3 ms·

Interestingly the same kinds of tactics used to push opiates on the general public are still being used to push amphetamine analogs - but the death rate from am

Interestingly the same kinds of tactics used to push opiates on the general public are still being used to push amphetamine analogs - but the death rate from amphetamine addiction/overdose is much much lower (>1000X lower) than that from opiate addiction/overdose so it doesn't really hit the headlines, and arguably is not as much of a concern. From a libertarian point of view, mood- and mind-altering substance use should be the citizen's choice, but for this to not result in an epidemic of addiction, it would require a well-educated public who understands that whatever short-term apparent benefit a drug (including alcohol and nicotine and caffeine) delivers, there's always a tax that must be paid afterwards, and use must be kept below the addictive threshold, meaning if you start needing more of the drug to get the same effect, the only rational thing to do is to stop using the drug until your tolerance goes back to zero. This of couse goes against consumer society norms, where the concept of 'less is more' is almost a heresy.

SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
I guess I'm not sure what the point of the comparison is. If the death rate from opioid addiction were 1000x lower, I would happily bite the bullet and say Purdue did nothing wrong. Chronic pain is real and terrible - it would be great to have a solution where the downside risk is no worse than an Adderall dependency.
- photochemsyn 2y ago
  In my experience, people who use amphetamines (and cocaine) regularly start making very bad decisions, and heavy use leads to amphetamine psychosis. A very public example of this was the behavior of the SBF / FTX / Alameda operation, where by several accounts regular amphetamine use was the norm. That doesn't mean it should be illegal, but I'd avoid associating with anyone I knew had an amphetamine or cocaine dependency.
AlexandrB 2y ago
The problem with mind altering substances is they can short circuit your rational thinking. So you can start with the most well-considered decision process ever and still end up addicted. In fact, this doesn't even require a substance. Gambling is plenty addictive to many. There's a kind of fallacy to thinking that sufficient education can counter biological human desires and impulses in all cases.
- photochemsyn 2y ago
  That's the authoritarian view - people don't know what's good for them, so their behavior needs to be controlled by the state as informed by a small group of elites who themselves are somehow free from the influence of those biological human desires and impulses... which is why drug testing as a condition of employment was never implemented for political candidates, heads of bureaucratic government agencies, or corporate CEOs.
  - aniviacat 2y ago
    >a small group of elites who themselves are somehow free from the influence of those biological human desires and impulses... They don't need to be. A person addicted to drugs is perfectly capable of creating laws prohibiting drug use. The "impulse" equivalent for a lawmaker would be that once they feel withdrawal, they will spontaneously pass a law allowing drug use again. Since (luckily) passing a law is far too complex to happen spontaneously, this scenario cannot occur. ETA: >which is why drug testing as a condition of employment was never implemented for political candidates, heads of bureaucratic government agencies, or corporate CEOs. If drug use is "only" prevented for the 99% of people who do not fill these roles, that is still a massive improvement.
roboror 2y ago
Another thing to note is that the scheduling of the substances you speak of (and other non-scheduled like ozempic for example) merely puts them behind a prescription paywall--the wealthy have easy access to beneficial medicine and few to no consequenses from their use, whether that be criminal (possession or behavioral problems under the influence) or the cost of resulting health and addiction issues. Resulting in the non-wealthy suffering exponentially more. It's very important that these societal and monetary debts are not only paid out, but go to the right people.
J_Shelby_J 2y ago
Difference is the death rate from prescription ADHD meds is zero, and they’re not addictive like opiates. I’m open to discussing the underlying problems that push people to take ADHD meds. Like the insane work life required to just maintain the same standard of lives as our parents generation, or modern devices eating our attention spans. But limiting access to ADHD drugs is just going to affect the most vulnerable and the positive outcome is just for the benefit of Calvinist pushing their world view on the rest of us. Hey, while we’re at it let’s make caffeine a scheduled drug. It’s actually addicting, it’s long we half-life makes it more likely to effect sleep, and its vastly over consumed by everyone starting in middle school.
- iraqmtpizza 2y ago
  [dead]
- aniviacat 2y ago
  >Hey, while we’re at it let’s make caffeine a scheduled drug. It’s actually addicting, it’s long we half-life makes it more likely to effect sleep, and its vastly over consumed by everyone starting in middle school. Yeah, let's do that.

SpicyLemonZest 2y ago

I guess I'm not sure what the point of the comparison is. If the death rate from opioid addiction were 1000x lower, I would happily bite the bullet and say Purdue did nothing wrong. Chronic pain is real and terrible - it would be great to have a solution where the downside risk is no worse than an Adderall dependency.

photochemsyn 2y ago
In my experience, people who use amphetamines (and cocaine) regularly start making very bad decisions, and heavy use leads to amphetamine psychosis. A very public example of this was the behavior of the SBF / FTX / Alameda operation, where by several accounts regular amphetamine use was the norm. That doesn't mean it should be illegal, but I'd avoid associating with anyone I knew had an amphetamine or cocaine dependency.

AlexandrB 2y ago

The problem with mind altering substances is they can short circuit your rational thinking. So you can start with the most well-considered decision process ever and still end up addicted. In fact, this doesn't even require a substance. Gambling is plenty addictive to many. There's a kind of fallacy to thinking that sufficient education can counter biological human desires and impulses in all cases.

photochemsyn 2y ago
That's the authoritarian view - people don't know what's good for them, so their behavior needs to be controlled by the state as informed by a small group of elites who themselves are somehow free from the influence of those biological human desires and impulses... which is why drug testing as a condition of employment was never implemented for political candidates, heads of bureaucratic government agencies, or corporate CEOs.
- aniviacat 2y ago
  >a small group of elites who themselves are somehow free from the influence of those biological human desires and impulses... They don't need to be. A person addicted to drugs is perfectly capable of creating laws prohibiting drug use. The "impulse" equivalent for a lawmaker would be that once they feel withdrawal, they will spontaneously pass a law allowing drug use again. Since (luckily) passing a law is far too complex to happen spontaneously, this scenario cannot occur. ETA: >which is why drug testing as a condition of employment was never implemented for political candidates, heads of bureaucratic government agencies, or corporate CEOs. If drug use is "only" prevented for the 99% of people who do not fill these roles, that is still a massive improvement.

roboror 2y ago

Another thing to note is that the scheduling of the substances you speak of (and other non-scheduled like ozempic for example) merely puts them behind a prescription paywall--the wealthy have easy access to beneficial medicine and few to no consequenses from their use, whether that be criminal (possession or behavioral problems under the influence) or the cost of resulting health and addiction issues. Resulting in the non-wealthy suffering exponentially more. It's very important that these societal and monetary debts are not only paid out, but go to the right people.

J_Shelby_J 2y ago

Difference is the death rate from prescription ADHD meds is zero, and they’re not addictive like opiates. I’m open to discussing the underlying problems that push people to take ADHD meds. Like the insane work life required to just maintain the same standard of lives as our parents generation, or modern devices eating our attention spans. But limiting access to ADHD drugs is just going to affect the most vulnerable and the positive outcome is just for the benefit of Calvinist pushing their world view on the rest of us. Hey, while we’re at it let’s make caffeine a scheduled drug. It’s actually addicting, it’s long we half-life makes it more likely to effect sleep, and its vastly over consumed by everyone starting in middle school.

iraqmtpizza 2y ago
[dead]
aniviacat 2y ago
>Hey, while we’re at it let’s make caffeine a scheduled drug. It’s actually addicting, it’s long we half-life makes it more likely to effect sleep, and its vastly over consumed by everyone starting in middle school. Yeah, let's do that.