Comment by papaver | Hacker News Reader

Comment by papaver | Hacker News Reader

i think this quote really sums it up, "I try very hard not to use when I'm miserable, because that's what gets me into trouble."

it all depends on your personality. if you can get high and be responsible you can probably cope with using in moderation. unfortunately, i imagine a majority of people are not like that. i know several friends that have very addictive personalities and getting into junk would have ruined their lives.

a lot of it depends on how its taken as well. mainlining vs snorting vs smoking are all significantly different experiences, the amount taken as well. one can function when its only a small amount taken, increase the dose and you'll be lying around not being able or wanting to move.

i've tried everything under the moon though and i consider heroin pretty dangerous. i would not advise anyone to try it unless they have a very strong head. it is also one of the most amazing experiences i have ever had. the singer of sublime thought he could jump in and get out when he wanted, he overdosed, quite a sad story.

I think the problem that a lot of people get into is that your ability to maintain moderate use is not static.

If your life is going well and your not under a lot of stress, I could see certain people who could use heroin recreationally. Now have those same people lose their job, get divorced or have a depressive episode and watch their drug use spiral out of control. I've seen it before.

>i imagine a majority of people are not like that.

The studies cited in the article seem to challenge that assumption.

So then the analysis becomes the calculus of whatever benefits there might be as a function of the odds of use 'without serious consequences' whilst considering the potential outliers of serious negative physical and psychological consequences, including death, all the while ignoring the consequences of the realities of the present legal environment, as though disagreeing with the moral rightness of what actually exists is sufficient to make it go away?

I'm not sure who you are arguing with. OP said this: "if you can get high and be responsible you can probably cope with using in moderation. unfortunately, i imagine a majority of people are not like that."

The article specifically refutes that. It cites studies that show the majority of heroin users are able to use heroin in moderation.

Also you should edit your post to make it a bit easier to read. It's quite long for just one sentence.

I understand papaver's statement is contrary to the article's assertion that the majority of heroin users are able to use in moderation.

My response is challenging the implicit assumption in the article (and in your reply) that the moderate use of heroin is worthwhile in light of the real risks that are entailed in that use. In other words, is the high really worth the chance of becoming dependent and/or possibly dying from overdose? At what point does that risk become so suboptimal that deciding to go forward with a decision to use for the first time (when the individual cannot know for certain how he or she will react) is considered folly?

And I would try to edit that long sentence, but I cannot figure out a way to break it up without losing the intent. If only there were some symbols I could use to express the same thing mathematically in a way that would be more easily understood . . .

>My response is challenging the implicit assumption in the article (and in your reply) that the moderate use of heroin is worthwhile in light of the real risks that are entailed in that use.

Oh I don't think that moderate use of heroin is worthwhile--I simply think it is possible.

I don't disagree that for most people the inherent risks of using heroin outweigh the benefits, but that doesn't preclude from believing that the risks of using heroin are still exaggerated.

For instance, I believe that it would be optimal if the majority of 10th graders didn't have sex, but I don't believe we should tell them sex will likely result in death.

Present the actual risks, not exaggerated propaganda.

I'm not sure if you're from the US, but here we have an anti drug program called D.A.R.E where police officers talk to young kids about the dangers of drugs.

The dangers presented are so ridiculously exaggerated, that when kids inevitably learn that smoking marijuana doesn't necessarily lead to death and destruction--they begin to question everything else they learned from the program. Lying in order to persuade children is almost never a good option.

its just not that simple. the article doesn't state how it was taken in most of the cases.

i speak from experience and have seen the results of what happens to kids that mainline h. if you smoke or even ingest heroin its way way easier to do it in moderation because you don't reach the highs that shooting it produces.

most kids that shoot, try to get to a state of almost pure euphoria where your body is in pure ecstasy and you come in and out of lucid dreams. once you try that all other forms of consumption seem like a waste.

i don't believe its easy to shoot up in moderation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com