Hacker News Reader

Comment by hn_throwaway_99 | Hacker News Reader

I'm generally in favor of drug legalization and/or decriminalization, but I'd draw a line at meth. There is a reason for the "Meth, not even once" PSAs and memes. The drug is really just that addictive that it can ruin people's lives by getting them hooked after just one session.

Even if you disagree with my stance, I think it would be a grave mistake to not acknowledge that different drugs have different capacities for harm, and the fact is that the addictive nature of meth makes its harm potential astronomical.

View on HN

The amphetamines are all similarly addictive, it's just that methamphetamine is more active at smaller doses. This general class of drugs is widely prescribed to children and adults to treat ADHD in the United States (many argue over-prescribed).

People who use amphetamines 'recreationally' seem to mix it with alcohol, with very bad long-term effects on health. It also seems to drive people towards reckless and poorly-considered behavior, which is similar to the effect cocaine has on many people.

It's a wise life decision to not associate with cocaine and amphetamine addicts, certainly. However it is also curious that people in treatment for ADHD also develop a dependency on the drug, although perhaps in a more controlled manner due to it being prescribed, yet few people in the medical-pharmacological world seem to be that concerned about it.

> However it is also curious that people in treatment for ADHD also develop a dependency on the drug, although perhaps in a more controlled manner due to it being prescribed, yet few people in the medical-pharmacological world seem to be that concerned about it.

Dose makes the difference. The kind of dependency people with ADHD develop on their meds is closer to the kind a person with mobility issues develops on their wheelchair after spending some time using it.

"The amphetamines are all similarly addictive" oh, you mean like pseudoephedrine (sold as sudafed) and crystal meth? Blatantly they are not.

I think the comparison you want to look at is Adderall vs. methamphetamine. Incidentally, addicts can't tell the difference between the two drugs if ingested in pill form at the same relative dosage. This is comparable to how opiate addiction works; an addict can't tell the difference between morphine and heroin, it just takes twice as much morphine to get the same effect.

I suspect you don't know what you're talking about. Have you any actual experience with drugs? Because I can tell the difference between MDMA and various somethings sold as MDMA but aren't, and I'm hardly a drug expert.

Again, have you any decent experience with drugs?

There are a lot of nerdy people with ADHD on this website, ADHD procrastinating time away. I would actually trust them on this specific drug class actually, you can get prescribed meth with an ADHD diagnosis, just most don't.

Which fails to answer the question, or acknowledge I have some experience with this type of drug. Neat.

People with ADHD don’t get “high” on Adderall taking therapeutic dosages in the Milligrams. They take it to turn the noise down in their head so they can focus and be productive.

The comparison to meth “addicts” is absurd. People with ADHD are not taking Grams of prescribed amphetamine pills to get high like some one blasting their brain with a bag of street meth with the intent of feeling euphoria.

Do you actually feel "euphoria" taking more than the prescribed dose of Adderall? I've been encouraged to try increasing the dosage by psychs before and I just can't. It feels more like a panic attack than anything.

I’ve accidentally taken double doses and had a massive migraine. As for euphoria, your brain gets used to meds so you will only feel normal taking doses, even higher might feel more energy but never high

The dose and the purity is what makes all the difference here. When someone takes Adderall orally, they are taking racemic amphetamine and dextroamphetamine at a dose typically around 10-20mg per day. When someone smokes pure d-methamphetamine, they are typically smoking 50-70mg in one or two large hits. Now, I do not condone or suggest this, but imagine taking 50-60mg of instant Adderall in the morning.

I have on accident it just gives you a massive headache

I think when most people say they're taking Adderall, they actually mean Dexedrine or Vyvanse, which are both D-amphetamine.

IMO I think addictiveness is a matter of dosage. A lot of ADHD people who have these medications can forget to take them, stop taking them for days in a row, don't want to take them because of side effects and stop taking them for years after years of usage or only take them during school & work days, which all doesn't sound like addictive behavior to me. In practice junky addiction comes from junky usage patterns and behaviors.

You don't become addicted to therapeutic doses of amphetamines. There is some degree of physical dependency, but it's safe to stop taking them cold turkey and would only take ~a week-a month to return to "baseline" after that.

This is actually not true of the non-stimulant ADHD drugs like Intuniv; you have to taper that one off over a few weeks or unpleasant things happen to your heart rate.

And, of course, ADHD patients constantly forget to take their drugs, and the system where you have to get a new prescription every month isn't even something they can reliably do, being ADHD patients.

> There is a reason for the "Meth, not even once" PSAs and memes. The drug is really just that addictive that it can ruin people's lives by getting them hooked after just one session.

If you believe the propaganda - memes are not a quality source of information. You need to be less willing to repeat what you've heard sand more willing to dig out the facts. The same is said of crack ("one hit and you're hooked") but it's a lie. I've spent several full evenings smoking it and I am not going back to it. To some people, maybe one shot and then doom, but to most it's an incremental downward slope depending on many factors. Not denying crack is a bastard and I would probably not support legalising it either, but please don't parrot back rubbish you've been told.

If this is still the level of HN debate ion drugs, to repeat soundbite anti-drug propaganda, I feel we're getting nowhere and burning a lot of fuel doing it.

To be clear, my stance against meth comes not from "anti-drug propaganda", but from knowing people whose lives were ruined by it. I'm pretty open about drug use, and after hearing their experiences with it, it is absolutely a drug I would refuse to touch.

I'm not arguing these anecdotes are data, but for me personally they are enough to highlight the unequal danger of meth.

Are you saying those peoples' lives were totally fine, and then when they tried drugs they were ruined?

My understanding is that most people whose lives are in ruin and use drugs, use drugs because their lives were already ruined in some way or other.

> Are you saying those peoples' lives were totally fine, and then when they tried drugs they were ruined?

Yes, I am. They weren't ruined immediately, but the addiction quickly ruined them.

> My understanding is that most people whose lives are in ruin and use drugs, use drugs because their lives were already ruined in some way or other.

I think your understanding is woefully incorrect, almost to fall into the caricature of what "bad drug users" look like. Many people (myself included) like to use drugs because they make you feel good. Just look at, for example, the popularity of pubs in England - do you really think that all alcoholics only became alcoholics after their lives were already shitty?

Yes, I am. They weren't ruined immediately, but the addiction quickly ruined them.

Questionasble. There's a good asrticle in the spectator asbout this I can't find now, am at work. It suggests a very different interpretation.

Can't quite find it, try this instead, covers the same ground.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/doctor-heroin-...

> I think your understanding is woefully incorrect, almost to fall into the caricature of what "bad drug users" look like

Well, my experience.

Used to buy a bottle (700 CC) of spirits and it would last about 2 weeks. Became seriously mentally ill a few years ago, started drinking equivalent of 450 to 500 CC of spirits per evening (~1/2 litre), every evening, for a long time until the cash fortunately ran out. At least I could feel something, anything, when I drank.

When I got better the drinking subsided, almost back to my baseline again.

QV also soldiers on heroin in the vietnam war, when out of the stress of war they typically just gave it up iirc.

Libertarians tend to take potential solutions to the extreme, but seldom is anything so ideologically pure. Still, the idea that government can protect people from themselves is a noxious one. Drug legalization is an attractive one for that reason alone, but there are limits. Drug addicts are by definition not rational actors.

Presumably they were at one time a “rational actor”. Before the drugs.

Yes as libertarian who was offended by the idea of regulating what adults can put in their bodies at home, I have changed my mind after seeing real world consequences. As a young college student its easy to believe some kind of naive model of humans as basically well-intentioned or rational or at least a blank slate. Experience tells me that most illegal drug (and heavy alcohol) use has negative externalities and tends to harm the character of the user over time. An assertion younger me would have probably found offensively moralistic (what is “character” anyway?) but here we are.

You just described my history on the subject. I once believed that too.

So you've decided to support an ideology that restricts the freedom of all people to do as they please because you think it's harmful for them. I've decided >20g per day of carbs is harmful for people that choose to do it. Watch out buddy I'm going for bread pasta etc... I don't think people should be able to eat it. I'm coming for your rights.

I think that as a policy matter it is better for society to create an exception to the rule of complete bodily autonomy, mostly because of harm to people around the user. I don’t think users should get jail time but some penalties are ok. This is partly based on personal experience and partially on stats like increasing DUI rates post cannabis legalization. I don’t see much of a slippery slope argument to be made from psychoactive drugs to carbs, which are a basic nutrient anyone can find anywhere.

the question isn't whether or not a substance should be in use in a society, but whether its users/producers should be caged

Tens of millions of people in the US are prescribed amphetamines. They don’t spiral into a cycle of addiction and loss of self control.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com