Self arrest on the slippery slope of addiction
dimitarsimeonov.com
dimitarsimeonov.com
I like drugs. But I set a ton of rules for myself. I never buy more than a small amount of a drug at a time, I take scheduled breaks from any drug, I know the signs of addiction for drugs that I take and I take unscheduled breaks if I notice any of those. I also don't hide it from friends or family, so they can help catch signs that I may miss (though it hasn't been an issue yet).
My point is that there is so much shame around doing drugs; that one bump of coke can make you a fiend or that everything is laced with fentanyl, that we lose sight of the true way in which drugs take hold of a person. Addiction happens "slowly, then all at once" and recognizing that and knowing the early warning signs helps.
I am not suggesting everyone do all the drugs they want all the time; additive personalities are a thing, unknown quality of street drugs is a thing, and acting dangerous to yourself or others while high is a thing. But I think the shame associated with drugs, forcing people to use drugs in the shadows, exposes us all to the biggest risk, which is addiction.
Huh? Perhaps fueled by the idea that intoxication leads to more harmful events for society, its members, and the individual.
Perhaps we put on airs about being responsible and avoiding intoxication - but when it really comes down to it, society prefers the intoxicated over straight edge types.
> Addiction happens "slowly, then all at once" and recognizing that and knowing the early warning signs helps.
There are different types of addicts and it is hard to know in advance if you are one of the more at risk types or what will trigger you to become one. I don't particularly care if people do drugs, but it seems like common sense that exposing more people to drugs will increase the number of addicts.
I personally suspect that over 50% of drug users are attempting to self medicate in some way. Whether or not they are consciously aware that self medication is what they are doing, that's another question entirely.
"Drink drive, bloody idiot" is a slogan every Australian knows.
Yet alcohol is by far the most destructive substance in terms of both $ and human life costs. Which seems to weaken the argument significantly...
So maybe prohibition is not the answer. But whatever we've done with alcohol clearly isn't, either.
> for individual exposure the four substances alcohol, nicotine, cocaine and heroin fall into the “high risk” category with MOE [margin of exposure] < 10, the rest of the compounds except THC fall into the “risk” category with MOE < 100. On a population scale, only alcohol would fall into the “high risk” category, and cigarette smoking would fall into the “risk” category
Edit: I recall reading somewhere that 25% of people who use heroin develop addictions. Let's say that we are as successful at developing a culture of heroin use as we have been at developing a culture of alcohol use so that we can reduce addiction to 10%. It seems likely to me that any such culture would more than triple the number of people using heroin, so the overall effect is probably to increase the number of addicts.
The drug-using population is more intelligent than the non-drug-using population -- except if the drug is cigarettes. Something I learned recently here.
This quote is hilarious, and I find it interesting that there's a difference in intelligence between drug users and non users. My gut feeling is that there would be no significant difference.
I will note that most drug use does not impact intelligence negatively. Of course it can if abused to a great enough degree as that will significantly alter neural function but this also depends on the specific mechanisms of the substance.
Dr. Carl Hart is a great example of this. He's been a recreational heroin user for 5 years and is a tenured professor of neuroscience at Columbia.
If people had a fully tested and clean source of heroin (free from fentanyl) there would be less overdose deaths.
Perhaps PhDs are on average better socially-connected so that they have better supply chains. But it isn't directly because of personal characteristics.
Edit: From https://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/fastfocus/pdfs/FF32-20...
> Recent research using 1992 to 2011 National Health Interview Survey data combined with data from the National Vital Statistics System indicates that the recent drug overdose epidemic—driven largely by prescription opioids and heroin—has implications for life expectancy differences by education level. Specifically, while drug overdose deaths have grown for all education groups, those with less than a high school education lost the most years of life. Overdose deaths now represent a substantial share of the widening inequality in life expectancy by education level.
IME, it's never been a discipline issue.
It's always been a "Crack is for the rich; but we're not rich; we're working class" issue.
Simply having money leads to better/healthier sources of pleasure, a more stable emotional state, and another, competing "addiction": a paycheck.
Taking away someone's source of income is the quickest way to turn them into a drug addict (especially if they have no safety net). Add in a dash of hopelessness for the future, and we're all set to someone never getting off their feet, as they spiral into self-destruction.
I would also wager that there's a confounding "drug users in lower socioeconomic strata cannot maintain their expensive habits for long, before either: running out of money, self-destructing and blowing up what little of their lives is left, or simply OD'ing." Someone in a higher socioeconomic strata is likely to be hooked on the dopamine drip of a steady cashflow, and the "need" to keep their present level of material comfort (lest their behavioural conditioning starts throwing "fear" at them!), and thus less liable to be broke; thus, less likely to be undisciplined; thus, less likely to score poorly on IQ tests; and thus, able to keep an active drug habit.
You know, i'm not entirely sure about that.
On one hand, that is a good argument and speaking about all of the "vices" that humans enjoy in a more frank manner and how to engage in them in a more safe manner could be a good thing. Also, the legalization of certain substances could lead to more regulation, quality control and tax income.
I could draw parallels with how men in society are oftentimes expected not to show emotions, or how mental health isn't really addressed in social discourse all that much, leaving many feeling miserable. Or perhaps how sex workers often operate without proper testing in place or worker protections, versus the countries where that sort of thing is legalized.
On the other hand, i'm not sure that normalizing potentially harmful behaviors is acceptable. For example, personally, i don't even drink alcohol - i've tried it a few times, but didn't feel like it's for me. Being detached from drinking just makes me aware of how much of a deeply ingrained drinking culture there is in our society - people drink for celebrations, for relaxation, talk about the supposed health benefits of wine, there are commercials on TV and online for alcohol and the end result is that many people end up drinking.
This leads to traffic accidents (DUI). This leads to preventable disease and lower life spans. This leads to more violence due to drinking. This also leads to the kind of addiction that makes members of society lose their income and housing. Perhaps this plays into your point about addictive personalities or just poor decision making.
I feel like it's the same story with cigarettes. And that it would be the same story for other types of substances.
Either way, it's a pretty slippery slope and it's hard to reason about these things.
Most people seem to use them like a button that you hit when you wanna party and let loose. To me, they're very different-- they're buttons with very specific effects. A very very small dose of an opiate can make you more sociable and even less stressed. It's not optimal, but before I learned healthier coping mechanisms I used this a lot. But damn it though I stay away, I have to admit in extreme moderation they still can enhance performance unbelievably well. Only problem is they're insanely addictive, so I stay away.
My point is that I think there are smarter ways to use drugs, more like a doctor than like a rapper. I know some people will always want to use drugs like they're in a music video, you can't do much about that. But I think much of the population would actually like to use drugs in a more informed and pragmatic way. Is it not right to use drugs to have fun? No, at least I don't think there is a right way to use drugs. But I do think treating them like "fun" buttons is a terrible idea. I'm not against ecstacy, but it's neurotoxic. I'm not against weed but it can trigger mental disorders in some who are susceptible. I'm not against cocaine but honestly a lot of it does have fentanyl added in nowadays and unless you have the patience to test it in advance first you should stay away. Most people don't consider any of this, but they should. Drugs change your brain permanently(that's why the second time is never like the first), they're not to be taken lightly.
Unfortunately, there's very little discussion on harm reduction and smart drug use. It's either the devil, or it's not a big deal. The truth, as always, is somewhere in between
This excerpt made me stop taking this seriously. Using caffeine or any other stimulant for the purposes of doing work one isn't comfortable with doing is a character flaw (or an act of desperation, however mild), not a fault of the substance one chooses to lean on. Justifying abstinence from such substances on grounds that the substance isn't intrinsic to human biochemistry is both a naturalistic fallacy and a bizarre rejection of human social history of tool use (substances are just another tool).
Modulating different signaling systems can vastly change our perspectives, whether good or bad is a different question. One that may not have objective answers.
https://www.nature.com/articles/mp20141
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09637214177355...
Addiction is weird. There is no shame in setting a limit at zero. It works.
On a related note, at one point I found myself stopping for a drink after therapy (when I tried that, what an adventure). Then I realized I was starting to drink to supress emotions that were starting to surface from therapy. Had to limit that to deal with stuff. Brains are weird, do what you must to optimize yours. Just remember that escape or avoidance is a copout.
The idea is that less will power is involved, and might draw me down to a lower overall sugar consumption in the long term. On the 8 'free' months my natural cravings will be lower than they would have been too.
Biochemical addiction seems to be characterized mainly by the alteration of the cell-surface concentration of receptor proteins for various endogenous substances as well as lower baseline biochemical production of endogenous substances, and is most well known and studied in opiate addiction. Notably not all of what are commonly considered 'drugs' result in such forms of physical addiction (characterized by physiological withdrawal with specific defined features, often life-threatening if not managed by a physician).
The other version, obsessive-compulsive reward-seeking behavior, has so many modes that it's hard to even characterize simply. Sometimes society rewards such behavior, i.e. working 80-hour weeks even if that negatively impacts your personal health and leads to a breakdown at some point in the future. Sometime society derides such behavior, i.e. playing video games 24-7 (with no compensation) or eating compulsively and becoming overweight. Frantically hunting karma points on Reddit might fit this profile as well as things like gambling habits. Regardless this kind of thing is more of a poorly-understood psychological issue, and lumping it in with physical addiction doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.
To be honest I don't know which category caffeine fits in; even after drinking many espresso shots per day I'd find that stopping for a week had little physical effect as long as I drank lots of water, and perhaps took an aspirin or ibuprofen at times. This could vary from person to person however; some people appear to metabolize caffeine at much higher rates than others do.
And with scrolling addiction - I haven't been able to stop it yet, but I am trying.
Regarding my question, I was wondering if I was missing something else within the article, which I feel like I do a lot of the time :) Glad to know that I actually got it.
I also limit alcohol as well. Not very consistently, but I'll easily go a month without a drink or just have one or two every couple weeks.
What I've found though is that the drug habits flow into each other. If you drink one night, then the next day you'll feel like having caffeine to give you a bit of a boost and make you feel better. It's in these times that you have to resist the urge - otherwise you'll be back on that caffeine wagon.
Doing exercise is also really helpful. I'll actively avoid alcohol the night before or after a workout. I've read that even a small amount of alcohol can negatively affect muscle gain, which is a great incentive not to drink around your workouts!
Discipline and self control are the key and to obtain those one must establish a good relationship with one's self and thereby regain acceptance of the legitimacy and force of one's authority over self. But the core of the matter is, why did the person's relationship with themselves go bad or did they never learn to like themselves and respect their own voice?
Quit coffee and replace with caffeine pills instead. Slowly decrease your dose over a few weeks (“titration”), using parts of pills, until you reach zero dosage.
I’ve done it multiple times to avoid the headaches and other side effects (that I got if I tried to quit cold turkey).
I have also quit by starting with a teaspoon of instant coffee without mixing it in hot water, then slowly decreasing the amount of instant coffee until zero over a couple of weeks.
Now I know it is so easy to quit, therefore I restart a coffee habit without fear, which means I don’t stay off the coffee!