5 ms·

While I agree with your point, I think we already have examples of this particular issue being solved: alcohol. It's legal for me to go and buy alcohol, and it

While I agree with your point, I think we already have examples of this particular issue being solved: alcohol. It's legal for me to go and buy alcohol, and it's also probably legal for my employer to fire me if I show up drunk to work. There's of course nothing preventing me from drinking so much that I die, but then again I can also jump out the window of my apartment, no substance required. I can see that being the same with other drugs. Maybe even mandate testing for certain jobs (operating heavy machinery, driving a bus, etc).

giantg2 5y ago
With over 50k alcohol related deaths each year in the US and the number of alcoholics, I don't think we can say that we've actually solved it. I'm not advocating for ban, but saying that there are likely additional educational, technological, and treatment interventions that could be taken. Interesting side note, if an employer is aware of a substance problem, they have to offer to help you get help before they can fire you. Also, just about any job can be dangerous or cause destruction. How about programming at a bank, or defense contractor, or industrial machine manufacturer? Even things like working in a ast food kitchen can be dangerous to yourself and other. It's hard to draw a line for testing when the vast majority of jobs could involve injuring others or massive losses if done incorrectly.
- lupire 5y ago
  > an employer is aware of a substance problem... No, they have to grant you one unpaid medical leave for rehab before firing you, not "help you". It's illegal, for any company that works with the Federal Government, to tolerate drug use or intoxication at work.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Any sources to back up your claims? And yes, by help I mean not fire and provide accommodations and/or time to attend rehab. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/worklife/reference-materials/alcoholism-in-the-workplace-a-handbook-for-supervisors/ https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/worklife/reference... https://corporate.findlaw.com/human-resources/what-are-an-employer-s-obligations-toward-alcoholic-employees.html https://corporate.findlaw.com/human-resources/what-are-an-em...
amalcon 5y ago
Alcohol abuse is both common and tremendously destructive, though. Drunk driving accidents in the US alone killed more than 10,000 people in 2019[0]. We might be at something of a local maximum in terms of policy -- I don't know, I'm not a policy expert -- but I'd want to see some evidence before calling it "solved". [0]-https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving
- giantg2 5y ago
  An obvious possible step is to put BAC interlock devices on all new and existing vehicles. That's not going to have a lot of public support, but I would bet it reduces that number.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    The more you take human discretion out of the equation the more you are going to have to confront the massive variability between people and that is a very, very, very, uncomfortable topic for (in my estimation) an overwhelming majority of the people who want automated enforcement such as ignition interlocks and whatnot.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      I don't think there's much variability to people in this instance. It would be more likely questions about reliability of the device to not render false positives. It's not truly automated enforcement, at least the way I see it (not using the reporting ones, just don't let the vehicle work). If it was, it would report attempts to drive while intoxicated and send a summons. There are certainly issues to be worked out with that approach (I don't necessarily support it), but I bring it up as an example that there are still improvements that could be made (that the example of alcohol being a well regulated drug with little societal harm is not true). It looks like they will do something similar for new cars in the coming years. https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/infrastructure-bill-would-mandate-alcohol-monitoring-in-cars-congress-biden/65-ab85122d-c5c6-42ce-8b12-fcb5a24c0278 https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/infrastructure-bil...
tsimionescu 5y ago
I agree with everything you've said, but want to make one minor note: > There's of course nothing preventing me from drinking so much that I die, but then again I can also jump out the window of my apartment, no substance required. It's important to note that the ease of committing suicide can affect the suicide rate quite significantly. For example, before gas was made to have a terrible smell, people would often commit suicide by sticking their heads in an unlit gas oven. Similarly access to guns greatly increases suicide rates. In societies that have taken away such methods, it was observed that suicide rate directly drops: it seems many people who are willing to, in the moment, commit a painless act to kill themselves renounce if it requires more effort or the threat of pain or defeating other instincts. In contrast, throwing yourself off a building requires defeating a very powerful survival instinct, and thus is less likely to lead to suicides. I believe that drinking enough alcohol to die is also relatively hard, especially for an adult, so it's not a common way to commit suicide (though alchohol + other drugs is). The suicide equation may be much different with drugs you can more easily overdose on (heroin comes to mind).
- giantg2 5y ago
  You wouldn't necessarily call it suicide, but it can lead to a slow and drawn out death if one becomes addicted. Good addiction treatment is not so easy to get in much of the US. Also, I believe the smell of gas was not the change. They switched from coal gas to natural gas.
  - smackeyacky 5y ago
    Natural gas isn't as smelly as the sulfur smell of coal gas, so they add smelly gas to it so leaks can be identified without equipment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanethiol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanethiol
    - giantg2 5y ago
      Yeah. What I'm saying is that people killed themselves with the coal gas. The mechanism of suicide with coal gas vs natural gas is different, with natural gas being less "user friendly" for the purpose of suicide. https://gizmodo.com/why-have-people-stopped-committing-suicide-with-gas-5959303 https://gizmodo.com/why-have-people-stopped-committing-suici...
pooper 5y ago
> It's legal for me to go and buy alcohol, and it's also probably legal for my employer to fire me if I show up drunk to work. What if we spin it around and do what we want to do for "hard drugs"? What if tobacco and alcohol were only available with a prescription from a licensed medical professional such as a doctor? Maybe put a timer on it like this only applies to people born on or after 2025 or something? Access to healthcare with no out of pocket expense (Medicare for all born on or after 2025?) would be a prerequisite for this.
- lupire 5y ago
  It would be more like ephedrine. The problem with alcohol is that it is extremely nonlinear in its negative effects vs amount purchased/consumed. Prescriptions are pointless because no one needs alcohol to live.
lupire 5y ago
s/drugs/guns/ there and the setup is mostly the same but the conclusion is far different. And even with alcohol, we have a DUI problem.

giantg2 5y ago

With over 50k alcohol related deaths each year in the US and the number of alcoholics, I don't think we can say that we've actually solved it. I'm not advocating for ban, but saying that there are likely additional educational, technological, and treatment interventions that could be taken. Interesting side note, if an employer is aware of a substance problem, they have to offer to help you get help before they can fire you. Also, just about any job can be dangerous or cause destruction. How about programming at a bank, or defense contractor, or industrial machine manufacturer? Even things like working in a ast food kitchen can be dangerous to yourself and other. It's hard to draw a line for testing when the vast majority of jobs could involve injuring others or massive losses if done incorrectly.

lupire 5y ago
> an employer is aware of a substance problem... No, they have to grant you one unpaid medical leave for rehab before firing you, not "help you". It's illegal, for any company that works with the Federal Government, to tolerate drug use or intoxication at work.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Any sources to back up your claims? And yes, by help I mean not fire and provide accommodations and/or time to attend rehab. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/worklife/reference-materials/alcoholism-in-the-workplace-a-handbook-for-supervisors/ https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/worklife/reference... https://corporate.findlaw.com/human-resources/what-are-an-employer-s-obligations-toward-alcoholic-employees.html https://corporate.findlaw.com/human-resources/what-are-an-em...

amalcon 5y ago

Alcohol abuse is both common and tremendously destructive, though. Drunk driving accidents in the US alone killed more than 10,000 people in 2019[0]. We might be at something of a local maximum in terms of policy -- I don't know, I'm not a policy expert -- but I'd want to see some evidence before calling it "solved". [0]-https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving

giantg2 5y ago
An obvious possible step is to put BAC interlock devices on all new and existing vehicles. That's not going to have a lot of public support, but I would bet it reduces that number.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  The more you take human discretion out of the equation the more you are going to have to confront the massive variability between people and that is a very, very, very, uncomfortable topic for (in my estimation) an overwhelming majority of the people who want automated enforcement such as ignition interlocks and whatnot.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    I don't think there's much variability to people in this instance. It would be more likely questions about reliability of the device to not render false positives. It's not truly automated enforcement, at least the way I see it (not using the reporting ones, just don't let the vehicle work). If it was, it would report attempts to drive while intoxicated and send a summons. There are certainly issues to be worked out with that approach (I don't necessarily support it), but I bring it up as an example that there are still improvements that could be made (that the example of alcohol being a well regulated drug with little societal harm is not true). It looks like they will do something similar for new cars in the coming years. https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/infrastructure-bill-would-mandate-alcohol-monitoring-in-cars-congress-biden/65-ab85122d-c5c6-42ce-8b12-fcb5a24c0278 https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/infrastructure-bil...

tsimionescu 5y ago

I agree with everything you've said, but want to make one minor note: > There's of course nothing preventing me from drinking so much that I die, but then again I can also jump out the window of my apartment, no substance required. It's important to note that the ease of committing suicide can affect the suicide rate quite significantly. For example, before gas was made to have a terrible smell, people would often commit suicide by sticking their heads in an unlit gas oven. Similarly access to guns greatly increases suicide rates. In societies that have taken away such methods, it was observed that suicide rate directly drops: it seems many people who are willing to, in the moment, commit a painless act to kill themselves renounce if it requires more effort or the threat of pain or defeating other instincts. In contrast, throwing yourself off a building requires defeating a very powerful survival instinct, and thus is less likely to lead to suicides. I believe that drinking enough alcohol to die is also relatively hard, especially for an adult, so it's not a common way to commit suicide (though alchohol + other drugs is). The suicide equation may be much different with drugs you can more easily overdose on (heroin comes to mind).

giantg2 5y ago
You wouldn't necessarily call it suicide, but it can lead to a slow and drawn out death if one becomes addicted. Good addiction treatment is not so easy to get in much of the US. Also, I believe the smell of gas was not the change. They switched from coal gas to natural gas.
- smackeyacky 5y ago
  Natural gas isn't as smelly as the sulfur smell of coal gas, so they add smelly gas to it so leaks can be identified without equipment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanethiol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanethiol
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Yeah. What I'm saying is that people killed themselves with the coal gas. The mechanism of suicide with coal gas vs natural gas is different, with natural gas being less "user friendly" for the purpose of suicide. https://gizmodo.com/why-have-people-stopped-committing-suicide-with-gas-5959303 https://gizmodo.com/why-have-people-stopped-committing-suici...

pooper 5y ago

> It's legal for me to go and buy alcohol, and it's also probably legal for my employer to fire me if I show up drunk to work. What if we spin it around and do what we want to do for "hard drugs"? What if tobacco and alcohol were only available with a prescription from a licensed medical professional such as a doctor? Maybe put a timer on it like this only applies to people born on or after 2025 or something? Access to healthcare with no out of pocket expense (Medicare for all born on or after 2025?) would be a prerequisite for this.

lupire 5y ago
It would be more like ephedrine. The problem with alcohol is that it is extremely nonlinear in its negative effects vs amount purchased/consumed. Prescriptions are pointless because no one needs alcohol to live.

lupire 5y ago

s/drugs/guns/ there and the setup is mostly the same but the conclusion is far different. And even with alcohol, we have a DUI problem.