3 ms·

> However to claim that an alcohol addict is anywhere near the same level of addiction/danger as an opiate addict is insanity, and only illustrates your complet

> However to claim that an alcohol addict is anywhere near the same level of addiction/danger as an opiate addict is insanity, and only illustrates your complete lack of experience on the subject I tend to avoid responding to comments which include ad-hominem attacks as a rule, but your comment is so emotional that I'll make an exception here. Drug use and its effects on both the brain and society are a subject I studied and worked with for several years. I'm not going to bother enumerating my "credentials" here; I'm just going to state flatly that your accusation is unfounded. Alcohol withdrawal is one of the only forms of withdrawal that can be fatal[0]. Heroin withdrawal can be fatal in certain circumstances, but has far fewer fatalities per incidence (ie, normalized for number of patients) than alcohol. > Cocaine heroin and other opiate addictions are indeed evil itself. You get addicted and overdose, or you lose interest. 1) Cocaine is not an opiate 2) Most (more than 50%) of habitual users of cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin do not meet DSM criteria for addiction[1]. One cannot simply claim that all users are addicted; this statement is medically false. > And then I visited a "home" (a prison, really) for the mentally ill Here, you are confusing P(A|B) and P(B|A). This is a common mistake. What you are not observing are all of the people who use these substances without problems. Of course if you visit a prison, you're going to find criminals. If you visit an ICU, you will find people who are critically ill. > The fresh arrivals in the clinic, fresh off the drug, are ready to kill, or rape themselves, and worse just for one more ml of the drug (a fact they claim is frequently exploited by prostitution and crime). This statement actually supports my assertion about diacetylmorphine maintenance programs. If you do a little digging into how these programs operate, you will see what I mean. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delerium_tremens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delerium_tremens [1]Can't find an online copy of the academic paper in which I first read this statistic (in print) at the moment, but it's cited in a lot of places - most addiction specialists are familiar with the statistic. > Other side claiming that any kind of addiction is perfectly fine to indulge in, some of them even if it hurts others to varying degrees This is a straw man. Nobody argues that. Some people do argue that some people use drugs without any dependence issues and without harming other people. That, however, is a very different argument from what you present. > And these numbers ... they're not going to convince anyone who's ever worked with these people. No numbers are ever going to convince people who make their judgments based on emotional reactions, as you seem to have. However, there is a reason that modern addiction treatments, which are far more successful, involve harm-reduction and maintenance-based approaches.

waps 13y ago
> Here, you are confusing P(A|B) and P(B|A). This is a common mistake. What you are not observing are all of the people who use these substances without problems. > Of course if you visit a prison, you're going to find criminals. If you visit an ICU, you will find people who are critically ill. And I argue that diseases should be eradicated if possible just the same. I've been to a leprosy clinic, and how many people does that disease infect, really ? 10 worldwide, on a yearly basis ? It should still be eradicated from the planet. There is no inconsistency here. Furthermore if P(criminally_destructive_behavior|drug_available) > 1/1000000 (or so), I think there is a very strong case to be made for outlawing these substances. You can't allow things that destroy a significant number of people they touch roam free through society, and the discussion should end there. A certain level of harmfulness cannot be avoided in society. Building, cars, ... all cause harm. But when it is not a necessity that harm should be avoided, even at the expense of personal freedom. Otherwise, society is not livable. > No numbers are ever going to convince people who make their judgments based on emotional reactions, as you seem to have. However, there is a reason that modern addiction treatments, which are far more successful, involve harm-reduction and maintenance-based approaches. Having met quite a few hard-drug recovered individuals, I'm pretty convinced that there is no treatment, not really. Just like there is no such thing as a recovered alcoholic, there is no such thing as a recovered addict. There are simply people who've trained in behavioral patterns that avoid triggering certain impulses, often by introducing a constant background level of discomfort (look at the number of suicides for recovered alcoholics versus general population, the number of suicides is WAY higher for recovering drug addicts even compared to recovering alcoholics).
- nitrogen 13y ago
  (look at the number of suicides for recovered alcoholics versus general population, the number of suicides is WAY higher for recovering drug addicts even compared to recovering alcoholics). I realize this thread is getting old, but that's another possible reversal of causality (P(A given B) vs. P(B given A). It's also possible that drug addicts are from a segment of the population that is more likely to commit suicide, but the drugs medicate away the suicidal urge. You also have a strong selection bias; as mentioned upthread, you haven't studied the habitual drug users who didn't end up in prison. There's no way the drug market could be as big as the TV news likes to say it is, unless the majority of users were living ordinary lives despite their drug use. Nobody's saying that drug addiction should be ignored; they're saying that you can treat the problem more effectively by treating society itself rather than trying to prevent access to drugs.

waps 13y ago

> Here, you are confusing P(A|B) and P(B|A). This is a common mistake. What you are not observing are all of the people who use these substances without problems. > Of course if you visit a prison, you're going to find criminals. If you visit an ICU, you will find people who are critically ill. And I argue that diseases should be eradicated if possible just the same. I've been to a leprosy clinic, and how many people does that disease infect, really ? 10 worldwide, on a yearly basis ? It should still be eradicated from the planet. There is no inconsistency here. Furthermore if P(criminally_destructive_behavior|drug_available) > 1/1000000 (or so), I think there is a very strong case to be made for outlawing these substances. You can't allow things that destroy a significant number of people they touch roam free through society, and the discussion should end there. A certain level of harmfulness cannot be avoided in society. Building, cars, ... all cause harm. But when it is not a necessity that harm should be avoided, even at the expense of personal freedom. Otherwise, society is not livable. > No numbers are ever going to convince people who make their judgments based on emotional reactions, as you seem to have. However, there is a reason that modern addiction treatments, which are far more successful, involve harm-reduction and maintenance-based approaches. Having met quite a few hard-drug recovered individuals, I'm pretty convinced that there is no treatment, not really. Just like there is no such thing as a recovered alcoholic, there is no such thing as a recovered addict. There are simply people who've trained in behavioral patterns that avoid triggering certain impulses, often by introducing a constant background level of discomfort (look at the number of suicides for recovered alcoholics versus general population, the number of suicides is WAY higher for recovering drug addicts even compared to recovering alcoholics).

nitrogen 13y ago
(look at the number of suicides for recovered alcoholics versus general population, the number of suicides is WAY higher for recovering drug addicts even compared to recovering alcoholics). I realize this thread is getting old, but that's another possible reversal of causality (P(A given B) vs. P(B given A). It's also possible that drug addicts are from a segment of the population that is more likely to commit suicide, but the drugs medicate away the suicidal urge. You also have a strong selection bias; as mentioned upthread, you haven't studied the habitual drug users who didn't end up in prison. There's no way the drug market could be as big as the TV news likes to say it is, unless the majority of users were living ordinary lives despite their drug use. Nobody's saying that drug addiction should be ignored; they're saying that you can treat the problem more effectively by treating society itself rather than trying to prevent access to drugs.