5 ms·

"The immediate answer, of course, is “neither.” But no parent accepts that. It’s assumed, and not incorrectly, that the vast majority of adolescents will try on

by cheepin 12y ago

"The immediate answer, of course, is “neither.” But no parent accepts that. It’s assumed, and not incorrectly, that the vast majority of adolescents will try one or the other, especially when they go to college." The article builds off of this, and while interesting, it strikes me as too resigned that either binge drinking or marijuana use is to be expected. Evidence firmly points that "neither" is the correct answer by a large margin, but then we spend our time looking for the second best solution. This is a cultural problem, and the way forward is not to choose the second worst answer instead of the absolute worst: it's to create an environment where people can choose the best answer.

moopling 12y ago
It seems to me that people often undervalue the short term effects of drugs. Sure they can reduce the length and quality of your life, but in turn they can also draw you closer to the other people in your life and give you wonderful memories. Everything in life is a trade, and it's pointless to overvalue a life less worth living.
ux-app 12y ago
> This is a cultural problem, and the way forward is not to choose the second worst answer instead of the absolute worst: it's to create an environment where people can choose the best answer. I don't agree. To think that we can solve substance (ab)use issues with cultural intervention is to deny the basic biological aspects. Many species simply enjoy altering their consciousness. Humans are very inventive in this regard but it's common throughout the animal kingdom. Instead of denying a basic human urge, we should stop criminalizing it. Properly support those that have developed a dependency and move away from the nanny state. Harm reduction should be the overarching aim.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  When was this about pot legalization? I thought I just read an article comparing alcohol to pot; can we have a discussion relating to pot without having to talk about legality for the zillionth time?
  - rosser 12y ago
    GP sounds more like a call for decriminalization and harm reduction than outright legalization. There is a difference. EDIT: And in response to your shadow edit: no, we can't. A significant factor in the abuse of drugs — and marijuana in particular, given its relative harmlessness — is their very illegality. The forbidden fruit seems to be far more tempting.
    - sliverstorm 12y ago
      Made the edit before I saw your reply, apologies.. Maybe you're right, maybe its legal status is the only thing about pot that really matters, but it's such a multidimensional issue I hate seeing the conversation home in on legalization/decriminalization every time. A change in legal status will not solve all its problems (else why does alcohol have problems?), and we have just read an essay which spends very few words even talking about legal status, which I think supports my point that there are so many other important angles to talk about.
  - gnaritas 12y ago
    > can we have a discussion relating to pot without having to talk about legality for the zillionth time? Um no, that is after-all the issue with pot.
- cjslep 12y ago
  > Instead of denying a basic human urge, we should stop criminalizing it. Properly support those that have developed a dependency and move away from the nanny state. Harm reduction should be the overarching aim. While I agree with decriminalization to a reasonable extent, I think you are severely underestimating the crippling effect being dependent on a foreign substance can be on relationships, society, and the individual. Simply changing the legislation is part of a broader comprehensive solution. A cultural change needs to be part of any comprehensive solution to substance use and abuse. A cultural change is also needed so members of society can enjoy moderate use, without leading to abuse, of substances. Or so they are encouraged to enjoy other parts of life besides substances, if they so choose.
  - ux-app 12y ago
    > I think you are severely underestimating the crippling effect being dependent on a foreign substance can be on relationships, society, and the individual. Simply changing the legislation is part of a broader comprehensive solution. I'm not sure how you got the impression that I am underestimating or minimizing the potential downsides of substance abuse. I'm advocating for decriminalization and harm reduction. This means a move away from the nanny state and toward a society that deals with substance (ab)use as a normal part of the human condition. Not something that can be wished away!
    - rosser 12y ago
      This means a move away from the nanny state and toward a society that deals with substance (ab)use as a normal part of the human condition. If we can't go that far, let's at least start dealing with it as a medical issue — which it is — instead of as a criminal one. Yes, there's crime around drug use/abuse (leaving aside the use itself being criminal where it's illegal and criminalized). In many if not most cases, however, that crime would be mitigated, or even eliminated, if the use, itself, weren't criminal.
    - cjslep 12y ago
      > I'm not sure how you got the impression that I am underestimating or minimizing the potential downsides of substance abuse. That's entirely a misunderstanding on my end. Thanks for clarifying for me!
- cbd1984 12y ago
  So... if I don't have that urge, does that make me non-human?
  - ux-app 12y ago
    No. Some people are asexual. This doesn't make them less human.
    - cbd1984 12y ago
      My point is, it can hardly be a basic human urge if only some humans feel it.
      - mfisher87 12y ago
        So sex is not a basic human urge?
        cbd1984 12y ago
        > So sex is not a basic human urge? It's a basic urge for non-asexuals.
      - zaroth 12y ago
        Basically, I think you are missing the difference in meaning between "absolute" and "basic".
mikegioia 12y ago
I'm not entirely sure what your argument is. Are you saying we need to create an environment where the choice to consume neither marijuana nor alcohol is accepted? That just seems totally contrary to the human condition. I don't think the problem is the lack of that environment, it's that there's an innate animal desire to alter reality and currently alcohol is leading the pack in mind-altering substances.
- bredren 12y ago
  Regarding the human condition: "History shows that people have always used intoxicants. In every age, in every part of the world, people have pursued intoxication with plants, alcohol, and other mind-altering substances. In fact, this behavior has so much force and persistence that it functions much like our drives for food, sleep, and sex. This "fourth drive," says psychopharmacologist Ronald K. Siegel, is a natural part of our biology, creating the irrepressible demand for intoxicating substances." http://www.amazon.com/Intoxication-Universal-Drive-Mind-Altering-Substances/dp/1594770697 http://www.amazon.com/Intoxication-Universal-Drive-Mind-Alte...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
SeoxyS 12y ago
Your argument is similar to the argument for teaching only abstinence. Regardless of whether it's truly better to abstain until marriage - it's been shown that teaching abstinence as the only option leads to more high-risk behavior than teaching safe sex. Teenagers will have sex regardless; but with good sex education, they might change their behavior and say, use a condom, or get on the pill.
- azakai 12y ago
  That has been shown, in our culture. It isn't obvious that it can't work in another cultural environment, which I think is what GP was suggesting we create. I don't know how feasible it would be to create such a culture. Alcohol use is so normalized it seems almost impossible to change. (Yet, there have been experiments like Prohibition; those didn't go well.)
lotsofmangos 12y ago
Evidence firmly points that "neither" is the correct answer by a large margin Evidence shows no such thing, at least if we are talking about mortality. When studied, moderate drinkers seem to have better outcomes than those who abstain. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2010.01286.x/abstract;jsessionid=0F61AFF686E0AFBD034A6B0F2D4E2CC1.f01t02 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2010....
cbd1984 12y ago
> Evidence firmly points that "neither" is the correct answer by a large margin Why is this being downvoted? It's inarguable that it's the safest answer, and it fully follows the precautionary principle organic food is philosophically founded on, and organic food seems rather popular around here.
- cbd1984 12y ago
  The downvotes to this comment seem like they're coming from people who don't want their substance of choice being questioned, which is a classic behavior of someone with a substance abuse problem.
  - cbd1984 12y ago
    The continuing downvotes with no replies just prove my point.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      Comments about downvotes attract downvotes. Your passive aggressive tone is also probably getting you some downvotes. The comment you spoke about - that you claimed had been downvoted - has had corrective upvotes applied. That's why it's a bad idea to talk about downvotes within an hour or so of it happening -- there hasn't been enough time for corrective upvotes.
cbd1984 12y ago
Pot is usually smoked, so it has an area effect. Alcohol doesn't. This would be less of an issue if smokers were more concerned with secondhand smoke, and if marijuana users in particular weren't so convinced that their drug of choice was not only harmless, but a force for good in the world. No, I don't want to get high off of you, and getting me high without asking me isn't doing me a favor.

by cheepin 12y ago

moopling 12y ago

It seems to me that people often undervalue the short term effects of drugs. Sure they can reduce the length and quality of your life, but in turn they can also draw you closer to the other people in your life and give you wonderful memories. Everything in life is a trade, and it's pointless to overvalue a life less worth living.

ux-app 12y ago

> This is a cultural problem, and the way forward is not to choose the second worst answer instead of the absolute worst: it's to create an environment where people can choose the best answer. I don't agree. To think that we can solve substance (ab)use issues with cultural intervention is to deny the basic biological aspects. Many species simply enjoy altering their consciousness. Humans are very inventive in this regard but it's common throughout the animal kingdom. Instead of denying a basic human urge, we should stop criminalizing it. Properly support those that have developed a dependency and move away from the nanny state. Harm reduction should be the overarching aim.

sliverstorm 12y ago
When was this about pot legalization? I thought I just read an article comparing alcohol to pot; can we have a discussion relating to pot without having to talk about legality for the zillionth time?
- rosser 12y ago
  GP sounds more like a call for decriminalization and harm reduction than outright legalization. There is a difference. EDIT: And in response to your shadow edit: no, we can't. A significant factor in the abuse of drugs — and marijuana in particular, given its relative harmlessness — is their very illegality. The forbidden fruit seems to be far more tempting.
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    Made the edit before I saw your reply, apologies.. Maybe you're right, maybe its legal status is the only thing about pot that really matters, but it's such a multidimensional issue I hate seeing the conversation home in on legalization/decriminalization every time. A change in legal status will not solve all its problems (else why does alcohol have problems?), and we have just read an essay which spends very few words even talking about legal status, which I think supports my point that there are so many other important angles to talk about.
- gnaritas 12y ago
  > can we have a discussion relating to pot without having to talk about legality for the zillionth time? Um no, that is after-all the issue with pot.
cjslep 12y ago
> Instead of denying a basic human urge, we should stop criminalizing it. Properly support those that have developed a dependency and move away from the nanny state. Harm reduction should be the overarching aim. While I agree with decriminalization to a reasonable extent, I think you are severely underestimating the crippling effect being dependent on a foreign substance can be on relationships, society, and the individual. Simply changing the legislation is part of a broader comprehensive solution. A cultural change needs to be part of any comprehensive solution to substance use and abuse. A cultural change is also needed so members of society can enjoy moderate use, without leading to abuse, of substances. Or so they are encouraged to enjoy other parts of life besides substances, if they so choose.
- ux-app 12y ago
  > I think you are severely underestimating the crippling effect being dependent on a foreign substance can be on relationships, society, and the individual. Simply changing the legislation is part of a broader comprehensive solution. I'm not sure how you got the impression that I am underestimating or minimizing the potential downsides of substance abuse. I'm advocating for decriminalization and harm reduction. This means a move away from the nanny state and toward a society that deals with substance (ab)use as a normal part of the human condition. Not something that can be wished away!
  - rosser 12y ago
    This means a move away from the nanny state and toward a society that deals with substance (ab)use as a normal part of the human condition. If we can't go that far, let's at least start dealing with it as a medical issue — which it is — instead of as a criminal one. Yes, there's crime around drug use/abuse (leaving aside the use itself being criminal where it's illegal and criminalized). In many if not most cases, however, that crime would be mitigated, or even eliminated, if the use, itself, weren't criminal.
  - cjslep 12y ago
    > I'm not sure how you got the impression that I am underestimating or minimizing the potential downsides of substance abuse. That's entirely a misunderstanding on my end. Thanks for clarifying for me!
cbd1984 12y ago
So... if I don't have that urge, does that make me non-human?
- ux-app 12y ago
  No. Some people are asexual. This doesn't make them less human.
  - cbd1984 12y ago
    My point is, it can hardly be a basic human urge if only some humans feel it.
    - mfisher87 12y ago
      So sex is not a basic human urge?
      - cbd1984 12y ago
        > So sex is not a basic human urge? It's a basic urge for non-asexuals.
    - zaroth 12y ago
      Basically, I think you are missing the difference in meaning between "absolute" and "basic".

mikegioia 12y ago

I'm not entirely sure what your argument is. Are you saying we need to create an environment where the choice to consume neither marijuana nor alcohol is accepted? That just seems totally contrary to the human condition. I don't think the problem is the lack of that environment, it's that there's an innate animal desire to alter reality and currently alcohol is leading the pack in mind-altering substances.

bredren 12y ago
Regarding the human condition: "History shows that people have always used intoxicants. In every age, in every part of the world, people have pursued intoxication with plants, alcohol, and other mind-altering substances. In fact, this behavior has so much force and persistence that it functions much like our drives for food, sleep, and sex. This "fourth drive," says psychopharmacologist Ronald K. Siegel, is a natural part of our biology, creating the irrepressible demand for intoxicating substances." http://www.amazon.com/Intoxication-Universal-Drive-Mind-Altering-Substances/dp/1594770697 http://www.amazon.com/Intoxication-Universal-Drive-Mind-Alte...

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

SeoxyS 12y ago

Your argument is similar to the argument for teaching only abstinence. Regardless of whether it's truly better to abstain until marriage - it's been shown that teaching abstinence as the only option leads to more high-risk behavior than teaching safe sex. Teenagers will have sex regardless; but with good sex education, they might change their behavior and say, use a condom, or get on the pill.

azakai 12y ago
That has been shown, in our culture. It isn't obvious that it can't work in another cultural environment, which I think is what GP was suggesting we create. I don't know how feasible it would be to create such a culture. Alcohol use is so normalized it seems almost impossible to change. (Yet, there have been experiments like Prohibition; those didn't go well.)

lotsofmangos 12y ago

Evidence firmly points that "neither" is the correct answer by a large margin Evidence shows no such thing, at least if we are talking about mortality. When studied, moderate drinkers seem to have better outcomes than those who abstain. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2010.01286.x/abstract;jsessionid=0F61AFF686E0AFBD034A6B0F2D4E2CC1.f01t02 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2010....

cbd1984 12y ago

> Evidence firmly points that "neither" is the correct answer by a large margin Why is this being downvoted? It's inarguable that it's the safest answer, and it fully follows the precautionary principle organic food is philosophically founded on, and organic food seems rather popular around here.

cbd1984 12y ago
The downvotes to this comment seem like they're coming from people who don't want their substance of choice being questioned, which is a classic behavior of someone with a substance abuse problem.
- cbd1984 12y ago
  The continuing downvotes with no replies just prove my point.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    Comments about downvotes attract downvotes. Your passive aggressive tone is also probably getting you some downvotes. The comment you spoke about - that you claimed had been downvoted - has had corrective upvotes applied. That's why it's a bad idea to talk about downvotes within an hour or so of it happening -- there hasn't been enough time for corrective upvotes.

cbd1984 12y ago

Pot is usually smoked, so it has an area effect. Alcohol doesn't. This would be less of an issue if smokers were more concerned with secondhand smoke, and if marijuana users in particular weren't so convinced that their drug of choice was not only harmless, but a force for good in the world. No, I don't want to get high off of you, and getting me high without asking me isn't doing me a favor.