Haha, yeah i drink as well. But shit is bad for you. Worse than we thought.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
I don't understand the rationale of letting people destroy themselves with a wider array of addictive substances
- Thread starter Zen
- Start date
OP
OP
After thinking on it from the comments so far my perspective is coming from a position where you have a significant other or kids, or close friends and family. But that's probably a flawed perspective since an addicted person has to have the will to get help for themselves and not just because they have people who care/they care about. And that decriminalization doesn't mean they have an alibi for continuing to feed their addiction. Also that drug use isn't any more or less socially acceptable regardless. Even so, I think I do have some contention with the not hurting anybody else part, assuming you have friends and family or loved ones.
At some point in society, I really hope that most people are educated enough and understand that self harm, self destruction and addiction, do not happen because of the drugs/substances themselves. They will always exist, and people will always enjoy them without any or much harm (or abuse them and harm themselves), just like with every other existing consumable thing or activity we can enjoy.
If all drugs were just acknowledged for what they are (on a scientific basis), and their use (or harm) teached in school early enough, without all the demonizing (or denial of harm), we could handle the situation (and help people) so much better.
It's highly likely that almost everybody will have experience with "drugs" at some point in their life. Doesn't matter if it's coffee, sugar, medicine from doctors, or some illegal substances from the streets etc.
Give people education so they will be prepared and can handle the benefits or negative effects in a much better way.
Just pretending, banning, hiding and talking around the bush won't help anyone in the long term.
That being said, I'm high as fuck and don't even remember what my exact point was.
Someone posted that "Kurzgesagt" video about addiction. Everyone should watch it. It's the closest thing to reality I have seen about that topic.
If all drugs were just acknowledged for what they are (on a scientific basis), and their use (or harm) teached in school early enough, without all the demonizing (or denial of harm), we could handle the situation (and help people) so much better.
It's highly likely that almost everybody will have experience with "drugs" at some point in their life. Doesn't matter if it's coffee, sugar, medicine from doctors, or some illegal substances from the streets etc.
Give people education so they will be prepared and can handle the benefits or negative effects in a much better way.
Just pretending, banning, hiding and talking around the bush won't help anyone in the long term.
That being said, I'm high as fuck and don't even remember what my exact point was.
Someone posted that "Kurzgesagt" video about addiction. Everyone should watch it. It's the closest thing to reality I have seen about that topic.
haha, that's so recognisable. Drives my gf crazy as i get really talkative but i go from one topic to another and often forget the whole point i was trying to make. I only smoke weed after 22.00 though.
I think you're getting things mixed up there.
Fat shaming isn't helping the obesity problem; if it were then the percentage of obese people wouldn't be as big as it were and wouldn't be growing as rapidly. Meanwhile actual regulation has led to smoking being a much, much smaller issue than it was 50+ years ago. With obesity we're still stuck in the phase where we think it'll just "solve itself" if we demean fat people enough; with smoking we got over that years ago and actually put the regulations and information campaigns in place to cause meaningful change.
I don't know why coffee was mentioned, but I think sugar is more addictive than alcohol and can destroy your life much easier-- it just takes a little longer.
My caffeine withdrawals are way worse than my weed withdrawals.
Just because a bunch of dudes who knew nothing about it, made the rules about the legal and illegal ways to destroy your body (and have a good ass time) doesn't make the illegal stuff 'morally wrong'
Just because a bunch of dudes who knew nothing about it, made the rules about the legal and illegal ways to destroy your body (and have a good ass time) doesn't make the illegal stuff 'morally wrong'
Watching anime isn't productive for society, and sitting on the couch watching it feeds into an unhealthy, sedentary lifestyle so why don't we criminalize it to help it's fans live the best lives they can?
Yeah, it was probably confusing how I worded it. What I mean is that being overweight is generally seen as, by all means, a negative. There have been tries to rationalize it, but at the end of the day, most people think that being fat is "wrong", somehow. Choice or not, disease or not, it's not seen as ideal. Smoking is seen as cool (even by many non-smokers), and so is drinking, unless you're downright an alcoholic, but nearly all "abuses" are seen in negative light. What I meant to say this is that I think it'd be better if smoking, drinking, using drugs (light or heavy) would be seen in a negative light, as a bit of a stigma if you will. There's too much spectacularization of it, and they're "cool" things to do. I think that's one problem that needs to be solved, because properly regulationg this stuff while people still think of them positively would not have the desired effect at all. I've tried my share of things in my life, but I wouldn't be sad if all of them were in fact more regulated than they are, but alongside that there needs to be a cultural shift as well.
I know this isn't probably how most people see it around here, but it's my two cents. There's too many negatives involved for not enough positives in my opinion.
Agreed. Ditto for gaming.
(I'm only half joking).
Also, criminalizing drugs doesn't work. You've admitted as much yourself OP.
It's not about telling adults what they can and can't do to themselves, but structuring society in a way that doesn't exploit vulnerable people - be it using addicts as fodder for the prison-industrial complex, or pushing awful dollar hamburgers to poor people working three jobs with four crying children.
In the same way that the tobacco industry has been regulated - which isn't even far enough in some ways - most things should not be outright banned, resulting in the problems with prohibition. Rather they should be treated as potential public health concerns and steps taken to insure that assistance is available to people in trouble.
In the same way that the tobacco industry has been regulated - which isn't even far enough in some ways - most things should not be outright banned, resulting in the problems with prohibition. Rather they should be treated as potential public health concerns and steps taken to insure that assistance is available to people in trouble.
This is the source of addiction problems.
Legalize stuff and fund serious mental healthcare programs so the public can cope with their lives instead of avoiding them.
They already are, why would there need to be MORE stigma?
If anything, more soft drugs should be legalized and made common like alcohol, cannabis and tobacco.
I mean, just cause one thing is a bigger problem doesn't mean a smaller problem should go ignored.
Enjoying stuff in moderation is well and good but if one were under the influence and driving, this infringes on the rights of others. It's a common problem with alcohol and that aspect of it is criminalized.
That said, the OP seems to pondering the effect on people in the substance user's immediate social circle but that is largely individual as to if they feel it is a problem. In which case, it leads to self moderation.
Still, I don't think we need to immediately jump on restrictive China comparisons like how they reward people for buying diapers and punish them for buying video games. The government trying to influence favorable social behaviors on a large scale is within their interest. It's why married couples have different tax rules and why they had PSAs about healthy food.
I mean most of the things we do to stay alive and happy are also self destructive in some ways.
Some context as to your perspective would be welcome because, from what I can see, smoking isn't seen as cool anymore, especially at the level you imply where it's difficult-to-impossible to properly regulate. Smoking in the UK has dropped significantly since the 70s and it's only going to drop once people from that era start dying out (I don't know a single native UK person my age who smokes); meanwhile obesity has grown significantly and only continues to grow. That, to me, is because smoking is much less accepted when compared to obesity. When people suggest solutions to the obesity crisis they're always met with an overwhelming shout of "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!" whereas, at least in the UK, smoking has faced constant and strong regulation. I think you're overestimating the effect of smoking being seen as "cool" and underestimating the effect of fat shaming.
why do people care if I drink and smoke shit thats bad for me? as long as I ain't blowing smoke in your face or dumping a beer on your head step off, don't worry about what I'm doing. Because I sure as shit don't give a fuck what you are doing.
Smoking isn't seen as cool at all. We smoked as teenagers a lot more than teenagers now do. Same for safe sex and STDs...AIDS is almost eradicated in the first world. All due to programs at school where we were endlessly bombarded with information.
You need to have some transitional perspective.
You need to have some transitional perspective.
OP
OP
I'm thinking about it from the perspective of a family member with an addicted loved one or close friend I suppose. As a stranger I don't personally care what another stranger does, unless it is affecting other people. When I put myself in that perspective, I can't really say I wouldn't be trying to get them to seek help and wouldn't be saying it's their life to fuck up and none of my business.
If you don't let people consume these substances legally, many of them will pursue it illegally, which means more danger and more crime. If that stuff is legal, then addiction is treated more as a health concern than a criminal one.
That always seemed like the main justification for drug decriminalization to me.
That always seemed like the main justification for drug decriminalization to me.
Yep, the issue is that the more common a problem gets the more difficult it becomes to make any meaningful change. Take obesity which is one of, if not the, biggest health threats facing us today. Everyone knows there needs to be change but when any solution that isn't "let the fatties sort it out," or "lets belittle the fatties some more!" gets proposed it's almost immediately shut down with endless cries of "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!" People are just too selfish to take a small hit so that people they don't know can live in a society where it's easier for them to get out of/never get in a shitty situation.
I don't think things should be banned, but it's become blindingly clear that the capitalist notion that things will just right themselves without government interference is not working and will only kill more and more vulnerable people the longer it's allowed to fester.
Prohibition/criminalization doesn't work and just gives corrupt institutions more opportunity to harm oppressed classes of people.
I understand not wanting people to do harmful, addictive drugs. But we should be spending money on treatment programs and the societal problems that push people to finding escape through addiction. Putting folks in jail (where drugs are also widely available) doesn't help anyone.
I understand not wanting people to do harmful, addictive drugs. But we should be spending money on treatment programs and the societal problems that push people to finding escape through addiction. Putting folks in jail (where drugs are also widely available) doesn't help anyone.
Every time government tries to ban a substance, it fails. Criminalizing shit just doesn't work, people will always find a way. It actually tends to make things worse by then bringing in the whole criminal organization aspect and then we end up with cartels and mafia and shit. It also gives cops an easy way to target minorities and poor people so now we have prisons filled with people who never did anything but smoke some weed.
No they just cause widespread diabetes, heart disease, etc.
No they just cause widespread diabetes, heart disease, etc.
Marijuana should be legalized because Alcohol is incredibly dangerous, and the more ew can get people smkoing instead of drinking, the better off we'll be.
Everything else should be decriminalized. Get them treatment, not jail time.
Everything else should be decriminalized. Get them treatment, not jail time.
No where in "the actual study" does it state the stat you mentioned. It was made with assumptions by an author based on that study. He later changed his figuring here: https://www.washingtonpost.com
His now lower guess still is questioned by numerous sources:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2014/10/02/when-data-journalism-goes-wrong
http://whatifpost.com
Criminal punishment for drug use changes the script to the end user of the drugs from "don't fuck up your life with drugs" or whatever "don't worry about fucking up your life. we can fuck up your life just fine on our own".
I think sometimes people (like, all sorts of people) get a bit cavalier or dip hard into the motivated reasoning about their bad behavior, but, again, that's not an issue unique to patterns of drug use. At some level you have to allow people to do things that are socially harmful because the cost of trying to stop it outweighs the benefits of actually succeeding. If it's even possible.
That's not even getting into the fact that punishing addiction is like punishing the flu.
I think sometimes people (like, all sorts of people) get a bit cavalier or dip hard into the motivated reasoning about their bad behavior, but, again, that's not an issue unique to patterns of drug use. At some level you have to allow people to do things that are socially harmful because the cost of trying to stop it outweighs the benefits of actually succeeding. If it's even possible.
That's not even getting into the fact that punishing addiction is like punishing the flu.
Coffee? Causing diabetes?
Soft drinks I have no issues with. They are not good. However, soft drinks also have sugar free options.
How many times are cops called house because someone is acting violent because they have heart disease or diabetes? Oh wait that doesn't happen. Cops are medical services are called because the sick individual is in mortal danger.
How many times are cops called house because someone is acting violent because they have been drinking or doing drugs? Allot- because addicts who don't have control over themselves are being disruptive, attack or killing other people. Or they are dying of an overdose, while leaving family and friend behind because they had to have their fix. I'm in my 40's and I still have not gotten over my mother drunken life style, because I still get her drunken calls.
Please stop pretending addiction to alcohol and drugs is the same as addiction to food that lead to internal body breakdowns. It is insulting to victims of addiction when people down play the dangers.
For one thing, the OP was talking about helping people from destroying themselves, not just others.
Second, you can still have bad behavior illegal without the substance being a part of it. If your violent then you're violent, inebriation should be largely irrelevant. Sure maybe some substances can bring that out in people, but that's still all on them for putting themself in that state of mind. On the other hand when you criminalize just the act of inebriation itself regardless of behavior you wind up with tons of harmless people thrown in jail. That's not just a theory that is our current reality.
You sound like you watched Demolition Man and took entirely the wrong message from it.
I think this is what people don't get about the drugs and alcohol debate. Alcohol isn't some weird outlier in this regard. You almost certainly know someone who uses cocaine, meth, or pain killers 'responsibly,' it's much more common than you think. A lot of whether someone will develop an addiction is determined by genetic susceptibility to the drug in question. If you win the genetic lottery, great, enjoy your cocaine. But if you -don't-, you're in for a world of hurt.
And this is true of alcohol as well as for all the other substances. When you take your first drink, you're rolling the dice, which you have no control over. Maybe you're not susceptible and you won't ever have the trauma or adverse life events to make alcoholism likely. But maybe you are and you will. ~10% of the country has been addicted to a substance in the course of their lives, so let's say ~5% as a broad estimate. No amount of good upbringing, self-control, or confidence will stop you from being an alcoholic, though you may respond worse or better to the condition.
So, alcohol is better understood as a chemical that has terrible side effects. 5% of lifetime users of the drug will develop a life-threatening illness which may hurt others or alienate the victim from the people he or she loves. We don't know who they are, before they take the first drink. This is not a "can" be destructive. This is a "will" be destructive. If 100 people on the first weekend at your college try alcohol for the first time, we know with pretty strong confidence that around ~5 students will eventually develop alcoholism.
Saying "at least we didn't have to call the cops" won't offer much solace to someone who has had their foot amputated due to diabetes-related health issues or someone who has become completely isolated due to their weight.
Addiction is an awful, horrible monster that affects people in many different ways; playing comparison games based purely on how someone's addiction affects those who aren't addicted helps no-one and only serves to halt actual progress.
It's a hard nut to crack. Criminalization clearly isn't working, and tons of innocent people are getting caught in the crossfire. Most people recognize this, but as soon as you start talking about steps we could take to reduce the harm these substances have on individuals and society in general, everyone around you starts foaming at the mouth about FREEDOM and PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY like they're fucking libertarians drunk on their first poli sci class. I feel like there's something inherent in the American character that's going to prevent us from ever truly solving this problem.
How is this remotely an American problem when the entire world drinks and smokes?
Yeah, I actually think its higher after reading those lol. I think it's safe to say 10% are problematic drinkers.
I can only speak to and about my own experiences as an American, and how our health and criminal justice systems handle drug issues. I wouldn't presume to speak about the rest of the world when I have very little knowledge of their criminal justice systems.
CTRL+F and it took until the last page.
Yeah, this movie completely touches on this exact "nanny state" kind of concept.
I disagree with the OP. Addictions to alcohol and drugs don't just effect the user- the effect the people and society around them. There should be rules and regulation that stop people from going overboard.
It just tired of people downplaying the misery caused by some , not all, users.
Which is why they should be removed from society and put through rehab program, and possible jail for their actions.
I never said I was for criminalizing inebriation. I'm for tossing them in temporary, medical lock up, if they are too inebriated to function in society. If you drink a 6 pack and pass out an home, your fine. You drink a six pack and verbally/physical abuse your family members at home- you need to go away for a night. You drink a couple at a bar and arrange transportation home, fine. You drink a couple, and decide to get behind the wheel, you need to have your car seized for the night and given a place to sleep.
A more humane "drunk tank", with a strike system. If you dragged to the tank more than x number of times (with severity factored in), you must enter substance control program. It would not be criminal- it would social safety net.
Last edited:
You aren't "allowing" anything. We just aren't prohibiting the use of the substances. Isn't it clear, by now, that prohibition does not get us the desired outcome (i.e., less addiction, crime etc.)?
If we permit the use of the substances, we should do so responsibly. We should implement harm reduction programming and programming for mental health.
If we permit the use of the substances, we should do so responsibly. We should implement harm reduction programming and programming for mental health.
Last edited:
As your fellow American, I would agree that our attitudes towards drug abusers and our overall criminal justice system are messed up. I perceived that your opinion was "Only Americans could be so stubborn against having their vices limited" as if any country in the world wouldn't have a large section of their population be outspoken about personal responsibility or liberty if their government told them they couldn't indulge in X or Y.
If that wasn't your argument, I apologize.
People in this thread trying to pretend that alcohol and drugs uses only effects the user. That is wrong.
They are the ones bring up caffeine, sugar, cholesterol, etc as a defense. These substances do not cause radical shifts in personalities that lead to crime, violence, and self harm.
They are arguing slippy slope instead of deal with trying to find ways to protect responsible users rights, while trying to safeguard irresponsible users and their victims.
Decriminalizing certain drugs gives them a much less mystique and gives people an opportunity to seek help. If a person is addicted to an illegal substance they are more likely to seek help if they are not at risk of going to jail for just owning the substance. Decriminalizing a drug is not about saying it is morally acceptable to partake in these drugs, just that prison isn't the place for people who do those drugs.
Who is doing that? Point me to a single example because I haven't seen anyone try to downplay the effects alcohol and drugs have on those who aren't the ones addicted.
It's you who is downplaying the effects of caffeine and sugar addiction and implying that, as long as an addiction doesn't harm anyone else, it's not a problem. You literally said alcoholics should be left to rot if they're not actively abusing other people: