5 ms·

I have a friend who, fortunately, escaped the drug world and is happily recovered now. One of the many interesting things I learned through talking to him and h

I have a friend who, fortunately, escaped the drug world and is happily recovered now. One of the many interesting things I learned through talking to him and his friends is the pervasive idea among addicted that street drugs were always better in the past. Everyone vividly remembers their drug being much better when they first got into drugs, with steadily declining effects over the years. Many of them had elaborate theories about changing synthesis or chirality or cutting agents or active impurities. They would even have theories about modern prescription Adderall or prescription opioids being 1/4 as powerful as in the past due to conspiracies by manufacturers. The drugs may have changed slightly over the years, but the sad reality is that the real change was their accumulated tolerance and long term damage from drug abuse had blunted their response so much that they could barely feel the drugs any more. For some, this blunted reward response carried over to daily life, with depression and a hedonic being pervasive among the long term users. A sobering reminder that the negative effects of recreational drugs last long after the hangover. I’m seeing an alarming trend of young people reading “harm reduction” material online and assuming they know the full picture of the risks of drug use. Seeing addicts (most of whom assumed they were using intelligently and practicing “harm reduction”) discuss their long term effects is a sad look into the realities of drug use. There is no free lunch.

blanketlamp 4y ago
> A sobering reminder that the negative effects of recreational drugs last long after the hangover. I’m seeing an alarming trend of young people reading “harm reduction” material online and assuming they know the full picture of the risks of drug use. I don't think that's ever been in question. Harm reduction isn't some utopian ideal that safe drug use == nobody ever suffers long-term negative effects. Conquering those demons takes a lot of time, introspection, and often outside help. Harm reduction is about making sure you live long enough to hopefully get there.
- starkd 4y ago
  True, but you are saying that with more awareness than many young people have when they are first looking into it. The brain tends to assume "risk reduction" means "risk approaches zero" and thus negligeable risk.
- rlt 4y ago
  Harm reduction itself isn't a bad thing, the problem is if it displaces other forms of help for drug users, or ends up encouraging more drug use. e.x. skip to 2:00 in this video https://twitter.com/sav_says_/status/1603512522509668352 https://twitter.com/sav_says_/status/1603512522509668352
  - beebmam 4y ago
    I think your comment is an example of an important discussion we need to have around what are the consequences to our drug policies, whether they are tough-lovish or harm-reductionist. I can see value in both, in different circumstances. However, the video you link to is from a notorious far right propaganda outlet. I don't think people will get an honest perspective from TPUSA, who clearly have an axe to grind (and bills to pay, which they accomplish by manufacturing outrage).
    - rlt 4y ago
      Ricci Wynne posts most of his videos like this independently (https://twitter.com/RawRicci415 https://twitter.com/RawRicci415). In most of them he lets the video speak for itself. I don't have any reason to believe he's lying and I think he'd strongly dispute being characterized as "far right".
    - xyzzyz 4y ago
      Do you react similarly to left wing propaganda, or is your “partisan sources do not provide honest perspectives” limited to right wing sources?
      - beebmam 4y ago
        Yes, I do. I despise the far left.
- PragmaticPulp 4y ago
  > I don't think that's ever been in question. Harm reduction isn't some utopian ideal that safe drug use == nobody ever suffers long-term negative effects. To you, maybe, but it only takes a cursory glance at drug-related subreddits to see numerous people suggesting that you just need to follow harm reduction websites, stick to some arbitrary rules (e.g. only do MDMA every N weeks and take X, Y, and Z supplements), and you can avoid the negative consequences. You may know that’s untrue, but it’s common to see among drug users. It’s also common to blame drug users who experience problems on failure to follow harm reduction guides, as if the guides are a perfect guide for avoiding the harms. > Harm reduction is about making sure you live long enough to hopefully get there. Modern harm reduction websites are about education in general, not just helping addicts survive. You will find things like dosing guidelines for first time users, expectations for what to expect, how to prepare, and so on. These things are targeted at beginner drug users or the drug curious.
  - pantalaimon 4y ago
    What negative consequences are there to doing MDMA or LSD a couple times a year? Especially when comparing with the negative consequences of doing alcohol. The argument that any drug use is bad is pretty blown out of proportion.
    - ifyoubuildit 4y ago
      > Especially when comparing with the negative consequences of doing alcohol. This sentiment is confusing to me. I get that alcohol is bad. But how is that relevant to whether or not MDMA or LSD are bad? I see it come up in these conversations pretty regularly, so there's probably a point there I'm missing. But I can't help but read it as "this thing I like to do isn't bad because other people do a different bad thing".
      - subradios 4y ago
        Smart, well adjusted drug people will frequently point out that most common drugs they use (LSD, MDMA, MDAA, psilocybin, etc) have an orders of magnitude better risk profile than smoking or drinking. The latter is essentially socially ubiquitous. That community has an ongoing bitterness about this double standard. Usually though, people making this point are not advocating for heroin or meth (although there's a reasonable argument there that the drug is not what does most of the damage in those situations - krokodil is just heroin manufactured with an extremely dirty process. It's perceived as being much worse, but what's "much worse" are the impurities from using gasoline as a solvent. MDMA and LSD in particular have the advantage of no fast, cheap ways to synthesize at the expense of safety or purity.
- worik 4y ago
  Also "harm reduction" is patronising to users. People use drugs for there benefits Addiction is a symptom, generally, of alienation. To the addict the drug is helping. As the addicts loved ones that can be hard to belive, and demonstrably untrue. But still. A much better paradigm is "benefit maximisation" Ask ourselves what social policies will help maximize the benefits of drug use. Leads to the same place with the harm, but without patronising users, and allows us as a society to explore the upsides of these drugs
hgsgm 4y ago
"harm reduction" doesn't mean "good addiction" or even "risk reduction" . It means dying more slowly with less collateral damage. It means what the name says.
- pantalaimon 4y ago
  And all die we must
- MobiusHorizons 4y ago
  Unfortunately it doesn’t mean just one thing. People use a slogan like “harm reduction” to describe a wide array of beliefs and practices ranging from the very practical (don’t make sobriety a condition of care) to the very dogmatic (it’s not ok to discourage drug use of any kind, anyone who suggests otherwise is part of the problem). Most people will be somewhere in between those extremes. Once a slogan has been in use for some time, you can’t take the words at face value anymore. The mean whatever people use them for, not what they would mean in plain English. As an aside this is true about language more generally. There is no true meaning of any given string of words. Language is a communication tool (and a lossy one at that). History of use gives words and phrases additional contextual meaning beyond any dictionary definition. Feedback is often necessary to avoid misunderstanding.
  - nico 4y ago
    > this is true about language more generally. There is no true meaning of any given string of words. Language is a communication tool (and a lossy one at that). History of use gives words and phrases additional contextual meaning beyond any dictionary definition. Feedback is often necessary to avoid misunderstanding. Very insightful. It would be great if we all were a bit more aware of this.
mypalmike 4y ago
"accumulated tolerance and long term damage from drug abuse had blunted their response" The succinct term for this phenomenon is "chasing the dragon".
- xrd 4y ago
  First heard that term in the movie "Killing Zoe." Takes me back.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> an alarming trend of young people reading “harm reduction” material online and assuming they know the full picture of the risks of drug use Is anyone attempting to harm-reductively try meth?
- PragmaticPulp 4y ago
  Yes. The “harm reduction” websites are full of information about things like: Dose ranges for beginners, what effects to expect at different dose levels, routes of administration, and so on. This information is targeted at beginners or drug curious people.
- glerk 4y ago
  Methamphetamine has a bad rep, but taken orally in small quantities it is not much more dangerous than adderall, and has pretty much the same side effects. It can be legally prescribed for ADHD (brand name Desoxyn).
  - Rewrap3643 4y ago
    Meth is significantly different than regular amphetamine. Consider that simple changes in isomers can elicit radically different effects. A great example is levmetamfetamine (or l-meth), which is sold over the counter as a decongestant (as opposed to d-meth, the “fun” kind). Now, if the difference between a “left-handed” and “right-handed” meth molecule can be so great, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that adding a methyl group to regular amphetamine will change its effects considerably. This can be seen in the different receptor binding profiles (which receptors, where in the brain, and how strong or long the modulation is). Meth’s increased addictive and neurotoxic effects are owed to this difference in receptor binding.
- SilasX 4y ago
  I'm not sure about meth specifically, but there were billboards in SF telling people safer ways to use drugs: https://www.ktvu.com/news/san-francisco-supervisor-drug-overdose-billboard-sends-wrong-message https://www.ktvu.com/news/san-francisco-supervisor-drug-over...
- 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Al-Khwarizmi 4y ago
This well-known video explains what you describe in graphical form, in case anyone has not seen it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUngLgGRJpo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUngLgGRJpo
abirch 4y ago
The sad thing is many overdoses are due to people who quit, lose their tolerance, but take the same amount of their drug as when they were still actively using.
daniel-cussen 4y ago
[dead]
sterlind 4y ago
> The drugs may have changed slightly over the years, but the sad reality is that the real change was their accumulated tolerance and long term damage from drug abuse had blunted their response so much that they could barely feel the drugs any more. This varies with the drug. MDMA is notorious for losing its "magic" after six or so trips. There's a special empathic, soul-opening quality to it - the kind of thing that makes it such a good candidate for treating PTSD. But after a few times, it becomes more like a regular psychedelic amphetamine.. fun, but not life-changing. On the other hand, pure psychedelics don't really lose their magic. Tolerance develops, but goes away after a week. Psychedelics aren't associated with brain damage, while MDMA mildly is. Then there's opioids, of course, which are ruinously addictive and fickle with tolerance. When you're on the outside of the community, it's easy to lump "drugs" together and make generalizations. But every class of drug is different.
- worik 4y ago
  The champion of pointless addiction is tobacco
  - astrange 4y ago
    Nicotine is a very effective nootropic, better than almost all the well known ones, and it's also a remarkably good schizophrenia treatment. It gets a bad rap because of the delivery mechanism, but there's a reason people like smoking.

blanketlamp 4y ago

> A sobering reminder that the negative effects of recreational drugs last long after the hangover. I’m seeing an alarming trend of young people reading “harm reduction” material online and assuming they know the full picture of the risks of drug use. I don't think that's ever been in question. Harm reduction isn't some utopian ideal that safe drug use == nobody ever suffers long-term negative effects. Conquering those demons takes a lot of time, introspection, and often outside help. Harm reduction is about making sure you live long enough to hopefully get there.

starkd 4y ago
True, but you are saying that with more awareness than many young people have when they are first looking into it. The brain tends to assume "risk reduction" means "risk approaches zero" and thus negligeable risk.
rlt 4y ago
Harm reduction itself isn't a bad thing, the problem is if it displaces other forms of help for drug users, or ends up encouraging more drug use. e.x. skip to 2:00 in this video https://twitter.com/sav_says_/status/1603512522509668352 https://twitter.com/sav_says_/status/1603512522509668352
- beebmam 4y ago
  I think your comment is an example of an important discussion we need to have around what are the consequences to our drug policies, whether they are tough-lovish or harm-reductionist. I can see value in both, in different circumstances. However, the video you link to is from a notorious far right propaganda outlet. I don't think people will get an honest perspective from TPUSA, who clearly have an axe to grind (and bills to pay, which they accomplish by manufacturing outrage).
  - rlt 4y ago
    Ricci Wynne posts most of his videos like this independently (https://twitter.com/RawRicci415 https://twitter.com/RawRicci415). In most of them he lets the video speak for itself. I don't have any reason to believe he's lying and I think he'd strongly dispute being characterized as "far right".
  - xyzzyz 4y ago
    Do you react similarly to left wing propaganda, or is your “partisan sources do not provide honest perspectives” limited to right wing sources?
    - beebmam 4y ago
      Yes, I do. I despise the far left.
PragmaticPulp 4y ago
> I don't think that's ever been in question. Harm reduction isn't some utopian ideal that safe drug use == nobody ever suffers long-term negative effects. To you, maybe, but it only takes a cursory glance at drug-related subreddits to see numerous people suggesting that you just need to follow harm reduction websites, stick to some arbitrary rules (e.g. only do MDMA every N weeks and take X, Y, and Z supplements), and you can avoid the negative consequences. You may know that’s untrue, but it’s common to see among drug users. It’s also common to blame drug users who experience problems on failure to follow harm reduction guides, as if the guides are a perfect guide for avoiding the harms. > Harm reduction is about making sure you live long enough to hopefully get there. Modern harm reduction websites are about education in general, not just helping addicts survive. You will find things like dosing guidelines for first time users, expectations for what to expect, how to prepare, and so on. These things are targeted at beginner drug users or the drug curious.
- pantalaimon 4y ago
  What negative consequences are there to doing MDMA or LSD a couple times a year? Especially when comparing with the negative consequences of doing alcohol. The argument that any drug use is bad is pretty blown out of proportion.
  - ifyoubuildit 4y ago
    > Especially when comparing with the negative consequences of doing alcohol. This sentiment is confusing to me. I get that alcohol is bad. But how is that relevant to whether or not MDMA or LSD are bad? I see it come up in these conversations pretty regularly, so there's probably a point there I'm missing. But I can't help but read it as "this thing I like to do isn't bad because other people do a different bad thing".
    - subradios 4y ago
      Smart, well adjusted drug people will frequently point out that most common drugs they use (LSD, MDMA, MDAA, psilocybin, etc) have an orders of magnitude better risk profile than smoking or drinking. The latter is essentially socially ubiquitous. That community has an ongoing bitterness about this double standard. Usually though, people making this point are not advocating for heroin or meth (although there's a reasonable argument there that the drug is not what does most of the damage in those situations - krokodil is just heroin manufactured with an extremely dirty process. It's perceived as being much worse, but what's "much worse" are the impurities from using gasoline as a solvent. MDMA and LSD in particular have the advantage of no fast, cheap ways to synthesize at the expense of safety or purity.
worik 4y ago
Also "harm reduction" is patronising to users. People use drugs for there benefits Addiction is a symptom, generally, of alienation. To the addict the drug is helping. As the addicts loved ones that can be hard to belive, and demonstrably untrue. But still. A much better paradigm is "benefit maximisation" Ask ourselves what social policies will help maximize the benefits of drug use. Leads to the same place with the harm, but without patronising users, and allows us as a society to explore the upsides of these drugs

hgsgm 4y ago

"harm reduction" doesn't mean "good addiction" or even "risk reduction" . It means dying more slowly with less collateral damage. It means what the name says.

pantalaimon 4y ago
And all die we must
MobiusHorizons 4y ago
Unfortunately it doesn’t mean just one thing. People use a slogan like “harm reduction” to describe a wide array of beliefs and practices ranging from the very practical (don’t make sobriety a condition of care) to the very dogmatic (it’s not ok to discourage drug use of any kind, anyone who suggests otherwise is part of the problem). Most people will be somewhere in between those extremes. Once a slogan has been in use for some time, you can’t take the words at face value anymore. The mean whatever people use them for, not what they would mean in plain English. As an aside this is true about language more generally. There is no true meaning of any given string of words. Language is a communication tool (and a lossy one at that). History of use gives words and phrases additional contextual meaning beyond any dictionary definition. Feedback is often necessary to avoid misunderstanding.
- nico 4y ago
  > this is true about language more generally. There is no true meaning of any given string of words. Language is a communication tool (and a lossy one at that). History of use gives words and phrases additional contextual meaning beyond any dictionary definition. Feedback is often necessary to avoid misunderstanding. Very insightful. It would be great if we all were a bit more aware of this.

mypalmike 4y ago

"accumulated tolerance and long term damage from drug abuse had blunted their response" The succinct term for this phenomenon is "chasing the dragon".

xrd 4y ago
First heard that term in the movie "Killing Zoe." Takes me back.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> an alarming trend of young people reading “harm reduction” material online and assuming they know the full picture of the risks of drug use Is anyone attempting to harm-reductively try meth?

PragmaticPulp 4y ago
Yes. The “harm reduction” websites are full of information about things like: Dose ranges for beginners, what effects to expect at different dose levels, routes of administration, and so on. This information is targeted at beginners or drug curious people.
glerk 4y ago
Methamphetamine has a bad rep, but taken orally in small quantities it is not much more dangerous than adderall, and has pretty much the same side effects. It can be legally prescribed for ADHD (brand name Desoxyn).
- Rewrap3643 4y ago
  Meth is significantly different than regular amphetamine. Consider that simple changes in isomers can elicit radically different effects. A great example is levmetamfetamine (or l-meth), which is sold over the counter as a decongestant (as opposed to d-meth, the “fun” kind). Now, if the difference between a “left-handed” and “right-handed” meth molecule can be so great, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that adding a methyl group to regular amphetamine will change its effects considerably. This can be seen in the different receptor binding profiles (which receptors, where in the brain, and how strong or long the modulation is). Meth’s increased addictive and neurotoxic effects are owed to this difference in receptor binding.
SilasX 4y ago
I'm not sure about meth specifically, but there were billboards in SF telling people safer ways to use drugs: https://www.ktvu.com/news/san-francisco-supervisor-drug-overdose-billboard-sends-wrong-message https://www.ktvu.com/news/san-francisco-supervisor-drug-over...
4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Al-Khwarizmi 4y ago

This well-known video explains what you describe in graphical form, in case anyone has not seen it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUngLgGRJpo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUngLgGRJpo

abirch 4y ago

The sad thing is many overdoses are due to people who quit, lose their tolerance, but take the same amount of their drug as when they were still actively using.

daniel-cussen 4y ago

[dead]

sterlind 4y ago

> The drugs may have changed slightly over the years, but the sad reality is that the real change was their accumulated tolerance and long term damage from drug abuse had blunted their response so much that they could barely feel the drugs any more. This varies with the drug. MDMA is notorious for losing its "magic" after six or so trips. There's a special empathic, soul-opening quality to it - the kind of thing that makes it such a good candidate for treating PTSD. But after a few times, it becomes more like a regular psychedelic amphetamine.. fun, but not life-changing. On the other hand, pure psychedelics don't really lose their magic. Tolerance develops, but goes away after a week. Psychedelics aren't associated with brain damage, while MDMA mildly is. Then there's opioids, of course, which are ruinously addictive and fickle with tolerance. When you're on the outside of the community, it's easy to lump "drugs" together and make generalizations. But every class of drug is different.

worik 4y ago
The champion of pointless addiction is tobacco
- astrange 4y ago
  Nicotine is a very effective nootropic, better than almost all the well known ones, and it's also a remarkably good schizophrenia treatment. It gets a bad rap because of the delivery mechanism, but there's a reason people like smoking.