23 ms·

(edits made and more details and topics added) The largest assumption that seems to be behind your position is that society should not have recreational drugs.

by em-bee 3y ago

(edits made and more details and topics added) The largest assumption that seems to be behind your position is that society should not have recreational drugs. Is this correct? not necessarily. as alcohol was/is still very common where i grew up, it doesn't mean that the mere availability is a problem in itself. it was more the attitude about it. but i also suspect that most kids there still had mostly intact families and reasonable role models. all of which can be significant risk factors when missing. effectively the thing is that being a good role model as a parent is something i can influence. maybe with a healthy family responsible use is fine, but for a stressed single parent, the same use becomes a problem, and avoiding drugs or alcohol becomes important to counter the other negative effects from the childrens experience. it's relative, how much risk do we see, and how much do we as parents need to do to reduce that risk. compared the risks of horseriding with MDMA and found that MDMA was safer safer for whom? the issue here is that apart from personal injury, horseriding has no side-effects or longterm consequences. it's like flying. on average flying is safe. but if something happens it is usually fatal, therefore we need very strict rules on flight safety. if drug use goes out of hand, like it can become an addiction, the consequences can affect a lot of people. horseriding just doesn't go out of hand, or become addictive. like skiing or some other sports. you just can hurt yourself, that's all. It could be the biggest cause of drug use is stress; people just trying to cope. absolutely. i think stress is a huge risk factor. and that's where avoiding drugs and alcohol completely brings its benefits. i am in a stressful situation now, and i find my ways to cope, but because i grew up without alcohol and never tried it before i am not at all tempted to try it now. the same goes for any potentially addictive behavior like gambling. but since it was mentioned in the initial question, i'd like to talk about phone/internet addiction a bit. first of all, like horseriding, the side effects are minimal. it becomes more dangerous if you start spending money. i work in IT, so i may have a hard time to distinguish between working hard and being addicted to the internet. maybe i should evaluate how much i participate on hacker news ;-) now when it comes to educating kids about it, it gets difficult. not using the internet in order to be a positive non-internet using rolemodel becomes practically impossible. more so for me since i work at home. now during school holidays kids see me on the computer all day. i don't know yet how i can teach them to not spend so much time on the computer when i am spending even more time on it. on the other hand i don't use social media and i can keep my kids from it as well. so that at least reduces the dangers coming from that direction. i also don't let the kids spend money on games. by never even enabling payment options the risk that kids spend money out of control is practically eliminated. but i don't know what they will do when they get old enough and are able to spend their own money. > and where we were generally educated in school to avoid that stuff. I'm uncomfortable because you're trying to make up other people's minds for them. i want to give kids good rolemodels, and show them that drugs or alcohol are not needed to have a good time. i am not making up their mind, but i am giving them additional information so that they can make up their own mind. if as a society we want to reduce the number of people affected by alcohol or drug abuse, we need to educate our children to that effect. that's the schools job. to educate according to social consensus. when there is a tendency for abuse to grow if unchecked, then education needs to counteract that. more so if we want to reduce it. of course doing this right also requires relying on facts and true statistics and not allow hardliners to push their agenda by fearmongering and exaggerating the actual damage. also, you wouldn't jump on a horse or do any other risky sport without proper training. what would be comparable training for alcohol and drug use if not education in school? Do you allow there could be benefits to recreational drugs used appropriately and in moderation? i do, but i still believe the risks outweigh the benefits. unlike horseriding where the benefits outweigh the risks, even though statistically there is a higher risk of injury. approximately nine out of ten soldiers who used heroin in Vietnam eliminated their addiction nearly overnight i think the key here is that it is very clear what causes the stress, and that being back home that stressfactor is gone and will never come back with 100% certainty. most of us do not get this certainty. stressfactors reduce, but they never completely disappear, and they may come back any time. people vow to give up drinking, it works for a while, then something happens, and they are back. veterans know that they are done for good, and that they will never have to make that experience again. if there's one drug I would really like to make illegal it's cigarettes, and I would very, very much like to see the end of all and any advertising of alcohol. i am fully with you on that. i am also very happy to see that in the past decades we have made progress in creating a smoke free experience in most public indoor areas. and that i see a lot less smoking in public compared to a few decades ago.

_a_a_a_ 3y ago
Thanks for this, ok... >> The largest assumption that seems to be behind your position is that society should not have recreational drugs. Is this correct? > not necessarily. as alcohol was/is still very common where i grew up, it doesn't mean that the mere availability is a problem in itself. it was more the attitude about it. So if the risks were mitigated (can never be eliminated) you would be okay(-ish) with drugs other than alcohol being used? Assuming good role models, etc. it's fine if you say no, we'll disagree but I will at least understand your position and I will respect it. > but for a stressed single parent, An aside, I assure you a parent doesn't have to be single to be stressed, in fact it can be more dangerous to have two stressed parents. >> compared the risks of horseriding with MDMA and found that MDMA was safer > safer for whom? Well, for the user of the drug or the equine. > the issue here is that apart from personal injury, horseriding has no side-effects or longterm consequences. The whole point is about personal injury! And how that can ripple out to affect others. > the consequences can affect a lot of people. horseriding just doesn't go out of hand, or become addictive. like skiing or some other sports. you just can hurt yourself, that's all. With respect I don't think that is anywhere close to reflecting what the paper said: "The dangers of equasy were revealed to me as a result of a recent clinical referral of a woman in her early 30’s who had suffered permanent brain damage as a result of equasy-induced brain damage. She had undergone severe personality change that made her more irritable and impulsive, with anxiety and loss of the ability to experience pleasure. There was also a degree of hypofrontality and behavioural disinhibition that had lead to many bad decisions in relationships with poor choice of partners and an unwanted pregnancy. She is unable to work and is unlikely ever to do so again [my emphasis], so the social costs of her brain damage are also very high." further "I suspect most people will be surprised that riding is such a dangerous activity. The data are quite startling – people die and are permanently damaged from falling – with neck and spine fracture leading to permanent spinal injury. Head injury is four times more com- mon though often less obvious and is the usual cause of death. In the USA, approximately 11,500 cases of traumatic head injury a year are due to riding (Thomas, et al., 2006), and we can presume a proportionate number in the UK." I also knew a girl many years ago who was a rider, whose horse spooked, reared up and fell backwards onto her, breaking her back. Fortunately this wasn't a wheelchair-forever case, but she was off work for months and would have back problems for the rest of her life. I know many more eg. MDMA users than horseriders, and I've never seen any injury, never mind something so severe as this. If you objected to drugs, it has to be on a rational basis of risk, and by that measure the papers point was, we are not measuring and responding to risk proportionately. > absolutely. i think stress is a huge risk factor. and that's where avoiding drugs and alcohol completely brings its benefits. i am in a stressful situation now, and i find my ways to cope, but because i grew up without alcohol and never tried it before i am not at all tempted to try it now. That is your decision and it is therefore the correct decision for you, but but do you think it is the correct decision for everybody? If you did, it's possible we might have less adverse outcomes, but you would also take away the ability to make choices for themselves, where it doesn't risk hurting other people. It's not a society want to be in. Also what is right for you may not be workable for others. > the same goes for any potentially addictive behavior like gambling. but since it was mentioned in the initial question, i'd like to talk about phone/internet addiction a bit...but i don't know what they will do when they get old enough and are able to spend their own money. I honestly don't know. It's possible giving them a small allowance to buy online stuff might help them manage things, or it might feed a possible addiction. Perhaps you can ask around on parents forums? >>> and where we were generally educated in school to avoid that stuff. >> I'm uncomfortable because you're trying to make up other people's minds for them. > i want to give kids good rolemodels, and show them that drugs or alcohol are not needed to have a good time. That may be true for you but are you willing to project and enforce that attitude onto other people? Because you certainly don't need them to have a good time, but they can really bloody help! Please also consider that not only people differ, but situations differ and that needs to be accounted for. I have a delightful range of physical and mental health problems, and when I go out, which is sadly not often, I really need to make it count, to stop myself deteriorating further mentally. What an option for you isn't necessarily optional for other people. > if as a society we want to reduce the number of people affected by alcohol or drug abuse, we need to educate our children to that effect. that's the schools job. to educate according to social consensus. But what should be the social consensus, your position or mine or something else? That's what I'm trying to understand, it's the absolute crux of why we are discussing this. > ... also requires relying on facts and true statistics and not allow hardliners to push their agenda by fearmongering and exaggerating the actual damage. And this is where I have a problem, too many people (not just kids) will simply not recognise the harm drugs do. If you tell them they're not inevitably dangerous, all they hear is that they're safe. Not only that, we have a societal problem that will export the external costs of drugs (specifically alcohol and cigarettes) onto society at the cost of making individual firms richer. Edit: What I'm saying is that as a society we either forbid things or make them legal then go bloody mental in abusing them. My currently rather liberal position on drugs will have to contend with this kind of stupidity if we do legalise. > also, you wouldn't jump on a horse or do any other risky sport without proper training. what would be comparable training for alcohol and drug use if not education in school? Agreed, but parents must have some responsibility, I think we both agree with that. >> Do you allow there could be benefits to recreational drugs used appropriately and in moderation? > i do, but i still believe the risks outweigh the benefits. unlike horseriding where the benefits outweigh the risks, even though statistically there is a higher risk of injury. Given what the equasy paper says... Acute harm to person [MDMA] +1 per 10000 episodes [horse riding] ++1 per 350 episodes ...can you really say that? What are the benefits of horseriding, if exercise then there are other safer ways of getting that. If it's the responsibility of looking after an animal, get a cat or a dog (and that option is much more widely available than owning a horse – we could never have afforded it). What are those benefits? > most of us do not get this certainty. stressfactors reduce, but they never completely disappear, and they may come back any time. people vow to give up drinking, it works for a while, then something happens, and they are back. veterans know that they are done for good, and that they will never have to make that experience again. agreed, and we both agree ciggies and booze should be treated less indulgently by society.

by em-bee 3y ago

_a_a_a_ 3y ago

Thanks for this, ok... >> The largest assumption that seems to be behind your position is that society should not have recreational drugs. Is this correct? > not necessarily. as alcohol was/is still very common where i grew up, it doesn't mean that the mere availability is a problem in itself. it was more the attitude about it. So if the risks were mitigated (can never be eliminated) you would be okay(-ish) with drugs other than alcohol being used? Assuming good role models, etc. it's fine if you say no, we'll disagree but I will at least understand your position and I will respect it. > but for a stressed single parent, An aside, I assure you a parent doesn't have to be single to be stressed, in fact it can be more dangerous to have two stressed parents. >> compared the risks of horseriding with MDMA and found that MDMA was safer > safer for whom? Well, for the user of the drug or the equine. > the issue here is that apart from personal injury, horseriding has no side-effects or longterm consequences. The whole point is about personal injury! And how that can ripple out to affect others. > the consequences can affect a lot of people. horseriding just doesn't go out of hand, or become addictive. like skiing or some other sports. you just can hurt yourself, that's all. With respect I don't think that is anywhere close to reflecting what the paper said: "The dangers of equasy were revealed to me as a result of a recent clinical referral of a woman in her early 30’s who had suffered permanent brain damage as a result of equasy-induced brain damage. She had undergone severe personality change that made her more irritable and impulsive, with anxiety and loss of the ability to experience pleasure. There was also a degree of hypofrontality and behavioural disinhibition that had lead to many bad decisions in relationships with poor choice of partners and an unwanted pregnancy. She is unable to work and is unlikely ever to do so again [my emphasis], so the social costs of her brain damage are also very high." further "I suspect most people will be surprised that riding is such a dangerous activity. The data are quite startling – people die and are permanently damaged from falling – with neck and spine fracture leading to permanent spinal injury. Head injury is four times more com- mon though often less obvious and is the usual cause of death. In the USA, approximately 11,500 cases of traumatic head injury a year are due to riding (Thomas, et al., 2006), and we can presume a proportionate number in the UK." I also knew a girl many years ago who was a rider, whose horse spooked, reared up and fell backwards onto her, breaking her back. Fortunately this wasn't a wheelchair-forever case, but she was off work for months and would have back problems for the rest of her life. I know many more eg. MDMA users than horseriders, and I've never seen any injury, never mind something so severe as this. If you objected to drugs, it has to be on a rational basis of risk, and by that measure the papers point was, we are not measuring and responding to risk proportionately. > absolutely. i think stress is a huge risk factor. and that's where avoiding drugs and alcohol completely brings its benefits. i am in a stressful situation now, and i find my ways to cope, but because i grew up without alcohol and never tried it before i am not at all tempted to try it now. That is your decision and it is therefore the correct decision for you, but but do you think it is the correct decision for everybody? If you did, it's possible we might have less adverse outcomes, but you would also take away the ability to make choices for themselves, where it doesn't risk hurting other people. It's not a society want to be in. Also what is right for you may not be workable for others. > the same goes for any potentially addictive behavior like gambling. but since it was mentioned in the initial question, i'd like to talk about phone/internet addiction a bit...but i don't know what they will do when they get old enough and are able to spend their own money. I honestly don't know. It's possible giving them a small allowance to buy online stuff might help them manage things, or it might feed a possible addiction. Perhaps you can ask around on parents forums? >>> and where we were generally educated in school to avoid that stuff. >> I'm uncomfortable because you're trying to make up other people's minds for them. > i want to give kids good rolemodels, and show them that drugs or alcohol are not needed to have a good time. That may be true for you but are you willing to project and enforce that attitude onto other people? Because you certainly don't need them to have a good time, but they can really bloody help! Please also consider that not only people differ, but situations differ and that needs to be accounted for. I have a delightful range of physical and mental health problems, and when I go out, which is sadly not often, I really need to make it count, to stop myself deteriorating further mentally. What an option for you isn't necessarily optional for other people. > if as a society we want to reduce the number of people affected by alcohol or drug abuse, we need to educate our children to that effect. that's the schools job. to educate according to social consensus. But what should be the social consensus, your position or mine or something else? That's what I'm trying to understand, it's the absolute crux of why we are discussing this. > ... also requires relying on facts and true statistics and not allow hardliners to push their agenda by fearmongering and exaggerating the actual damage. And this is where I have a problem, too many people (not just kids) will simply not recognise the harm drugs do. If you tell them they're not inevitably dangerous, all they hear is that they're safe. Not only that, we have a societal problem that will export the external costs of drugs (specifically alcohol and cigarettes) onto society at the cost of making individual firms richer. Edit: What I'm saying is that as a society we either forbid things or make them legal then go bloody mental in abusing them. My currently rather liberal position on drugs will have to contend with this kind of stupidity if we do legalise. > also, you wouldn't jump on a horse or do any other risky sport without proper training. what would be comparable training for alcohol and drug use if not education in school? Agreed, but parents must have some responsibility, I think we both agree with that. >> Do you allow there could be benefits to recreational drugs used appropriately and in moderation? > i do, but i still believe the risks outweigh the benefits. unlike horseriding where the benefits outweigh the risks, even though statistically there is a higher risk of injury. Given what the equasy paper says... Acute harm to person [MDMA] +1 per 10000 episodes [horse riding] ++1 per 350 episodes ...can you really say that? What are the benefits of horseriding, if exercise then there are other safer ways of getting that. If it's the responsibility of looking after an animal, get a cat or a dog (and that option is much more widely available than owning a horse – we could never have afforded it). What are those benefits? > most of us do not get this certainty. stressfactors reduce, but they never completely disappear, and they may come back any time. people vow to give up drinking, it works for a while, then something happens, and they are back. veterans know that they are done for good, and that they will never have to make that experience again. agreed, and we both agree ciggies and booze should be treated less indulgently by society.