>> The largest assumption that seems to be behind your position is that society should not have recreational drugs. Is this correct?
> not necessarily. as alcohol was/is still very common where i grew up, it doesn't mean that the mere availability is a problem in itself. it was more the attitude about it.
So if the risks were mitigated (can never be eliminated) you would be okay(-ish) with drugs other than alcohol being used? Assuming good role models, etc. it's fine if you say no, we'll disagree but I will at least understand your position and I will respect it.
> but for a stressed single parent,
An aside, I assure you a parent doesn't have to be single to be stressed, in fact it can be more dangerous to have two stressed parents.
>> compared the risks of horseriding with MDMA and found that MDMA was safer
> safer for whom?
Well, for the user of the drug or the equine.
> the issue here is that apart from personal injury, horseriding has no side-effects or longterm consequences.
The whole point is about personal injury! And how that can ripple out to affect others.
> the consequences can affect a lot of people. horseriding just doesn't go out of hand, or become addictive. like skiing or some other sports. you just can hurt yourself, that's all.
With respect I don't think that is anywhere close to reflecting what the paper said:
"The dangers of equasy were revealed to me as a result of a
recent clinical referral of a woman in her early 30’s who had
suffered permanent brain damage as a result of equasy-induced
brain damage. She had undergone severe personality change
that made her more irritable and impulsive, with anxiety and
loss of the ability to experience pleasure. There was also a
degree of hypofrontality and behavioural disinhibition that
had lead to many bad decisions in relationships with poor
choice of partners and an unwanted pregnancy. She is unable
to work and is unlikely ever to do so again [my emphasis],
so the social costs
of her brain damage are also very high."
further
"I suspect most people will be surprised that riding is
such a dangerous activity. The data are quite startling – people
die and are permanently damaged from falling – with neck and
spine fracture leading to permanent spinal injury.
Head injury is four times more com-
mon though often less obvious and is the usual cause of death.
In the USA, approximately 11,500 cases of traumatic head
injury a year are due to riding (Thomas, et al., 2006), and we
can presume a proportionate number in the UK."
I also knew a girl many years ago who was a rider, whose horse spooked, reared up and fell backwards onto her, breaking her back. Fortunately this wasn't a wheelchair-forever case, but she was off work for months and would have back problems for the rest of her life.
I know many more eg. MDMA users than horseriders, and I've never seen any injury, never mind something so severe as this.
If you objected to drugs, it has to be on a rational basis of risk, and by that measure the papers point was, we are not measuring and responding to risk proportionately.
> absolutely. i think stress is a huge risk factor. and that's where avoiding drugs and alcohol completely brings its benefits. i am in a stressful situation now, and i find my ways to cope, but because i grew up without alcohol and never tried it before i am not at all tempted to try it now.
That is your decision and it is therefore the correct decision for you, but but do you think it is the correct decision for everybody? If you did, it's possible we might have less adverse outcomes, but you would also take away the ability to make choices for themselves, where it doesn't risk hurting other people. It's not a society want to be in. Also what is right for you may not be workable for others.
> the same goes for any potentially addictive behavior like gambling. but since it was mentioned in the initial question, i'd like to talk about phone/internet addiction a bit...but i don't know what they will do when they get old enough and are able to spend their own money.
I honestly don't know. It's possible giving them a small allowance to buy online stuff might help them manage things, or it might feed a possible addiction. Perhaps you can ask around on parents forums?
>>> and where we were generally educated in school to avoid that stuff.
>> I'm uncomfortable because you're trying to make up other people's minds for them.
> i want to give kids good rolemodels, and show them that drugs or alcohol are not needed to have a good time.
That may be true for you but are you willing to project and enforce that attitude onto other people? Because you certainly don't need them to have a good time, but they can really bloody help! Please also consider that not only people differ, but situations differ and that needs to be accounted for. I have a delightful range of physical and mental health problems, and when I go out, which is sadly not often, I really need to make it count, to stop myself deteriorating further mentally. What an option for you isn't necessarily optional for other people.
> if as a society we want to reduce the number of people affected by alcohol or drug abuse, we need to educate our children to that effect. that's the schools job. to educate according to social consensus.
But what should be the social consensus, your position or mine or something else? That's what I'm trying to understand, it's the absolute crux of why we are discussing this.
> ... also requires relying on facts and true statistics and not allow hardliners to push their agenda by fearmongering and exaggerating the actual damage.
And this is where I have a problem, too many people (not just kids) will simply not recognise the harm drugs do. If you tell them they're not inevitably dangerous, all they hear is that they're safe. Not only that, we have a societal problem that will export the external costs of drugs (specifically alcohol and cigarettes) onto society at the cost of making individual firms richer. Edit: What I'm saying is that as a society we either forbid things or make them legal then go bloody mental in abusing them. My currently rather liberal position on drugs will have to contend with this kind of stupidity if we do legalise.
> also, you wouldn't jump on a horse or do any other risky sport without proper training. what would be comparable training for alcohol and drug use if not education in school?
Agreed, but parents must have some responsibility, I think we both agree with that.
>> Do you allow there could be benefits to recreational drugs used appropriately and in moderation?
> i do, but i still believe the risks outweigh the benefits. unlike horseriding where the benefits outweigh the risks, even though statistically there is a higher risk of injury.
Given what the equasy paper says...
Acute harm to person [MDMA] +1 per 10000 episodes [horse riding] ++1 per 350 episodes
...can you really say that? What are the benefits of horseriding, if exercise then there are other safer ways of getting that. If it's the responsibility of looking after an animal, get a cat or a dog (and that option is much more widely available than owning a horse – we could never have afforded it). What are those benefits?
> most of us do not get this certainty. stressfactors reduce, but they never completely disappear, and they may come back any time. people vow to give up drinking, it works for a while, then something happens, and they are back. veterans know that they are done for good, and that they will never have to make that experience again.
agreed, and we both agree ciggies and booze should be treated less indulgently by society.
if the risks were mitigated (can never be eliminated) you would be okay(-ish) with drugs other than alcohol being used?
i am not sure. if there is evidence that the risks are at least as low as those of alcohol, maybe. but, even for alcohol i consider the risks to high still. drunk driving, domestic violence and many other things are potentially caused by drugs or alcohol, and reducing these requires reducing the use of alcohol or drugs. however banning them is not effective, and so i see other measures such as better education as important to address those problems.
> the issue here is that apart from personal injury, horseriding has no side-effects or longterm consequences.
The whole point is about personal injury! And how that can ripple out to affect others.
If you objected to drugs, it has to be on a rational basis of risk, and by that measure the papers point was, we are not measuring and responding to risk proportionately.
but that's the big difference. horse riding accidents seldom have a ripple effect, drug and alcohol use almost always do. my focus in on the latter. i don't care what someone does to themselves, but i do care how it affects others.
your personal freedom ends where it starts to restrict my freedom. if my partner comes home drunk and starts beating me or the kids, and if banning alcohol is the only way to stop that, then by all means, i'd rather ban alcohol than give you the freedom to drink. (that's assuming that such a ban would work, which is questionable in itself)
the risks from drug use have to be minimized. but i also see the need to make some drugs legal in order to better control the quality and steer people away from bad quality drugs that are even worse.
if it was possible, i'd rather eliminate drugs and alcohol (and smoking) completely. since that is not possible i'll settle for whatever solution has the least negative effects on society (not on the individual).
do you think [avoiding alcohol] is the correct decision for everybody?
alcohol and stress do not mix. so yes. if you are stressed (severely and continuously), you should avoid alcohol as a way to seek relief. but the point for me is that never having consumed alcohol is what is protecting me from trying it to relieve stress now. that's not a decision i made, but something i could only learn from my parents, and i have to thank them for that.
I have a delightful range of physical and mental health problems, and when I go out, which is sadly not often, I really need to make it count, to stop myself deteriorating further mentally
i don't want to try to diagnose, or propose how you should deal with your problems, but i wish that there would be more resources available to you than just self-medicating with drugs or alcohol. i do accept that likely there aren't any other options for you though, so i understand your choice here. but that doesn't mean that legalizing drugs is the best answer to these problems, but it's unfortunately probably the cheapest.
are you willing to project and enforce that attitude onto other people?
project and teach people that alcohol and gambling are bad? absolutely. but enforce only when it actually (provably) helps to reduce harm on society.
the problem here generally is that many people want to code their preferred attitude into law, when in many cases that is not useful. instead they should share and teach (without pressure), but allow everyone to make their own choices.
But what should be the social consensus, your position or mine or something else?
social consensus should be whatever has the most benefit and the least harm for society as a whole.
What I'm saying is that as a society we either forbid things or make them legal then go bloody mental in abusing them. My currently rather liberal position on drugs will have to contend with this kind of stupidity if we do legalise.
exactly, that's a problem we are facing. the only way out is better education. i think we are pretty much in agreement here.
What are the benefits of horseriding, if exercise then there are other safer ways of getting that. If it's the responsibility of looking after an animal, get a cat or a dog (and that option is much more widely available than owning a horse – we could never have afforded it). What are those benefits?
as i mentioned before, i am not at all concerned about the risks to the individual partaking in an activity of their choice. i am only concerned about risks to others. that makes horseriding almost risk free. in fact, since my wife was always afraid of dogs due to a childhood incident, to her, dogs are more dangerous than horses. dogs can bite, cats can scratch, horses can throw you off or kick you. etc. different animals have different temperaments, and which animal or activity is right for someone is very individual. you can easily construct a scenario where horseriding is simply the most practical choice, compared to other options a person has available. horseriding is just one of many options on a large spectrum, and does not even stand out in risk for the individual as there are other even riskier activities.
as an aside
"I suspect most people will be surprised that riding is such a dangerous activity"
i am surprised that people are surprised. i haven't learned riding, but i have rode on a horse once or twice. you are so high up and horses are so strong that to me the potential for injuries is no surprise at all.
Hi, I'll try to keep this short as we're getting towards an understanding of each other's positions and even a surprising level of agreement (with one exception)
>> if the risks were mitigated (can never be eliminated) you would be okay(-ish) with drugs other than alcohol being used?
> i am not sure. if there is evidence that the risks are at least as low as those of alcohol, maybe. but, even for alcohol i consider the risks to high still.
Note that MDMA and LSD are considered considerably less dangerous than alcohol here. I would tend to agree with that, given my limited experiences with LSD, and fairly long experience with MDMA. Mind, any prat can abuse any drug.
> however banning them is not effective, and so i see other measures such as better education as important to address those problems.
I don't want anyone to feel they should be legalised because banning them won't work; I want them to be considered for legalisation based on relative harm. Again, see the above link.
>> The whole point is about personal injury! And how that can ripple out to affect others.
> but that's the big difference. horse riding accidents seldom have a ripple effect, drug and alcohol use almost always do. my focus in on the latter. i don't care what someone does to themselves, but i do care how it affects others.
First up I completely agree with you "i don't care what someone does to themselves" and "your personal freedom ends where it starts to restrict my freedom" but where I can't find agreement at all is "horse riding accidents seldom have a ripple effect". The example of the woman with brain damage, or my mate with a broken back, these very definitely have a high cost to society and that is the ripple. Motorcycle accidents can be horrible even when they don't kill, and they do. Many other things. I'm afraid we may have to remain apart on this.
(edit: by 'how it affects others' you might mean at a strictly personal level eg. direct violence against another. To me, any cost even on people who've never met the foolish drug user/unlucky horse rider, counts)
> if my partner comes home drunk and starts beating me or the kids, and if banning alcohol is the only way to stop that, then by all means, i'd rather ban alcohol
I don't know if we can ban alcohol on an individual's rather than societal level ("touch the booze again, Fred, and you go to prison"), but that might work. I'd also like to add from experience that violence without alcohol is very doable. And ditto the converse.
> alcohol and stress do not mix.
Alcohol for some can be a very good stress reliever for short-term stress. Not me though, but certainly some.
> so yes. if you are stressed (severely and continuously), you should avoid alcohol as a way to seek relief.
Agreed, but some people don't have that option.
> I have a delightful range of ...
> i don't want to try to diagnose, or propose how you should deal with your problems, but i wish that there would be more resources available to you than just self-medicating with drugs or alcohol.
One takes one's crutches where one can find them, the world isn't perfect. And frankly, I did just plain enjoy them when things weren't so crap.
> but that doesn't mean that legalizing drugs is the best answer to these problems, but it's unfortunately probably the cheapest.
That is not an argument I would support for legalising drugs, you might be surprised to hear.
> project and teach people that alcohol and gambling are bad? absolutely.
I'm not comfortable with that statement, they are not inherently bad. They most certainly can be bad, but they are not automatically bad – well, that's my opinion anyway!
> but enforce only when it actually (provably) helps to reduce harm on society...social consensus should be whatever has the most benefit and the least harm for society as a whole.
Agreed.
> exactly, that's a problem we are facing. the only way out is better education. i think we are pretty much in agreement here.
snap
> as i mentioned before, i am not at all concerned about the risks to the individual partaking in an activity of their choice. i am only concerned about risks to others. that makes horseriding almost risk free. ... and does not even stand out in risk for the individual as there are other even riskier activities.
Again, we're going to have to remain separate on this. The damage caused by MDMA is statistically very low, and could be greatly reduced almost to nothing by education and quality controls. It does feel that you're a little more lenient on one activity because it doesn't involve drugs, and less so for the other because it does. Well that's my impression. And either way, that's your position and I respect it, and maybe it's me seeing it through the wrong end of the telescope.
I'm very happy with this discussion, and I really want to thank you for taking the time and giving me a thoughtful and measured response from the other side. That is what I really want from HN, and don't often get it in this area! That really was excellent and the world feels a tiny bit saner now.
You might be surprised that alcohol is not a low-risk drug by some measures
i am aware of that. i am using alcohol simply as a baseline. any other substance must not pose any higher risk. ideally less even.
Note that MDMA and LSD are considered considerably less dangerous than alcohol here
i was not aware of that, but i guess the realization of this is why more and more places are considering making such drugs legal.
I don't want anyone to feel they should be legalised because banning them won't work
i was mainly talking about alcohol here. since alcohol is very easy to make, all that banning gets you is moonshine.
The example of the woman with brain damage, or my mate with a broken back, these very definitely have a high cost to society
i disagree with that. sure, it costs insurance, and taxes, but noone else got hurt. if as a society we can't bear that cost then we'd have to ban almost all outdoor activities because they all carry some risk of injury. the result would be a very oppressive society. the cost that i worry about is the personal tragedy that results from being an innocent victim. horseriding does not cause bystanders to get hurt. motorcycles rarely do, but drugs and alcohol do, as do cars and guns (and gambling).
I don't know if we can ban alcohol on an individual's rather than societal level
that won't work simply because by the time the relevant institutions to make that judgement are able to intervene the damage is already done. we need solutions that prevent the abuse from the beginning. only education and restricting access for anyone can do that.
> but that doesn't mean that legalizing drugs is the best answer to these problems, but it's unfortunately probably the cheapest.
That is not an argument I would support for legalising drugs
neither would i. but the alternative is to increase investment into education and healthcare ten-fold or more even. which is something i would absolutely support and prefer over allowing the use of drugs for self-medication. but that is much harder to achive. i am fighting for that though, whereas i am not fighting for drugs to be legalized. i merely allow that to happen by not fighting against it either.
> project and teach people that alcohol and gambling are bad? absolutely.
I'm not comfortable with that statement, they are not inherently bad. They most certainly can be bad, but they are not automatically bad
well this is another point where we are going disagree, which is fine. basically i believe that using substances to alter your state of mind is a bad idea and should only be done under medical supervision and when necessary. (but again, i don't want to make a law out of this, unless it is necessary to protect innocent victims). but this is a whole topic of its own that i am not quite ready to argue here because i am not familiar enough with the details.
It does feel that you're a little more lenient on one activity because it doesn't involve drugs, and less so for the other because it does.
i am more lenient on some activities because they are supported by the current consensus in society. if it were up to me, i'd eliminate any alcohol, smoking, gambling, private cars and guns from this planet. because they are all dangerous to bystanders and there are better ways to handle the problems they solve.
ultimately, no matter what choice we make, what matters is that as a society we will only make progress if we find consensus on the major issues that we face today. because only through consensus are we able to change direction if we find that some choice was a bad idea.
we are struggling with a lot of issues because we waste energy on fighting each other instead of looking forward.
I really appreciate your time discussing this. It's helped me understand a different viewpoint, and I hope you have got as much out of it as I have, which is a lot!
i think that was the most enlightening and deep discussion i had on hackernews so far. thank you for that. my email is always open for any other discussion like this.
>> The largest assumption that seems to be behind your position is that society should not have recreational drugs. Is this correct?
> not necessarily. as alcohol was/is still very common where i grew up, it doesn't mean that the mere availability is a problem in itself. it was more the attitude about it.
So if the risks were mitigated (can never be eliminated) you would be okay(-ish) with drugs other than alcohol being used? Assuming good role models, etc. it's fine if you say no, we'll disagree but I will at least understand your position and I will respect it.
> but for a stressed single parent,
An aside, I assure you a parent doesn't have to be single to be stressed, in fact it can be more dangerous to have two stressed parents.
>> compared the risks of horseriding with MDMA and found that MDMA was safer
> safer for whom?
Well, for the user of the drug or the equine.
> the issue here is that apart from personal injury, horseriding has no side-effects or longterm consequences.
The whole point is about personal injury! And how that can ripple out to affect others.
> the consequences can affect a lot of people. horseriding just doesn't go out of hand, or become addictive. like skiing or some other sports. you just can hurt yourself, that's all.
With respect I don't think that is anywhere close to reflecting what the paper said:
"The dangers of equasy were revealed to me as a result of a recent clinical referral of a woman in her early 30’s who had suffered permanent brain damage as a result of equasy-induced brain damage. She had undergone severe personality change that made her more irritable and impulsive, with anxiety and loss of the ability to experience pleasure. There was also a degree of hypofrontality and behavioural disinhibition that had lead to many bad decisions in relationships with poor choice of partners and an unwanted pregnancy. She is unable to work and is unlikely ever to do so again [my emphasis], so the social costs of her brain damage are also very high."
further
"I suspect most people will be surprised that riding is such a dangerous activity. The data are quite startling – people die and are permanently damaged from falling – with neck and spine fracture leading to permanent spinal injury. Head injury is four times more com- mon though often less obvious and is the usual cause of death. In the USA, approximately 11,500 cases of traumatic head injury a year are due to riding (Thomas, et al., 2006), and we can presume a proportionate number in the UK."
I also knew a girl many years ago who was a rider, whose horse spooked, reared up and fell backwards onto her, breaking her back. Fortunately this wasn't a wheelchair-forever case, but she was off work for months and would have back problems for the rest of her life.
I know many more eg. MDMA users than horseriders, and I've never seen any injury, never mind something so severe as this.
If you objected to drugs, it has to be on a rational basis of risk, and by that measure the papers point was, we are not measuring and responding to risk proportionately.
> absolutely. i think stress is a huge risk factor. and that's where avoiding drugs and alcohol completely brings its benefits. i am in a stressful situation now, and i find my ways to cope, but because i grew up without alcohol and never tried it before i am not at all tempted to try it now.
That is your decision and it is therefore the correct decision for you, but but do you think it is the correct decision for everybody? If you did, it's possible we might have less adverse outcomes, but you would also take away the ability to make choices for themselves, where it doesn't risk hurting other people. It's not a society want to be in. Also what is right for you may not be workable for others.
> the same goes for any potentially addictive behavior like gambling. but since it was mentioned in the initial question, i'd like to talk about phone/internet addiction a bit...but i don't know what they will do when they get old enough and are able to spend their own money.
I honestly don't know. It's possible giving them a small allowance to buy online stuff might help them manage things, or it might feed a possible addiction. Perhaps you can ask around on parents forums?
>>> and where we were generally educated in school to avoid that stuff.
>> I'm uncomfortable because you're trying to make up other people's minds for them.
> i want to give kids good rolemodels, and show them that drugs or alcohol are not needed to have a good time.
That may be true for you but are you willing to project and enforce that attitude onto other people? Because you certainly don't need them to have a good time, but they can really bloody help! Please also consider that not only people differ, but situations differ and that needs to be accounted for. I have a delightful range of physical and mental health problems, and when I go out, which is sadly not often, I really need to make it count, to stop myself deteriorating further mentally. What an option for you isn't necessarily optional for other people.
> if as a society we want to reduce the number of people affected by alcohol or drug abuse, we need to educate our children to that effect. that's the schools job. to educate according to social consensus.
But what should be the social consensus, your position or mine or something else? That's what I'm trying to understand, it's the absolute crux of why we are discussing this.
> ... also requires relying on facts and true statistics and not allow hardliners to push their agenda by fearmongering and exaggerating the actual damage.
And this is where I have a problem, too many people (not just kids) will simply not recognise the harm drugs do. If you tell them they're not inevitably dangerous, all they hear is that they're safe. Not only that, we have a societal problem that will export the external costs of drugs (specifically alcohol and cigarettes) onto society at the cost of making individual firms richer. Edit: What I'm saying is that as a society we either forbid things or make them legal then go bloody mental in abusing them. My currently rather liberal position on drugs will have to contend with this kind of stupidity if we do legalise.
> also, you wouldn't jump on a horse or do any other risky sport without proper training. what would be comparable training for alcohol and drug use if not education in school?
Agreed, but parents must have some responsibility, I think we both agree with that.
>> Do you allow there could be benefits to recreational drugs used appropriately and in moderation?
> i do, but i still believe the risks outweigh the benefits. unlike horseriding where the benefits outweigh the risks, even though statistically there is a higher risk of injury.
Given what the equasy paper says...
...can you really say that? What are the benefits of horseriding, if exercise then there are other safer ways of getting that. If it's the responsibility of looking after an animal, get a cat or a dog (and that option is much more widely available than owning a horse – we could never have afforded it). What are those benefits?> most of us do not get this certainty. stressfactors reduce, but they never completely disappear, and they may come back any time. people vow to give up drinking, it works for a while, then something happens, and they are back. veterans know that they are done for good, and that they will never have to make that experience again.
agreed, and we both agree ciggies and booze should be treated less indulgently by society.