Comment by pif | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pif | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm not sure we are talking about the same subject!

I was responding to someone proposing to let everybody consume what he wants, and I replied that freedom to choose must imply obligation of bearing the consequences.

Concerning the addiction, while freeing any addicted person from his shackles would be of great value for everybody (both the addicted person and the society at large), we must also insist on prevention as much as possible. And considering addiction only a disease, while forgetting that it usually stems from an initial deliberate choice, is a very dangerous stance.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but you cannot ever become dependent on a drug if you never consumed it. Which means that, short of being forcefully injected, every dependency on an illegal drug has roots in the initial choice.

I feel the pain for the people already in it, but treating anything less than extremely serious has being, and is still, wreaking havoc on several generations.

Just stop pushing the idea that there is anything cool or romantic in illegal drugs.

Choosing to take a drug is not choosing addiction any more than choosing to eat nuts is choosing anaphylactic shock due to an unknown allergy.

Addiction is something some people are heavily predisposed to. And they don't generally find out about that fact until it's too late.

> Choosing to take a drug ... choosing to eat nuts

There is a HUGE difference between the two options: one is legal everywhere, the other is illegal everywhere. Stop conflating the two things.

I fail to see how legality is relevant to the question of whether choosing to take a drug is choosing to become addicted.

But okay, what about cigarettes then? They're just as legal as nuts assuming you're an adult. Do you see a difference there?

You specifically mentioned smokers in your original comment, implying they chose to be addicted to cigarettes, remember?.

> I fail to see how legality is relevant to the question of whether choosing to take a drug is choosing to become addicted.

A substance being illegal basically everywhere should be a strong hint that it may be dangerous. Most of the people on Earth not using a substance is a strong hint that it may not be necessary.

Illegal, dangerous and not necessary: several good reasons not to use it, and no good reason to use it.

Concerning cigarettes, look at how much money has been spent on dissuading people from smoking. With dangerous substances, not using them is the only sure way not to lose.

In conclusion, while I reiterate my support towards helping people already addicted, it is important to pass the right message to those who are hesitating.

Dependency is not an illness that comes on its own: it cannot come without prior usage, thus stay safe and don't use.

I'm sorry but your idea of why drugs are illegal is completely devoid of historical context and medical fact. Two of the most harmful psychoactive drugs we know of are the legal ones: alcohol and tobacco. Some of the least harmful psychoactive drugs we know of are illegal(psychedelics).

Drugs being banned had nothing to do with supposed harmfulness. It had everything to do with suppressing counterculture, racism, and doubling down on failed policy decisions.

And to say there are no good reasons to use drugs is again hopelessly misguided. It's exactly the kind of simplistic, moralistic bullshit that is so obviously false it drives teenagers to ignore any public advice outright. It's just not as black and white as that. Hell, most recreational drugs happen to have legitimate medical uses: opioids, benzodiazepines, cannabis, psychedelics, amphetamine, even meth!

To help guide people away from addiction and into reasonable use we need to acknowledge the good and the bad, not pretend there's only bad. We've been doing that for decades and the jury's in. It doesn't work.

> Dependency is not an illness that comes on its own: it cannot come without prior usage, thus stay safe and don't use.

What are your credentials? MD? at least some sort of medical / physiological phd? have you at least experienced it at all in the past? where are you drawing your knowledge from?

> Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but you cannot ever become dependent on a drug if you never consumed it.

I mean super easy one there is crack addicted newborns. Clearly they’ve used right?

Are you aware that when someone abuses substances they usually have some underlying issue? Things like PTSD, bi-polar, etc. These people start using because their conditions are untreated, and they just want to feel normal. This of course escalates when they need to use more and more of the substance until before long they’re dependent.

What does the initial choice have to do with anything? As long as humans have existed, so has addiction. In all these centuries, prohibition has never helped. People use the fact that addiction starts with a choice - by the way, it doesn’t always - as an excuse to double down on failed policies that cost the public trillions of dollars, destroys families, and leads to massive amounts of death and human suffering.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com