4 ms·

> 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 r

> 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

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