drooogs

I don't really see what it has to do with fight club.

suppose car A and car B have autonomous driving that perform identically across a wide range of conditions. the manufacturer A enables FSD whenever the customer feels like it, but accepts no liability. manufacturer B accepts full liability for FSD use, but restricts it to situations where that's a good bet. car B is safer for the average customer, because it doesn't let them use FSD when it is especially risky. unless I understood a lot more about ML, CV, etc, I would pick car B every time.

kids is a cool film, but not much of a cautionary tale. it's more like a 90s urban euphoria, in that the message is really more to adults: "this is what teenagers are actually doing right now".

what (imo) would make requiem for a dream really effective is that it shows the transition from the "honeymoon phase" of drug use to the "consequences phase" really well. I think this is the part that teenagers really don't understand (or at least I didn't). when you're starting out, it can seem like a lot of the anti-drug messaging is just fear mongering (and it is, to an extent). but most people that age don't yet have the perspective to distinguish between harmless fun and a slow motion crisis.

trainspotting is also great, and a bit more realistic than requiem for a dream. but if I had to pick one of the two to show to teens, I'd probably pick the former.

I dunno what discussions you are referring to specifically, but the mainstream belief is that all-out nuclear war would end in nuclear winter. I have seen some posts/articles recently contesting that, which are (quietly) supported by the scientific community. we don't know for sure that nuclear winter wouldn't happen, but the foundations of the original theory have come into question under the last few decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Criticism_and_d...

I don't really see a meaningful distinction between "end of the human race" and merely "end of civilization as we know it", but it's interesting to learn about the current debate among experts.

I think it's more dark humor / coping with death than a plan. if that were someone's serious plan, they would probably consider killing themselves if the bomb didn't do it for them.

there are a few layers to "AA".

first there's the philosophy itself and all the associated dogma and religious aspects. I found this pretty weird and not my cup of tea, but I have no problem with it existing and people adhering to it if it helps them.

then there's the community. thirteenth stepping aside, these are mostly people genuinely trying to help themselves and others. I noticed some odd things, like some AA meetings banning the mention of drug use (?) and the fact that people are often preaching total abstinence in between gulps of coffee and drags off a cigarette. but whatever, not a big deal. what was a big deal to me was the attitude some members take towards people who don't find success with the process. the big book is quite clear that it does not claim to have a solution for everyone, only one that worked for the writer. and yet I often heard some variation of "it works if you work it" if I voiced anything like this, the implication being that it would work for me too, if only I tried harder, surrendered more fully, etc. very toxic imo, not sure if all meetings are like this, but it was a persistent theme in the ones I went to.

but the biggest issue I have with AA is not the philosophy/organization/community, but its place in recovery in general. it's not just the default option; it's often the only one. you really have to dive deep to find any alternatives. even if you pay to see a psychiatrist or therapist, they will often just tell you to go to meetings, maybe prescribe some suboxone/naltrexone if you're lucky. rehabs (the ones that will take your insurance at least) are heavily based on the AA model. some of the lazier ones basically are just a series of AA meetings that you can't get away from. it sucks all the proverbial air out of the room. on top of all that, the relationship with ostensibly secular government (ie, court-ordered meeting attendance) is highly inappropriate.

this was a pretty negative comment, so I want to be clear that I do respect what you do. "free" and "works for some people, at least" is a pretty hard combo to beat when it comes to recovery. I don't want to pressure anyone to change something that helps them with such a serious problem. I do wish that, as a group, AA would just stay in its lane though. it should not have the relationship with government and medicine that it currently does.

this is the sort of conversation that must be conducted very delicately, but it is something I have also wondered, having had similar experiences myself.

quite a few times I have experienced unwanted sexual advances/touching/groping in public spaces from women I considered friends, in front of our other friends. I don't consider those events traumatic, but certainly uncomfortable at the time. I never knew what to do, so I would just freeze and pretend it wasn't happening. once I actually went through with it and had sex with the person because I felt I had led her on by allowing her initial advances (dumb of me in hindsight).

perhaps one important difference is that I was physically stronger than every one of those people. I could have resisted, but didn't due to (possibly imagined) social pressure. like I said, I don't think there is any lasting trauma over these events; I think of them more as misunderstandings than assaults. but at the same time, all of these women were otherwise quite vocal about feminism, consent, etc. I wonder what they would have called it if I'd done the same things to them.

I've only tried kratom a couple times, many years ago. I can see how someone like me could have a severe problem with it, but I didn't find it to be nearly as addictive (to me) as heroin. I knew someone, like you, who had withdrawal symptoms for a very long time after quitting. I've also known a couple of the mythical "chippers", who've used heroin/oxy/etc occasionally over the course of many years without becoming addicted.

humans can become addicted to pretty much anything that's enjoyable. some things are probably much more addictive than others, but you can't really create a strict ordering of addictive substances/activities when every individual responds differently. is kratom less addictive than heroin? I would guess yes. is it more addictive than alcohol? I don't know, probably yes for some, no for others.

that's exactly my point. maybe it wasn't worded well. "X is an opioid" does not imply "X is an extremely dangerous drug with high potential for addiction". not all opioids have psychoactive effects. some (eg, buprenorphine) do have psychoactive effects that are generally considered unpleasant by users. it's a large class of drugs...

opioids are a large class of drugs with widely varying effects and potential for abuse. for instance, the active ingredient in Imodium is an opioid, but you don't see a lot of recreational Imodium users.

kratom is certainly not a miracle herb, but its characteristics do make it a lot less addictive and lethal than its more popular relatives. it's not unreasonable to think it might be used in replacement therapy, similar to buprenorphine.

it kinda depends. simply being high/tripping is not illegal in most places, but you can still be arrested for public intoxication if you make a scene or just appear very fucked up in the presence of a police officer. they are obligated to detain you if they judge you to be a danger to yourself (often happens with drunks). better hope you don't have any contraband on you if that happens.

a lot of people are overconfident in their ability to handle psychedelics. some people really are capable of maintaining a totally serene presence when they're tripping, but many don't realize just how weird they look to sober observers.

it's easy to talk about how much other people should pay. why shouldn't you pay a regular tax on your assets?

a 2020 outback is considerably larger in every dimension than a 2000 outback and rides quite a bit higher. it's no more a station wagon than any other crossover.

> Broadly speaking, I tend to think of "addiction" (rightly or wrongly) as the errosion of free will.

I don't claim to speak for all addicts, but this is not how I would describe my experiences, at least not under my conception of "free will".

I "wanted" to stop doing drugs in the same way a lazy person "wants" to go to the gym more. whenever the moment came to actually do it, I had to admit that I didn't want it nearly as much as I said I did. sure, I wanted the "outcome" of quitting, but in the meantime, I really wanted to keep doing drugs. so I did.

every day I had a clear goal in mind: getting money and acquiring drugs. I was fairly strategic in pursuing this goal; I was even capable of abstaining for a while (eg, to pass a drug test) if it increased the security of my future supply.

I was in and out of treatment for a while (primarily to appease others), but I ultimately stopped doing drugs because I didn't want to anymore. this happened rather suddenly, over the course of just a few months. a few areas of my life improved simultaneously, partially through my own efforts, but partially just luck. I now lead a fairly normal life.

anyways, the reason I type all this out is because I really don't like it when people describe addition this way, especially if they aren't/weren't addicts themselves (not assuming anything about you in particular). depending on what you think "free will" is, it may be more or less accurate. but it is usually a prelude to an argument about how addicts aren't competent to make choices for themselves and how society should Do Something About It, usually involving curtailing the freedoms of people unfortunate enough to be identified as addicts. addicts don't need to be controlled or disciplined (unless they are hurting others, of course). they just need to reach that tipping point in quality of life where drugs don't seem so appealing. at least that is my belief, based on my own experience and observations of others going through it.

> I’m pretty glad that the government is involved (in a regulatory/oversight fashion) in the chain of events that results in me having a bottle of $0.02 vitamin D3 pills in my cabinet.

it works pretty well in the case of supplements. there's no guarantee the supplement actually helps with your issue, but at least you can be confident that the bottle contains what it says it does.

the problem with legalization of recreational drugs is that the government can't seem to resist slapping on a huge tax and/or imposing arbitrary restrictions on the supply side. it is my understanding that there is still a thriving black market in most legal/medical states in the US, due to the high price and varying quality of the legal/medical buds. this is despite most MMJ practices being the weed equivalents of pill mills. it's kind of absurd that a legal supply chain can't compete with an illicit one on price/quality.

respect is orthogonal to agreement. why would it even be necessary to say you respect someone's decision if you agree without reservation?

I think alcohol fits into the puritanical framework pretty well actually. hangovers are built-in retribution for people who consume to excess. I suspect puritan types find it particularly upsetting when drugs do not punish their users the next morning.

kinda splitting hairs, but these words do have specific meanings. psychedelics and dissociatives of hallucinogens, a broader category of drugs. you definitely see weird stuff if you take enough ketamine, but the hallucinations have a very different character.

subjectively, I find psychedelics to have more of an "organic" feel and dissociatives to have a more "synthetic" feel, although I imagine others might describe it differently.

> You can decriminalize possession of small quantities but still make the drug's production and distribution illegal.

sure, this at least makes it possible for drug users to seek help without fearing legal repercussions, but it doesn't do much to stop people from overdosing due to inconsistent purity and nasty cuts (eg, fentanyl and friends). it does nothing to stop the killings in source countries and poor communities where drugs are sold.

honestly I would believe this, but in my experience people are spending the extra money to get strains that are either more potent or have different subjective effects. I've never known anyone who would pay $100 for a gram just for it to taste good.

> Is it wrong to want the others around you to not have access to drugs that can destroy their lives?

it's fine for you to want that; it's not okay for you to support the use of state violence to make it so.

I also have lost many friends and years of my own life to heroin. worrying about the cops didn't help any of us.

alcohol is a bit different than other drugs in that people also appreciate it as a culinary experience. most users of other drugs are not willing to pay 2-10x as much for the same drug in a better tasting form.

> That said, I'm fine with legalizing marijuana. Not so much so with the likes of cocaine, meth or heroine. Soft drugs, sure, hard drugs, keep a leash on it.

I realize that this is becoming a popular opinion, but why? I almost understand the full prohibition mindset more.

as long as there are any illegal drugs with strong demand, people are going to get killed over it. legalizing weed isn't going to make much difference; there's way more money in the hard stuff.

so I gotta ask, do you think you will personally be hurt if hard drugs are legal (or even decriminalized), or are you taking it upon yourself to protect other people from themselves?

> Society has already accepted: helmet laws, seatbelt laws, mandatory health insurance, age limits for alcohol and tobacco consumption, food and drug regulations, etc.

not everything on that list is terrible; in fact, it provides a good opportunity to illustrate my point. not wearing a seatbelt makes it likely that you will become a lethal projectile in the event of an accident, so i'm okay with seatbelts being required. as far as food and drugs go, i think people should have access to as much information as possible about the things they are putting in their body, but i don't think they should be prevented from selling raw milk or dangerous drugs. i also think it is fine to prevent children from doing any number of risky things, as they are not mature enough be fully responsible for their actions. my problem is with treating adults like children. unless what you do with your body actually harms others, you should be left to do it in peace. and no, the fact that other people choose to waste resources cleaning up your mistakes does not constitute harming them.

> society ends up bearing the burden of helping people who aren't able to help themselves, be it on an individual level or a governmental level.

it doesn't have to do this. if people want to kill themselves slowly, they should be allowed to.

> I am a huge opposer of legalization, because I've seen what pot has done to people I care about.

frankly, this argument has no place in a society that considers itself free. it is not for you to tell me what harm i may inflict on my own body, nor to restrict others from helping me do it.

works great unless the person is alone. then they die.

> Buprenorphine has more dangerous potential side effects than either of them

genuinely curious, what are these?

> the reduced risk of overdose isn't because of the drug

it is significantly harder to overdose on buprenorphine, especially in formulations that contain naloxone.

i'm curious whether you experience chronic pain yourself. opioids are a dangerous class of drugs, and the decision to use them is based on weighing the severity of a person's pain against the inherent risks of using the drugs. in a certain sense, i find it quite inhumane that this decision can only be made by someone who has no accurate way of knowing how much pain the patient feels.

ideally, no.

plenty of people successfully use buprenorphine to taper off heroin. some people do end up going on long term buprenorphine maintenance, but the harm there is radically less than an active oxy/heroin addiction. even in the worst case scenario, any day that an opioid addict takes buprenorphine is a day where they have far less risk of fatal overdose.