10 ms·

I did not get the briefcase in my DARE education. What I did get is a cop telling me that my parents having a glass of wine with dinner or a cigarette after wor

I did not get the briefcase in my DARE education. What I did get is a cop telling me that my parents having a glass of wine with dinner or a cigarette after work was just as bad a them using cocaine, and that you could OD and die on weed. All drugs are equally bad. A few years later when my friends were smoking weed and laughed at my concerns, and I realized I’d been lied to, I pretty much did everything under the sun. An actual education would have let me make better choices about my recreational drug use as a young person.

vundercind 2y ago
The realization that almost all illegal drugs (heroin, meth, a handful like that that feel too good—probably exceptions) aren’t really in some much worse category than alcohol and nicotine, and that some are surely less-bad, even, was quite a revelation. Must be a shared experience for a lot of the DARE generation.
- Retric 2y ago
  I think people underestimate many illegal drugs because they don’t know long term users. Alcohol and Tobacco have minimal short term health risks. Most people throw up rather than OD on Alcohol. Obviously driving while fucked us is dangerous, but the same is true of a lot of drugs. Driving stoned is an underappreciated risk. LSD arguably the poster child for safe illegal drugs, but still physically risky due to people doing dangerous things in it and falling etc. However the mental risks with heavy use are significant much earlier. Luckily it’s not particularly addictive, but IMO it’s more dangerous than both Alcohol and Tobacco even as people claim otherwise. Tobacco is seriously deadly long term, but the risks are low for the first 20 years. When you include risks from throwing up while unconscious etc, heavy use of many seemingly safe drugs end up risky on those timescales.
  - evilsnoopi3 2y ago
    Literally only one of the drugs you mentioned can kill you due to withdrawal. Hint: it's not LSD or tobacco. Alcohol is an _extremely_ harmful drug.
    - Retric 2y ago
      Harm is based on all risks not just the metrics that make what you care about look better. 60% of American adults drink regularly so extreme edge cases happen, but they aren’t anywhere close to the risks from car accidents etc. Risk of death is significant, but we’re talking under 0.1% per year.
      - red-iron-pine 2y ago
        Some absurd number, like 70% of domestic violence, 25% of sexual assaults, 30% of regular assaults, around ~40% of murders, ~15% of robberies, and ~50% of injurious or fatal car accidents occur when people are under the influence of alcohol. that very few are overdosing isn't the issue.
        Retric 2y ago
        True, social harm is definitely high, on the other hand ~62% of US adults drink. The expected rates of all of those things aren’t 0.
    - margalabargala 2y ago
      See, this is where LSD gets interesting. No, LSD won't kill your body. But what are you? You aren't just your body, you are your mind and mental state and the consistency of that. Do enough LSD, especially consistent high doses, and the "you" you know will die and be permanently replaced by something else. I of course agree that LSD won't put you in a coffin. But there are more axes upon which a drug's danger should be evaluated than "what percentage of users are put in coffins?"
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        And if I try to change your mind about how much it matters to get a new perspective and new evaluation on some things, I might murder you. A conundrum.
        2y ago
  - normaler 2y ago
    Long term use aside, the amount of life changing (mostly in the bad sense) interactions I had while using alcohol are in a class in its own. Prison statistics reflect that especially in violent crime.
  - nicoburns 2y ago
    LSD is absolutely NOT the poster child for safe illegal drugs: Something like cannabis, MDMA, or amphetamines would be. I think all of those have a decent claim to being safer than or comparably safe to alcohol. Tobacco, as you say isn't particularly bad in the short term. But it is particularly addictive, so you end up with a large proportion of addicts / long term users for whom the longer term effects apply.
    - Retric 2y ago
      Cannabis is linked to a significant number of traffic fatalities. Cancer risks are also meaningful with lifetime use so it’s a mix of Alcohol risk and Tobacco risk. Safe enough to be legal, but not really safe. People have fatal overdoses on MDMA and hart attacks etc. Amphetamines use is linked with cardiovascular issues and brain damage.
      - imchillyb 2y ago
        > …2019 on deaths in three areas that have previously been linked to cannabis use but are still poorly understood: motor vehicle accidents, suicide and opioid overdose. For each cause of death, the researchers compared trends in deaths in states with legal markets with those in states that had comprehensive medical cannabis programs and similar trends in death rates prior to implementing markets… The study did not link cannabis use with traffic fatalities. The study linked trends. Cannabis use was not a factor in those deaths. Not listed as a cause. Not listed as intoxicated at time of accident. There is a significant difference between the narrative being schlepped versus what data was actually accumulated.
        Retric 2y ago
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8195290/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8195290/ Findings show that meta-analyses and culpability studies consistently indicate a slightly but significantly increased risk of crashes after acute cannabis use. These risks vary across included study type, crash severity, and method of substance application and measurement. Some studies show a significant correlation between high THC blood concentrations and car crash risk. Most studies do not support this relationship at lower THC concentrations. However, no scientifically supported clear cut-off concentration can be derived from these results. Further research is needed to determine dose-response effects on driving skills combined with measures of neuropsychological functioning related to driving skills and crash risk.
  - arrowsmith 2y ago
    > Alcohol [has] minimal short term health risks. What on earth are you talking about? Alcohol can kill you in a single evening if you drink enough of it. How much shorter-term could its health risks be?
    - Retric 2y ago
      Risk is severity of harm * probably of harm. Of the ~3 million Americans that tried Alcohol for the first time in 2023 how many exactly died from an overdose that night? That’s what low risk looks like.
      - nathan_douglas 2y ago
        According to the CDC, it seems about 6 people die per day of alcohol poisoning, or ~2,191 per year, so about .07%. Nearly 3/4 are men, which doesn't particularly surprise me, but what does surprise me is that the average age was 49 years, and only 5% were aged 18-24. I would've expected the numbers to be shifted left far more than that. Also interesting was that the overwhelming majority (71%) had a long history of alcohol use problems. In 58%, death was attributed solely to acute alcohol toxicity, but in 42% there was an underlying disease present as well. Huh.
        Retric 2y ago
        ~3 million is number of first time drinkers not the total number of people drinking alcohol in the US. ~180 million people drink alcohol one or more times a year so 2,191 per year is ~0.0012% per year. The risk on the first time they consumed alcohol is probably 1/100th of that due to younger ages etc.
    - whatevaa 2y ago
      You can die from water if you drink enough of it. Some people actually did.
      - arrowsmith 2y ago
        Yes, you're very clever, congratulations.
  - pxc 2y ago
    > Most people throw up rather than OD on Alcohol. If you take enough of a drug that it makes you throw up, you did overdose. 'Overdose' doesn't mean you died. Fatal overdoses just get talked about more than other overdoses because they're the most harmful kind of overdose.
    - vkou 2y ago
      If people regularly 'overdosed' on heroin by throwing up and feeling like shit for a day, with the same kind of survival rate that drinkers 'overdose' at, opioids wouldn't be killing tens of thousands of people a year. Alcohol abuse either kills people in the long term, or combined with automobiles. Very few people have a bit too much to drink some night and actually die from it. You'll generally black out long before you get a lethal dose. With opioids, you can trivially take a lethal dose.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - pxc 2y ago
        Yes, heroin overdose is much more often fatal than alcohol overdose. (That doesn't change what the word 'overdose' means. If you want to be more specific than the word is, feel free to use adjectives, e.g., 'fatal overdose', 'deadly overdose', etc.)
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        In common practice, people use 'overdose' to mean life-threatening overdose.
    - Retric 2y ago
      I’m referring to throwing up preventing negative health outcomes rather than death. You can throw up from excessive smoking, but it’s not going to help for inhaled or injected drugs. OD refers to excessive consumption or negative heath outcomes, so yes and sort of. With alcohol people will sometimes throw up before all that much alcohol enters the bloodstream, throwing up may qualify on its own but may prevent things like liver damage but throwing up itself could qualify as a negative health impact.
  - vundercind 2y ago
    Messing you up really bad if you use way too much or use way too frequently is also a property of alcohol, is the thing. And lots of them aren’t any more habit-forming than alcohol (less, in several cases). Like yeah if you take way too much lsd or take a tab a day it might fuck you up, but so will drinking a fifth of whiskey inside an hour, or having two or three cocktails every evening. Or take like double the top-end therapeutic dose of tylenol. I’m not claiming most of them are strictly safe, just that most aren’t obviously in a whole different risk category from a couple of our legal drugs. Shit, I’ve given myself heart palpitations as a teen because nobody stopped me from getting a second triple-shot cappuccino.
  - rqtwteye 2y ago
    "but IMO it’s more dangerous than both Alcohol and Tobacco even as people claim otherwise." I could agree with tobacco but I don't believe LSD is more dangerous than alcohol. Most domestic violence, most fatal traffic accidents are under the influence of alcohol. It destroys families and communities. I don't see how LSD could be that damaging.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - Nursie 2y ago
    Your ideas about LSD being more dangerous than alcohol are not backed up by decent evidence. Alcohol use kills both acutely and chronically. Alcohol is addictive. Long term use cause mental health issues. LSD does not have the same health impacts and its lack of addiction potential gives it a significantly lower harm profile. Do yourself a favour and read some material published by domain experts (may I recommend “Drugs Without the Hot Air” by David Nutt).
    - Retric 2y ago
      I absolutely agree that on a per user basis Alcohol is more risky especially if you’re considering bystanders due to addiction and ease of access. However, I’m looking at things from a per use basis because I’m not really attracted to drinking. So for me it’s about what risks are associated with drinking a beer vs dropping a tab vs smoking 1 more cigarette. Because people like me can choose to do some, all, or none of those things and it’s worth considering the risks on a per event basis. Very few deaths are associated with LSD, but harm isn’t so binary. You can reasonably safely consume a lot of alcohol without issue, as in 1-3 beers a night for a decade, but daily LSD use at that level is another story.
      - Nursie 2y ago
        > However, I’m looking at things from a per use basis because I’m not really attracted to drinking. So for me it’s about what risks are associated with drinking a beer vs dropping a tab vs smoking 1 more cigarette. This is not a useful metric at all, and is incredibly naive. Each of those activities carries with it the relative risks of addiction and long term harms. Your metric can lead to absurd conclusion that cigarettes are perfectly fine because nobody ever got cancer from having just one. The danger in tobacco is that people don't stop at just one. > You can reasonably safely consume a lot of alcohol without issue, as in 1-3 beers a night for a decade Some people can, but a significant minority of the people that try that will run into trouble and find their habit escalating. Even people like you who seem to think they are above addiction. And those who don't suffer addiction from that pattern will have increased their risk of cancer and various other diseases. > but daily LSD use Is so rare as to effectively constitute a complete fallacy of argument. That's the point, virtually nobody wants to use LSD on a daily basis, even amongst people who like and use LSD. Its risk profile is significantly lower than alcohol or tobacco as a result of that. Seriously, go read up on this stuff, it's fascinating as well as enlightening.
esaym 2y ago
We didn't get the briefcase either. But one officer did bring his K9. Which then tried to bite my classmate during the "come up here and pet it" session.
darkclouds 2y ago
[dead]
sandworm101 2y ago
>> What I did get is a cop telling me that my parents having a glass of wine with dinner or a cigarette after work was just as bad a them using cocaine That cop came to my school too. On a bicycle. He also told us that 50% of us would die in any car accident over 50mph. It was really hard to not laugh at him given the number of us who participated in the local streetracing scene. In a room full of students in jackets and ties, he stood there spouting lies in his spandex bike shorts.

vundercind 2y ago

The realization that almost all illegal drugs (heroin, meth, a handful like that that feel too good—probably exceptions) aren’t really in some much worse category than alcohol and nicotine, and that some are surely less-bad, even, was quite a revelation. Must be a shared experience for a lot of the DARE generation.

Retric 2y ago
I think people underestimate many illegal drugs because they don’t know long term users. Alcohol and Tobacco have minimal short term health risks. Most people throw up rather than OD on Alcohol. Obviously driving while fucked us is dangerous, but the same is true of a lot of drugs. Driving stoned is an underappreciated risk. LSD arguably the poster child for safe illegal drugs, but still physically risky due to people doing dangerous things in it and falling etc. However the mental risks with heavy use are significant much earlier. Luckily it’s not particularly addictive, but IMO it’s more dangerous than both Alcohol and Tobacco even as people claim otherwise. Tobacco is seriously deadly long term, but the risks are low for the first 20 years. When you include risks from throwing up while unconscious etc, heavy use of many seemingly safe drugs end up risky on those timescales.
- evilsnoopi3 2y ago
  Literally only one of the drugs you mentioned can kill you due to withdrawal. Hint: it's not LSD or tobacco. Alcohol is an _extremely_ harmful drug.
  - Retric 2y ago
    Harm is based on all risks not just the metrics that make what you care about look better. 60% of American adults drink regularly so extreme edge cases happen, but they aren’t anywhere close to the risks from car accidents etc. Risk of death is significant, but we’re talking under 0.1% per year.
    - red-iron-pine 2y ago
      Some absurd number, like 70% of domestic violence, 25% of sexual assaults, 30% of regular assaults, around ~40% of murders, ~15% of robberies, and ~50% of injurious or fatal car accidents occur when people are under the influence of alcohol. that very few are overdosing isn't the issue.
      - Retric 2y ago
        True, social harm is definitely high, on the other hand ~62% of US adults drink. The expected rates of all of those things aren’t 0.
  - margalabargala 2y ago
    See, this is where LSD gets interesting. No, LSD won't kill your body. But what are you? You aren't just your body, you are your mind and mental state and the consistency of that. Do enough LSD, especially consistent high doses, and the "you" you know will die and be permanently replaced by something else. I of course agree that LSD won't put you in a coffin. But there are more axes upon which a drug's danger should be evaluated than "what percentage of users are put in coffins?"
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      And if I try to change your mind about how much it matters to get a new perspective and new evaluation on some things, I might murder you. A conundrum.
      - 2y ago
- normaler 2y ago
  Long term use aside, the amount of life changing (mostly in the bad sense) interactions I had while using alcohol are in a class in its own. Prison statistics reflect that especially in violent crime.
- nicoburns 2y ago
  LSD is absolutely NOT the poster child for safe illegal drugs: Something like cannabis, MDMA, or amphetamines would be. I think all of those have a decent claim to being safer than or comparably safe to alcohol. Tobacco, as you say isn't particularly bad in the short term. But it is particularly addictive, so you end up with a large proportion of addicts / long term users for whom the longer term effects apply.
  - Retric 2y ago
    Cannabis is linked to a significant number of traffic fatalities. Cancer risks are also meaningful with lifetime use so it’s a mix of Alcohol risk and Tobacco risk. Safe enough to be legal, but not really safe. People have fatal overdoses on MDMA and hart attacks etc. Amphetamines use is linked with cardiovascular issues and brain damage.
    - imchillyb 2y ago
      > …2019 on deaths in three areas that have previously been linked to cannabis use but are still poorly understood: motor vehicle accidents, suicide and opioid overdose. For each cause of death, the researchers compared trends in deaths in states with legal markets with those in states that had comprehensive medical cannabis programs and similar trends in death rates prior to implementing markets… The study did not link cannabis use with traffic fatalities. The study linked trends. Cannabis use was not a factor in those deaths. Not listed as a cause. Not listed as intoxicated at time of accident. There is a significant difference between the narrative being schlepped versus what data was actually accumulated.
      - Retric 2y ago
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8195290/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8195290/ Findings show that meta-analyses and culpability studies consistently indicate a slightly but significantly increased risk of crashes after acute cannabis use. These risks vary across included study type, crash severity, and method of substance application and measurement. Some studies show a significant correlation between high THC blood concentrations and car crash risk. Most studies do not support this relationship at lower THC concentrations. However, no scientifically supported clear cut-off concentration can be derived from these results. Further research is needed to determine dose-response effects on driving skills combined with measures of neuropsychological functioning related to driving skills and crash risk.
- arrowsmith 2y ago
  > Alcohol [has] minimal short term health risks. What on earth are you talking about? Alcohol can kill you in a single evening if you drink enough of it. How much shorter-term could its health risks be?
  - Retric 2y ago
    Risk is severity of harm * probably of harm. Of the ~3 million Americans that tried Alcohol for the first time in 2023 how many exactly died from an overdose that night? That’s what low risk looks like.
    - nathan_douglas 2y ago
      According to the CDC, it seems about 6 people die per day of alcohol poisoning, or ~2,191 per year, so about .07%. Nearly 3/4 are men, which doesn't particularly surprise me, but what does surprise me is that the average age was 49 years, and only 5% were aged 18-24. I would've expected the numbers to be shifted left far more than that. Also interesting was that the overwhelming majority (71%) had a long history of alcohol use problems. In 58%, death was attributed solely to acute alcohol toxicity, but in 42% there was an underlying disease present as well. Huh.
      - Retric 2y ago
        ~3 million is number of first time drinkers not the total number of people drinking alcohol in the US. ~180 million people drink alcohol one or more times a year so 2,191 per year is ~0.0012% per year. The risk on the first time they consumed alcohol is probably 1/100th of that due to younger ages etc.
  - whatevaa 2y ago
    You can die from water if you drink enough of it. Some people actually did.
    - arrowsmith 2y ago
      Yes, you're very clever, congratulations.
- pxc 2y ago
  > Most people throw up rather than OD on Alcohol. If you take enough of a drug that it makes you throw up, you did overdose. 'Overdose' doesn't mean you died. Fatal overdoses just get talked about more than other overdoses because they're the most harmful kind of overdose.
  - vkou 2y ago
    If people regularly 'overdosed' on heroin by throwing up and feeling like shit for a day, with the same kind of survival rate that drinkers 'overdose' at, opioids wouldn't be killing tens of thousands of people a year. Alcohol abuse either kills people in the long term, or combined with automobiles. Very few people have a bit too much to drink some night and actually die from it. You'll generally black out long before you get a lethal dose. With opioids, you can trivially take a lethal dose.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - pxc 2y ago
      Yes, heroin overdose is much more often fatal than alcohol overdose. (That doesn't change what the word 'overdose' means. If you want to be more specific than the word is, feel free to use adjectives, e.g., 'fatal overdose', 'deadly overdose', etc.)
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        In common practice, people use 'overdose' to mean life-threatening overdose.
  - Retric 2y ago
    I’m referring to throwing up preventing negative health outcomes rather than death. You can throw up from excessive smoking, but it’s not going to help for inhaled or injected drugs. OD refers to excessive consumption or negative heath outcomes, so yes and sort of. With alcohol people will sometimes throw up before all that much alcohol enters the bloodstream, throwing up may qualify on its own but may prevent things like liver damage but throwing up itself could qualify as a negative health impact.
- vundercind 2y ago
  Messing you up really bad if you use way too much or use way too frequently is also a property of alcohol, is the thing. And lots of them aren’t any more habit-forming than alcohol (less, in several cases). Like yeah if you take way too much lsd or take a tab a day it might fuck you up, but so will drinking a fifth of whiskey inside an hour, or having two or three cocktails every evening. Or take like double the top-end therapeutic dose of tylenol. I’m not claiming most of them are strictly safe, just that most aren’t obviously in a whole different risk category from a couple of our legal drugs. Shit, I’ve given myself heart palpitations as a teen because nobody stopped me from getting a second triple-shot cappuccino.
- rqtwteye 2y ago
  "but IMO it’s more dangerous than both Alcohol and Tobacco even as people claim otherwise." I could agree with tobacco but I don't believe LSD is more dangerous than alcohol. Most domestic violence, most fatal traffic accidents are under the influence of alcohol. It destroys families and communities. I don't see how LSD could be that damaging.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- Nursie 2y ago
  Your ideas about LSD being more dangerous than alcohol are not backed up by decent evidence. Alcohol use kills both acutely and chronically. Alcohol is addictive. Long term use cause mental health issues. LSD does not have the same health impacts and its lack of addiction potential gives it a significantly lower harm profile. Do yourself a favour and read some material published by domain experts (may I recommend “Drugs Without the Hot Air” by David Nutt).
  - Retric 2y ago
    I absolutely agree that on a per user basis Alcohol is more risky especially if you’re considering bystanders due to addiction and ease of access. However, I’m looking at things from a per use basis because I’m not really attracted to drinking. So for me it’s about what risks are associated with drinking a beer vs dropping a tab vs smoking 1 more cigarette. Because people like me can choose to do some, all, or none of those things and it’s worth considering the risks on a per event basis. Very few deaths are associated with LSD, but harm isn’t so binary. You can reasonably safely consume a lot of alcohol without issue, as in 1-3 beers a night for a decade, but daily LSD use at that level is another story.
    - Nursie 2y ago
      > However, I’m looking at things from a per use basis because I’m not really attracted to drinking. So for me it’s about what risks are associated with drinking a beer vs dropping a tab vs smoking 1 more cigarette. This is not a useful metric at all, and is incredibly naive. Each of those activities carries with it the relative risks of addiction and long term harms. Your metric can lead to absurd conclusion that cigarettes are perfectly fine because nobody ever got cancer from having just one. The danger in tobacco is that people don't stop at just one. > You can reasonably safely consume a lot of alcohol without issue, as in 1-3 beers a night for a decade Some people can, but a significant minority of the people that try that will run into trouble and find their habit escalating. Even people like you who seem to think they are above addiction. And those who don't suffer addiction from that pattern will have increased their risk of cancer and various other diseases. > but daily LSD use Is so rare as to effectively constitute a complete fallacy of argument. That's the point, virtually nobody wants to use LSD on a daily basis, even amongst people who like and use LSD. Its risk profile is significantly lower than alcohol or tobacco as a result of that. Seriously, go read up on this stuff, it's fascinating as well as enlightening.

esaym 2y ago

We didn't get the briefcase either. But one officer did bring his K9. Which then tried to bite my classmate during the "come up here and pet it" session.

darkclouds 2y ago

[dead]

sandworm101 2y ago

>> What I did get is a cop telling me that my parents having a glass of wine with dinner or a cigarette after work was just as bad a them using cocaine That cop came to my school too. On a bicycle. He also told us that 50% of us would die in any car accident over 50mph. It was really hard to not laugh at him given the number of us who participated in the local streetracing scene. In a room full of students in jackets and ties, he stood there spouting lies in his spandex bike shorts.