6 ms·

Well, to be fair. Your drug use can't put me in the ICU.

rsj_hn 5y ago
People trying to steal to get drugs could. People high on drugs certainly could. A lot of Breaking and Entering, for example, is to obtain money to feed a drug habit. For the person doing the stealing, all they care about is the cost of the drug, so plans to regulate and tax meth, well, don't necessarily improve that situation.
- dillondoyle 5y ago
  I personally am for this totally legalization but also giving it out for free. or better yet just have a blanket small minimum universal income so no one can decry that we're paying for someone's addiction.
- daveguy 5y ago
  Yes. That requires another specific decision to commit a crime. Respiratory viral infection requires no additional decision on part of the viral vector. I agree there shouldn't be a blanket decriminalization of drug use because it does alter judgement/motivation and make a theft or even violent crime more likely.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    But the harm or benefit of a policy is not measured by how many specific decisions are performed, but rather by the overall effect of the policy on the community, no? So let's just talk about that rather than counting steps between A and B.
    - daveguy 5y ago
      The overall harm or benefit to the community is certainly related to how many and likely those bad decisions are that result in a specific harm/benefit.
      - rsj_hn 5y ago
        If true, then you should be able to make that case directly, no?
      - chucksta 5y ago
        Something like this? https://www.vox.com/2014/5/19/5727712/drug-alcohol-deaths https://www.vox.com/2014/5/19/5727712/drug-alcohol-deaths
        daveguy 5y ago
        Well yeah. I'm all for locking up drunk drivers, offering rehab and then permanently revoking their drivers licenses if they do it again. That goes to the second decision to adversely affect others.
  - howlin 5y ago
    Drugs destroy your ability to make good decisions. They are essentially hot wiring the brain's reward circuits which directly feed back into the brain's decision making processes. Most obviously, it's almost never the case that addicts consciously choose to become addicted.
    - jkhdigital 5y ago
      Does anyone 100% consciously choose anything? If you make a decision after drinking a strong cup of coffee, how much of that decision came from the caffeine, and how much came from your “consciousness”? I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you—addiction is a disease of forces and circumstances, for sure—but the level of “free will” present in any choice (or sequence of choices) is a certainly not amenable to a binary classification.
      - howlin 5y ago
        Yes, the degree "free will"/willpower factors into a decision is much more of a spectrum than a binary. I'm just pointing out that drug addiction shifts your decisions away from the free will end of the spectrum.
        LocalH 5y ago
        "Drug addiction" is not a singular problem with a singular solution. Every drug has unique effects, even between different people (two people take the same drug and don't have the same result). It does not serve public health to shoehorn everything into a square hole.
    - s5300 5y ago
      Pretty sure that Erdos said that Dexedrine/variants of amphetamine made him want to do math. Is wanting to do math a not good decision? Potentially, I guess.
      - rsj_hn 5y ago
        If you are Erdos, it is a good decision.
- kragen 5y ago
  But we aren't talking about plans to regulate meth; it's already very heavily regulated. We're talking about plans to partly deregulate meth, which we can expect to significantly reduce the cost of the drug, from the US$50 or more per gram described in this article down to US$1 per gram or less like other synthetic drugs with similarly simple synthesis routes. The US$50 a gram isn't the cost of operating the reactors or measuring the purity of the result; it's the cost of hiring an army of foot soldiers to keep drug addicts or the police from stealing the stuff, because you can't trust the police, because it's illegal. Yeah, people high on meth do crimes. But at least if the stuff is legal they won't do crimes to buy meth.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    So the way it worked out with marijuana is the legal stuff is a lot more expensive than the street stuff. Maybe it would be different with meth, but I'm not sure why. https://www.inverse.com/article/39899-recreational-weed-california-marijuana https://www.inverse.com/article/39899-recreational-weed-cali... Basically the whole legal drug movement is targeted at non-addicts to let them pay a premium for a sanitary, legal, controlled experience. The political justifications for the movement are all about harm reduction. But the reality is that if you are an apothecary in SF, you don't really want junkies hanging out in your lobby, for the same reason that communities don't want junkies in their streets. Mental problems, theft, possible violence, behavioral issues -- it would chase away paying customers, and impose security and liability costs on them. Those unwilling to pay for that more civilized experience go to the street. One important thing to remember is that legalization did not destroy the illegal market. They are different markets, although there is certainly overlap. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/us/marijuana-california-legalization.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/us/marijuana-california-l...
    - LegitShady 5y ago
      In Canada at least in two provinces I've been to recently the price of mj has approximately neared par with the black market, more or less. You can still find some thats more expensive but you can also find some that isn't. The catch is that you have to buy an oz at a time to get that price - if you buy smaller amounts you will probably pay more than the black market.
i_am_proteus 5y ago
Not directly, but addicted people sometimes turn to violent crime to raise funds, and that violent crime certainly can put you in the ICU.
- ehnto 5y ago
  Meth is definitely one of the drugs that becomes a public nuisance, since people do become erratic and violent while using. Meth users are the only people that worry me when walking through our city since it can make people who are already unstable become unpredictably violent. I wonder if other drugs were legal would people still do meth?
  - xyzzyz 5y ago
    Other drugs already are legal. Alcohol is legal, and marijuana is effectively legal in Seattle, where people apparently do a lot of meth.
    - ehnto 5y ago
      While true neither of those drugs would replace meth. Alcohol probably causes more social misconduct than meth anyway.
      - voakbasda 5y ago
        Possibly because it is legal.
  - chucksta 5y ago
    Meth was legal until the 70s, society functioned. The current problem is another side effect of the war on drugs https://www.history.com/topics/crime/history-of-meth https://www.history.com/topics/crime/history-of-meth
    - xyzzyz 5y ago
      This is very much false, and completely contrary to the actual history. War on drugs only happened because of greatly increased social dysfunction due to drugs, not the other way around. It enjoyed wide social support at the time it was started, precisely because people saw how damaging the drugs are to their communities. The idea that drug-related social dysfunction is an effect of war on drugs is yet another of those "wet streets cause rain" ideas.
kurthr 5y ago
Yeah, it's not about you... it's the other people you may infect and kill. Kids are mostly fine... if only they didn't have teachers or parents.
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  Teachers and parents can get vaccinated themselves, no? I thought the vaccine works, doesn’t it?
  - mjevans 5y ago
    The Alpha variant of COVID-19 was strongly suppressed by the vaccines that were approved in the US, and also the others globally. Since around early Summer Delta has been the dominant variant, which is extremely more transmissible. Even if vaccinated, Delta still retains effective transmutability, though (maybe?) to a reduced degree even for fully vaccinated individuals. Since we still don't have sufficient tests to do blanket systematic tests of the entire population on a regular basis, it's extremely difficult to find asymptomatic cases. I've never been notified of an exposure, and have not had symptoms that I could attribute to COVID, thus haven't ever been tested during the entire pandemic. For all I know, the vaccines could be effective and I might have had an asymptomatic case from someone who's not using WA notify (Washington state's notification app system) and would never know it. I worry about the risk of spreading the disease to those who are not yet able to be vaccinated, which will soon thankfully include ages 5+ in the US; but that still doesn't allow for providing strong resistance and immune system training to the youngest children.
    - grepfru_it 5y ago
      last i read kids (~7 and under) didn't have "fully developed ACE2 receptors" which lead to the spike RBD not fully binding in young children. this allowed their immune system to fight the invader and gave them very strong protection against SARS-CoV-2. mutations could bring about a spanish-flu style pandemic in the young so i agree it's not a good time to get comfortable yet.. but i'm not sure i agree with mRNA vaccines being forced on all (especially kids) without long term study data. especially when subunit and inactivated vaccines for the S1 protein now exist
__blockcipher__ 5y ago
> Your drug use can't put me in the ICU. Take this to its logical conclusion, please. It's the big bang's fault!
- drdeca 5y ago
  I think https://hyper-traditionalist.tumblr.com/ https://hyper-traditionalist.tumblr.com/ would agree, advocating against the multidimensionality and expansion from the Big Bang (and yet, would also object to being described as being for or against any position, because a position would imply dimensions.) Return to gravitational singularity, and all that.
- daveguy 5y ago
  Yes, there obviously can never be any effect from any decision anyone ever makes. Naturally.

People trying to steal to get drugs could. People high on drugs certainly could. A lot of Breaking and Entering, for example, is to obtain money to feed a drug habit. For the person doing the stealing, all they care about is the cost of the drug, so plans to regulate and tax meth, well, don't necessarily improve that situation.

dillondoyle 5y ago
I personally am for this totally legalization but also giving it out for free. or better yet just have a blanket small minimum universal income so no one can decry that we're paying for someone's addiction.
daveguy 5y ago
Yes. That requires another specific decision to commit a crime. Respiratory viral infection requires no additional decision on part of the viral vector. I agree there shouldn't be a blanket decriminalization of drug use because it does alter judgement/motivation and make a theft or even violent crime more likely.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  But the harm or benefit of a policy is not measured by how many specific decisions are performed, but rather by the overall effect of the policy on the community, no? So let's just talk about that rather than counting steps between A and B.
  - daveguy 5y ago
    The overall harm or benefit to the community is certainly related to how many and likely those bad decisions are that result in a specific harm/benefit.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      If true, then you should be able to make that case directly, no?
    - chucksta 5y ago
      Something like this? https://www.vox.com/2014/5/19/5727712/drug-alcohol-deaths https://www.vox.com/2014/5/19/5727712/drug-alcohol-deaths
      - daveguy 5y ago
        Well yeah. I'm all for locking up drunk drivers, offering rehab and then permanently revoking their drivers licenses if they do it again. That goes to the second decision to adversely affect others.
- howlin 5y ago
  Drugs destroy your ability to make good decisions. They are essentially hot wiring the brain's reward circuits which directly feed back into the brain's decision making processes. Most obviously, it's almost never the case that addicts consciously choose to become addicted.
  - jkhdigital 5y ago
    Does anyone 100% consciously choose anything? If you make a decision after drinking a strong cup of coffee, how much of that decision came from the caffeine, and how much came from your “consciousness”? I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you—addiction is a disease of forces and circumstances, for sure—but the level of “free will” present in any choice (or sequence of choices) is a certainly not amenable to a binary classification.
    - howlin 5y ago
      Yes, the degree "free will"/willpower factors into a decision is much more of a spectrum than a binary. I'm just pointing out that drug addiction shifts your decisions away from the free will end of the spectrum.
      - LocalH 5y ago
        "Drug addiction" is not a singular problem with a singular solution. Every drug has unique effects, even between different people (two people take the same drug and don't have the same result). It does not serve public health to shoehorn everything into a square hole.
  - s5300 5y ago
    Pretty sure that Erdos said that Dexedrine/variants of amphetamine made him want to do math. Is wanting to do math a not good decision? Potentially, I guess.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      If you are Erdos, it is a good decision.
kragen 5y ago
But we aren't talking about plans to regulate meth; it's already very heavily regulated. We're talking about plans to partly deregulate meth, which we can expect to significantly reduce the cost of the drug, from the US$50 or more per gram described in this article down to US$1 per gram or less like other synthetic drugs with similarly simple synthesis routes. The US$50 a gram isn't the cost of operating the reactors or measuring the purity of the result; it's the cost of hiring an army of foot soldiers to keep drug addicts or the police from stealing the stuff, because you can't trust the police, because it's illegal. Yeah, people high on meth do crimes. But at least if the stuff is legal they won't do crimes to buy meth.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  So the way it worked out with marijuana is the legal stuff is a lot more expensive than the street stuff. Maybe it would be different with meth, but I'm not sure why. https://www.inverse.com/article/39899-recreational-weed-california-marijuana https://www.inverse.com/article/39899-recreational-weed-cali... Basically the whole legal drug movement is targeted at non-addicts to let them pay a premium for a sanitary, legal, controlled experience. The political justifications for the movement are all about harm reduction. But the reality is that if you are an apothecary in SF, you don't really want junkies hanging out in your lobby, for the same reason that communities don't want junkies in their streets. Mental problems, theft, possible violence, behavioral issues -- it would chase away paying customers, and impose security and liability costs on them. Those unwilling to pay for that more civilized experience go to the street. One important thing to remember is that legalization did not destroy the illegal market. They are different markets, although there is certainly overlap. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/us/marijuana-california-legalization.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/us/marijuana-california-l...
  - LegitShady 5y ago
    In Canada at least in two provinces I've been to recently the price of mj has approximately neared par with the black market, more or less. You can still find some thats more expensive but you can also find some that isn't. The catch is that you have to buy an oz at a time to get that price - if you buy smaller amounts you will probably pay more than the black market.

i_am_proteus 5y ago

Not directly, but addicted people sometimes turn to violent crime to raise funds, and that violent crime certainly can put you in the ICU.

ehnto 5y ago
Meth is definitely one of the drugs that becomes a public nuisance, since people do become erratic and violent while using. Meth users are the only people that worry me when walking through our city since it can make people who are already unstable become unpredictably violent. I wonder if other drugs were legal would people still do meth?
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  Other drugs already are legal. Alcohol is legal, and marijuana is effectively legal in Seattle, where people apparently do a lot of meth.
  - ehnto 5y ago
    While true neither of those drugs would replace meth. Alcohol probably causes more social misconduct than meth anyway.
    - voakbasda 5y ago
      Possibly because it is legal.
- chucksta 5y ago
  Meth was legal until the 70s, society functioned. The current problem is another side effect of the war on drugs https://www.history.com/topics/crime/history-of-meth https://www.history.com/topics/crime/history-of-meth
  - xyzzyz 5y ago
    This is very much false, and completely contrary to the actual history. War on drugs only happened because of greatly increased social dysfunction due to drugs, not the other way around. It enjoyed wide social support at the time it was started, precisely because people saw how damaging the drugs are to their communities. The idea that drug-related social dysfunction is an effect of war on drugs is yet another of those "wet streets cause rain" ideas.

kurthr 5y ago

Yeah, it's not about you... it's the other people you may infect and kill. Kids are mostly fine... if only they didn't have teachers or parents.

xyzzyz 5y ago
Teachers and parents can get vaccinated themselves, no? I thought the vaccine works, doesn’t it?
- mjevans 5y ago
  The Alpha variant of COVID-19 was strongly suppressed by the vaccines that were approved in the US, and also the others globally. Since around early Summer Delta has been the dominant variant, which is extremely more transmissible. Even if vaccinated, Delta still retains effective transmutability, though (maybe?) to a reduced degree even for fully vaccinated individuals. Since we still don't have sufficient tests to do blanket systematic tests of the entire population on a regular basis, it's extremely difficult to find asymptomatic cases. I've never been notified of an exposure, and have not had symptoms that I could attribute to COVID, thus haven't ever been tested during the entire pandemic. For all I know, the vaccines could be effective and I might have had an asymptomatic case from someone who's not using WA notify (Washington state's notification app system) and would never know it. I worry about the risk of spreading the disease to those who are not yet able to be vaccinated, which will soon thankfully include ages 5+ in the US; but that still doesn't allow for providing strong resistance and immune system training to the youngest children.
  - grepfru_it 5y ago
    last i read kids (~7 and under) didn't have "fully developed ACE2 receptors" which lead to the spike RBD not fully binding in young children. this allowed their immune system to fight the invader and gave them very strong protection against SARS-CoV-2. mutations could bring about a spanish-flu style pandemic in the young so i agree it's not a good time to get comfortable yet.. but i'm not sure i agree with mRNA vaccines being forced on all (especially kids) without long term study data. especially when subunit and inactivated vaccines for the S1 protein now exist

__blockcipher__ 5y ago

> Your drug use can't put me in the ICU. Take this to its logical conclusion, please. It's the big bang's fault!

drdeca 5y ago
I think https://hyper-traditionalist.tumblr.com/ https://hyper-traditionalist.tumblr.com/ would agree, advocating against the multidimensionality and expansion from the Big Bang (and yet, would also object to being described as being for or against any position, because a position would imply dimensions.) Return to gravitational singularity, and all that.
daveguy 5y ago
Yes, there obviously can never be any effect from any decision anyone ever makes. Naturally.