Honest talk about the cost of being ugly

[Loren Pechtel]

Why are you assuming the root problem is mental?

Look at what happened with Vietnam. Lots of soldiers smoked opium while they were over there, most quit upon returning to the states. It was coping with the horrors of jungle war.

Why do you think that the horrors of war are not, at root, mental?

What do you think horror even is, if not a mental state?

That it can be an ephemeral response to something in the environment, and so can disappear when the environment changes, doesn't make it "not a mental state".

Ok, this comes down to the point of view.

I was considering war to be an external physical thing rather than something originating in the mind. A psychiatrist can't treat war. (The PTSD is another matter.)

 

[Elixir]

I was partly distracted by the noisy fireworks outside.

Grrr.
For the first time in the 30 years I’ve lived here, there was zero popping of firecrackers, no fireworks, no animals running away, and I didn’t spend the evening in the barn with my horse. So peaceful!
OTOH, it is SO dry. Wildfire smoke isn’t real thick here but it is as dense as big city smog on a medium-bad day. Visibility is maybe 4-5 miles, and it smells faintly of wood fire. Quite disconcerting. I hope it rains before we are engulfed in flames locally!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I really don’t know why but it never occurred to me to try to sneak anything from the medicine cabinet. My parents ts were deathly afraid I’d try drugs which is which is weird because I was considered so straight that I would never take a toke if offered. So no one offered. To tell the truth the thought of anything messing with my brain was a huge deterrent. I have no idea why but I seem to be hard wired that way. It wasn’t fear of punishment: it was fear of not being able to think straight.

AFIAK nothing ever in the medicine cabinet to sneak.

But I strongly agree on not wanting anything messing with my brain. I find the idea of being drunk repulsive.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Rx. drugs can be more deadly than many recreational drugs. I took tramadol for pain for a couple of years. It gave me weird brain sensations. It barely helped my pain and while it's a control drug, according to the neurologist I saw after it gave me seizures, it's not exactly an opioid. If I had listened to myself instead of the idiot doctors that misdiagnosed a partial seizure as a TIA, I probably never would have had the total seizures. I felt strongly that the tramadol was messing me up. I was told by the neurologist that about 2 percent of people that take that drug get seizures. Seizures can be deadly so I was lucky and my MRI was normal. I haven't had another one in over 15 years.

I thought tramadol was one that very much was few doses only.

One of my husband's blood pressure meds gave him fainting spells. I'm the one who figured that out. I told him to try taking the drug at night so his BP would be lowest while sleeping. He never had another fainting spell since then. That was about 20 years ago.

Never fainted but I found it impossible to keep the swing acceptably narrow. Took a bit of convincing to get my doc to write it at half the dose with twice as many, but doing that works quite well for me.

So, if recreational drugs were decriminalized and regulated, they would be much safer. Needle exchange programs would always be available. While there is no perfect answer to addiction or drug usage, when recreational drugs are legal, it does solve part of the problems. Read about the results in Portugal. While not perfect, it's helped the drug situation to a good extent.

I don't think you would even need needle exchange programs. Get your drugs, needles and sharps container from the pharmacy. Make it a crime to improperly dispose of a needle, but mandate that pharmacies accept sharps containers from anybody they dispense needles to.

I am on an injectable med, the company that makes it sent me a sharps container that I can exchange up to twice a year. Why in the world is that done via the drug company, shipping around containers for no good reason?

 

[Elixir]

I was partly distracted by the noisy fireworks outside.

Grrr.
For the first time in the 30 years I’ve lived here, there was zero popping of firecrackers, no fireworks, no animals running away, and I didn’t spend the evening of July 4 in the barn with my horse. So peaceful!
OTOH, it is SO dry. Wildfire smoke isn’t real thick here but it is as dense as big city smog on a medium-bad day. Visibility is maybe 4-5 miles, and it smells faintly of wood fire. Quite disconcerting. I hope it rains here before we are engulfed in flames.

 

[Elixir]

I didn’t get into dangerous household substances because I did not care to be beaten.

Wow. You really are/were way different from me. I was rarely threatened with beating, and warnings of beatings sans explanations (beyond “it will kill you”) only piqued my curiosity.
That’s why I practiced holding my breath in school; I was told you can only go 3 minutes without air. Proving that to be wrong made me suspicious of warnings AND a lot more cautious about things I was warned about, knowing that what I was told could be wrong either way.
That is, The Thing they said could kill me might actually be innocuous, or lethal under very rare circumstances or possibly far more dangerous than how was represented, as grownups sometimes try not to scare the kids.

 

[Tigers!]

Also, pot smoking primarily ruins your own life. And that's where the damages are limitted. Which brings up ideological maxims, like how much power should we give to the state?

While I think pot is the most destructive drug we have, I don't think the behaviour of pot smokers can justify the govornment to get involved. I think we should be restrictive when applying force to control our citizens. If we don't have strong arguments for it hurting others, I struggle with supporting a ban. Smoking pot makes drivers slow down, and thereby become safer drivers, even though they have impaired reflexes.

On the one hand you say that "smoking pot makes drivers slow down, and thereby become safer drivers, even though they have impaired reflexes". Which means they are not safer drivers.
So which is it? Should pot smokers drive or not?
I'd much rather not be on the road with a pot smoker or a drinker. Better overall for all.

Even though I think pot is extremely destructive, I still think it should be legalised. I think its govornment overreach

You want to heroin, fine. If you call 911 for help they should just let you fend for yourself. No social services.

So you want to force heroine addicts into more dangerous criminal behaviours. How will that make life better for anyone?

No. I'd like the addicts to not be addicted.

 

[Tigers!]

The right needs bad things to protect society from. You can pretty much count on them taking the path of harm maximization.

And the left is different?
Both "sides" need, create, manufacture bad things to protect society from.

Otherwise politicians would have nothing to do.

 

[Tigers!]

From Yes Minister. Smokers are public benefactors.

 

[bilby]

Smoking pot makes drivers slow down, and thereby become safer drivers, even though they have impaired reflexes.

Yeah, nah. Driving slowly isn't safer than driving at the speed of the traffic.

Speeding on high-speed roads is dangerous mainly because it means you and everyone else are going at different speeds. If everyone is going at much the same speed, the opportunity to collide is greatly reduced. Driving slowly on such roads is almost as dangerous as speeding.

On low-speed roads, driving at an appropriate speed for the circumstances and conditions is safe; Driving slower than that does nothing to increase safety.

If you are routinely using your reflexes while driving on public highways, you are doing it badly wrong.

Smoking pot impairs driving ability. Nothing about being stoned makes anyone a better or safer driver.

 

[Tigers!]

I like the Danish system. They just give drugs to addicts. Offer them rehab if they'd like. But there's no pressure. They started with this in 1999. In 2000 I visited to Copenhagen. Istedgade was a notorius street with heroin addicts everywhere. Prostitutes and sex clubs. Needles littering the street. In 2015 I moved to Copenhagen. Today Istedgade is an uppmarket adress. My favourite area in Copenhagen. I used to live there. But got priced out. They still have the free heroin clinic there. But all the misery around it is gone today. Addict rates are the lowest since they started counting.

This is clearly the way to do it

You guys are simply too sensible!

Its not just us. I think every European country now has some version of this (ie Harm Reduction). Iran and Portugal were first. They've both gotten amazing results with combating addictions. It seems to be the best solution long and short term. No downside really.

Are they really combating addiction? The addicts are still addicted. Now it is just more socially acceptable. Is the aim to reduce addiction rates? Increase addiction rates? Maintain addiction rates?

Yes, they are combating addiction. More people manage to kick the addiction and go sober through the harm reduction method, than they do through any other paradigm.

The theory goes that being addicted is a mental problem, rather than a naughty lifestyle choice. The theory builds on an assumption that there's a psychological issue at the core of the addiction and if they didn't have this issue, they wouldn't be addicted. The addictive substance or behaviour is employed to crowd out the distressing thoughts triggered by the psychological problem. And if they work on that issue, they will then be able to kick the addiction. And if we force addicts to have to chase drugs we make it harder for them to work on the underlying issue, thus perpetuating the addictive cycle. The goal with harm reduction is to give the addicts less problems, rather than more problems.

Also, making drugs illegal, makes a person who already psychologically vulnerable even more vulnerable. Not only are they addicted to drugs, now they also have a criminal record. We're basically using social tools forcing drug addicts into a criminal world where their only method of survival is to be a criminal, and then we also punish them for being a criminal. It's a pretty cruel method. Like Steve said, we create drug addicts, force them to sell drugs to survive and then "cut their balls off" if they do. It's not nice. And doesn't solve the problem. It perpetuates the addiction.

But most importantly.... the numbers are in. It works. It works very effectively.

The war on drugs paradigm comes from AA. In their parlance, addicts typically only get off drugs if they they first hit "bottom". The drugs is an escape, but when they're so trapped by life, they can't escape, they are forced for face their demons. We basically marginalise and punish them as much as possible, to force them into an iron vice where getting clean is the only option. Which also can work. But this method has some obvious problems. It's cruel. It requires a vast social conspiracy. While the criminal world gives them sanctuary. So we are encouraging the growth of a maffia. The maffia will then start spilling over into other ways to make illicit money. That's bad for everyone. It fills the jails with people that without the addiction wouldn't be there. And finally, it's extremely expensive. Success rates are low and the bill is high.

With the harm reduction method it's perfectly possible for someone to just stay perpetually on drugs within the system and just get their daily fix. We're not forcing anyone to anything. It can happen. But it at least doesn't groom them into a criminal. And that's still a bonus for society. So even that situation is still a win.

And once we start giving the addicts drugs the income is immediately taken away from criminals. That's a good thing. Addicts don't need to sell to pay for the habit.

There's more. HIV and hepatitus rates go down. When they're given the drugs its always administered by a nurse in a clinic. Hygenic. There really is no downside

If the addicts remain reliant upon the drugs to function (sic) that would be a downside. It is the diversion of their time, energy, talents to getting to and maintaining a certain level of existence. They certainly could do better for themselves.
There is the relationship costs. The addicts would not be the best possible version of themselves to other people esp. those that know them, love them, work with them.

But there's an implicit assumption with your statements. That they'd be even better versions of themselves if we don't give them drugs. Ie, they find the drugs themselves, probably through criminal means.

The implicit assumption I make is that they are better versions of themselves when they are off the drugs.

If that was true you would support the method that is the most effective at getting people off drugs. But you don't. Why is that, do you think?

Don't you think harm reduction works?

So they're still on drugs, but now have their days occupied by the need to chase drugs. How exactly are they better versions of themselves, than they would be if we just gave them the drugs? They're still on drugs. They just have one less problem now.

FYI, in the harm reduction system, they're not given as much drugs as they want. They're given just enough for abstinence to not be unbareable. They're also forced to be in the clinic a while after receiving the drugs. So they can't get their government supplied fix and then go out and top up. Not right away anyway. We also force regular medical check ups onto them. Because drug addicts suck at taking care of themselves. This is great for containing transmissible diseases. Again... sick people are hardly the best version of themselves.

Plenty of addicts repeatedly drift in and out of the system for years before getting clean, if ever. Addictions can be hard to kick.

BTW, This is a simplified version. The reality of drug addiction is not this simple. People are addicts for a variety of reasons, and there's a variety of mechanisms. But these other guys are still better off in the harm reduction paradigm.

The problem I will always have with harm reduction programs is the message it sends.
The message is that we do not really care if you are addicted. In fact, we care so little about you that we will allow, encourage you to continue to live your life in ways that are harmful to you and those around you.

I still don't understand how you get this message from harm reduction?

Addiction is not good for anyone, anywhere, anytime.

If you truly believe this then why are you arguing for a method that every time it has been tried has driven up addiction, and its negative consequences?

I don't think you're making any sense. You certainly aren't building an argument

As I have said repeatly I do not want people to be addicted to substances that are not good for them, their loved ones and society as a whole.
Harm reduction has some limited benefits. If allied with attempts to wean the addicts off the drugs then it has potential.
But just giving addicts their favourite substance without any effort to get them unhooked will not work. Where is the incentive to get unhooked? What is the point of telling people that drugs are not good for you when you go and give addicts free doses? How is that not a mixed message at best?
Driving out the pushers is a good idea but if you replaced the street side pushers with a govt approved supplier (pusher) what has been really been achieved?
People are still addicted. The ripple effects to their loved ones and society are still there but now it has the elephant stamp of approval. Some crime may go down. But overdoses will still occur, People will still die or end up with health affects.
My daughter is am ambo. She all too regularly attends overdoses. Some they can 'save' (until the next overdose), some cannot be saved. She all too often attends to the same individuals. What good is harm reduction?

 

[bilby]

As I have said repeatly I do not want people to be addicted to substances that are not good for them, their loved ones and society as a whole.
Harm reduction has some limited benefits.

Everything is limited. Harm reduction has some significant and worthwhile benefits, and spinning these as "limited" is political bullshit.

If allied with attempts to wean the addicts off the drugs then it has potential.

Who has suggested hatm reduction NOT allied with attempts to wean the addicts off the drugs? That's a strawman.

But just giving addicts their favourite substance without any effort to get them unhooked will not work.

Won't it? Do you have evidence for that claim? It feels truthy, but real world experiences suggest that in fact it can work (in a "limited" way).

Where is the incentive to get unhooked?

There is always an incentive to get unhooked. It's for the individal to decide when those incentives outweigh the desire for short-term satisfaction.

And again, real-world experience suggests that the disincentives caused by making drugs illegal are utterly ineffective in reducing the desire to keep using - indeed, they have the opposite effect.

Making addicts more uncomfortable, more unhappy, and more isolated from society makes them more likely to look to drugs for relief, not less. Despite that being the opposite of what comfortabke middle-class people with no experience of addiction might imagine.

What is the point of telling people that drugs are not good for you when you go and give addicts free doses?

So that they are informed? How does giving addicts free drugs change the value of that information? These are adults we are discussing; They can understand that being given free drugs is not an endorsement of the safety of those drugs.

How is that not a mixed message at best?

Why would you think that adults will have a problem with mixed messages?

Driving out the pushers is a good idea but if you replaced the street side pushers with a govt approved supplier (pusher) what has been really been achieved?

Well, you have driven out the pushers. And are no longer allowing organised crime to prosper, or to fund other criminal activities.

People are still addicted.

Sure. But at least they are doing less harm as a result. Rejecting improvement because it doesn't solve every single part of every single problem is bloody stupid.

The ripple effects to their loved ones and society are still there but now it has the elephant stamp of approval.

No it doesn't. You are inventing an approval that doesn't and wouldn't exist.

And those ripple effects are, to a great extent, going to disappear, contrary to your claim. Your druggie brother isn't stealing your stuff to pay for a fix he can get for free. He's no longer associating with criminals. He's no longer at risk of unplanned overdose, or poisoning from added ingredients, or infection from contaminated drugs, because the criminal supplier has been replaced by a supplier who will do proper quality control.

So you are wrong here on both counts.

Some crime may go down.

Good.

But overdoses will still occur,

Far less often, but yes. Again, you seem to be arguing that solving a lot of problems is useless if you don't completely solve every problem. Which is bloody stupid.

People will still die or end up with health affects.

Again, yes, but far less often. Which has to be a good thing, right?

My daughter is am ambo. She all too regularly attends overdoses. Some they can 'save' (until the next overdose), some cannot be saved. She all too often attends to the same individuals.

All of which will be less common under a harm reduction regime. Certainly, there is zero reason to expect any of it to become more common.

What good is harm reduction?

It reduces harm. The clue is in the name.

 

[southernhybrid]

Rx. drugs can be more deadly than many recreational drugs. I took tramadol for pain for a couple of years. It gave me weird brain sensations. It barely helped my pain and while it's a control drug, according to the neurologist I saw after it gave me seizures, it's not exactly an opioid. If I had listened to myself instead of the idiot doctors that misdiagnosed a partial seizure as a TIA, I probably never would have had the total seizures. I felt strongly that the tramadol was messing me up. I was told by the neurologist that about 2 percent of people that take that drug get seizures. Seizures can be deadly so I was lucky and my MRI was normal. I haven't had another one in over 15 years.

I thought tramadol was one that very much was few doses only.

As my late mother in law used to say, "Well you thought wrong"! It's a pain medicine that some people take for years without any side effects. It barely touched my pain, but I know two men who have been taking it for at least a year and it still helps there pain. One is a neighbor who is 80 years old. He said that hydrocodone made his dizzy so he asked to switch to tramadol.

One of my husband's blood pressure meds gave him fainting spells. I'm the one who figured that out. I told him to try taking the drug at night so his BP would be lowest while sleeping. He never had another fainting spell since then. That was about 20 years ago.

Never fainted but I found it impossible to keep the swing acceptably narrow. Took a bit of convincing to get my doc to write it at half the dose with twice as many, but doing that works quite well for me.

My husband's drugs for hypertension have been cut back recently as his BP had gotten a bit lower. He's had no other side effects since the fainting and it works for him to take it at bedtime.

So, if recreational drugs were decriminalized and regulated, they would be much safer. Needle exchange programs would always be available. While there is no perfect answer to addiction or drug usage, when recreational drugs are legal, it does solve part of the problems. Read about the results in Portugal. While not perfect, it's helped the drug situation to a good extent.

I don't think you would even need needle exchange programs. Get your drugs, needles and sharps container from the pharmacy. Make it a crime to improperly dispose of a needle, but mandate that pharmacies accept sharps containers from anybody they dispense needles to.

That would work too, but needles exchanges would at least be a way to make sure the used needles were returned.

I am on an injectable med, the company that makes it sent me a sharps container that I can exchange up to twice a year. Why in the world is that done via the drug company, shipping around containers for no good reason?

Yes, people on injectable insulin usually get containers for their used needles. We used them in the ALF where I worked for about 17 years. I don't know where we got ours from, but I think they came from the drug store.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There are no health benefits to be gained by taking legal (non-medicinal) or illegal drugs.

Well, that's almost certainly not true of alcohol. A small amount of alcohol seems to have measurable health benefits, though few consumers of alcohol do so at such low levels as to have the good outweigh the harm.

That's tabloid science reporting. At no point has any serious researcher ever claimed the positive effects of alcohol outweigh its negative effects. At any dosage.

Disagree. It has long been known that light drinkers average better than non-drinkers. More recently opinion is shifting towards this being a selection bias, as those who don't drink sometimes have a medical reason for not drinking. Most, but not all, of the effect goes away when comparing light drinkers to never drinkers. However, the never drinkers might be that way from having seen it harm a relative, so we can't be sure.

I searched it. I had ChatGPT present all available studies and meta-studies. You got nothing.

Whenever studies show that spefically moderate wine drinkers have better health, it's always because wine drinking is what rich people do. Being rich correlates with better health. The wine the rich people are drinking ONLY makes their health worse.

I'd say it's on you to find a credible study on it. I couldn't. I will maintain that what you've listened to is tabloid science. These kinds of articles are popular because people like to be reinforced in their drug choices. It helps sell magazines.

But it's worse... not only does small quantities of alcohol make your health worse. Any amount of alcohol does. There's no safe amount. There's no point before which alcohol is ok. It's all unhealthy. And it's not like binge drinking is many times worse than light drinking. It's a sliding scale. The more you drink the worse it is... in proportion.

Here's another fun fact. The beer belly debate. People get beer bellys because beer is drunk together with burgers and fries. Wine is drunk with a sallad. The yeast consume all the sugar. Sugar is rarely added to alcoholic beverages. The calories are in the alcohol. For your weight gains, it doesn't really matter which type of alcohol you drink. They're pretty much equivalent. Or rather, the differences are too small to show up in the statistics. If you are watching your weight... it doesn't matter a damn what type of alcohol you consume. Cocktails are of course the worst offenders. Not because of the alcohol. It's the sugary drink it's mixed with.

To sum up, people thinking that light wine drinking is healthy is just alcoholics re-enforcing their addictive behaviours and substance abuse.

I finally... I drink alcohol several times a week. I like alcohol. I also don't mind getting shit faced now and again. It happens rarely. Like once a year. I have no guilt about that. This body needs to be taken for a ride. There's no point growing old if you aren't using your body to enjoy life. But I have no illusions about the damage it does to my body

 

[DrZoidberg]

I've had pot smoker friends all my life. From my experience, I think its the most destructive drug of them all. Because its kills ambition. The side effects are maneagible enough for addicts to function in society. So they feel no pressure to get off it. So it just continues. They're content in their little bubble of nothing happening, perpetually. Its like a time machine that only goes forward in time.

Every friend of mine who used THC worked for a living, never committed a crime and most only used in the evening or on the weekend. My next door neighbors both use THC. She is a cosmetologist who cuts hair but she has a second job teaching cosmetology. Her husband is a veteran with PTSD but he also has a job delivering things locally for a small company. I've worked with many professional nurses who worked full time but also. used THC recreationally. One of my former doctors not only used but she sold t-shirts in her office promoting the legalization. Imo, she probably smoked too much because she was pretty ditzy or maybe just incompetent. I rarely use anymore. it's never been hard to stop. Sure, everything in moderation is best. Oh, I forgot. A close friend who is much younger than I am also uses. She said she gets crabby is she doesn't have any, but she never uses during the daytime or before work. Her biggest problem is that despite trying for years to stop smoking tobacco, she doesn't seem to be able to do that. My late father stopped smoking 2 packs a day immediately after the first info came out about the dangers of smoking. He also stopped using ETOH after becoming a religious nut. He weaned himself off of several Rx. drugs, including Valium. So, people are different in how they react to different drugs, as well as food.

The reason I think THC is the most destructive has nothing to do with how criminal they are or how well they function, or how much money they make.

The reason I think THC is the most destructive drug is just based on the people I have around me. Pot smokers are just happy an content with whatever. They're super chill. They stay in dysfunctional relationships way longer than they would otherwise. They're terrible at naming their own emotions and communicating them. It just makes people very bad at figuring out what they need to grow and what they're passionate about. All those things that make people feel their life is meaningful. Pot smoking makes people fine even when their lives are going nowhere, they're stuff and they don't feel life has meaning.

And the number of people I know who were pot smokers, stopped, and then got diagnosed with ADHD, is very very long. Once they got on proper ADHD medication, they were like completely different people. They were completely transformed into successful well adjusted members of the community and much much happier.

I know people who suffer from chronic pain often benefit from THC. But that's a special category. The same might apply for your friend with PTSD. But it might also be true that his use of THC covers up the symptoms, preventing him from getting the help that can help him heal.

That's my problem with pot. I still think it should be fully legalised. I think we should be extremely restrictive on what we deem illegal. If the damages are limited to the person doing it, then I think it's hard to justify making it illegal.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Also, pot smoking primarily ruins your own life. And that's where the damages are limitted. Which brings up ideological maxims, like how much power should we give to the state?

While I think pot is the most destructive drug we have, I don't think the behaviour of pot smokers can justify the govornment to get involved. I think we should be restrictive when applying force to control our citizens. If we don't have strong arguments for it hurting others, I struggle with supporting a ban. Smoking pot makes drivers slow down, and thereby become safer drivers, even though they have impaired reflexes.

On the one hand you say that "smoking pot makes drivers slow down, and thereby become safer drivers, even though they have impaired reflexes". Which means they are not safer drivers.
So which is it? Should pot smokers drive or not?
I'd much rather not be on the road with a pot smoker or a drinker. Better overall for all.

The statistics doesn't show that pot smokers are worse drivers than non-pot smokers. Even though their reflexes are impaired.

I don't like making things illegal because of feelings. If we are to make it illegal we need to back it up scientifically. If we can't find a correlation between THC and being a more dangerous driver it would be wrong to make it illegal. No matter what we feel about it. Don't you agree?

We still allow people to drink a small amount to drive. Even though there's no safe amount. Tiny amounts of alcohol, even so small you can't feel it, makes you a worse driver. There's no safe amount. We still allow it, because we think there are things in life more important than being safe. If we think like that for alcohol, why not apply the same logic to pot smoking?

You want to heroin, fine. If you call 911 for help they should just let you fend for yourself. No social services.

So you want to force heroine addicts into more dangerous criminal behaviours. How will that make life better for anyone?

No. I'd like the addicts to not be addicted.

So what's your plan in making that happen?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I like the Danish system. They just give drugs to addicts. Offer them rehab if they'd like. But there's no pressure. They started with this in 1999. In 2000 I visited to Copenhagen. Istedgade was a notorius street with heroin addicts everywhere. Prostitutes and sex clubs. Needles littering the street. In 2015 I moved to Copenhagen. Today Istedgade is an uppmarket adress. My favourite area in Copenhagen. I used to live there. But got priced out. They still have the free heroin clinic there. But all the misery around it is gone today. Addict rates are the lowest since they started counting.

This is clearly the way to do it

You guys are simply too sensible!

Its not just us. I think every European country now has some version of this (ie Harm Reduction). Iran and Portugal were first. They've both gotten amazing results with combating addictions. It seems to be the best solution long and short term. No downside really.

Are they really combating addiction? The addicts are still addicted. Now it is just more socially acceptable. Is the aim to reduce addiction rates? Increase addiction rates? Maintain addiction rates?

Yes, they are combating addiction. More people manage to kick the addiction and go sober through the harm reduction method, than they do through any other paradigm.

The theory goes that being addicted is a mental problem, rather than a naughty lifestyle choice. The theory builds on an assumption that there's a psychological issue at the core of the addiction and if they didn't have this issue, they wouldn't be addicted. The addictive substance or behaviour is employed to crowd out the distressing thoughts triggered by the psychological problem. And if they work on that issue, they will then be able to kick the addiction. And if we force addicts to have to chase drugs we make it harder for them to work on the underlying issue, thus perpetuating the addictive cycle. The goal with harm reduction is to give the addicts less problems, rather than more problems.

Also, making drugs illegal, makes a person who already psychologically vulnerable even more vulnerable. Not only are they addicted to drugs, now they also have a criminal record. We're basically using social tools forcing drug addicts into a criminal world where their only method of survival is to be a criminal, and then we also punish them for being a criminal. It's a pretty cruel method. Like Steve said, we create drug addicts, force them to sell drugs to survive and then "cut their balls off" if they do. It's not nice. And doesn't solve the problem. It perpetuates the addiction.

But most importantly.... the numbers are in. It works. It works very effectively.

The war on drugs paradigm comes from AA. In their parlance, addicts typically only get off drugs if they they first hit "bottom". The drugs is an escape, but when they're so trapped by life, they can't escape, they are forced for face their demons. We basically marginalise and punish them as much as possible, to force them into an iron vice where getting clean is the only option. Which also can work. But this method has some obvious problems. It's cruel. It requires a vast social conspiracy. While the criminal world gives them sanctuary. So we are encouraging the growth of a maffia. The maffia will then start spilling over into other ways to make illicit money. That's bad for everyone. It fills the jails with people that without the addiction wouldn't be there. And finally, it's extremely expensive. Success rates are low and the bill is high.

With the harm reduction method it's perfectly possible for someone to just stay perpetually on drugs within the system and just get their daily fix. We're not forcing anyone to anything. It can happen. But it at least doesn't groom them into a criminal. And that's still a bonus for society. So even that situation is still a win.

And once we start giving the addicts drugs the income is immediately taken away from criminals. That's a good thing. Addicts don't need to sell to pay for the habit.

There's more. HIV and hepatitus rates go down. When they're given the drugs its always administered by a nurse in a clinic. Hygenic. There really is no downside

If the addicts remain reliant upon the drugs to function (sic) that would be a downside. It is the diversion of their time, energy, talents to getting to and maintaining a certain level of existence. They certainly could do better for themselves.
There is the relationship costs. The addicts would not be the best possible version of themselves to other people esp. those that know them, love them, work with them.

But there's an implicit assumption with your statements. That they'd be even better versions of themselves if we don't give them drugs. Ie, they find the drugs themselves, probably through criminal means.

The implicit assumption I make is that they are better versions of themselves when they are off the drugs.

If that was true you would support the method that is the most effective at getting people off drugs. But you don't. Why is that, do you think?

Don't you think harm reduction works?

So they're still on drugs, but now have their days occupied by the need to chase drugs. How exactly are they better versions of themselves, than they would be if we just gave them the drugs? They're still on drugs. They just have one less problem now.

FYI, in the harm reduction system, they're not given as much drugs as they want. They're given just enough for abstinence to not be unbareable. They're also forced to be in the clinic a while after receiving the drugs. So they can't get their government supplied fix and then go out and top up. Not right away anyway. We also force regular medical check ups onto them. Because drug addicts suck at taking care of themselves. This is great for containing transmissible diseases. Again... sick people are hardly the best version of themselves.

Plenty of addicts repeatedly drift in and out of the system for years before getting clean, if ever. Addictions can be hard to kick.

BTW, This is a simplified version. The reality of drug addiction is not this simple. People are addicts for a variety of reasons, and there's a variety of mechanisms. But these other guys are still better off in the harm reduction paradigm.

The problem I will always have with harm reduction programs is the message it sends.
The message is that we do not really care if you are addicted. In fact, we care so little about you that we will allow, encourage you to continue to live your life in ways that are harmful to you and those around you.

I still don't understand how you get this message from harm reduction?

Addiction is not good for anyone, anywhere, anytime.

If you truly believe this then why are you arguing for a method that every time it has been tried has driven up addiction, and its negative consequences?

I don't think you're making any sense. You certainly aren't building an argument

As I have said repeatly I do not want people to be addicted to substances that are not good for them, their loved ones and society as a whole.
Harm reduction has some limited benefits. If allied with attempts to wean the addicts off the drugs then it has potential.
But just giving addicts their favourite substance without any effort to get them unhooked will not work. Where is the incentive to get unhooked? What is the point of telling people that drugs are not good for you when you go and give addicts free doses? How is that not a mixed message at best?
Driving out the pushers is a good idea but if you replaced the street side pushers with a govt approved supplier (pusher) what has been really been achieved?
People are still addicted. The ripple effects to their loved ones and society are still there but now it has the elephant stamp of approval. Some crime may go down. But overdoses will still occur, People will still die or end up with health affects.

The reason we've switched to harm reduction in Europe is because it is the most effective method to get addicts off substance abuse. It's the best method we've found so far to combat addiction.

Whether or not you think it's mixed messages is irreleant IMHO. What matters is getting the number of addicts down. Whatever does that, I will support. And that's right now harm reduction.

The war on drugs was started in the 70'ies. Both in USA and Europe. With catastrophic results. It did not stop the spread of addiction. It got worse. Organised crime exploded. In the early 2000's Europe increasingly switched to harm reduction. Now USA has an opiod epidemic. Europe doesn't.

I care about results. Not ideology. I don't want any addicts anywhere to anything.

My daughter is am ambo. She all too regularly attends overdoses. Some they can 'save' (until the next overdose), some cannot be saved. She all too often attends to the same individuals. What good is harm reduction?

In harm reduction the drug addicts are only administered drugs in a clinic, by a nurse. At no point do they get to handle the drugs themselves. Their health is monitored. While they're high, they're kept in the clinic for observation. When they're considered safe and stable they're allowed to leave. Nobody has any overdoses. Nobody who gets drugs through this system needs to be picked up by an ambulance.

Less work for your daughter. Less people die. And we're also saving money. A tonne of money. Having ambulances pick up overdosing addicts puts a lot of strain on the system. Imagine the people who get picked up by ambulances late because your daughter are busy with overdosing addicts. Wouldn't it be nice if your daughter didn't have to deal with that?

That's why harm reduction.

 

[Jarhyn]

Smoking pot makes drivers slow down, and thereby become safer drivers, even though they have impaired reflexes.

Yeah, nah. Driving slowly isn't safer than driving at the speed of the traffic.

Speeding on high-speed roads is dangerous mainly because it means you and everyone else are going at different speeds. If everyone is going at much the same speed, the opportunity to collide is greatly reduced. Driving slowly on such roads is almost as dangerous as speeding.

On low-speed roads, driving at an appropriate speed for the circumstances and conditions is safe; Driving slower than that does nothing to increase safety.

If you are routinely using your reflexes while driving on public highways, you are doing it badly wrong.

Smoking pot impairs driving ability. Nothing about being stoned makes anyone a better or safer driver.

So, this is not entirely true.

Pot is a "mixed bag", in that it, on its own, does not rob the user of the knowledge that they're impaired and generally the user adjusts their own behavior.

This has the well-documented effect of offsetting impairment of reaction times with behavior that gives more reaction time.

It can also cause more anxiety than normal, leading a reckless driver to perhaps drive much more safely.

Crash culpability studies have indicated this result many times, with double-blind driving simulator research to back it up.

Exceptions to this pop up most notably when someone is impaired by a substance that takes away awareness of impairment (such as alcohol).

 

[bilby]

Smoking pot makes drivers slow down, and thereby become safer drivers, even though they have impaired reflexes.

Yeah, nah. Driving slowly isn't safer than driving at the speed of the traffic.

Speeding on high-speed roads is dangerous mainly because it means you and everyone else are going at different speeds. If everyone is going at much the same speed, the opportunity to collide is greatly reduced. Driving slowly on such roads is almost as dangerous as speeding.

On low-speed roads, driving at an appropriate speed for the circumstances and conditions is safe; Driving slower than that does nothing to increase safety.

If you are routinely using your reflexes while driving on public highways, you are doing it badly wrong.

Smoking pot impairs driving ability. Nothing about being stoned makes anyone a better or safer driver.

So, this is not entirely true.

Pot is a "mixed bag", in that it, on its own, does not rob the user of the knowledge that they're impaired and generally the user adjusts their own behavior.

This has the well-documented effect of offsetting impairment of reaction times with behavior that gives more reaction time.

It can also cause more anxiety than normal, leading a reckless driver to perhaps drive much more safely.

Crash culpability studies have indicated this result many times, with double-blind driving simulator research to back it up.

Exceptions to this pop up most notably when someone is impaired by a substance that takes away awareness of impairment (such as alcohol).

You are still assuming that reaction times and reflexes are a central part of good driving.

This is false.

Very widely believed. But false.

There exist rare circumstances, wherein someone else has done something badly wrong, and reflexes or reaction times can help to avoid, or to mitigate the severity of, a crash. But these situations are very rare indeed.

If you are routinely using your reflexes while driving on public highways, you are doing it badly wrong.

 

[crazyfingers]

Safe driving is all about going with the flow, being predictable, anticipating hazards in your surrounding before they become hazards and leaving yourself an escape when some jackass is driving unsafe.