I know that I'm not an addict. Even despite the fact that sometimes I want to drink. A wish to drink is a warning sign of course, but I see no other signs. Like a despair coming with the thought that now it is not the good time to drink for some reasons. I have no ideas about benefits of being drunk: it is a funny state of mind, but mostly annoying, I'm really stupid when drunk, I see my stupidity and can do nothing to it. An addiction is a special state of mind, I believe one (i.e. me) could feel it as distinct from other states. Though it takes some learning, one needs to become an addict and to stop using an addictive substance of his choice. If Carl Hart wanted to prove that he is not an addict, he should stop using heroin for a couple of years, and then try to state his freedom from an addiction with a straight face. While he is using heroin for just five years and didn't tried to stop, I'd never believe his words that he is not an addict. When it would be 10-15 years or 5 years of abstinence, I'll probably believe his word on it.
- cirgue 6y ago
  > The funny thing I've been reading the article and the tone of it reminded me of heroin addicts who was not hit by their addiction heavily yet. Having known someone who was a responsible, highly educated adult with a fantastic career who died of a heroin overdose, this whole article sounded eerily familiar.
  - shmageggy 6y ago

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?
- sillysaurusx 6y ago
  Well, after all, interviewing a sex worker is dangerous too. People might have a bunch of sex and catch some nasty diseases. I think that's the logic, anyway. It's ironic that most people here are in the camp of "decriminalize drugs! Oh wait, no, not these drugs, just some drugs."
  - coryrc 6y ago
    As Portugal shows, decriminalizing drugs reduces their use. The position you are mocking is actually consistent.
    - sillysaurusx 6y ago
      Fair point. But, if something isn't criminal, then it should be fine to read about people doing that thing –– which is all that this article is. Railing against it like it's somehow an affront to post it seems neither productive nor fair.
    - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      Portugal has a much more comprehensive set of programs to get people off hard drugs than any of the US jurisdictions that have decriminalized (or stopped enforcing through executive action) hard drugs.
    - jboog 6y ago
      I'm not sure we can take the results of a single experiment in an incredibly homogenous tiny country in Europe to mean an outcome is replicable across the world.
      - capableweb 6y ago
        Indeed. The "experiment" in Portugal is not proving it works everywhere, but shows it can work, which indicates we should study it further and possibly deploy it in more countries across the world, to see if it works elsewhere and if we could possibly make it even more effective. While Portugal is probably the most famous example of decriminalizing working in humans favor, it's not the only example, it has been employed in other states too. Netherlands has de-facto decriminalized all drugs (in practice, not in law), Czech Republic has decriminalized all (most?) drugs as well.
      - akiselev 6y ago
        We can, however, easily take the opposite conclusion: drug criminalization has been an unmitigated disaster in almost every country it’s been tried short of a few incredibly homogenous countries like Japan and countries for which no real data is available like North Korea.
valuearb 6y ago
Heroin isn’t dangerous. Illegal heroin is very dangerous.
mdip 6y ago
> That coupled with the fact of how heroin is treated in society makes it worse. So this is sort of a problem with treating the thing "Heroin" as bad, versus treating the Heroin Addict as bad. Society makes it worse, mainly, by tossing addicts in jail and I'm generally against drug laws as they stand[0]. But making "everything legal" doesn't reduce the impact of the law on drug users as much as you'd expect. At least, anecdotally, every addict that I've known personally has had run-ins with law enforcement because of their drug use but having nothing to do with the drugs, themselves. In one case, a friend ended up with an "impeding traffic" charge when he fell asleep in the left-turn lane at an intersection. The story, as it was told to me, was that he chased a few Vicodin with a single beer, which resulted in him registering a 0.03, but he fell asleep in an intersection with his foot on the brake pedal. Despite this, he passed the field sobriety test, but the officer judged him to be intoxicated, and he was arrested. Apparently he was supposed to get a blood test; he was taken in early on Saturday and held until Monday, but they didn't do the test until he was "on his way out". It turned up nothing and he got out with a lawyer bill. [0] I'm convinced that things are so bad/ineffective right now, that I'm pretty close to support of all-out decriminalization (of possession), simply because it reduces the impact of addiction on the addicted.

dfsegoat 6y ago

They all work by increasing dopamine. But 'Addictive potential' does vary by drug, and by the person [1]. 'All substances of abuse self-administered by humans that can result in addiction are believed to exert their reinforcing effects by increasing DA in the nucleus accumbens (NAc)' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050051/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050051/

lazide 6y ago

Who decides that someone is a responsible and healthy adult? Do we have any data on how many responsible and healthy adults try heroin? Anecdata and broad brush strokes of course - In my experience anyway, the actually responsible and heathy adults I know haven’t felt the need to use heroin. The people who somehow are able to delude themselves into thinking they are responsible and healthy while obviously in crippling mental and/or physical pain, have - and it’s been devastating to them. I’ve had prescription opioids before (hydrocodone, codeine, morphine) during medical emergencies. The feeling of peace and calm is amazing - which is exactly why it attracts people in pain and suffering, destructively so in many cases. It is difficult to know if that feeling is going to be magnetic or repulsive to you until you try it. It happens to be repulsive in my case (I know it’s a trap), thankfully. It’s a complicated story of course, and bad outcomes tend to get the press. Better treatment (including in many cases mental health treatment) is definitely needed. It is not the only substance like this - alcohol, tobacco, amphetamines, and others have track records of similar problems. Pretending that anyone and everyone could self evaluate and go for it without a decent percent of them having major problems for them and those around them is unfortunately just not a good idea.

capableweb 6y ago
> Who decides that someone is a responsible and healthy adult? You do. It's not up to someone to decide, you're responsible for your own body and your own decisions to improve/harm it. I don't think they are saying advising governments to setup some sort of screening process for this. It's more for the people who are interested in the drugs themselves. When I first started getting interested in drugs, many pushed the idea that I should be psychologically healthy first (mostly because my first interest was psychedelics and I have good and well-meaning friends). I think that's what the article is trying to signal here.
- jessebro 6y ago
  The problem with that attitude is when the body count gets high enough, there is incredible pressure to 'do something' - because enough people are terrible at judging this (or don't have the right friend group, or whatever) that we end up with huge crime problems, destroyed lives, and other social ills. The libertarian 'you can do what you want and it's your own responsibility' is great until the people who obviously made the wrong decision stop quietly owning the results of their decisions and start murdering random people for money to fund their habit. An argument can be made that the answer is free heroin and mental health treatment of course, and maybe it is the right answer. It seems hard for societies to accept however, outside of some very niche locations (Netherlands) though.

hackermailman 6y ago

Anybody who thinks this harm reduction strategy works should go visit cities that have employed it for years like Vancouver, Canada where there are legal shooting galleries everywhere, no arrests for personal amounts, and prescribed heroin that thousands of drug addicts have been on for 10 years now and the problem gets worse everyday. There used to just be a contained area of people passed out all over the street now it extends to the rest of the city. There is even a drug takers union that demanded treatment options be removed from drug taking clinics as 'it shamed drug users'. So if you create an accomodating and encouraging area for taking heroin you will find it surges in population when heroin is freely available and detox discouraged. Everybody points to the European model but they must have done something different than just harm reduction, like proactive policing breaking up open air drug markets and shutting down slums teeming with addicts forcing them into detox.

valuearb 6y ago
Heroin is still illegal in Vancouver. Only a handful of addicts get free heroin. And because it’s illegal most addicts have to pay high prices for heroin of unknown potency, and frequent laced with Fentanyl. That directly leads to overdoses and hundreds of deaths, along with street crime to fund expensive habits.
- hackermailman 6y ago
  It's been decrim unofficially for personal use for 5 years now, now officially decriminalized https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2020/11/28/vancouver-votes-to-decriminalize-all-drugs-a-first-for-canada/ https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2020/11/28/vancouver-votes-to-decri... Every bus stop since March last year in the drug slums also has instructions where to get prescribed opiates. Area only got worse
  - slavik81 6y ago
    From your link: > The Vancouver motion however for the moment has no force in law. A municipality doesn't have the authority to decriminalize drugs. They're just requesting the Federal government to act. It's not official, though it could eventually be.

duxup 6y ago

What is the success rate of folks who use heroin with some effort to not be addicted ... and what is the cost of getting them out of the cycle of addition? and what is even the success rate of getting them out of that cycle? The impact of failure to somehow prevent yourself from being addicted can be catastrophic ... even if you are successful in getting them out of the cycle of addition. And that impact can extend WAY beyond the individual. I'm open to the possibility that some drugs really can't be used responsibly by enough people that they absolutely should not be legal.

mannykannot 6y ago

> Only responsible and healthy individuals should self-use drugs, generally speaking. This not a very helpful observation, as we all know that this is far from what happens and is not going to become the norm. Furthermore, quite a lot of people became addicted to opiates through acting seemingly responsibly (at least initially taking the drugs under the supervision of a doctor whom they could reasonably assume was looking out for their best interests) and in the persuit of better health. I should add that Hart himself punted on this issue when the interviewer touched on it. In the interview, he does this a lot - for example, when the interviewer raised the question of physical addiction, Hart merely discussed the physiological basis, without touching the obvious issues it raises for the concept of responsible use. It may be telling that, in his description of himself as a responsible user, he avoided saying anything about this particular issue. > 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. This is also rather beside the point, as, while the way addiction is treated is also a problem, it is not an issue except where there is already a problem with addiction. That aside, there is such a thing as responsible addictive-drug use (including, but not necessarily limited to, people with chronic pain that only responds to such drugs) and the way we respond to addiction today is in many ways ineffective and in some ways very harmful. One cannot make a very good argument for reform, however, on the basis that some people can use some of these drugs responsibly.

kgwgk 6y ago

> Only responsible and healthy individuals should self-use drugs, generally speaking. Exposing oneself to developing a heroin addiction seems a somewhat irresponsible and unhealthy thing to do.

Barrin92 6y ago
Exactly. I always thought of myself as responsible and healthy (and I basically was). I never overused alcohol, never binge-drank etc. I absolutely had no understanding how people could not regulate drug use because I had no problem with it. A few years ago I had a lot of stress and started drinking to help me sleep. After only a few months I felt kind of agitated without a nightcap. I immediately stopped and now I just don't drink when I'm stressed. So maybe in one sense I was right about being responsible, but on the other hand it could have very easily become a habit and now I understand how people slowly slide into addiction. It's arrogant to assume anyone knows how they'll respond to a drug as habit forming as heroin.

ordu 6y ago

> Only responsible and healthy individuals should self-use drugs, generally speaking. The funny thing I've been reading the article and the tone of it reminded me of heroin addicts who was not hit by their addiction heavily yet. I mean, Carl Hart thinks he is a responsible user, that he have an ability to decide for himself. It doesn't seem so for me. It is hard to tell, having as a data only one interview with him. But... you know, I'm an addict also, a nicotine one. I know how it is. First ten years of my addiction I though that there is nothing wrong with that, it costs some money and gives an urge to smoke sometimes, but it brings some benefits too. A few years ago I stopped smoking, after a month of abstinence I saw no benefits in smoking at all. My abstinence lasted for a couple of years, now I'm smoking again. Seeing no benefits at all. I know what I'm speaking about, I know the signs, I see the signs, and I see Carl Hart as a fellow addict, though with a different substance. I drink alcohol sometimes, and I know that I'm not an addict. Even despite the fact that sometimes I want to drink. A wish to drink is a warning sign of course, but I see no other signs. Like a despair coming with the thought that now it is not the good time to drink for some reasons. I have no ideas about benefits of being drunk: it is a funny state of mind, but mostly annoying, I'm really stupid when drunk, I see my stupidity and can do nothing to it. An addiction is a special state of mind, I believe one (i.e. me) could feel it as distinct from other states. Though it takes some learning, one needs to become an addict and to stop using an addictive substance of his choice. If Carl Hart wanted to prove that he is not an addict, he should stop using heroin for a couple of years, and then try to state his freedom from an addiction with a straight face. While he is using heroin for just five years and didn't tried to stop, I'd never believe his words that he is not an addict. When it would be 10-15 years or 5 years of abstinence, I'll probably believe his word on it.

cirgue 6y ago
> The funny thing I've been reading the article and the tone of it reminded me of heroin addicts who was not hit by their addiction heavily yet. Having known someone who was a responsible, highly educated adult with a fantastic career who died of a heroin overdose, this whole article sounded eerily familiar.
- shmageggy 6y ago