5 ms·

I think the actual problem is people can’t seem to just use enough to stay functional. Given the legal opportunity to purchase heroin, most people will absolute

I think the actual problem is people can’t seem to just use enough to stay functional. Given the legal opportunity to purchase heroin, most people will absolutely overdo it.

stillwithit 3y ago
So? Then they’re out of the way. One or way or another, none of us are getting out of this alive. Not sure where the religious conviction we must save all souls comes from or has any value.
- WillPostForFood 3y ago
  Even if one ascribes to this nihilist POV, it isn't an answer. We see the negative effects on communities, families, and people around addicts. Even if you don't care that people are destroying themselves, when they take out the surrounding area it is a problem we share.
  - stillwithit 3y ago
    Yeah and humans have seen it for centuries and failed to stop it Who is to say any progress we make won’t be undid by another pandemic we cannot predict, or some nutter launching the nukes We have political agents hell bent on war and subjugating undesirables, rather than pushback against them let’s focus on some people who don’t want to live? Why not ask Oceangate how the war against physics is going. It will always win and erode any social progress we think we made
    - nomel 3y ago
      > failed to stop it I don't think that's the goal. The goal is to attempt to reduce harm of something that removes freedom. Try asking a drug addict if they want to keep taking drugs. I suspect you'll be surprised at the answer. Stopping drugs would be like achieving abstinence as the primary form of contraceptive. Both are impossible because they work on the same soup of chemicals, but one has evolved with some form of continuation in mind. The other is a direct injection, orders of magnitude stronger, that just fucks up all the machinery of the brain.
      - stillwithit 3y ago
        Well we all better stop flying and driving if we’re set out to reduce human suffering. But hey the toxic mess we leave for the future to suffer through won’t be our problem so shrug This is the most disingenuous and self righteous thread I’ve ever been involved with. Traditional catechisms and stubbornness will win out against physical reality. RBG fans I guess.
        nomel 3y ago
        > Well we all better stop flying and driving if we’re set out to reduce human suffering. If the car has doors your can't unlock, and the plane forced you to fly or you die from withdrawals, both of which follow you around you're whole life honking their horns begging you to get back in, even if you do manage to stop, then your analogy could make sense. Do you have any experience with addiction? Having experience with the pain it causes, and not liking the idea of more families being ripped apart/abandoned due to a few milligrams, isn't self righteous as much as sympathetic. I think there's some compromise between complete freedom and "this thing completely removes freedom, so maybe it's a bad idea".
        stillwithit 3y ago
        Yes, yes I do have family history with addiction Both times my family wished for euthanization options rather than watch family rot But patronizing high minds said no; in our society they must suffer until they die Americans have spent so much time huffing toxic positivity whippets. All the high minded worship and praise of the economy, tech, feeding notions of American exceptionalism has led us to believe we really can do anything But we all can’t live forever and have no guarantee the future won’t just screw it all up again Physics rules, not human philosophy. Reality itself is the root of our misery. There’s no eradicating suffering without eliminating humans; we cannot violate physics and the physical word fosters suffering. Erosion and entropy of all structure. This forum is sounding way too religious. Thought it was science nerdy when I signed up but it’s just typical “America great!”
        3y ago
    - huytersd 3y ago
      Humans have absolutely stopped it in places with draconian laws. The use of heroin in Singapore, other parts of south east Asia and parts of the Middle East is essentially zero because they give traffickers the death penalty and jail the few users for a very long time. If you can truly secure your borders and you can’t grow poppy in your country there will be no heroin.
- kruft 3y ago
  By that logic, we should remove any suicide prevention or other mental health support as well. Allowing, even encouraging, people to suffer when the very nature of their disease destroys their agency should be repugnant to everyone. Religion is a red herring here.
  - stillwithit 3y ago
    [flagged]
- nomel 3y ago
  > Then they’re out of the way. What are your thoughts on the death penalty in Singapore?
- huytersd 3y ago
  You won’t be saying the same thing when it’s your kid that’s “out of the way”. Making heroin easily accessible means someone that does it a handful of times is truly hooked. Your life is essentially a struggle from that point out.
gosub100 3y ago
I think this is a good point. I've never been high on opiates, but I've heard it described as "an orgasm over your whole body". How are you going to allow everyone that option and expect anyone _not_ to just check-out of reality, reduce all their other living expenses, and just live to get high?
- sokoloff 3y ago
  When Bayer created heroin and brought it to market in the late 19th century, is this what happened? I don't know for sure, but I've never read about that having been a problem when it was available over the counter from a reputable brand. Surely some people became addicted to it (not that different from alcohol, nicotine, fatty sweets, or various prescription drugs), but it didn't destroy society.
  - vineyardmike 3y ago
    The 21st century opioid crisis that’s being unraveled right now with the Sacklers and Purdue pharma would tell a different story. Of course it wasn’t over the counter. One thing that’s missing in a lot of these discussions is strength and education. What strength was the Bayer drugs vs things available today, and how well informed was the average person that this was a product they could access recreationally.
  - chmod600 3y ago
    150 years ago was very different. If you didn't do useful work, you and your family could be in serious and immediate risk. Now there's more of a safety net (money, foster care, and ambulances/ERs) which is largely good, but provides more opportunity to enable addicts.
- bsder 3y ago
  > I've never been high on opiates, but I've heard it described as "an orgasm over your whole body". 1) Not everybody reacts that way. I've only ever been given high-end opioids when in extreme pain, but I hate the sensation. My brain feels like it's encased in concrete. A higher dose simply puts me to sleep. 2) What gives you the right to tell people to not do something pleasurable? Really. Many people have rough lives. We should help them find joy somewhat safely rather than shunt them into the dark.
astrodust 3y ago
There are people with substance abuse problems and addictive behaviour that goes way beyond any particular drug. It's often a condition that needs treatment. "Given the legal opportunity to purchase X, some people will absolutely overdo it." This goes for some ridiculous things like Pokemon cards or collectible shoes as well. Should we ban those?

I think the actual problem is people can’t seem to just use enough to stay functional. Given the legal opportunity to purchase heroin, most people will absolutely overdo it.

stillwithit 3y ago

So? Then they’re out of the way. One or way or another, none of us are getting out of this alive. Not sure where the religious conviction we must save all souls comes from or has any value.

WillPostForFood 3y ago
Even if one ascribes to this nihilist POV, it isn't an answer. We see the negative effects on communities, families, and people around addicts. Even if you don't care that people are destroying themselves, when they take out the surrounding area it is a problem we share.
- stillwithit 3y ago
  Yeah and humans have seen it for centuries and failed to stop it Who is to say any progress we make won’t be undid by another pandemic we cannot predict, or some nutter launching the nukes We have political agents hell bent on war and subjugating undesirables, rather than pushback against them let’s focus on some people who don’t want to live? Why not ask Oceangate how the war against physics is going. It will always win and erode any social progress we think we made
  - nomel 3y ago
    > failed to stop it I don't think that's the goal. The goal is to attempt to reduce harm of something that removes freedom. Try asking a drug addict if they want to keep taking drugs. I suspect you'll be surprised at the answer. Stopping drugs would be like achieving abstinence as the primary form of contraceptive. Both are impossible because they work on the same soup of chemicals, but one has evolved with some form of continuation in mind. The other is a direct injection, orders of magnitude stronger, that just fucks up all the machinery of the brain.
    - stillwithit 3y ago
      Well we all better stop flying and driving if we’re set out to reduce human suffering. But hey the toxic mess we leave for the future to suffer through won’t be our problem so shrug This is the most disingenuous and self righteous thread I’ve ever been involved with. Traditional catechisms and stubbornness will win out against physical reality. RBG fans I guess.
      - nomel 3y ago
        > Well we all better stop flying and driving if we’re set out to reduce human suffering. If the car has doors your can't unlock, and the plane forced you to fly or you die from withdrawals, both of which follow you around you're whole life honking their horns begging you to get back in, even if you do manage to stop, then your analogy could make sense. Do you have any experience with addiction? Having experience with the pain it causes, and not liking the idea of more families being ripped apart/abandoned due to a few milligrams, isn't self righteous as much as sympathetic. I think there's some compromise between complete freedom and "this thing completely removes freedom, so maybe it's a bad idea".
        stillwithit 3y ago
        Yes, yes I do have family history with addiction Both times my family wished for euthanization options rather than watch family rot But patronizing high minds said no; in our society they must suffer until they die Americans have spent so much time huffing toxic positivity whippets. All the high minded worship and praise of the economy, tech, feeding notions of American exceptionalism has led us to believe we really can do anything But we all can’t live forever and have no guarantee the future won’t just screw it all up again Physics rules, not human philosophy. Reality itself is the root of our misery. There’s no eradicating suffering without eliminating humans; we cannot violate physics and the physical word fosters suffering. Erosion and entropy of all structure. This forum is sounding way too religious. Thought it was science nerdy when I signed up but it’s just typical “America great!”
        3y ago
  - huytersd 3y ago
    Humans have absolutely stopped it in places with draconian laws. The use of heroin in Singapore, other parts of south east Asia and parts of the Middle East is essentially zero because they give traffickers the death penalty and jail the few users for a very long time. If you can truly secure your borders and you can’t grow poppy in your country there will be no heroin.
kruft 3y ago
By that logic, we should remove any suicide prevention or other mental health support as well. Allowing, even encouraging, people to suffer when the very nature of their disease destroys their agency should be repugnant to everyone. Religion is a red herring here.
- stillwithit 3y ago
  [flagged]
nomel 3y ago
> Then they’re out of the way. What are your thoughts on the death penalty in Singapore?
huytersd 3y ago
You won’t be saying the same thing when it’s your kid that’s “out of the way”. Making heroin easily accessible means someone that does it a handful of times is truly hooked. Your life is essentially a struggle from that point out.

gosub100 3y ago

I think this is a good point. I've never been high on opiates, but I've heard it described as "an orgasm over your whole body". How are you going to allow everyone that option and expect anyone _not_ to just check-out of reality, reduce all their other living expenses, and just live to get high?

sokoloff 3y ago
When Bayer created heroin and brought it to market in the late 19th century, is this what happened? I don't know for sure, but I've never read about that having been a problem when it was available over the counter from a reputable brand. Surely some people became addicted to it (not that different from alcohol, nicotine, fatty sweets, or various prescription drugs), but it didn't destroy society.
- vineyardmike 3y ago
  The 21st century opioid crisis that’s being unraveled right now with the Sacklers and Purdue pharma would tell a different story. Of course it wasn’t over the counter. One thing that’s missing in a lot of these discussions is strength and education. What strength was the Bayer drugs vs things available today, and how well informed was the average person that this was a product they could access recreationally.
- chmod600 3y ago
  150 years ago was very different. If you didn't do useful work, you and your family could be in serious and immediate risk. Now there's more of a safety net (money, foster care, and ambulances/ERs) which is largely good, but provides more opportunity to enable addicts.
bsder 3y ago
> I've never been high on opiates, but I've heard it described as "an orgasm over your whole body". 1) Not everybody reacts that way. I've only ever been given high-end opioids when in extreme pain, but I hate the sensation. My brain feels like it's encased in concrete. A higher dose simply puts me to sleep. 2) What gives you the right to tell people to not do something pleasurable? Really. Many people have rough lives. We should help them find joy somewhat safely rather than shunt them into the dark.

astrodust 3y ago

There are people with substance abuse problems and addictive behaviour that goes way beyond any particular drug. It's often a condition that needs treatment. "Given the legal opportunity to purchase X, some people will absolutely overdo it." This goes for some ridiculous things like Pokemon cards or collectible shoes as well. Should we ban those?