4 ms·

Hard drugs are one of those things that have different consequences for different types of people. An intelligent, wealthy, employable person can dabble with t

Hard drugs are one of those things that have different consequences for different types of people. An intelligent, wealthy, employable person can dabble with them, have a good time, and usually get away with it. Should they get addicted and screw up their lives, they can usually get help and bounce back without permanent consequences. People who're a little less well-off intellectually and economically aren't so resilient. Should they get addicted to hard drugs and screw up their lives, they usually don't bounce back from it - their lives are ruined forever. Since HN is full of intelligent, wealthy, employable people, the comments on this thread don't surprise me a bit. And yes, I agree that drug policy in the United States could stand to be reformed a little. But when evaluating the harm a person's actions can cause to society, I wish people would think a little more about not just themselves, but that vast chunk of society that's not lucky enough to not be as privileged as we are.

haroldp 11y ago
Can you link to a source, or is this just your conjecture?
- peteyPete 11y ago
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-real-cause-of-addicti_b_6506936.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-real-cause-of-...
hebdo 11y ago
This kind of rationalizations may ruin your entire life one day. You cannot and do not know where will any experimentation with drugs bring you to. Remember that the first step of the twelve steps is "admitting that one cannot control one's alcoholism, addiction or compulsion". Finding reasons why you are more privileged than others makes this step even harder.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  12 steps has a pretty poor record.
  - hebdo 11y ago
    I'm not an expert here actually; do you know what could be considered a more reliable program? I find addictions very interesting, especially given the discovery of the FOSB protein.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      Anecdotally, there are many compounds/experiences that seem to be highly effective (even to the point of eliminating withdrawl symptoms): cannabis, ayhuasca/DMT, ibogaine, and other psychedelics.
      - foobar2020 11y ago
        Anecdotally? Where does that come from, do you have any sources? Also, withdrawal is not the major problem when combating addiction.
        jsprogrammer 11y ago
        I have not experienced it personally, nor do I personally know anyone who has experienced it. I do personally know someone whom personally knows others who have directly experienced (high dose cannabis edibles for alcohol addiction). There are many claimed first, second, and third hand reports out on the Internet. There are also quite a few professional documentaries about the topic, many amatuer videos (directly capturing the experience and the people involved). I have also come across some peer reviewed literature as well. I don't maintain a list of such reports and can't look for them at the moment, but they shouldn't be too difficult to find if you are interested. It is not 100% effective. Some will definitly not change their behavior much, even though they claimed to want to.
  - omegaham 11y ago
    I was given the impression that all therapy for addiction has a pretty poor record. If there was something that actually got good results, everyone would be using it. Unfortunately, brains are complicated, and everyone's brain is different.
- pcpolice 11y ago
  One thing that should be kept in mind is that not all drugs are the same thing. The "drugs are bad" or "drugs are good" discourse breaks down fast, simply because they are gross generalisations. For example: nicotine is much more addictive (has to do with the speed with which tolerance for a substance is increased) than, say, THC. Which is yet again different from LSD. There are a whole host of factors, and a spectrum of "how dangerous $DRUG is". (disclosure: it's my pet peeve when people make lump statements about "all drugs")
  - hebdo 11y ago
    You are right about the addictiveness of nicotine. Also, alcohol is a really nasty one - withdrawal can be lethal in some cases. Even heroin does not do that. I recommend you reading about the delta FOSB protein. There is promising research towards unifying all, or almost all, addictions with a single, coherent theory. In this light, drugs are really beginning to look very similar to one another.
- ebspelman 11y ago
  I really appreciate this comment, even though I personally don't agree with it. You can't take drugs 100% safely, but their safety level does vary, and it definitely varies with wealth. Amphetamines, for example. Rich Americans get prescriptions for Adderall. Poor Americans make meth. Or take opiates. Vicodin vs. heroin.
  - hebdo 11y ago
    The amount of prescription opioids being sold in the US is insane, this is my opinion on the subject. It cannot end well in the long run. There are already millions of Americans that started their opioid adventure with oxycodone or hydrocodone, often coming from the "upper spheres". Addiction does not discriminate. Changing the name from amphetamine to Adderal will not give you more control over your addiction. You will have none, regardless of your income level. You are right about the safety level though, this is about potential short-term complications. Prescription stuff is not contaminated, a doctor can give you some good advice, or a vial of emergency Naloxone.
    - wz1000 11y ago
      If you have a decent income, it is possible to live with a oxycodone addiction. You know that the substance is free of adulterants and is consistently dosed. Pure oxycodone should have limited side effects. However, if you are not in such a good financial position, a heroin addiction will almost certainly ruin your life. From the financial burden of the substance itself, to side effects from adulterants and the impredictability of a dose, you roll the dice every time you shoot up.
      - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        I'm not convinced that heroin ruins your life only because the dose is unpredictable. There's much more to it than that. Lets not pretend a heroin addiction could be a safe and normal way to live.
  - swombat 11y ago
    > You can't take drugs 100% safely I guess this depends on your definition of "100% safely", and probably also on your definition of "drugs". Let's assume that "drugs" means "psychoactive drugs". In that case, I'd suggest that you can take a cup of coffee pretty much as close to 100% safely as is achievable for anything in the world that you can ingest. And coffee is psychoactive. So, it is possible to take drugs 100% safely. Even alcohol can be taken safely: so long as you keep the dose low, and you're not someone with a special sensitivity to it (e.g. an alcoholic), you can have a glass of red wine with pretty much zero chance of anything bad happening. That also applies to all the other psychoactive drugs in between: speed, cocaine, LSD, heroin, mushrooms, peyote, MDMA, whatever. They can all be taken 100% safely. The key in all cases is always the same: good education and moderation. All of these drugs can also be abused. You can kill yourself with caffeine too (though unlikely in coffee form - you'd need about 50-100 espresso shots). I recall a story of someone who ate a whole pack of caffeinated candy, thinking it was normal candy, and died. Shit happens. Shit happens more often without good research, education and clear guidelines. Shit happens even more often without good research, education and clear guidelines, and with dodgy suppliers who may or may not be selling you the thing you think you're buying because they're all criminals. The real culprit in every drug death? The three branches of the government, who have failed to do the right thing on this topic for 50+ years now.
baddox 11y ago
This isn't just about the effects of addictive drugs. I think most people agree they can be devastating to people and families. The trouble is that you seem to be suggesting that US drug policy in any way helps people and families affected by addictive drugs. I can't look at the war on drugs and see any remotely feasible interpretation where it's helping people affected by addictive drugs.
- gyardley 11y ago
  For me, it doesn't seem like a massive logical leap to suggest that shutting down a particularly convenient and unique part of the supply chain will have an effect on consumption and therefore the negative effects of consumption. Shutting down The Silk Road isn't quite the same thing as arresting the corner dealer. Aside from that - let's posit that Ross Ulbricht's arrest and punishment and the shutdown of The Silk Road doesn't impact consumption and the consequent negative effects at all. I've still got no real moral qualms about punishing someone who enriches themselves off so much harm to others. Yes, there are many people in this world who do equivalent harm that we don't punish, and that's unfortunate, but that doesn't change the rightness of Ross's punishment one bit.
  - baddox 11y ago
    > it doesn't seem like a massive logical leap to suggest that shutting down a particularly convenient and unique part of the supply chain will have an effect on consumption and therefore the negative effects of consumption. It seems quite likely that Silk Road was one of the safest ways to acquire these drugs. It seems likely to me that shutting down Silk Road would have two effects: reducing consumption by casual (non-addicted) recreational users who will not bother with less convenient and safe sources, and driving addicted users to less convenient and safe sources. You might argue that the first effect is slightly beneficial, but I think it is far outweighed by the harmfulness of the second effect. > I've still got no real moral qualms about punishing someone who enriches themselves off so much harm to others. This is just another way to rephrase the claim that Silk Road did net harm to others, which we were just debating.
    - 11y ago
erichmond 11y ago
Agreed 100%. I am curious what people think a fair sentence would be, given the sheer amount of drugs sold on SR. Selling over a pound of weed here in NYC will cost you 15 years, which for most people would be about 1/6th of their life. Also, I am interested with the number of people saying he didn't actually do anything that wrong. I wonder if they are saying the same thing petty drug offenders. Maybe people do but they don't vocalize it, but I think if we saw this kind of empathy for all non-violent drug dealers, things would look very different here in the US.

haroldp 11y ago

Can you link to a source, or is this just your conjecture?

peteyPete 11y ago
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-real-cause-of-addicti_b_6506936.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-real-cause-of-...

hebdo 11y ago

This kind of rationalizations may ruin your entire life one day. You cannot and do not know where will any experimentation with drugs bring you to. Remember that the first step of the twelve steps is "admitting that one cannot control one's alcoholism, addiction or compulsion". Finding reasons why you are more privileged than others makes this step even harder.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
12 steps has a pretty poor record.
- hebdo 11y ago
  I'm not an expert here actually; do you know what could be considered a more reliable program? I find addictions very interesting, especially given the discovery of the FOSB protein.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    Anecdotally, there are many compounds/experiences that seem to be highly effective (even to the point of eliminating withdrawl symptoms): cannabis, ayhuasca/DMT, ibogaine, and other psychedelics.
    - foobar2020 11y ago
      Anecdotally? Where does that come from, do you have any sources? Also, withdrawal is not the major problem when combating addiction.
      - jsprogrammer 11y ago
        I have not experienced it personally, nor do I personally know anyone who has experienced it. I do personally know someone whom personally knows others who have directly experienced (high dose cannabis edibles for alcohol addiction). There are many claimed first, second, and third hand reports out on the Internet. There are also quite a few professional documentaries about the topic, many amatuer videos (directly capturing the experience and the people involved). I have also come across some peer reviewed literature as well. I don't maintain a list of such reports and can't look for them at the moment, but they shouldn't be too difficult to find if you are interested. It is not 100% effective. Some will definitly not change their behavior much, even though they claimed to want to.
- omegaham 11y ago
  I was given the impression that all therapy for addiction has a pretty poor record. If there was something that actually got good results, everyone would be using it. Unfortunately, brains are complicated, and everyone's brain is different.
pcpolice 11y ago
One thing that should be kept in mind is that not all drugs are the same thing. The "drugs are bad" or "drugs are good" discourse breaks down fast, simply because they are gross generalisations. For example: nicotine is much more addictive (has to do with the speed with which tolerance for a substance is increased) than, say, THC. Which is yet again different from LSD. There are a whole host of factors, and a spectrum of "how dangerous $DRUG is". (disclosure: it's my pet peeve when people make lump statements about "all drugs")
- hebdo 11y ago
  You are right about the addictiveness of nicotine. Also, alcohol is a really nasty one - withdrawal can be lethal in some cases. Even heroin does not do that. I recommend you reading about the delta FOSB protein. There is promising research towards unifying all, or almost all, addictions with a single, coherent theory. In this light, drugs are really beginning to look very similar to one another.
ebspelman 11y ago
I really appreciate this comment, even though I personally don't agree with it. You can't take drugs 100% safely, but their safety level does vary, and it definitely varies with wealth. Amphetamines, for example. Rich Americans get prescriptions for Adderall. Poor Americans make meth. Or take opiates. Vicodin vs. heroin.
- hebdo 11y ago
  The amount of prescription opioids being sold in the US is insane, this is my opinion on the subject. It cannot end well in the long run. There are already millions of Americans that started their opioid adventure with oxycodone or hydrocodone, often coming from the "upper spheres". Addiction does not discriminate. Changing the name from amphetamine to Adderal will not give you more control over your addiction. You will have none, regardless of your income level. You are right about the safety level though, this is about potential short-term complications. Prescription stuff is not contaminated, a doctor can give you some good advice, or a vial of emergency Naloxone.
  - wz1000 11y ago
    If you have a decent income, it is possible to live with a oxycodone addiction. You know that the substance is free of adulterants and is consistently dosed. Pure oxycodone should have limited side effects. However, if you are not in such a good financial position, a heroin addiction will almost certainly ruin your life. From the financial burden of the substance itself, to side effects from adulterants and the impredictability of a dose, you roll the dice every time you shoot up.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      I'm not convinced that heroin ruins your life only because the dose is unpredictable. There's much more to it than that. Lets not pretend a heroin addiction could be a safe and normal way to live.
- swombat 11y ago
  > You can't take drugs 100% safely I guess this depends on your definition of "100% safely", and probably also on your definition of "drugs". Let's assume that "drugs" means "psychoactive drugs". In that case, I'd suggest that you can take a cup of coffee pretty much as close to 100% safely as is achievable for anything in the world that you can ingest. And coffee is psychoactive. So, it is possible to take drugs 100% safely. Even alcohol can be taken safely: so long as you keep the dose low, and you're not someone with a special sensitivity to it (e.g. an alcoholic), you can have a glass of red wine with pretty much zero chance of anything bad happening. That also applies to all the other psychoactive drugs in between: speed, cocaine, LSD, heroin, mushrooms, peyote, MDMA, whatever. They can all be taken 100% safely. The key in all cases is always the same: good education and moderation. All of these drugs can also be abused. You can kill yourself with caffeine too (though unlikely in coffee form - you'd need about 50-100 espresso shots). I recall a story of someone who ate a whole pack of caffeinated candy, thinking it was normal candy, and died. Shit happens. Shit happens more often without good research, education and clear guidelines. Shit happens even more often without good research, education and clear guidelines, and with dodgy suppliers who may or may not be selling you the thing you think you're buying because they're all criminals. The real culprit in every drug death? The three branches of the government, who have failed to do the right thing on this topic for 50+ years now.

baddox 11y ago

This isn't just about the effects of addictive drugs. I think most people agree they can be devastating to people and families. The trouble is that you seem to be suggesting that US drug policy in any way helps people and families affected by addictive drugs. I can't look at the war on drugs and see any remotely feasible interpretation where it's helping people affected by addictive drugs.

gyardley 11y ago
For me, it doesn't seem like a massive logical leap to suggest that shutting down a particularly convenient and unique part of the supply chain will have an effect on consumption and therefore the negative effects of consumption. Shutting down The Silk Road isn't quite the same thing as arresting the corner dealer. Aside from that - let's posit that Ross Ulbricht's arrest and punishment and the shutdown of The Silk Road doesn't impact consumption and the consequent negative effects at all. I've still got no real moral qualms about punishing someone who enriches themselves off so much harm to others. Yes, there are many people in this world who do equivalent harm that we don't punish, and that's unfortunate, but that doesn't change the rightness of Ross's punishment one bit.
- baddox 11y ago
  > it doesn't seem like a massive logical leap to suggest that shutting down a particularly convenient and unique part of the supply chain will have an effect on consumption and therefore the negative effects of consumption. It seems quite likely that Silk Road was one of the safest ways to acquire these drugs. It seems likely to me that shutting down Silk Road would have two effects: reducing consumption by casual (non-addicted) recreational users who will not bother with less convenient and safe sources, and driving addicted users to less convenient and safe sources. You might argue that the first effect is slightly beneficial, but I think it is far outweighed by the harmfulness of the second effect. > I've still got no real moral qualms about punishing someone who enriches themselves off so much harm to others. This is just another way to rephrase the claim that Silk Road did net harm to others, which we were just debating.
  - 11y ago

erichmond 11y ago

Agreed 100%. I am curious what people think a fair sentence would be, given the sheer amount of drugs sold on SR. Selling over a pound of weed here in NYC will cost you 15 years, which for most people would be about 1/6th of their life. Also, I am interested with the number of people saying he didn't actually do anything that wrong. I wonder if they are saying the same thing petty drug offenders. Maybe people do but they don't vocalize it, but I think if we saw this kind of empathy for all non-violent drug dealers, things would look very different here in the US.