4 ms·

> An inebriated person on the street has decided to accept that people will see them in a compromising situation. Not necessarily. At the very least the person

by aaplok 3y ago

> An inebriated person on the street has decided to accept that people will see them in a compromising situation. Not necessarily. At the very least the person may have been drugged against their will - it happens, even if it's not the majority of cases. Then there are many grey situations like addicts who are homeless. Given the possibility, a share of these people would likely choose not to be homeless, not to be addicted, or to be neither. Taking a photo or a video of a person in a vulnerable situation when they can't protect themselves is abusive and it is not OK, no matter what this person's behaviour was at that time. Your comment comes awfully close to blaming the victims.

brutusborn 3y ago
Drug addicts are not drugged against their will. In fact they are drugged due to their will. Homeless people may be victims of outside forces and we should support these people unconditionally. Some homeless are victims of their own bad decisions based on wrong beliefs and should be supported too, but let’s stop pretending they are being forced to take drugs.
- haswell 3y ago
  This is an extremely simplistic assessment of addiction, and the factors that drive it. Setting aside the likelihood and tangent that we probably don’t have free will the way we like to think of it, it’s incredibly reductionist to summarize two symptoms/outcomes (homelessness, addiction) this way without understanding the systemic factors that lead to them. I’d highly recommend Anna Lembke’s work on Addiction. You’re boiling something very complex down to “shame on them”.
  - brutusborn 3y ago
    Thanks for the reference. Do you know if Lembke has had much success in treating addiction? That is how I usually filter authors like this, there is too much content and almost none of it actually helps addicts. In my experience the mainstream view of addiction is harmful, so I feel the need to push back to help others who have fell into the trap of “it’s a disease so I don’t have a choice”. Of course I am simplifying, this is a comment thread and not a dissertation.
    - haswell 3y ago
      > Do you know if Lembke has had much success in treating addiction? She is Chief of the Stanford Addiction Medicine Dual Diagnosis Clinic at Stanford University, and her writing is based on her clinical experience. I became aware of her via her book Dopamine Nation, which is especially relevant here due to the book’s wider view of addictive behaviors and the role of social media. The book also helped me get through some of my own issues. > Of course I am simplifying, this is a comment thread and not a dissertation. The guidelines of this site strongly encourage curiosity and substance over generalizations and simplifications. “I don't have a choice” is one extreme, but there’s a wide spectrum of space to explore between that and “it’s their fault”. I’d be cautious about just pushing back if you’re directing people towards a mindset that they should be able to just choose something else. This can be just as harmful. The person who doesn’t have the tools to work through their issues is driven to despair wondering what is so broken about them that they can’t overcome the problem. Getting help is often necessary.
      - brutusborn 3y ago
        She has a fancy title and clinical experience… but is there any evidence that her ideas produce more effective treatments than others? I know it’s a hard thing to study but there are tomes written about addiction, and I am yet to find an academic that has any unique insight in actually solving the problem. I agree it is a complex issue, but in my experience the truth is closer to “you have a choice to change things” than “you are helpless.” I wouldn’t phrase it as “it’s your fault”, e.g. some people start drugs because their parents share with them in adolescence and that isn’t their fault. But ending it is their choice. Maybe I am being too harsh in how I frame it. Frequent relapse can definitely lead to despair, but I honestly think the idea that “I don’t have a choice” causes more despair than the opposite.
        amanaplanacanal 3y ago
        I suspect that a lot (maybe even most?) people that start using drugs in adolescence or young adulthood are doing so because they have mental health issues that they don’t understand, and the drugs help them feel better.
- kortilla 3y ago
  Roofies
- aaplok 3y ago
  I wasn't talking about addicts. Spiking is a thing. Being a victim of spiking puts one in an extremely vulnerable state, and filming someone in that state is abject, whether or not you are aware they've been spiked. Nobody pretends that addicts are being forced to take drugs. However addiction is generally seen a a compulsion to consume. The key term here, compulsion, indicates an absence of choice (Merriam Webster [0] defines it as an "an irresistible persistent impulse to perform an act." If you can't resist, you're not deciding). [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compulsion https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compulsion
  - brutusborn 3y ago
    I doubt even 0.01% of the people in this this thread are talking about spiking. That is a strawman. Your dictionary definition does not convince me that there is no decision been made, it is semantics.
    - aaplok 3y ago
      > I doubt even 0.01% of the people in this this thread are talking about spiking. That is a strawman. At least two different people referenced spiking explicitly in their comments. There are 136 comments in this thread at the time of writing this one. That is a lot more than 0.01% of commenters. Regardless, your original comment was "An inebriated person on the street has decided to accept that people will see them in a compromising situation." If you want the discussion to only concern addicts then it is better to say it explicitly than assume it's obvious. > Your dictionary definition does not convince me that there is no decision been made, it is semantics. Well the meaning of words matters. Addiction is defined or described as a compulsion. If you prefer, the WHO defines it as "the user (referred to as an addict) is periodically or chronically intoxicated, shows a compulsion to take the preferred substance (or substances), has great difficulty in voluntarily ceasing or modifying substance use, and exhibits determination to obtain psychoactive substances by almost any means." We can play semantics all day, but ultimately the words "great difficulty in voluntarily..." are pretty clear...
  - flextheruler 3y ago
    The studies I have seen show evidence that drink spiking with other drugs is rare with around 1% or less of reported cases. This is confirmed in the studies with toxin screening occurring only hours after the supposed ingestion. When “spiking” does occur it always involves alcohol and mostly does not involve literal spiking but rather manipulating people who are already drinking to over drink either by pushing strong drinks and/or drinks with caffeine. Businesses take great advantage of this. If you’ve been to a casino or a strip club they are prime examples of it. In my opinion, for the individual predator, all this seems much harder than just scanning the crowd looking for someone who has drank too much, no spiking involved at least not done by the predator, and then manipulating them into leaving with you. You could make the case there are complicit bartenders making the drinks subtlety stronger than they should be, but who’s to say how strong the drink should be? Unless the bartender lies to you about how much alcohol they put in the drink then it’s up to them and their menu and it’s up to you to not have too many mixed drinks. Alcohol serving businesses are economically incentivized to serve strong drinks with a mix to cover the taste of how strong it is. It’s why mixed drinks are on the menu and not just beer and straight liquor. We’ve designed and marketed a legal product and social life that makes becoming inebriated and vulnerable as easy as it can possibly by way of mixed drinks and then we’ve sat back and watched people get taken advantage of and then pointed our fingers at “spiking” and “drugging”… sheesh give me a break “Of the 97 alleged drink spiking cases included, there were only 9 plausible cases. We did not identify a single case where a sedative drug was likely to have been illegally placed in a drink in a pub or nightclub.” “Our study did not reflect the current public perception of drink spiking. Drink spiking with sedative or illicit drugs appears to be rare. If drink spiking does occur, ethanol appears to be the most common agent used”

by aaplok 3y ago

brutusborn 3y ago

Drug addicts are not drugged against their will. In fact they are drugged due to their will. Homeless people may be victims of outside forces and we should support these people unconditionally. Some homeless are victims of their own bad decisions based on wrong beliefs and should be supported too, but let’s stop pretending they are being forced to take drugs.

haswell 3y ago
This is an extremely simplistic assessment of addiction, and the factors that drive it. Setting aside the likelihood and tangent that we probably don’t have free will the way we like to think of it, it’s incredibly reductionist to summarize two symptoms/outcomes (homelessness, addiction) this way without understanding the systemic factors that lead to them. I’d highly recommend Anna Lembke’s work on Addiction. You’re boiling something very complex down to “shame on them”.
- brutusborn 3y ago
  Thanks for the reference. Do you know if Lembke has had much success in treating addiction? That is how I usually filter authors like this, there is too much content and almost none of it actually helps addicts. In my experience the mainstream view of addiction is harmful, so I feel the need to push back to help others who have fell into the trap of “it’s a disease so I don’t have a choice”. Of course I am simplifying, this is a comment thread and not a dissertation.
  - haswell 3y ago
    > Do you know if Lembke has had much success in treating addiction? She is Chief of the Stanford Addiction Medicine Dual Diagnosis Clinic at Stanford University, and her writing is based on her clinical experience. I became aware of her via her book Dopamine Nation, which is especially relevant here due to the book’s wider view of addictive behaviors and the role of social media. The book also helped me get through some of my own issues. > Of course I am simplifying, this is a comment thread and not a dissertation. The guidelines of this site strongly encourage curiosity and substance over generalizations and simplifications. “I don't have a choice” is one extreme, but there’s a wide spectrum of space to explore between that and “it’s their fault”. I’d be cautious about just pushing back if you’re directing people towards a mindset that they should be able to just choose something else. This can be just as harmful. The person who doesn’t have the tools to work through their issues is driven to despair wondering what is so broken about them that they can’t overcome the problem. Getting help is often necessary.
    - brutusborn 3y ago
      She has a fancy title and clinical experience… but is there any evidence that her ideas produce more effective treatments than others? I know it’s a hard thing to study but there are tomes written about addiction, and I am yet to find an academic that has any unique insight in actually solving the problem. I agree it is a complex issue, but in my experience the truth is closer to “you have a choice to change things” than “you are helpless.” I wouldn’t phrase it as “it’s your fault”, e.g. some people start drugs because their parents share with them in adolescence and that isn’t their fault. But ending it is their choice. Maybe I am being too harsh in how I frame it. Frequent relapse can definitely lead to despair, but I honestly think the idea that “I don’t have a choice” causes more despair than the opposite.
      - amanaplanacanal 3y ago
        I suspect that a lot (maybe even most?) people that start using drugs in adolescence or young adulthood are doing so because they have mental health issues that they don’t understand, and the drugs help them feel better.
kortilla 3y ago
Roofies
aaplok 3y ago
I wasn't talking about addicts. Spiking is a thing. Being a victim of spiking puts one in an extremely vulnerable state, and filming someone in that state is abject, whether or not you are aware they've been spiked. Nobody pretends that addicts are being forced to take drugs. However addiction is generally seen a a compulsion to consume. The key term here, compulsion, indicates an absence of choice (Merriam Webster [0] defines it as an "an irresistible persistent impulse to perform an act." If you can't resist, you're not deciding). [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compulsion https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compulsion
- brutusborn 3y ago
  I doubt even 0.01% of the people in this this thread are talking about spiking. That is a strawman. Your dictionary definition does not convince me that there is no decision been made, it is semantics.
  - aaplok 3y ago
    > I doubt even 0.01% of the people in this this thread are talking about spiking. That is a strawman. At least two different people referenced spiking explicitly in their comments. There are 136 comments in this thread at the time of writing this one. That is a lot more than 0.01% of commenters. Regardless, your original comment was "An inebriated person on the street has decided to accept that people will see them in a compromising situation." If you want the discussion to only concern addicts then it is better to say it explicitly than assume it's obvious. > Your dictionary definition does not convince me that there is no decision been made, it is semantics. Well the meaning of words matters. Addiction is defined or described as a compulsion. If you prefer, the WHO defines it as "the user (referred to as an addict) is periodically or chronically intoxicated, shows a compulsion to take the preferred substance (or substances), has great difficulty in voluntarily ceasing or modifying substance use, and exhibits determination to obtain psychoactive substances by almost any means." We can play semantics all day, but ultimately the words "great difficulty in voluntarily..." are pretty clear...
- flextheruler 3y ago
  The studies I have seen show evidence that drink spiking with other drugs is rare with around 1% or less of reported cases. This is confirmed in the studies with toxin screening occurring only hours after the supposed ingestion. When “spiking” does occur it always involves alcohol and mostly does not involve literal spiking but rather manipulating people who are already drinking to over drink either by pushing strong drinks and/or drinks with caffeine. Businesses take great advantage of this. If you’ve been to a casino or a strip club they are prime examples of it. In my opinion, for the individual predator, all this seems much harder than just scanning the crowd looking for someone who has drank too much, no spiking involved at least not done by the predator, and then manipulating them into leaving with you. You could make the case there are complicit bartenders making the drinks subtlety stronger than they should be, but who’s to say how strong the drink should be? Unless the bartender lies to you about how much alcohol they put in the drink then it’s up to them and their menu and it’s up to you to not have too many mixed drinks. Alcohol serving businesses are economically incentivized to serve strong drinks with a mix to cover the taste of how strong it is. It’s why mixed drinks are on the menu and not just beer and straight liquor. We’ve designed and marketed a legal product and social life that makes becoming inebriated and vulnerable as easy as it can possibly by way of mixed drinks and then we’ve sat back and watched people get taken advantage of and then pointed our fingers at “spiking” and “drugging”… sheesh give me a break “Of the 97 alleged drink spiking cases included, there were only 9 plausible cases. We did not identify a single case where a sedative drug was likely to have been illegally placed in a drink in a pub or nightclub.” “Our study did not reflect the current public perception of drink spiking. Drink spiking with sedative or illicit drugs appears to be rare. If drink spiking does occur, ethanol appears to be the most common agent used”