Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Suddenly Visible: Illicit Drugs As Part of Silicon Valley Culture

timothy posted about 4 months ago | from the roland-hedley-jr-is-on-the-case dept.

Businesses 511

The recent death by overdose of Google executive Timothy Hayes has drawn attention to the phenomenon of illegal drug use (including abuse of prescription painkillers) among technology workers and executives in high-pay, high-stress Silicon Valley. The Mercury News takes a look at the phenomenon; do the descriptions of freely passed cocaine, Red Bull as a gateway drug, and complacent managers match your own workplace experiences? From the Mercury News article: "There's this workaholism in the valley, where the ability to work on crash projects at tremendous rates of speed is almost a badge of honor," says Steve Albrecht, a San Diego consultant who teaches substance abuse awareness for Bay Area employers. "These workers stay up for days and days, and many of them gradually get into meth and coke to keep going. Red Bull and coffee only gets them so far." ... Drug abuse in the tech industry is growing against the backdrop of a national surge in heroin and prescription pain-pill abuse. Treatment specialists say the over-prescribing of painkillers, like the opioid hydrocodone, has spawned a new crop of addicts -- working professionals with college degrees, a description that fits many of the thousands of workers in corporate Silicon Valley. Increasingly, experts see painkillers as the gateway drug for addicts, and they are in abundance. "There are 1.4 million prescriptions ... in the Bay Area for hydrocodone," says Alice Gleghorn with the San Francisco Department of Public Health. "That's a lot of pills out there."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Red Bull (1, Troll)

BitZtream (692029) | about 4 months ago | (#47548765)

Did you seriously just call Red Bull a gateway drug?

Tim Lord, you're a moron. Stop posting stories, this isn't your personal blog. And no, writing them and then having Roblimo or another slashdot editor post the stories doesn't make it any better. Just stop, we don't want your thoughts.

Re:Red Bull (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47548809)

Did you seriously just call Red Bull a gateway drug?

Tim Lord, you're a moron. Stop posting stories, this isn't your personal blog. And no, writing them and then having Roblimo or another slashdot editor post the stories doesn't make it any better. Just stop, we don't want your thoughts.

He didn't call Red Bull a gateway drug, the article(s) did and he paraphrased to ask if anyone else's work environment treats Red Bull as a 'gateway drug.' It might be interesting to note, as we're all aware, that Red Bull is most commonly not treated as a gateway drug. If you arrive new on the job and a sage elder looks at you drinking a Red Bull and says "I remember when that sufficed but give it time and you'll be on the hard stuff like the rest of us ..." *taps his nose* then it might be considered a gateway drug.

Re:Red Bull (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549045)

He didn't call Red Bull a gateway drug, the article(s) did and he paraphrased to ask if anyone else's work environment treats Red Bull as a 'gateway drug.'

No, I work in a place where my manager needs to document why he failed, print it out, sign it and then deliver it his manager in order to ask a developer to stay late. And since everyone gets a minimum of 4 weeks of vacation per year, all project schedules assume that workers have 11 months of availability per year.

We probably ship just as much code per developer as any other shop.

Re:Red Bull (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549359)

It doesn't matter.

In the end it will all come down to Darwin.

Re:Red Bull (1)

Wootery (1087023) | about 4 months ago | (#47564357)

You can say that to just about anything.

Re: Red Bull (5, Informative)

larry (3749787) | about 4 months ago | (#47549793)

feel the same way about marijuana. the real gateway drug is liquor. i know so many people who were partying on liquor and were talked into cocaine.

Re: Red Bull (2)

blindseer (891256) | about 4 months ago | (#47553633)

I'd say the real gateway drug is milk. Every drug user drank milk, but that wasn't good enough so they went to alcohol.

The whole "gateway" drug idea is a farce. No one moves from one drug to another automatically like there is some progression laid out in the laws of the universe. Alcohol, marijuana, and opiates all work on different receptors in the body. Any drug can be a gateway to another if one seeks to get high and builds up tolerances to every drug they try.

Re:Red Bull (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47550609)

If that happened to me, I'll be out of there SO fast that my shadow has to pick up my belongings.

Re:Red Bull (5, Insightful)

kentrel (526003) | about 4 months ago | (#47548879)

It's kind of a gateway drug, in that once you open the Red Bull gate you are entering a world where you pay triple for the equivalent energy of a banana, and the equivalent caffeine of a cup of coffee. It's kind of like a gateway to a world of dummies.

Re:Red Bull (4, Insightful)

OzPeter (195038) | about 4 months ago | (#47548943)

It's kind of a gateway drug, in that once you open the Red Bull gate you are entering a world where you pay triple for the equivalent energy of a banana, and the equivalent caffeine of a cup of coffee. It's kind of like a gateway to a world of dummies.

Unless of course you shop for Red Bull at Costco vs buying your Double Mocha Lattes from Starbucks. In which case your Red Bull caffeine price will be less than a quarter than that of the Starbucks content.

Re:Red Bull (2)

kentrel (526003) | about 4 months ago | (#47549155)

But then you could also buy your coffee at costco, and a nice flask, and you get your cheapest caffeine every day and less disposable cups going to landfills. Though, another point worth mentioning is that coffee's stimulant effect on the body wears off after a while as the body learns to adapt. Some athletes will give up coffee so that their caffeine gels are a bit more effective on race day.

Re:Red Bull (2)

OzPeter (195038) | about 4 months ago | (#47549307)

But then you could also buy your coffee at costco, and a nice flask, and you get your cheapest caffeine every day and less disposable cups going to landfills.

You could also live in a country where you could grow and roast your own coffee beans. There is always a price vs convenience tradeoff.

Though, another point worth mentioning is that coffee's stimulant effect on the body wears off after a while as the body learns to adapt.

Which is great reason to kick the caffeine addiction habit in the first place.

Some athletes will give up coffee so that their caffeine gels are a bit more effective on race day.

There was an Australian Modern Pentathlon competitor who was sent home from the 1988 Soul olympics due to excess caffeine levels (but was later cleared).

Re:Red Bull (2)

PlusFiveTroll (754249) | about 4 months ago | (#47549643)

>You could also live in a country where you could grow and roast your own coffee beans. There is always a price vs convenience tradeoff.

Growing your own will cost far more. Think economies of scale.

>Which is great reason to kick the caffeine addiction habit in the first place.

Mormons up in the house, I see.

Re:Red Bull (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 4 months ago | (#47551707)

They honestly believe that your body will acclimate to any drug.

Don't talk to them about half lives etc. They just _know_ that you body will acclimate and you will need the drug to feel normal. On faith apparently.

It's a belief that instantly tells you 'Mormon'.

Re:Red Bull (1)

muridae (966931) | about 4 months ago | (#47553817)

You do acclimate to caffeine, though. Caffeine blocks adenosine receptors, which would normally absorb the adenosine released into the brain, and as a consequence your body releases adrenaline when it tries to make you tired and fails. That's the real 'caffeine crash', the big bottoming out after an adrenaline rush. Keep ingesting enough caffeine, and your nerve cells respond by creating more adenosine receptors; that means you need more caffeine to block out the same amount of adenosine. It's not huge, since you are only talking about the tiny amount that gets into the brain, as the rest of the nerves don't respond quite the same, so 'addiction' isn't the giant issue that it is with other drugs.

This is not to justify the Mormon position about drugs, as my thoughts on the matter are "could I see the list of those available?", but to dismiss the idea that caffeine is somehow different from other drugs.

Re:Red Bull (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 4 months ago | (#47554589)

Caffeine flushes out of your system relatively quickly. Unless you stay caffeinated 24/7 your morning coffee continues to wake you up beyond what you normally would be.

Re:Red Bull (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47550161)

You're an idiot.

Re:Red Bull (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549637)

Where can i buy trays of Double Mocha Lattes for private indulgence.
I seriously know people who keep stacks and stacks of red bull in their fridge. Starbucks has a higher cost of entry when it comes o that. You have to go out to get it and you can't realy store it in large quantities. That's what espresso machines do. They are way up there with red bull when it comes to gatewaying people into meth enhanced working days (and nights, and then days again)..

Re:Red Bull (1)

DrGamez (1134281) | about 4 months ago | (#47551339)

I just have to comment on the sheer ridiculousness of trying to make Red Bull a cost effective energy supplement, who modded this Insightful, if anything this is Funny.

Re:Red Bull (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549037)

That's mild financial stupidity compared to paying for a bottle of water instead of getting it from a fountain or tap.

Re: Red Bull (1, Troll)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 4 months ago | (#47549355)

Not to mention you're missing out on the free chlorine and fluoride...

Re: Red Bull (2)

PlusFiveTroll (754249) | about 4 months ago | (#47549659)

Bottled water is many times from city sources, it has been filtered again, but is many times still fluoridated.

If you don't want chlorine, put your water in a non-sealed picture in the fridge. The chlorine will evaporate out.

Re: Red Bull (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549791)

If you don't want chlorine, put your water in a non-sealed picture in the fridge.

Pitcher. Pitcher. PITCHER.

For the love of god, it's PITCHER.

I swear, people get stupider by the day.

Re: Red Bull (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47551143)

Would it not be "more stupid"?

Re: Red Bull (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47552435)

Actually while we are at that, this more foo vs fooer is a pretty shitty language feature. You should consider fixing it in the next release.

Re: Red Bull (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47552245)

stupideron, now in gelcap form! get it from your local obamacare dispensery now!

Re: Red Bull (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47553175)

or it was that goddamned auto-correct thingy attacking yet again

Re: Red Bull (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47569343)

ok, i get the pitcher

Re: Red Bull (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47577541)

He's using Dragon Dictate you insensitive clod!

Re: Red Bull (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47552753)

If you don't want chlorine, put your water in a non-sealed picture in the fridge. The chlorine will evaporate out.

I hear this method is much more asthetically pleasing too.

Re: Red Bull (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47550631)

Talk about your processed crap you call fresh water. Mine comes right from a mountain spring.

No, I'm not kidding. We have mountain spring water as tap water. Hurray for Socialism!

Re: Red Bull (1)

badkarmadayaccount (1346167) | about 4 months ago | (#47592971)

Finland or Sweden? Or were you from Iceland, can't remember?

Re: Red Bull (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 4 months ago | (#47552223)

not if it's well water. Of course, it might suffer contamination from run off/dumping.

Re:Red Bull (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549403)

Not to mention that most of the ingredient list is artificial, including the "energy". To top it off, there's enough sugar to make your dentist rich on a single visit. Now that's a bargain!

Re:Red Bull (2, Informative)

SplatMan_DK (1035528) | about 4 months ago | (#47549489)

There is no Taurine [wikipedia.org] in bananas or coffee.

If people want to pay for beverages with extract from animal tissue or synthetics produced from cyclic ether who are we to argue? ;-)

Re:Red Bull (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549583)

Yeah, but I hate bananas and coffee. Also, knockoff redbull is $1 (less than a coffee, here) and sates my thirst (well, not exactly, being a diuretic, but then again, neither does coffee). Plus I find I like the taste. Each to their own!

Re:Red Bull (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47550647)

Last time I checked the local store brand Red Bull knockoff costed like 30 cents. Then again, a buck easily pays for a RB here.

Re: Red Bull (1)

WebCowboy (196209) | about 4 months ago | (#47550393)

It should be noted that the drug in question is not caffeine or sugar. Red bull gives you wings because it contains TAURINE. Without that stimulant it would be tamer than a double-double coffee from Tim Hortons

Re: Red Bull (2)

Pope (17780) | about 4 months ago | (#47550839)

LMAO, Taurine is not a stimulant.

Re: Red Bull (2)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 4 months ago | (#47552517)

It's gotta have some sort of mind-altering effect; they put it in cat food and surely you've seen what they're like??

Re:Red Bull (1)

NemoinSpace (1118137) | about 4 months ago | (#47549035)

No, he redefined what "workaholic", "family man" and "high end" mean yet you choose to quibble over what constitutes a drug.
Even so, 32 oz of Redbull is no longer a felony in New York, while the non-collection of taxes on cigarettes still carries the death sentence.
Despite moderation, Eric Garner seems to be relevant to any discussion. Mostly because the right to life is unalienable, if you (and the police and Slashdotters) believe in God given rights. Or God. Did I miss anything?

Re:Red Bull (1)

countach (534280) | about 4 months ago | (#47549445)

Unless you're in Silicon valley, under pressure to work crazy hours, using various substances to achieve that, you're not really in a position to comment are you?

Re:Red Bull (1)

gweihir (88907) | about 4 months ago | (#47551959)

Of course it is a gateway drug! And before that, obviously sugar. Which is why sugar should urgently be outlawed!

Incidentally, sugar and fat kill a lot more people than all illegal drugs combined. And seriously, the whole concept of a "gateway drug" has been discredited quite some time ago. People will escalate to a certain level, regardless of the steps before that. But the authoritarian scum that just have to force their views on people can of course not admit anything like that.

Re:Red Bull (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 4 months ago | (#47552329)

We should ban water too. After all, water allows people to live, giving them the opportunity to ingest sugar! it's a gateway gateway gateway substance!

Re:Red Bull (1)

gweihir (88907) | about 4 months ago | (#47552997)

And a solvent! Probably causes cancer or something...

Re: Red Bull (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47555229)

Me? I like to dose up with 45u of LSD before a coding session. Screw the red bull.

Winners don't use drugs! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47548767)

Insert coin

Re:Winners don't use drugs! (3, Insightful)

MRe_nl (306212) | about 4 months ago | (#47548997)

Winners do whatever the fuck they want, and succeed at not getting addicted.

Re:Winners don't use drugs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47551267)

Why was this brain-dead troll post modded "5, informative"?

Wow. This place has really gone Ark B.

Re:Winners don't use drugs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47552297)

Not really. The world is filled with 1/2 power zombies that because they are able to do some things that successful people do while consistently using hard drugs, they all think they are pulling it off..but everyone else knows they are shit compared to what they could be. Then again, many young people cant fathom anything beyond 2 years, so maybe they consider making a ton of money or whatever for that time before going to rehab, hospital, morgue to be a "winner"....

Re:Winners don't use drugs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47552783)

WINNING! [nocookie.net]

Re:Winners don't use drugs! (1)

Sciath (3433615) | about 4 months ago | (#47568229)

Addiction is more than a strict matter of choice. Some people by virtue of their genetic inheritance and the social milieu they grew up in have a predisposition to addition. And the problem with that is that no one knows in advance just how susceptible they are. Statistically winners and losers are equally susceptible. So it's not just a matter of "I'm a winner so I can't become an addict".

Re:Winners don't use drugs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47551463)

Winners don't use drugs, they sell them ;-)

Ban caffeine! (2)

TeknoHog (164938) | about 4 months ago | (#47548773)

It's a gateway drug!

Re:Ban caffeine! (5, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 4 months ago | (#47548859)

Ban the 'D'! It's a gateway letter for Drug!

Re:Ban caffeine! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47548935)

Ban the 'D'! It's a gateway letter for Drug!

You can have my 'D' when you pry it from my cold dead hands! Wait...

Re:Ban caffeine! (1)

jimmetry (1801872) | about 4 months ago | (#47565433)

I guess we'd better ban rugs too then. All those trippy patterns are surely making our youth want to experiment with hallucinogens. Oh, the huge manatee.

Re:Ban caffeine! (5, Funny)

Bigbutt (65939) | about 4 months ago | (#47549219)

I guess the Mormons were on to something.

[John]

Re:Ban caffeine! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47550865)

yeah. FRAUD is their gateway drug.

Re:Ban caffeine! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47569543)

I guess the Mormons were on to something.

[John]

Yeah just use ephedra instead. Ever heard of mormon tea!? You can use it as a precursor for meth.

Re:Ban caffeine! (4, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | about 4 months ago | (#47549713)

The whole notion of a "gateway drug" is the misconception that correlation implies causation. Just because someone used caffiene, nicotine, alcohol, or marijuana before moving on to more powerful drugs does not mean that they caused the use of more powerful drugs. You could ban all of those drugs, and some other drug would become the first one users try.

Re:Ban caffeine! (1)

F.Ultra (1673484) | about 4 months ago | (#47550181)

+1 That these people use Red Bull is just an indicator that that worked for them. If it hadn't worked or there was no Red Bull then they would go straight to the Cocaine.However gateway drugs exists and it's name is alcohol, it's the number one intoxant that get people to try insane stuff when under it's spell.

Re:Ban caffeine! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47550411)

Please actually cite scientific or statistical evidence to back up your purely anecdotal claim.

The concept of a gateway drug has been known for decades. Don't make outrageous claims without substantial proof.

Re:Ban caffeine! (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47550681)

Citation needed. Just 'cause something has been "known for decades" doesn't make it so. For reference, see geocentric model.

The main reason something is a "gateway drug" is that you get all the drugs with the same guy and hard drugs mean more profit, so it is in his interest to get you to try something "better".

A lot of states legalized MJ. And? Did H use spike?

Re:Gateway Drug Bogosity (1)

billstewart (78916) | about 4 months ago | (#47552255)

There's also the argument that MJ's a gateway drug because of correlation - "you don't see many heroin users who didn't start with marijuana". My general reaction is "Look at all those heroin users who avoided marijuana because it's illegal and dangerous! (Oh there aren't any?)" (Actually there probably are some, people who got addicted to prescription opiates they started using for medical reasons, and switched to heroin because it's cheaper and because they can't get enough legally and weren't getting good medical support for getting out of the addiction.)

I did know one guy for whom marijuana actually was a gateway drug - first time he got high, in high school, he decided that it was good stuff and they'd been lying to him about all the reefer madness stuff, and figured he should see what else they'd been lying to him about.

Re:Gateway Drug Bogosity (1)

russotto (537200) | about 4 months ago | (#47554235)

Actually there probably are some, people who got addicted to prescription opiates they started using for medical reasons, and switched to heroin because it's cheaper and because they can't get enough legally and weren't getting good medical support for getting out of the addiction.

So what you're saying is prescription opiates are a gateway drug for heroin?

Re:Gateway Drug Bogosity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47554885)

Actually there probably are some, people who got addicted to prescription opiates they started using for medical reasons, and switched to heroin because it's cheaper and because they can't get enough legally and weren't getting good medical support for getting out of the addiction.

So what you're saying is prescription opiates are a gateway drug for heroin?

yes, prescription drugs can be a gateway drug for heroin. if you read the post you responded to and thought about it for two seconds, you wouldn't have to ask that.

Re: Gateway Drug Bogosity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47554907)

I have a friend who I went to highschool with that ended up spiralling down that exact path. He eventually came to the conclusion that heroine is close enough to the pills that he'd been trying to scramble together for the past couple years. He was a really bright kid too. We were working together on building an aev from scratch at one point. I wish I knew what was going on before it got to the point where he disappeared for over a year. What I've noticed about painkillers is that addicts tend to be fully functional people... Until they run out and start making extremely rash decisions.

Re:Gateway Drug Bogosity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47561101)

Who would've thought that expensive, highly addictive, prescription opioids would be a gateway to cheap, highly addictive, opioids when your prescription runs out?

Re:Gateway Drug Bogosity (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47563663)

But ... but they're legal, they can't be a gateway!

Pharma corporations profit from it for crying out loud. Profit! You know, a legal company making profit! How dare you say that's wrong in some way?

Re:Ban caffeine! (1)

znrt (2424692) | about 4 months ago | (#47553911)

Please actually cite scientific or statistical evidence to back up your purely anecdotal claim.

The concept of a gateway drug has been known for decades.

if you mean "well known" as "never scientifically backed hypoteses" tossed around for decades, then yeah.

Don't make outrageous claims without substantial proof.

again, there isn't substantial proof that "gateway drugs" exist at all. even so most backers of this weak idea seem to accept that such a drug would be most predominantly "alcohol", which is what GP just stated. uh, and that there's much confusion between correlation and causation in all this, which is evident. possibly even deliberate confusion, i might add.

Re:Ban caffeine! (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | about 4 months ago | (#47550931)

You could ban all of those drugs, and some other drug would become the first one users try.

Would that be causation, or just correlation?

Re:Ban caffeine! (1)

SydShamino (547793) | about 4 months ago | (#47551029)

I agree with the definition of pot as a gateway drug only because it is mostly harmless but illegal. Anyone taking it is already breaking the law, so why not do so with something else?

Having the law aligned with risk breaks the "gateway" argument; I agree with you that caffeine and alcohol etc. called gateways is ridiculous.

Re:Ban caffeine! (1)

davydagger (2566757) | about 4 months ago | (#47551977)

because thats a giant "what if" with nothing else to back it up?

I mean, jay-walking and speeding are already illegal. Its best to lock them up before they start robbing banks.

The gateway argument is ridicolous.

Re:Ban caffeine! (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about 4 months ago | (#47551053)

and 100% of Drug users have taken dihydrogen monoxide :-)

Re:Ban caffeine! (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | about 4 months ago | (#47553455)

Not only that, they are addicted to DHM. Addiction is bad, mmmkay?

Re:Ban caffeine! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47551241)

The whole damn world has misconceptions about causality.

Re:Ban caffeine! (2)

mariox19 (632969) | about 4 months ago | (#47551251)

It's gateway personalities that are the problem.

Re:Gateway Personalities (2)

billstewart (78916) | about 4 months ago | (#47552137)

Definitely. Depression and bipolar depression are widespread, and self-medication with alcohol and other drugs is fairly common. Some people are drunks or stoners or opiate abusers because they like it, but for a lot of people it's because they want to dull the pain or stress. For many of them, there are pharmaceuticals that could do a better job of managing depression or mania, but either they haven't gone to a psychiatrist because of stigmas about mental illness, or because their insurance doesn't cover it, or because they think they've got things sufficiently under control themselves, or because AA is keeping them sober, so they stick to the booze as their go-to self-medication. (Opiate abusers get other problems, because those are physically addictive; alcohol can be but it takes a lot more abuse to get there.)

There are other people who are tuned toward thrill-seeking, and like to hit the coke or whatever, but I've got less experience with them. And then there are other traditional reasons for drug use (mainly alcohol), such as boring jobs - farmers, video store clerks, etc. who can do their work just fine stoned.

Re:Gateway Personalities ; personal experience (1)

volvox_voxel (2752469) | about 4 months ago | (#47553513)

Probably you mean NA -- for narcotics anonymous. I think AA generally means "Alcoholics Anonymous". It wouldn't make sense that AA is keeping them sober while alcohol is their go-to drug.

I have a good friend of mine that I'd like to see continue his NA meetings. He's one of the sharpest programmers I've ever worked with, but somehow got into drugs that were somehow in his scene that had nothing to do with work (partying in SF). He's now unemployed as it's hard to keep down a job with the erratic behavior that drugs give you. I wish I could do more for him, and understand that an addict has to want to change, and that there is not much his friends can do for him. I'd be interested in advice for how coax an addict out of their addiction.

Re:Gateway Personalities ; personal experience (1)

uninformedLuddite (1334899) | about 4 months ago | (#47563207)

To offer advice people would need to know which drug he is addicted to.

Re:Gateway Personalities ; personal experience (1)

Sciath (3433615) | about 4 months ago | (#47568553)

Most unfortunate. My experience with addicts (of which I have over 20 years) is that some are salvageable, some are not. The biggest difference is a commitment to change. Seeing a way to a more stable life. Often a complete abandonment of friends and acquaintances connected with the drug(s) of choice. Having a supportive family and good friends helps but ultimately it has to come from within. May the force be with you.

Re:Gateway Personalities (1)

Sciath (3433615) | about 4 months ago | (#47568463)

You obviously don't have any experience with farming either. Farming entails use of large and dangerous machinery and it's not your stereotypical leisure boring job. Just a couple weeks ago some guy in my area lost an arm due to a machinery mishap. Farmers farm because it's "honest" and hard work. Any you have to know a lot about working with your hands, solving all kinds of problems, planning, budgeting, etc. To most of those who farm they don't see farming as boring.

Re:Ban caffeine! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47551489)

More likely the person has some underly social, economic or psychological problem he or she is trying to self-medicate, and keep upping the "dose" because of tolerances.

Re:Ban caffeine! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47552971)

Always hated that phrase. Correlation absolutely can imply causation. However, correlation does not *prove* causation. People entirely-too-frequently use the former to declare that there is no connection between the two events, when all that it's saying is you can't prove the two events are directly linked.

Re:Ban caffeine! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47598949)

A friend stopped using marijuana and coccaine, recently stopped smoking. Now he only drinks coffee (a lot). What is the gateway drug in this case?

Re:Ban caffeine! (1)

k6mfw (1182893) | about 4 months ago | (#47551623)

if that were to happen all guvmint agencies will collapse as all are coffee drinkers.

The only good thing (5, Insightful)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about 4 months ago | (#47548781)

is that now that rich white people have drug problems (ie, "real" people), maybe we can muster up some sympathy for other addicted people now?

Nah, I'm dreaming.

Re:The only good thing (3, Insightful)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47548797)

Why should they get sympathy? No one told them they had to get addicted. In fact they're constantly warned by society not to take them.

Re:The only good thing (3, Insightful)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about 4 months ago | (#47548801)

Well I guess that's enough then.

Re:The only good thing (0, Troll)

BitZtream (692029) | about 4 months ago | (#47548847)

Yes, it is, takes some fucking responsibility for your own actions.

Taking responsibility? Ha! (2)

sjbe (173966) | about 4 months ago | (#47548865)

Yes, it is, takes some fucking responsibility for your own actions.

That's delightfully naive of you. You think someone who is taking drugs to get high is somehow going to be interested in increasing their level of responsibility?

Re:Taking responsibility? Ha! (4, Insightful)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47549013)

Why did they "have" to start taking drugs in the first place? If you take drugs and get addicted, that's your responsibility. Not anyone else's.

Re:Taking responsibility? Ha! (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 months ago | (#47549207)

I suspect that this conversation is a lost cause; but it's worth pointing out that that is one of the reasons why public health types get twitchy about prescription opiates.

Among those otherwise without access or interest in fairly serious drugs, an attempt at pain management following injury or illness can be a compelling introduction to the exciting world of stuff that's pretty close to heroin with better quality control. Not everyone develops a habit, of course; but it's an introduction that can happen regardless of circumstance.

Re:Taking responsibility? Ha! (1)

russotto (537200) | about 4 months ago | (#47554283)

I suspect that this conversation is a lost cause; but it's worth pointing out that that is one of the reasons why public health types get twitchy about prescription opiates.

Such public health types need to be introduced personally to some major trauma -- then made to follow their own advice about skipping the opiates during recovery.

Re:Taking responsibility? Ha! (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 months ago | (#47555481)

Outside of DEA flunkies and hardcore suffering enthusiasts, I don't think that there's much support for skipping opiates(indeed, it is commonly held that pain is under-treated); but there is an awareness that prescription opiates are a fairly common introduction to opiate dependency, especially in populations that would otherwise have few introductions to them.

Unfortunately, we barely know how pain works, and really don't have many alternatives to work with. The painkillers that aren't addictive are mostly OTC junk that pain barely notices, and the ones that actually work are typically close relatives of quite addictive compounds. At least the pillheads get their fix manufactured under FDA quality control rules, which makes them safer than the junkies.

Re:Taking responsibility? Ha! (1)

Some_Llama (763766) | about 4 months ago | (#47560899)

there are a number of withdrawal reducing or negating drugs out there that can be prescribed but are not, maybe finding out why this is or why people would not want to ask for these is a good start instead of making doctors afraid of prescribing pain medications to victims of serious bodily injury.

Re:Taking responsibility? Ha! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47555131)

Not to mention the change which the brain undergoes in certain additions that maintains the habit. It never made sense to me to keep blaming the individual when their biology is already working against them (as a result of their illicit drug use). A better approach would be to focus on prevention through awareness and perhaps R&D better treatments treating the underlying neurological causes maintaining this behavior.

Re:Taking responsibility? Ha! (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 months ago | (#47555505)

But admitting 'neurological changes' is tantamount to doubting free will, and we just can't have that! Despite any and all evidence to the contrary, it simply must be true that a 'will' or 'self control' exists independent of any squishy brainial biology, yet somehow capable of controlling its function. Never you mind that this makes little sense, or that fiddling with self control through experimental manipulation is practically a psych research hobby, this hypothesis is simply too intuitively attractive to deny!

Real life is complicated (5, Insightful)

sjbe (173966) | about 4 months ago | (#47549575)

Why did they "have" to start taking drugs in the first place?

Depends on the situation. Some people take them out of pure pleasure seeking. Others get addicted to chemicals like opiates as a result of circumstances well beyond their control like surgeries.

Furthermore just because someone made a bad decision doesn't mean we simply abandon them. Maybe you are the one person who has never made a bad choice in life but I doubt it. Sometimes people make bad choices and a civilized society tries to a reasonable degree to help them through it. We're going to pay for it one way or another anyway so why not do the humane thing and help those who are willing to be helped?

If you take drugs and get addicted, that's your responsibility. Not anyone else's.

Think so? I can introduce you to some former surgery patients and war veterans among others who were introduced to opiates to control pain by their physicians for very real pain problems and as a result were unable to avoid addiction. I can point you to some suffering from PTSD (not their fault) who are trying to find some way to cope who sometimes turn to chemicals because they don't understand what has happened and it is the only relief they can find before they understand what has happened. Some addictions are not the solely the fault of the person taking the drugs.

It's easy and wrong to paint every drug addict with the same broad brush. Some, like the sort you are thinking of, are simply idiots seeking pleasure or escape. If you are snorting cocaine on your yacht for fun, yeah that's on you and if you die I'm not going to cry a river for you. Others are decent people trying to cope with a real problem not of their own making. You really think that a wounded veteran who gets unintentionally addicted to opiates while trying to control pain is solely responsible for his situation? If so you are a very cold hearted person.

Re:Real life is complicated (-1, Troll)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47549777)

Furthermore just because someone made a bad decision doesn't mean we simply abandon them. Maybe you are the one person who has never made a bad choice in life but I doubt it. Sometimes people make bad choices and a civilized society tries to a reasonable degree to help them through it. We're going to pay for it one way or another anyway so why not do the humane thing and help those who are willing to be helped?

I'm all for helping people who are addicted. Just don't expect me to help them AND feel sympathy. I can perfectly help people and still feel no sympathy for them. I feel sympathy, even empathy, for those who don't get themselves into trouble but find themselves there.

If you take drugs and get addicted, that's your responsibility. Not anyone else's.

You really think that a wounded veteran who gets unintentionally addicted to opiates while trying to control pain is solely responsible for his situation? If so you are a very cold hearted person.

If they're in great pain and they down painkillers, it's not really addiction, because they're in pain, or PTSD. If they somehow manage to mentally and physically heal and no longer require painkillers but continue to do so, then it's a choice.

Re:Real life is complicated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47550263)

If they somehow manage to mentally and physically heal and no longer require painkillers but continue to do so, then it's a choice.

Spoken like someone who has no idea what addiction means. Here's hoping that you don't get injured badly enough to become chemically dependent on your painkillers by the time your injury heals.

Re:Real life is complicated (1)

DrGamez (1134281) | about 4 months ago | (#47551597)

If they're in great pain and they down painkillers, it's not really addiction, because they're in pain, or PTSD. If they somehow manage to mentally and physically heal and no longer require painkillers but continue to do so, then it's a choice.

Holy crap.
People actually think this. I can only assume you're "trolling" (or what passes for it these days), given your username and the extreme level of misinformed rhetoric laid out in this post.

Re:Real life is complicated (1)

znrt (2424692) | about 4 months ago | (#47554037)

I'm all for helping people who are addicted. Just don't expect me to help them AND feel sympathy.

that's just fine, who wants your sympathy?

If they somehow manage to mentally and physically heal and no longer require painkillers but continue to do so, then it's a choice.

see? you are making very bold statements over somethng you have no idea about, you don't even understand what addiction is.

Re:Real life is complicated (1)

robsku (1381635) | about 4 months ago | (#47549889)

If so you are a very cold hearted person.

It seems to be the trend of the times though :(

Re:Real life is complicated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47550711)

Another cause is "dual diagnosis," in which mildly or not-so-mildly mentally ill individuals find it easier and temporarily more effective to self-medicate with illegal drugs than go through the hassles of seeking legitimate care. It's pretty damned medieval to claim a borderline schizophrenic is hearing voices because of a lack of self-control.

Re:Real life is complicated (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 4 months ago | (#47551289)

yeah it can cause folks to say

" ive taken a poll and 75% of us think you are a fracking idiot!!!"

get all of him friendly and then worry about what drugs a dude is taking (hint use your drug book to find LEGAL versions to do the switchover).

Re:Real life is complicated (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47550923)

I'd "feel sorry" for the vet who was drafted.

But ANY one who joins the military voluntarily, knows what they're getting into. They know the hazards of the job. At this point, they're little more than (poorly) paid mercenaries for whatever international corporation that's looking for leverage on some poor third-world country's natural resources. No matter how much they con themselves into believing they're fighting for "freedom" or "democracy". If they get wounded, and end up addicted to painkillers, I'm not going to cry a river for them either. It's simply a hazardous job.

People like factory workers, construction workers, or truck drivers, (etc) - who are injured by their bosses' negligence, those are the people I have sympathy for.

Re:Real life is complicated (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | about 4 months ago | (#47552067)

According to your philosophy, why would you feel sorry for factory workers, construction workers, or truck drivers? Shouldn't they have researched the rates of workman's comp claims, compared it to all their alternatives, decided what the risk level was likely to be and ensured that they were paid a risk premium as compensation based on their self-assessed danger quotient?

Look, you may not like people in the military (no clue why), but to say they deserve what they get is naive and stupid. Historically and currently, joining the military has been one of the most sure ways for intelligent, motivated people born into poor circumstances to raise themselves up the ladder of success.

Re:Real life is complicated (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 4 months ago | (#47552487)

Yeah, that's if they aren't picked off by some 3rd world country rabble during one of those corporate sponsored wars he talked about. Seems like a dumb waste of intelligence to me.

Re:Real life is complicated (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | about 4 months ago | (#47553231)

Some wars are good. Some wars are bad.

Soldiers dying (intelligent or not) is always sad.

Re:Real life is complicated (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | about 4 months ago | (#47553023)

Hmm, factory workers aren't really comparable to soldiers invading a foreign country, are they? The former makes useful things for people at home and the latter signed up voluntarily to go kill people who were not invading.

Look, you may not like people in the military (no clue why), but to say they deserve what they get is naive and stupid. Historically and currently, joining the military has been one of the most sure ways for intelligent, motivated people born into poor circumstances to raise themselves up the ladder of success.

Given the relative abundance of rich entrepreneurs vs rich veterans, I think a citation may be needed there.

Re:Real life is complicated (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | about 4 months ago | (#47553347)

Yeah, I'm going to ignore your anti-military trolling. Let's just leave it as we think each other are wrong. On the offchance you were not trolling, and were confused:

Look, you may not like people in the military (no clue why), but to say they deserve what they get is naive and stupid. Historically and currently, joining the military has been one of the most sure ways for intelligent, motivated people born into poor circumstances to raise themselves up the ladder of success.

Given the relative abundance of rich entrepreneurs vs rich veterans, I think a citation may be needed there.

That's a shitty comparison. Most entrepreneurs start off fairly wealthy, and only get moreso. Besides, I specifically called out people born into poor circumstances. So, I'd like a citation on poor people who use entrepreneurship to get rich; America has terrible class mobility.

Colin Powell was born in Harlem to two immigrants. Bill Gates was born to a partner in a white-shoe law firm and a board member of the United Way, IBM and others. Bill Gates got further; Colin Powell came farther.

Re:Real life is complicated (1)

Sciath (3433615) | about 4 months ago | (#47568939)

That's only (perhaps) partially correct. First of all, the military enlistment standards are considerable higher than they were 40 years ago. So there's an equally vibrant alternative to military service; higher education. And if you're from a low income family you get preference for student loans. Second, I know a lot of guys that joined the Reserves or Guard just for the extra money. Not really planning to have to actually fight in combat zones anywhere. 9/11 was a big wake up call to many of them weekend warriors. Third, recruiters had tremendous pressure to get enlistments. In high school students have to take military recruitment exams (since Congress tied education dollars to recruiters having access to every public school). For three years after my DAUGHTERS graduated from high school we had recruiters calling our house and sending mail solicitations trying to get them to enlist. I also know individuals the military wouldn't take because they dropped out of school or had some minor physical impairment that in no way should've prevented them from enlisting. Those individuals would've made good recruits had they been given a chance to enlist. So military service isn't the opportunity it may have been. By the way, I served during the Vietnam Era and was one of those service persons "spit on" when I came home. I didn't help me one effin bit.

Re:Real life is complicated (1)

MooseTick (895855) | about 4 months ago | (#47551261)

"Some, like the sort you are thinking of, are simply idiots seeking pleasure"

Yes. They are the idiots. Why would anyone try to seek pleasure. They are obviously in the wrong.

Re:Real life is complicated (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | about 4 months ago | (#47551941)

If you take drugs and get addicted, that's your responsibility. Not anyone else's.

Think so? I can introduce you to some former surgery patients and war veterans among others who were introduced to opiates to control pain by their physicians for very real pain problems and as a result were unable to avoid addiction

The ADA claims there are zero cases of that.

They do so by separating dependency with addiction, by specifying that addiction requires a pleasureable aspect. So. You can be dependent on insulin, but probably not addicted. Morphine could be either depending on your situation.

How much of that is linguistic bullshittery to avoid feeling bad for hooking people on pills, I do not know.

Re:Real life is complicated (1)

Speedcraver (868818) | about 4 months ago | (#47552659)

I never understood how someone could get addicted so easily. Then I was in an accident at work, and had two shots of Demerol in the E.R. This did not do much for the pain, it was still there. The Demerol just made me not care about the pain, and it was a very great feeling. This was about 14 years ago, and I still think about how wonderful that feeling was. I now understand how someone who has an weakness can become hooked on that feeling. Hmmmm, sounds like a song.....................

Re:Real life is complicated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47553049)

I wish I had posted this comment.

I'm also thoroughy surprised to see this 1) on slashdot, of all places; and 2) moderated to +5.

Re:Real life is complicated (1)

znrt (2424692) | about 4 months ago | (#47553993)

Why did they "have" to start taking drugs in the first place?

suffering from PTSD (not their fault)

if they got it after 1945 then it must be their fault. us troops haven't served on any legitimate conflict ever since, so if they got PTSD we could indeed paraphrase GP: "why did they rush for blood adn excitement in the first place?"

If you are snorting cocaine on your yacht for fun, yeah that's on you and if you die I'm not going to cry a river for you.

so it's eithere war veterans or rich motherfuckers on yachts? ever heard about poverty? analphabetism? marginalization?

Re:Real life is complicated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47560091)

People get twitchy about drug addicts because the idea makes them uncomfortable. It easy to blame the victim. Its there fault in some way. Bad things don't happen to good people.

Re:Real life is complicated (1)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | about 4 months ago | (#47566165)

If you take drugs and get addicted, that's your responsibility. Not anyone else's.

Think so? I can introduce you to some former surgery patients and war veterans among others who were introduced to opiates to control pain by their physicians for very real pain problems and as a result were unable to avoid addiction. I can point you to some suffering from PTSD (not their fault) who are trying to find some way to cope who sometimes turn to chemicals because they don't understand what has happened and it is the only relief they can find before they understand what has happened. Some addictions are not the solely the fault of the person taking the drugs.

It's easy and wrong to paint every drug addict with the same broad brush. Some, like the sort you are thinking of, are simply idiots seeking pleasure or escape. If you are snorting cocaine on your yacht for fun, yeah that's on you and if you die I'm not going to cry a river for you. Others are decent people trying to cope with a real problem not of their own making. You really think that a wounded veteran who gets unintentionally addicted to opiates while trying to control pain is solely responsible for his situation? If so you are a very cold hearted person.

I think you're conflating "responsibility" with "fault". The addict has the responsibility to deal with the addiction and manage their life, regardless of whether they are morally culpable for becoming an addict. Just as they are responsible for their actions if, for example, their addiction drives them to crime in order to support their habit, or they cause harm while under the influence of the substance that they are addicted to.

Re:Taking responsibility? Ha! (1)

PlusFiveTroll (754249) | about 4 months ago | (#47549687)

Is that you Rush Limbaugh?

Re:Taking responsibility? Ha! (2)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47549879)

Strange of you to make that political connection. Historically it's been libertarians who are pushing to decriminalize all drugs and let people live by their choices. I'm quite the lefty. I support welfare and universal healthcare and pro-choice and marriage equality and stuff like that.

Re:Taking responsibility? Ha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47550797)

So what you're saying is you support the notion that people live by their own choices, except for the vast sections of their lives that you think you'd do a better job of managing for them - such as their healthcare, paycheck, reproductive status, and 'stuff like that'?

That'd be comical if it wasn't so tragically stupid.

Re:Taking responsibility? Ha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47552619)

Well, if that's how you vote, then you also support

1. the gradual increase in the turnaround time and reduction of quality of healthcare. Adding state bureaucrats to the already top heavy bureaucracy of hospitals and insurance companies will NOT reduce costs.

2. pro choice? for whom? women? What about men? Do they get a choice? Of course not, but they're still expected to pay for hers, either collectively for the abortion as taxpayers, or individually for the baby as the father. Leftists have a funny idea about what equality means, and the relationship between rights/power and responsibility. They like to amalgamate power to themselves and their protected castes, while redistributing the responsibility onto everyone else.

3.marriage equality? I don't know what you mean by this.. if you mean you support the current state of feminist 'family' courts, then, like number 2, I hope one day you realize that "her body, her right, her choice" also implies "her responsibility" as well. If women are no longer bound by their roles as wives, then I see little reason why men should still be bound to the husband/provider role, either directly or by state proxy. Of course, you can see why this is so damaging to the future of our society, right?

4. welfare? A basic housing/training facility might make sense with proper incentives, but the current welfare system just enables those 'heroic' single moms to pump out more kids at taxpayer expense. Fuck that.

Re:Taking responsibility? Ha! (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 4 months ago | (#47552499)

Whatever, it's true regardless who says it. Someone has to decide to take drugs. No one is cramming them down his throat.

Re:Taking responsibility? Ha! (1)

Some_Llama (763766) | about 4 months ago | (#47560933)

and what about the people who are forced into prostitution by drug dependance (e.g. like in the film taken)??

Re:Taking responsibility? Ha! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47550201)

I agree it should never happen! Of course, it is happening, but as it should never happen, I'm going to pretend it isn't happening and bury my head in the sand.

Also your post implies such a lack of ability to understand why people might make non-rational life choices, ability to understand why choices that seem non-rational to you might be sensible from a different perspective, sympathy for those that find themselves somewhere they don't want to be and basic empathy that I'm not sure your sufficiently human to have an opinion.

Re:Taking responsibility? Ha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47550293)

Did you read the article? They're getting high to work superhuman hours. They are productive because they do drugs. They do drugs to be productive. And get paid. You know, capitalism. The reason "drugs are bad m'kay".

Re:Taking responsibility? Ha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47550471)

Fine, repeal the drug prohibition laws if you really feel that way.

Re: Taking responsibility? Ha! (1)

WebCowboy (196209) | about 4 months ago | (#47550487)

From what I've seen at least half the addicts that I've seen here became addicted based on the advice of a medical professional. Workplace injuries and other accidents led to prescription pain meds that brought on their addiction.

It also doesn't help that they are in an emotionally fragile state, on account of them being unemployable living on disability and other social assistance, with a sudden reduction in income and feeling worthless.

The rest, well yeah Darwin's law can take care of them I suppose, but very many addicts did not get where they are out of selfish pursuit of a high. Some were just dealt a bad hand.

Re:Taking responsibility? Ha! (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47550709)

Because, John, look at Bill over there. He completed about thrice what you did. Maybe 'cause you go home after just 12 hours? I guess you just don't have the right attitude, maybe we'll have to let you go...

Re:Taking responsibility? Ha! (1)

DrGamez (1134281) | about 4 months ago | (#47551579)

I understand your sentiment, but your ignorance in this subject seems to have come to a head with this comment. You might want to learn about the underlying conditions and situations that lead to addiction.

Nobody wakes up and says: "lets get addicted to meth".

Re:Taking responsibility? Ha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47551763)

It is a common but unfounded notion that all human behavior can be controlled by pure strength of will, and that individuals unable to exert that strength of will are intentionally evil and should be abandoned to their fate. It is a peculiarity of the Calvinist theology that has embedded itself in the USA-ian worldview, having no rational basis but the great potential to cause unneeded suffering and death.

Once, at the time of or prior to John Calvin, most disease and misfortune was thought to be caused by witchcraft. It was an equally unfounded causation, which created tremendous suffering including the execution of those thought to be witches. I suspect that in those days, believers in witchcraft were equally adamant in denouncing skeptics who believed that natural processes caused disease instead.

"Personal responsibility", like witchcraft, has no basis in science, but causes great harm nevertheless.

Re:Taking responsibility? Ha! (1)

spiralx (97066) | about 4 months ago | (#47553105)

Well put, I do seem to have noticed a sort of creeping Calvinism in the way that victims of all kinds of types are labelled today.

Re:Taking responsibility? Ha! (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | about 4 months ago | (#47552023)

Why did they "have" to start taking drugs in the first place? If you take drugs and get addicted, that's your responsibility. Not anyone else's.

Well, some of them were under 18 at the time. As a society, we've decided you cannot really be held responsible for many of your actions when under 18. So it certainly is difficult to condemn teenagers to a lifetime of addiction because you were too cheap and on too high a moral horse to help them out.

But beyond that, in many cases, such as with student loans, we hold that society has not just a right to protect you from others, but to help enable you to improve yourself. Certainly, that seems cheaper to society than trying to punish people in prison for something they may wish they could give up.

Lastly, while you may wish that everyone was solely responsible for their actions, and their actions solely affected them, neither is ever the case. It's a good bumper sticker philosophy, but it falls apart once you start asking questions.

Re:Taking responsibility? Ha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47552451)

This line of thinking is why we are where we are when it comes to illegal drugs.

Once you're addicted, there are very few ways out. By the time most people recognize that they have a drug problem, they don't have enough money to get into serious rehab. By serious rehab I mean something like Suboxone therapy for opiates, where they give you an opiate-replacement and then ween you down from that, along with anti-depressants to control the mental aspect. I don't consider 'pray the drugs away' or 'drink smoothies and exercise the drugs away' to be legitimate rehab.

First step: Free serious rehab for anyone that has a problem and wants it.
Second step: Free replacement therapy for anyone that makes a serious attempt at serious rehab and it doesn't work.

This would take care of all the problems associated with drug addiction. No more having to pawn everything and suck dicks in an alley just to not be sick. No more having to give all your money to shady ass drug dealers. No more having to commit crimes to be able to get your fix. No more getting fired from your job from being too sick to work. A win win situation. Unfortunately, we'd rather just execute everyone that has even taken an aspirin in their lives than to give a junkie drugs.

Re:Taking responsibility? Ha! (1)

sjames (1099) | about 4 months ago | (#47553763)

In some cases, they HAD to start taking drugs to control agonizing pain.

Later, they get cut off when they heal (or the doctor, threatened by the DEA dares not continue prescribing) and find they are addicted. Then stupid laws made by the small minded turn these ordinary citizens with a medical problem into criminals.

Re:Taking responsibility? Ha! (1)

Thangodin (177516) | about 4 months ago | (#47562489)

When I was with a startup during the dot com era, it seemed to me that the worker bees were on speed, while the executives were on coke. I could see what the worker bees were doing, but nothing else could explain the decisions made at the upper levels. The incentives were pretty obvious--long hours without sleep, and demand to be 'on' regardless of circumstance, and the arrogance that comes with mastering a small domain and thinking you've mastered everything (see Dunning-Kruger.)

Personally, when I was tired, what I craved was sleep. But that was frowned upon. You can see why so many did drugs.

Arrogance, though, is a major consideration. Notice the parent comment: If you take drugs and get addicted... but no one plans to get addicted. Oh, take drugs by all means, just don't get addicted. They take drugs to cope, and as they are masters of the universe, they could not possibly get addicted. Besides, it's just to meet this deadline... and the next... and the next...

The entire culture is a massive fuck-up. Tired people make mistakes, and mistakes cost money. In the 1850's they discovered that 40 hours a week was the sweet spot for productivity, and every generation since has had to discover the same thing the hard way. I cannot count the number of projects I have seen crash and burn because of this bullshit.

But fuck it. We're John Galt. We can do anything. Just another bump to get me through...

How's that working out?

Re:Taking responsibility? Ha! (1)

Sciath (3433615) | about 4 months ago | (#47568745)

Not exactly. You seem to have ignored the fact that society often gives mixed signals and messages. Politics might assert some action is illegal or undesirable while the culture provided limitless examples of people doing something the law says they shouldn't. Our music, entertainment, work demands and milieu, etc. Almost all our culture promotes the use of illicit drugs including the widespread abuse of alcohol (even though it is "legal). Every drama on TV shows routine (and unnecessary?) reliance upon alcohol, weed, stimulants, etc. Making their use appear culturally acceptable. Even desirable. If success in the tech industry is closely related to "productivity" even at the expense of healthy family and personal relationships and if one's job is dependent upon being "top dog", well those kind of workplace cultures has the effect of dehumanizing everything. So it's no wonder people become detached, disoriented, and lost even to themselves. But I blame that on culture regardless what the law says. People do what they feel they have to do to "survive" even if in the long run it destroys them.

Re:Taking responsibility? Ha! (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47570943)

I already addressed all of what you said.

Re:Taking responsibility? Ha! (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 4 months ago | (#47549613)

The naivity is strong in both of you, because you both think responsibility or lack therof has something to do with it.

Re:Taking responsibility? Ha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549757)

Yes, it is, takes some fucking responsibility for your own actions.

That's delightfully naive of you. You think someone who is taking drugs to get high is somehow going to be interested in increasing their level of responsibility?

"taking drugs to get high"?
  Did you not read the article. the summary or any of the posts?

Taking responsibility? Ha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549903)

I work in the Pacific Northwest version of Silicon Valley, and I've known a few software developers who started taking Ritalin to perform better at work so they could continue to support their wife, mortgage, and 2.5 kids. I can definitely see someone doing the same with cocaine or meth, not to get high, but to try to maintain the status quo of their life and income.

Re:The only good thing (4, Insightful)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 4 months ago | (#47549601)

Hey, here's an idea! Have at least some clue what you are talking about, and then get back to us. The entire community of psychologists and psychyatrists will tell you you are wrong, and exactly why, but you can rest at night feeling like you are superior when you have no clue what you are talking about. After all, some other people who have no expertise in, or experience with the matter, have modded you "insightful."

Just one of many things you obviously haven't considered. Most people have done drugs, even if that drug is Alcohol. Only a subset of those people are addicts (including addicts who are addicted to Alcohol, ie. "Alcoholics".) If you think that responsibility or lack thereof is the deciding fator, then you really are a moron.

Consensus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47550113)

When some one, any one, starts using some supposed sense of consensus as a debating point, I really wish I could send a 3 Stooges eye jab over the internet.

At least the second part of your post tries to make a point.

Re:Consensus (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 4 months ago | (#47550287)

When people claim that something "tries" to maake a point, when it in fact unquestionably proves the point, I am not surprised to find out that they react to logic with the desire to jab someone in the eye.

Re:Consensus (1)

DrGamez (1134281) | about 4 months ago | (#47551851)

Now I have to provide data on what is generally accepted as basic science?

Do we really have to link to the countless numbers of articles when discussing gravity?

This isn't even "debatable", run an AltaVista search for addiction and see what comes up.

Re:The only good thing (1)

F.Ultra (1673484) | about 4 months ago | (#47550195)

+1

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47552733)

...says the drug addict, vehemently, who clearly should have spent more time in school (spell check, bro). Who's the moron again?

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47552765)

I'm going to go with the guy who thinks "bro" is a word.

Re:The only good thing (1)

rastos1 (601318) | about 4 months ago | (#47553153)

The largest amount of alcohol I drunk on single occasion was at about 3/4 litre of wine. Still walked home on my own, no problem. I occasionally drink one glass of of brandy (5cl) when invited to birthday party or something like that. It's a tradition here. I don't drink beer. I never smoked cigarettes. I never tried marihuana, nor any other drugs ... anything like that. Never. I have no problem saying 'no' when a friend wants to pour me another one. Or leave the full glass standing on the table, if he does not listen. The idea of consuming some substance with the goal of altering my mental state is alien to me. I should do something that reduces my ability to handle myself? No way. It would create danger for myself and people around me. That would be irresponsible.

If you think that responsibility or lack thereof is the deciding fator, then you really are a moron.

I do think that it is responsibility that stops me from getting drunk or experimenting with drugs. And I do think that with that approach I'm not going to become an addict. Does it mean I'm a moron?

Re:The only good thing (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 4 months ago | (#47553425)

No. You are a moron for a completely different reason. If you weren't a moron you would stop and think for a minute and realize that there are many, many, many people much smarter than you who are (i.e. alive) addicts, or were (i.e. dead) addicts. You might even do a modicum of research before posting on Slashdot in a thread where the person you are replying to clearly has far more knowlege than you with regard to the subject matter.

Re:The only good thing (1)

rastos1 (601318) | about 4 months ago | (#47560275)

Sure there are addicts that are smart than me. I never denied that. But that does not say anything about them being responsible to the level that they do not touch drugs.

Re:The only good thing (1)

Some_Llama (763766) | about 4 months ago | (#47561005)

I guarantee you are an addict, maybe not to drugs but to SOMETHING, it's how the brain is hardwired.. it's a pleasure/reward system that we all have, the difference with drugs is it's an external stimuli easily provoked, but that's actually quite a small difference when you consider how easily reward stimuli is provoked almost universally (food addicts, sex addicts, exercise addicts, being a moral person addict, etc.., whatever you continuously seek reward from doing to the detriment of others and self) it's all addiction, just easier for you to externalize shame onto others because they don't choose the same addiction as you do.

I see most everyone demonizing "drug addicts" here while feeding their own addiction of self righteousness, both addictions harm other people.

Re:The only good thing (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 4 months ago | (#47561577)

Yes. You are more responsible than surgeons, for example. Either that or you are an ignorant idiot who still can't figure out that the reason you can stop at one beer is because you are not an addict. You still don't get that it isn't prolonged and excessive use that makes an addict, but being an addict that results in prolonged and excessive use.

Re:The only good thing (1)

rastos1 (601318) | about 4 months ago | (#47568653)

You don't become addicted to, for example, marihuana if you never touch it. If I occasionally drink alcohol, then yes, I'm at risk of becoming an alcoholic. If I never touch marihuana, my risk of becoming addicted to marihuana is zero. My feeling is that you assume that everyone will occasionally try some drugs. And once that happens, the risk of becoming an addict becomes non-zero. I claimed that responsibility decides whether you resist the temptation to experiment with drugs or not.

If you want to present an opposing argument, feel free to do that. But I would prefer if you keep the insults to yourself. Unless that is your addiction.

Re:The only good thing (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 4 months ago | (#47568911)

" If I occasionally drink alcohol, then yes, I'm at risk of becoming an alcoholic."

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Your belief that you "become" an addict based an a use pattern is what makes it blairingly obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. Until you have a drink of you have no idea if you are one on not. Once you do, if you are an addict (or in your words, an "alcoholic"), then you will drink differently from other people immediately. It affects an addict differently than a non addict.

"I claimed that responsibility decides whether you resist the temptation to experiment with drugs or not. "

Yes, and I pointed out the fact that you are an idiot who seems to think he is one of the few responsible people on the planet.

"But I would prefer if you keep the insults to yourself. Unless that is your addiction."

Yes! You nailed it on the head (pretty good for an idiot, actually.) I wasn't an inslult addict, but then I insulted you just one too many times, and now I'm an insult addict! Moron.

Re:The only good thing (1)

david_thornley (598059) | about 4 months ago | (#47561637)

It doesn't mean you're a moron. It means you're lucky. You have no problem in saying, and enforcing, "No". You don't comprehend the attraction of mind-altering substances. This is not the case for quite a few people.

I don't drink alcohol, because I think the dangers outweigh the benefits. This is my personal evaluation of my personal self, and doesn't apply to anybody else. Anyway, I don't drink wine or brandy, because I'm not confident that I can just drink one glass and leave it at that. I do understand the attraction of mind-altering substances, so I try to avoid them. (I could get really dependent on nitrous.) So, we have approximately the same results. We're both being responsible. However, it's a whole lot easier for you than for many people.

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47550421)

These are smart people. After all, they work for Google/Apple/etc, right? Well, they've been told their whole lives drugs are bad. Many took drugs for pleasure seeking anyways, whether ecstasy, heroin, or whatever. This is a selfish action: they weren't seeking to 'help' anybody but themselves. And they suffer the predictable consequences, be it addiction or worse.

Ultimately, it is their decision to go down this path: they know where it starts, and they know where it may end. If they venture down this path, it is their fault, they need to man up and take responsibility for their decisions. I will not shed a single tear for them.

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47563759)

Predictable? Even with heroin only a minority of people are susceptible to debilitating addiction, although heroin is definitely one of the worst. Addiction rates for cocaine are ridiculously low.

I've never touched any recreational drugs. But if you look at real research and real data, none of these drugs are nearly as dangerous as society makes them out to be. The stereotypical addict that we've all been bombarded with is actually a rare human being with a strong genetic predisposition to addiction. If you lack this predisposition your risk of addiction is absurdly low.

Note that by "addiction" I mean a psychological dependence that you're unable to break. Obviously we can all become chemically addicted. Anybody who regularly takes caffeine is chemically addicted. But we can choose to stop when it becomes problematic and are able to willingly weather the withdrawal. This is similarly so for the vast majority of people even when they're taking hard drugs.

I don't take drugs because I have a looonggg history or alcoholism in my family and I don't want to roll the dice. However, I did try to pick up vaping for the nicotine but was develop a habit. So maybe I'd be fine doing some speedballs now and then. Can't say I'm interested, though.

Re:The only good thing (3, Insightful)

RichardJenkins (1362463) | about 4 months ago | (#47548855)

Where's the '-1 heartless' mod?

Re:The only good thing (-1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47548981)

How is that heartless? Addicted people get themselves into it. When I was in primary school, I was taught by all teachers to not take any drugs, smoke or drink excessively, even painkillers. I weighed up the consequences and decided not to do any of those things and not to hang around people who do those things. How hard is it to not do something, especially when almost everyone tells you not to?

Re:The only good thing (5, Insightful)

polyphemus (473112) | about 4 months ago | (#47549085)

When I was in primary school, I was taught by all teachers to not take any drugs, smoke or drink excessively, even painkillers...

Well, one problem is that the teachers lie through their teeth, demonizing marijuana along with heroin. But then you get to high school, and your friends are smoking weed, having fun, and they look fine. You've got older friends who have smoked pot on & off for years without visible consequences. So you try it and, sure enough, it's not the drug you were warned about by your teachers; it's actually fine, except for the consequences of getting caught. Your teachers lied to you, and now you know it.

And the irony is that the most dangerous, most addictive, most popular drugs (alcohol and tobacco), well, these the ones your teachers tell you to use in "moderation." They imply that there's relative safety in these drugs, which is another lie.

So how should you know about the dangers of addiction from heroin or methamphetamines, when your teachers are demonstrably lying to you about drugs?

Re:The only good thing (-1, Flamebait)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47549225)

Well, one problem is that the teachers lie through their teeth, demonizing marijuana along with heroin.

As they should. I don't agree with the libertarian obsession with marijuana. I don't consider those teachers to have lied at all.

But then you get to high school, and your friends are smoking weed, having fun, and they look fine.

Then you're a fucking stupid kid who can't tell the difference between people looking fine and people being fine.

Your teachers lied to you, and now you know it.

No, because I look at all the kids who started marijuana very young and most of them do nothing of their lives except to look for the next high, the teachers were right that it could ruin your life. I have never felt life required mind altering drugs to be enjoyable. And I wasn't anywhere near those "popular" kids at school - I was an outsider and I made peace with that fact instead.

And the irony is that the most dangerous, most addictive, most popular drugs (alcohol and tobacco), well, these the ones your teachers tell you to use in "moderation." They imply that there's relative safety in these drugs, which is another lie.?

My teachers told us NOT to smoke at all. Some of them even said not to drink at all. And this was in a public school, not a private religious one. In health class, they also regularly showed videos about alcohol and tobacco. It doesn't take a genius to extrapolate that taking those substances at all might become worse.

So how should you know about the dangers of addiction from heroin or methamphetamines, when your teachers are demonstrably lying to you about drugs?

Because you should have learnt not to be a fucking nuisance and try to get along with the teachers. Me, an unsocial nerd all through life, had enough empathy to realize that my teachers weren't there to torment me. I even got suspended a few times, but still I understood from their perspectives the kids were just fucking arseholes.

Re:The only good thing (1)

Kielistic (1273232) | about 4 months ago | (#47549487)

Then you're a fucking stupid kid who can't tell the difference between people looking fine and people being fine.

You are the stupid one here. There are millions of people that have smoked marijuana and continue to smoke marijuana that are more stable, more successful and more happy than you are. It wasn't just those "popular" kids that smoke; it is people form every walk of life.

Re:The only good thing (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47549671)

There are millions more who smoke marijuana and DON'T. Your logical fallacy is beyond stupid.

Re:The only good thing (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549767)

Therre are billions who routinely drink water and belong to either of those classes. Neither of you guys have managed to demonstrate one thing or other. I'm not sure if I should call it a fallacy at all because I'm not sure if you are even trying to argue. It's just empty talking.

Re:The only good thing (4, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | about 4 months ago | (#47549773)

I was taught that using marijuana leads to heroin use. When you see many people around you that do not adhere to that model, you start disregarding the information as BS. After realizing how ridiculous some of the information presented about drugs was, I disregarded it all, so it actually backfired. The purpose of drug programs should be to inform students of the real consequences of drug use, not to make up horror stories to scare students.

Re:The only good thing (-1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47549965)

I was taught marijuana MAY lead to heroin use. Even at that age, I was thinking logically enough to realize just because the people I see around me do not APPEAR to adhere to that model doesn't mean the model (may, not will) isn't true? I don't understand the logic behind the idea that once you find out what you were taught was not entirely correct that means you should ditch all of it. I don't believe everything I was told. I was decidely atheist at a very young age. But I didn't then think "everyone was lying so the opposite of everything they say is the truth". That's just stupid, even for kids.

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47551787)

I was taught that using marijuana leads to rampant sexual promiscuity. After smoking dope for a number of years, I realized how ridiculous some of the information presented about drugs was.

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549887)

So you're admitting it could go either way, and is not a product of simply smoking marijuana? And our friend Kielistic is the one with the logic fallacy? LOL!

Re:The only good thing (0)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47550187)

No, I'm not admitting it could go either way. I'm pretty certain more people on marijuana have ruined their lives than the people who didn't. If their lives were going well, why would they need to escape into mind alteration?

Re:The only good thing (1)

Lazere (2809091) | about 4 months ago | (#47550531)

I dunno. How many successful people drink alcohol? The answer? Nearly all of them. So, then, why would these successful people want to escape into mind alteration? Try again.

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47554627)

Do you daydream? Do you read for pleasure? Do you listen to music? Do you watch movies?

All of these are 'mind-altering' to some extent, and all are 'escapist'. Given the long history of humanity's quest for altered states and the things we have found to smoke, drink or eat and given also the similar examples we have from the animal kingdom, I'd argue that seeking mind alteration is so common that it can be considered normal.

Blood sugar levels alter mood; the shorter days of winter and lower light levels affect some people more than others; some exercise until the fatigue makes them almost drunk, or the endorphins kick in; others meditate until they reach an altered state. Are these bad? Some people become addicted to food - both the dopamine kick and the change in blood sugar; some become addicted to exercise (or sex, or ...). Is the activity bad, or the obsession?

Most of humanity for most of history has used alcohol for various reasons - some entirely recreational. Only a small percentage become addicted. Is alcohol the problem or would it be fairer to say that there are underlying factors that predispose someone to abuse and that the addiction is a symptom or manifestation of that problem?

Please, for a moment, consider that the people who have been responding to you may not all be drug addicts trying to justify their addiction, but may genuinely find your position to be polarised, shallow and limited.

Re:The only good thing (1)

Some_Llama (763766) | about 4 months ago | (#47561027)

why would anyone want to experience recreational pleasure in anyway at all?!!?!?!?

kudos you win the internet!

Re:The only good thing (1)

Kielistic (1273232) | about 4 months ago | (#47552083)

What logical fallacy? You said people that smoke are "not fine" and anybody that thinks otherwise is stupid. I merely told you you were wrong. It is not a fallacy to tell you that you are wrong. The "false cause" of "smoke marijuana -> not fine" is the logical fallacy here.

You don't just get to assert that most people that smoke have their lives ruined because of it.

Re:The only good thing (1)

Some_Llama (763766) | about 4 months ago | (#47561017)

"There are millions more who smoke marijuana and DON'T. Your logical fallacy is beyond stupid."

NOT UH... you are!!! *ad infinitum*

can we all agree you're both fucking stupid and just ignore your bickering from here on out?

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549669)

"I have never felt life required mind altering drugs to be enjoyable."

A pity. From the tone your nauseatingly self-righteous post, I think psychedelics would do your little mind a world of good. Perhaps even show you what sort of person gives himself such a grandiose handle.

Re:The only good thing (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47550213)

I think reality is pretty psychedelic. I loved science ever since I was a kid. I'm pretty sure other people at school thought I was weird for talking about quantum mechanics.

My grandiose handle was a personal joke.

Re:The only good thing (4, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | about 4 months ago | (#47549695)

Whether you agree with legalization or not, one of the problems the anti-drug movement has slammed into is unfortunately they do lie quite a bit, and when people compare what their teachers say to actual examples they can see in their lives, the truth the programs is going over becomes suspect. The programs and teachers mean well, but they use a bit too much exaggeration and selective examples to be effective.

Re:The only good thing (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47549891)

What are these lies? I see people dying from hardcore drugs. I see people on marijuana who can't think coherently. I suspect many of them are doing the rounds on Slashdot right now because they put up really stupid arguments.

Re:The only good thing (3, Informative)

MooseTick (895855) | about 4 months ago | (#47551347)

According to the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/) there are "More than 480,000 deaths annually " related to cigarettes and (http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm) "approximately 88,000 deaths attributable to excessive alcohol use each year in the United States"

In 2011, the CDC says (http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/overdose/facts.html) "33,071 (80%) of the 41,340 drug overdose deaths in the United States were unintentional"

So ciggs+alcohol deaths ~ 570,000 deaths per year
Accidental drug overdose ~ 33,000 deaths per year

Now which should be legal and/or a greater concern to society at large? Which likey have a greater economic cost to society? Which has a greater overall impact?

I'm not saying hard drugs aren't bad, but perhaps we should concentrate on what is causing the most damage first.

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47552703)

I'm not saying hard drugs aren't bad, but perhaps we should concentrate on what is causing the most damage first.

The "most damage" would be from prohibition and prohibitionary attitudes. Keeping millions in jail and millions more in a revolving prison-judicial-parole-police money train is far worse than any of the problems including dying somewhat earlier (face it, your 570,000 alcohol+tobacco deaths aint exactly spring chickens biting it).

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47554267)

About 20 million people use illicit drugs (illegal, prescription, etc).
About 60 million smoke.
About 135 million drink alcohol.

Drug overdose deaths = 33,000
Alcohol overdose deaths = 88,000
Cigarette overdose deaths = 0 (I couldn't find a single confirmed report).

So alcohol is used by 6 times as many people, but only accounts for 3 times the overdose deaths.
Sounds like drug abuse is at least twice as risky as drinking alcohol, and infinitely more risky than a smoking overdose.

Next time, don't try to mix in garbage like cancer and heart disease just because you want to inflate the numbers.

Re:The only good thing (1)

robsku (1381635) | about 4 months ago | (#47559585)

You have two individual drugs and a group called "drugs" (which I assume doesn't include the two other drugs you mention). You see anything wrong in that?

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47564713)

Add to this that accidental drug overdose is mostly happening because the quality of the stuff on the street varies so much, so that when you actually get good stuff, you OD

Re:The only good thing (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 4 months ago | (#47551885)

There are more completely sober people who can't think coherently then there are drugged up people it total.

But are you railing against 'The Baptists'?

Re:The only good thing (1)

another_twilight (585366) | about 4 months ago | (#47554233)

I see people on marijuana who can't think coherently

Given your obvious opinion on the topic, the only people who don't keep their drug use hidden from you are those who are completely incoherent.

For someone who claims to 'love science' you certainly don't seem to understand the problem with things like confirmation bias and drawing conclusions from non-random sampling.

It's very difficult to properly estimate drug usage due to its illegality and the social stigma surrounding it. Without knowing how many people are using (and to what degree) then any conclusions you draw based on those who _are_ visible are going to be grossly inaccurate. You clearly have strong opinions on the matter and have made several assertions - can you cite reputable studies to back up those claims, or are you relying on (very fallible) personal experience?

Re:The only good thing (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47554285)

So you think I should take drugs if it doesn't present a danger to a statistically significant majority of people? There's the science of what drugs do to you, and the science of risk management. I don't need to know the pervasiveness of drug use - only that a great deal of people I see who use it suffer for it. Therefore I judge it to be a risk I don't want to take. You don't need to do studies for that.

Re:The only good thing (1)

another_twilight (585366) | about 4 months ago | (#47554705)

So you think I should take drugs if it doesn't present a danger to a statistically significant majority of people?

Not at all. I am challenging your assertion that teachers should demonise marijuana because "most" of those who use it do "nothing with their lives ...".

A "great many people" die in traffic accidents every year. Yet I dare say you still travel by road (whether you drive, cycle or use public transport). You have assessed the risk and take steps (I presume) to maximise your safety. Now imagine if driving were forbidden. Illegal. Unreported. If the newspapers only every reported on the sordid death of another person in a road fatality. Would you be as able to properly assess the personal risk of driving under such (ridiculous, I know, but I'm trying to make a point) circumstances?

I am not advocating for or against drug use. I'm pointing out that your position that the majority of drug use leads to "doing nothing with their lives" or other problems is drawn from a very biased set of data.

Your personal decision to use or not use drugs is entirely your own. Your assumptions about the use of others are flawed.

Re:The only good thing (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47554763)

Not at all. I am challenging your assertion that teachers should demonise marijuana because "most" of those who use it do "nothing with their lives ...".

Teachers have a responsibility to impart sensibleness to their students. It shouldn't even matter about the actual statistics. As long a sizeable percentage of drug users ruin their lives, it is the only sensible position for teachers to take.

Now imagine if driving were forbidden. Illegal. Unreported. If the newspapers only every reported on the sordid death of another person in a road fatality. Would you be as able to properly assess the personal risk of driving under such (ridiculous, I know, but I'm trying to make a point) circumstances?

Yes, because there is a physical reality that is true regardless of the statistics. Driving involves small humans and huge metal machines. Anyone with a sensible ability to use logic and reason about physics should be able to make a safe decision. To use another example, even if the statistics about text driving were not as bad as they are, it should ONLY take logic and reason to conclude that driving distracted is still not a good idea.

This is the same for drugs. It shouldn't take statistics to reason that messing about with your brain chemistry is not a good thing to do. If nothing else, the profound waste of money should already be putting sensible people off the idea of drugs.

Re:The only good thing (1)

another_twilight (585366) | about 4 months ago | (#47555005)

Teachers have a responsibility to impart sensibleness to their students

Teachers have a responsibility to educate. Ideally that includes the ability to reason, which is what I really hope you mean when you say 'impart sensibleness'. To the extent that they are imparting incorrect (by way of being incomplete) information they are failing as educators.
 

It shouldn't even matter about the actual statistics

Are you seriously arguing that the facts don't matter, so long as the message gets through? I'm sorry but the actual statistics most certainly matter. You claim that drug use is bad because some people who use drugs have terrible lives. I am trying to show you that until you know the actual population of drug users, their usage patterns and a host of other 'statistics' then you can't possibly make reasoned and informed decisions about whether 'drugs' are 'bad', whether they are causative or co-symptomatic, or any of the other positions you so blindly assert.
 

As long a sizeable percentage of drug users ruin their lives

You don't know that it is a "sizeable percentage" (whatever that means). You have your opinions based on what you have seen/read/found-out and from what you are saying, I am becoming more and more convinced that for all you 'love' of science, you actually have a fairly poor understanding of the scientific method. What you have is anecdotal. At best it is horribly biased.
 

Yes, because there is a physical reality that is true regardless of the statistics. Driving involves small humans and huge metal machines. Anyone with a sensible ability to use logic and reason about physics should be able to make a safe decision.

The reality of road conditions? Of other drivers' abilities? Of traffic conditions? All of these (should) go into making decisions about driving. you know about these because they are reported on accurately and in depth. You can, therefore, make an informed decision about the risk of driving. I am learning to drive. Consequently, assessing my own abilities and the state of Parramatta Rd at peak hour, I choose not to drive there. That's an informed choice based on (reasonably) accurate information. Now assume that you don't know the state of the roads, that the only reports you have of traffic conditions are sensational reports of traffic accidents and the only information you have about other drivers is that a "sizeable percentage" ruin their lives by having traffic accidents. Regardless of my self-assessment, in the light of such poor information about "physical reality" I am not able to make an informed assessment of risk.
 

It shouldn't take statistics to reason that messing about with your brain chemistry is not a good thing to do

Woah there, that's a very different argument. You have gone from asserting that drugs are bad because "most", I mean "a sizeable percentage", I mean 'the statistics don't matter' people end up ruining their lives to now asserting that drugs are bad because they mess with your brain chemistry and that they are a waste of money.

Given your ... cavalier attitude towards the importance of fair sampling and statistics, I'm not certain that you're qualified to be talking about brain chemistry. Would you like to dignify your position with an argument, rather than an assertion? Many drugs have very well known and studied effects - it's hardly 'messing around' and while you assert that this is 'not a good thing to do', you don't say why.

Some people are moved by the music they listen to. They weep over tragic arias, beam with happiness over something upbeat and catchy. Their mood is altered by music, they are, therefore "messing ... with [their] brain chemistry". Is this "not a good thing to do"?

Some people seek out excitement - thrill seekers. Anything from extreme sports to simply going on a roller-coaster. The adrenaline from the thrill alters their brain chemistry, alters their mood, is literally mind-altering. Some people are addicted to thrill seeking. Some of these people die from seeking ever greater thrills. Is thrill seeking bad, or is the addiction bad?

Throughout the course of human history humans have used alcohol, sometimes for entirely recreational purposes. A very, very small percentage of these people end up addicted and with their lives ruined. Is this the fault of the alcohol, or the addiction?

As to your 'waste of money' - I'm sure that the hobbies and/or interests that you enjoy would seem a complete waste of money to me, if I were condescending and completely lacking in empathy. People value different things to you. They spend money differently to you.

Not all drug users end up with ruined lives. Not all ruined lives are caused by drugs. Not all drug users are addicts. Not all addicts use drugs. You keep conflating these and refusing to accept that you are doing so based on faulty reasoning.

Re:The only good thing (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47555197)

Not all drug users end up with ruined lives. Not all ruined lives are caused by drugs. Not all drug users are addicts. Not all addicts use drugs. You keep conflating these and refusing to accept that you are doing so based on faulty reasoning.

You're still not approaching it from the RISK MITIGATION angle, which is the only thing that matters in this discussion.

Taking recreational drugs is a completely voluntary thing and takes ZERO EFFORT to NOT DO. The statistics don't matter because you empirically cannot be affected by drugs if you DON'T TAKE THEM. You do not need to know the statistics in order to avoid the risk BY NOT DOING IT.

To continue to argue against this point is to say people should take drugs if the statistics say it's mostly harmless. That is complete BULLSHIT reasoning. When engineers build things, they don't build things that closely approaches the maximum tolerances of the materials they build with. They don't wait for the statistics of how many failures and deaths are statistically associated with building close to the thresholds. They test the materials for their tolerances. Then they build as far away from the thresholds as is physically and financially and ethically/legally possible. In the case of recreational drugs, NOT DOING IT is a completely REASONABLE decision regardless of the statistics because it DOESN'T COST YOU ANYTHING. And teaching kids to not do something is a completely reasonable thing to teach.

This isn't like chemotherapy where you either take the drugs and suffer pain or you die from cancer. You don't die if you don't take recreational drugs.

Science does not rely on evidence alone. It also relies on REASON, and your reasoning is complete nonsense in risk mitigation. Fucking hell drug users have the most inane justifications for their failures.

Teachers have a responsibility to educate. Ideally that includes the ability to reason, which is what I really hope you mean when you say 'impart sensibleness'. To the extent that they are imparting incorrect (by way of being incomplete) information they are failing as educators.

Teaching kids to not do something that is ENTIRELY VOLUNTARY is not "incomplete" or "incorrect". Teaching kids that it's okay to do drugs if only 10% of users ruin their lives is irresponsible, and that is in effect what you're arguing for.

Re:The only good thing (1)

another_twilight (585366) | about 4 months ago | (#47555727)

You're still not approaching it from the RISK MITIGATION angle, which is the only thing that matters in this discussion.

Really? The only thing? Well, I'm glad you're hear to hand down some more 'sensibleness' like that.

To continue to argue against this point is to say people should take drugs if the statistics say it's mostly harmless.

Where have I said that? This is the second time you have made that assertion of me and I state, again, that I am not making a recommendation either for or against. I am pointing out the fallacies that you cling to. If an activity of any sort is misunderstood, misrepresented or poorly researched then you cannot make an informed decision about it. You are poorly informed. Clearly you find me saying that offensive.

Let me be plain. I do not think people _should_ do anything. I think that it is reasonable to let people make their own decisions and to assist them in making the best decisions by making sure they have accurate information and are capable of informed consent. That includes driving in traffic, using caffeine, taking antibiotics or using recreational drugs.

They test the materials for their tolerances. Then they build as far away from the thresholds as is physically and financially and ethically/legally possible.

So you are saying that first they thoroughly understand the materials they are working with, research the matter and then decide whether something is too risky to proceed, or whether it is safe enough? That sounds sensible. Why do you object so much when I suggest that this might be a good model for assessing drug use?

In the case of recreational drugs, NOT DOING IT is a completely REASONABLE decision regardless of the statistics because it DOESN'T COST YOU ANYTHING.

Friend, you drink tea. Therefore you use a recreational drug (caffeine). It has very few side effects and most people can use it sensibly and without addiction. A few do not. Clearly you have made the cost/benefit and risk/reward analysis and decided that, for you, tea is an acceptable recreational drug. In fact, you probably don't even consider it a drug because it is so socially acceptable and you are clearly incapable of objectivity (on this matter at least).

Fearmongering is not reasonable, no matter how you capitalise it. You have seen some examples of people who have used drugs and who have had their lives 'ruined'. You have chosen to blame drugs, even though most evidence shows that people who do struggle with drug addiction do so because they have deeper problems in their lives. By blaming the drug and asserting that "NOT DOING IT" "DOESN"T COST YOU ANYTHING" you get to ignore whether they are struggling with mental illnesses, whether their lives are so bleak and hollow that the temporary respite of narcotics is worth the escape, regardless of the price. You get to sit in lofty judgement and continue to deliver your homilies on how easy choosing not to use is. You refuse to accept the possibility that you may be wrong on a topic that you continue to demonstrate you have next to no experience in or with, and yet cling to your ignorance as a defence against having to consider that life might not be so black and white as you'd like.
 

Fucking hell drug users have the most inane justifications for their failures.

And you have the most self-righteous justification for your success. I get that you worked hard to get where you are, and I truly am happy that your life is going well. Being the child of poor migrants cannot have been easy, and it is to your credit that you have succeeded as well as you have. But hard work alone is not enough. Whether you realise it or not, your success is also dependent on a large number of factors over which you had no control. I know many people who have worked hard and continue to work hard who have not had your success. Difficult as your life may have been, others face greater difficulties. Perhaps they aren't as smart as you, perhaps they didn't have access to the education that you had. It sounds like your parents encouraged and taught you the value of saving and working hard. Not everyone has parents that can or will do that. Some have parents that abused them. Some have worked hard and then had chance take that from them. An accident. An illness.
By seeing drug abuse (not drug use - you continue to conflate the two) as the _cause_ of the problem and not a symptom, you get to maintain your moral superiority and to assert that their problems would go away if they just didn't take drugs. How simple. Why don't they just do it? Other people have tried to tell you how smug, self-congratulatory and unsympathetic that sounds. I'll go further. Your position is childish, selfish and ill-educated. Grow up. Seriously.
 

Teaching kids to not do something that is ENTIRELY VOLUNTARY is not "incomplete" or "incorrect".

Teaching them that 10% of drug users ruin their lives is. That's a statistic you just made up. Go on, back it up. Educate yourself. Try and find some real statistics on drug use vs drug abuse.

You realise that alcohol is a drug, right? That in small doses it is pleasant and even has some positive health benefits. Too much, too often and it is harmful. Dependency is harmful and addiction is harmful. It is responsible to teach people the facts and then to assist them in making informed decisions. You have chosen not to drink alcohol. That's your decision - but it's not the only 'correct' decision. Banning alcohol didn't work in the US. In fact, it caused more problems than it solved. Countries like Portugal have legalised and decriminalised a number of drugs and have seen a drop in usage as well as the associated problems of creating a black market for drugs (like crime).

Prohibition, scare tactics, misinformation and teaching people to 'just say no' have been shown again and again not to work. Accurate information, support for people who are struggling with substance abuse and a destigmatisation including decriminalisation have been shown to be far more effective.

Most people can handle caffeine. Most people can handle alcohol. Most people can handle a wide range of substances because their lives are generally good. The people who struggle with dependence and addiction do so not (entirely) because of the substance but because of the other factors in their lives.

I do not advocate taking drugs. I advocate making an informed choice based on accurate information. In all things. Like whether I drink tea or not, whether I drive in heavy traffic or not, whether a cider or two at the end of the week is acceptable or not.

I've seen people ruin their lives with alcohol. I've seen people ruin their lives with gambling. I've seen people ruin their lives chasing sex. Addiction and addictive behaviours are destructive. Alcohol isn't. Gambling isn't. Sex isn't.

Driving is "ENTIRELY VOLUNTARY" and has a higher death rate, per year, than all illegal drugs combined, so clearly teaching kids to "NOT DO IT" is entirely "REASONABLE" and "DOESN'T COST YOU ANYTHING". I mean, that's "RISK MITIGATION" and teaching anything else is "BULLSHIT" reasoning. Or, perhaps, you have made the assessment that given your knowledge of yourself, the benefits of driving outweigh the risks and that you can take steps to minimise or manage the risks that do exist and so driving is a reasonable choice for you to make. Not, perhaps, for someone who doesn't know how to drive (like me), but reasonable for you. Recreational drugs range from those that enhance certain faculties (like focus and attention), mitigate negatives (pain for the opiates, sleep for amphetamines) or provide profound new insights (like hallucinogens). Some are toxic in high doses. Some will rapidly reduce in effect if taken too frequently. Some will impair functions. Some will cause dependence if used to frequently. These are all risks that can be managed and minimised by people who are well informed and acting reasonably. Clearly you have chosen that the benefits do not outweigh the risks. That's perfectly reasonable. What is not reasonable is to insist that there are no benefits to anyone else and to claim that any risk is too much. _Everything_ has a risk of harm associated with it. Standing up (you might fall down), eating food (it might be tainted), breathing (you might catch something). You have an exaggerated estimation of both the risk and the harm of drug use because you fail to distinguish between 'sensible' us and abuse. My attempts to highlight this have been met with hostility and now swearing. We are no longer having a meaningful or useful conversation.

Be well.

Re:The only good thing (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47556019)

Really? The only thing? Well, I'm glad you're hear to hand down some more 'sensibleness' like that.

Yes, the only thing. Who cares how likely someone is to get addicted to a substance? The only thing that matter is that IT CAN HAPPEN.

To continue to argue against this point is to say people should take drugs if the statistics say it's mostly harmless.

Where have I said that?

You IMPLY by continuing to argue against it. The ONLY way to achieve what you propose is for people to EXPERIMENT with drugs.

I am pointing out the fallacies that you cling to. If an activity of any sort is misunderstood, misrepresented or poorly researched then you cannot make an informed decision about it. You are poorly informed. Clearly you find me saying that offensive.

How much data do you need to make the decision to NOT DO SOMETHING?

If the decision is to NOT DO SOMETHING, then it is informed enough as is necessary. The only purpose to become "more informed" about drug use is if you want to take more of it. So by advocating become more informed about drugs is to advocate experimentation.

Driving is "ENTIRELY VOLUNTARY" and has a higher death rate, per year, than all illegal drugs combined, so clearly teaching kids to "NOT DO IT" is entirely "REASONABLE" and "DOESN'T COST YOU ANYTHING".

Driving is a REQUIREMENT for a lot of people to get around. It DOES COST certain people not being able to drive. Driving is in a lot of cases NECESSARY. There is NO CASE where recreational drugs are necessary. Tell me one. Go on, I'd love to hear it.

They test the materials for their tolerances. Then they build as far away from the thresholds as is physically and financially and ethically/legally possible.

So you are saying that first they thoroughly understand the materials they are working with, research the matter and then decide whether something is too risky to proceed, or whether it is safe enough? That sounds sensible. Why do you object so much when I suggest that this might be a good model for assessing drug use?

Nice try, but you miss the point of the example. The fact is we already have a good model for assessing drug use: if you don't take it, it CAN'T DO ANYTHING TO YOU. That is the most anyone needs to know without recommending experimentation, which is what you are necessarily arguing for.

I can't believe how hard it is to talk reason to someone to even recognize the fact that there is a concrete lower bound to the effects of drug use.

Friend, you drink tea. Therefore you use a recreational drug (caffeine). It has very few side effects and most people can use it sensibly and without addiction. A few do not. Clearly you have made the cost/benefit and risk/reward analysis and decided that, for you, tea is an acceptable recreational drug. In fact, you probably don't even consider it a drug because it is so socially acceptable and you are clearly incapable of objectivity (on this matter at least).

Nothing to do with it being "socially acceptable". Unlike drugs, there is not even a single case where a person has died, or suffered illness from tea abuse. So I don't need any more statistics about tea to make an informed decision.

Fearmongering is not reasonable, no matter how you capitalise it.

It's not fearmongering to say "it's not worth it". You don't need to scare children. The logic of "if you don't do it, it will have no effect" is a statement of mathematical fact.

You have chosen to blame drugs, even though most evidence shows that people who do struggle with drug addiction do so because they have deeper problems in their lives. By blaming the drug and asserting that "NOT DOING IT" "DOESN"T COST YOU ANYTHING" you get to ignore whether they are struggling with mental illnesses, whether their lives are so bleak and hollow that the temporary respite of narcotics is worth the escape, regardless of the price.

But I don't blame the drugs. I blame the people. People make the choice to use drugs. Drugs can't make that choice. EVEN people with mental illness or empty lives. They know it would make it worse, and they still choose to do it.

I'd rather them be informed about the ALTERNATIVES, rather than informing themselves on how best to take a drug and remain "safe".

That's your decision - but it's not the only 'correct' decision. Banning alcohol didn't work in the US. In fact, it caused more problems than it solved.

And I don't advocate banning it. I advocate people make the informed decision that not doing it will have no effect on them. Not doing it is the ONLY correct decision, because it is the ONLY decision with a CERTAIN outcome. I'd like to know what information you have to suggest that someone can still be a drug abuser without being a drug user.

Countries like Portugal have legalised and decriminalised a number of drugs and have seen a drop in usage as well as the associated problems of creating a black market for drugs (like crime).

And look at the basket case their economy has become. You do realize China fought TWO Opium Wars right? The British forced Opium to be legal in China and it sunk the whole Chinese civilization. There is nothing to be informed about other than the fact that not doing opium was the only way for China to recover from its pending collapse.

By seeing drug abuse (not drug use - you continue to conflate the two)

I'm not conflating the two. I'm pointing out the obvious logical point that drug abuse CANNOT happen WITHOUT drug use. And you can't even agree on that. Instead you recommend people be "informed" about when drug use tips over to become drug abuse. When the effects of drugs is different for everyone, to suggest there is a safe level of drug use that people can be informed about is irresponsible.

You refuse to accept the possibility that you may be wrong on a topic that you continue to demonstrate you have next to no experience in or with, and yet cling to your ignorance as a defence against having to consider that life might not be so black and white as you'd like.

I have the experience of NOT USING recreational drugs. And my experience is that life is pretty fucking bearable without the use of drugs. Therefore, I don't need to be informed about drugs, because I am informed about the alternative.

Other people have tried to tell you how smug, self-congratulatory and unsympathetic that sounds. I'll go further. Your position is childish, selfish and ill-educated. Grow up. Seriously.

Apparently advocating not doing recreational drugs is childish. The "adult" thing is to experiment.

I'm glad I'm childish and not an adult then, because you adults seem fucking stupid.

provide profound new insights (like hallucinogens)

Now THAT is an urban myth. I have yet to encounter any insight from people who took hallucinogens that is actually so profound that people couldn't have arrived by it normally. This is just a bedtime story drug users tell themselves, but it's not true. It's even less factually true than the fact that people can ruin their lives with drugs.

Some will cause dependence if used to frequently. These are all risks that can be managed and minimised by people who are well informed and acting reasonably.

Some people get addicted the first time they try it, or the first few times. That is a risk that CANNOT be managed and minimized. To advocate people get informed to find their level of drug tolerance is precisely what you denied doing in the beginning. Face it.

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549937)

Then you're a fucking stupid kid who can't tell the difference between people looking fine and people being fine.

"Your teachers lied to you, and now you know it."

No, because I look at all the kids who started marijuana very young and most of them do nothing of their lives except to look for the next high, the teachers were right that it could ruin your life.

No, you're an idiot.

Marijuana, contrary to what they tell you, is in no way a narcotic.

Many many people have used marijuana for decades, and are functioning people with good jobs, and aren't scurrying around for their next high, aren't showing up to work under the influence, and aren't having their lives destroyed by it.

Alcohol is linked to far more premature deaths than pot ever will be. And alcohol is legal, but does far more damage.

Maybe you should know a little more about the topic before acting like you do. Because you're full of shit.

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47550509)

Many many people have used marijuana for decades, and are functioning people with good jobs, and aren't scurrying around for their next high, aren't showing up to work under the influence, and aren't having their lives destroyed by it.

Good example of confirmation bias
The catch is that there are many people who tried marijuana and don't function well. You don't know them because they dropped out are working in back at a pizza joint.
You might also say many people have used meth for decades and are functioning well, etc, and you would still be correct.

The problem is that some people can do that and some people cannot do that - they become uncontrolled users.
It's the same for marijuana. Some can use it and be fine and some cannot. I say with marijuana that the vast majority of people would be fine.

How do you know which group you will fall in?
Or more importantly for society, can you allow children/teenagers experiment with drugs only to find out that they are NOT among the group that can handle it?
Most teenagers do not have the reasoning ability or risk assessment skills to properly evaluate drug taking.

So yeah, if you had a teacher who said "everyone who smokes dope becomes an addict", then yeah that teacher is wrong and either a liar or a fool
But, as a teacher, or just as an adult giving advice, how do you tell a teenager
"sure, most people can smoke and be just fine, and some cannot, but if you're one of those who cannot then you're pretty much screwed from then on."
"sure, most people can do meth and be just fine, and some cannot, but if you're one of those who cannot then you're pretty much screwed from then on."
I assure you that what you say and what the teenager hears are two very different things.
You're pretty much left with just telling them about the dangers.

Re:The only good thing (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 4 months ago | (#47551939)

For the record: I do know 1 person still working at a pizza joint, pushing 50. He's a drunk and a coke head. Drunk was first.

You talk to kids honestly. Or you lose your credibility, at which point it no longer matters what you say.

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47550369)

So how should you know about the dangers of addiction from heroin or methamphetamines, when your teachers are demonstrably lying to you about drugs?

If only kids had some other source of information other than the institutional education system.
You should ask your parents.
You could do some basic research and look it up in a library. Kids now a days have simply to look up the wikipedia page. Eventually they'll find that chart comparing various drugs and their health risk/addition risk.
You could experiment and find that, YES, anything can become addictive.
And you should teach yourself to fight and break an addiction. Even if it's only caffeine. Because it makes you a better person.

I went through the DARE program and everything you're talking about. I knew the teachers were lying to me, but I also knew they weren't completely wrong. That helped me a lot through life.

Re:The only good thing (1)

blindseer (891256) | about 4 months ago | (#47553541)

I recall getting the "drugs are bad" slide show in grade school. Among the images were examples of how dirty and poisonous the illegal drugs were. They gave images of how clean the drugs were from hospitals and pharmacies, since they could not say all drugs were bad.

This gave rise to a few questions in my mind. Questions I kept to myself because, while I was curious, I was too timid to outright question what were were told. The first question that came to mind, why would drug dealers put the crap that was shown in the slides into the drugs they sell? I thought that if they were really putting this stuff into the drugs they people buying it would end up dead, and not give them money, or they'd go find drugs from a competing dealer that didn't give them stuff that made them sick. Even at a young age I understood some basic economics. Illegal drugs aren't free from the rules of supply and demand.

Then it came to the images of the clean drugs that came from the pharmacies. If the drug dealers were selling this dangerous stuff then why not get the drugs from the pharmacies. At that age I didn't understand all the legal barriers to get the drugs, or it was not yet explained to me. Of course that is what people are doing. These dealers will buy pills from people with prescriptions to sell it to people that don't, or they rob the pharmacies of the good stuff.

This was about the time that people were trading dirty needles to inject their drugs because the government decided that allowing pharmacies to sell clean needles without a prescription was somehow encouraging drug use. What happened is that people, like my sister with diabetes, had a hard time finding clean needles while the druggies were using dirty ones. Because of this blood born infections went up in both populations. Poor diabetics had to re-use needles because getting clean was got more expensive, and drug addicts were re-using needles because getting clean ones was now illegal.

Yes, my teachers lied to me. The drugs were not killing people, government policies were. The reason these drugs are dangerous is because they were made illegal. They were not made illegal because they were dangerous.

This continued stack of lies being given to children is just one of many reasons why I oppose government funded education. I could rant on public education for a long time but this is not the time and place.

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47558935)

Yes this is sad. Painkillers not requiring prescription (paracetamol) and being sold in ordinary food stores are a heck easier to kill yourself with than weed or several other supposedly deadly drugs. As far as I know 10-20 at once is enough to cause liver failure. And if use is criminalized people won't dare seek (official) care for their loved ones if they risk falling into abuse - that's perfect for the crime syndicates. Because then the users have no other way to turn than to their dealers to seek help...

Re:The only good thing (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549087)

How is that heartless? Addicted people get themselves into it.

It's heartless because it implies that addicts sat down at the kitchen table, made a Pro-Con list of addiction, and came to a reasoned decision to become an addict.

The reality, of course, is that many people hear all of their teachers' admonitions not to smoke, drink, or do drugs, and wonder what all the fuss is about. They think that one time won't hurt - look at all the teachers who smoke or drink alcohol. Look at all the successful celebrities who do drugs. And, inevitably, some of those who try just once want to do them again. And again. And eventually it just snowballs out of control.

It's heartless because most of us have made a bad decision while intoxicated, to the point where we'll disown that decision. "That's not who I really am - I was drunk." Or spazzed out on coffee. Most of us know that there comes a point where "you" aren't really making the decisions, because the whole point of drugs is to alter your thinking. It's a vicarious warning not to get out of control, but addiction ought to evoke some fucking sympathy.

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549373)

But there needs to be condemnation and associated stigma, because that does work to keep some people from doing it in the first place. No, heartless disapproval will not cause somebody to give up their heroin habit... but it stops a lot of habits from forming, and that's the most important line of defense.

It's like reducing poverty by slashing welfare. It seems cruel, but it's one of the most effective methods... so is it really so coldhearted?

Re:The only good thing (1)

3.5 stripes (578410) | about 4 months ago | (#47550767)

[citation needed]

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47551815)

Whether a method gets results or not does not affect how coldhearted it is. If we found out that sending your child into the woods for a year to live when they turn 16 helped in some way, wouldn't that still be a strange, coldhearted method of raising children?

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47553139)

Right, and eliminating nut allergies is easily solved by making everybody eat a handful of peanuts, then incinerating the bodies of the people who don't survive!

How about we condemn and stigmatize the sociopaths who think that other people's bad luck can never happen to them?

Re:The only good thing (0)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47549609)

It's heartless because it implies that addicts sat down at the kitchen table, made a Pro-Con list of addiction, and came to a reasoned decision to become an addict.

They didn't need to. They get given plenty of pros and cons for the matter to be already decided.

They think that one time won't hurt - look at all the teachers who smoke or drink alcohol. Look at all the successful celebrities who do drugs.

And I have no sympathy for anyone who thinks so stupidly. As a kid, I didn't know about logical fallacies. But I knew enough to know "because everyone else does it" is not a good reason. In fact, kids are taught that all the time.

It's heartless because most of us have made a bad decision while intoxicated, to the point where we'll disown that decision.

You argue against yourself. Getting intoxicated in the first place is a decision.

addiction ought to evoke some fucking sympathy.

Someone who deliberately cuts off their own legs with a chainsaw don't get sympathy. So why should addicts?

Re:The only good thing (4, Insightful)

Thiez (1281866) | about 4 months ago | (#47550185)

Someone who deliberately cuts off their own legs with a chainsaw don't get sympathy. So why should addicts?

I imagine someone who would do that on purpose must be suffering from some serious mental problem, or must have been blackmailed or under some kind of duress. Certainly they do deserve sympathy and help.

Re:The only good thing (1)

Surreal_Streaker (636407) | about 4 months ago | (#47559387)

Someone who deliberately cuts off their own legs with a chainsaw don't get sympathy. So why should addicts?

I imagine someone who would do that on purpose must be suffering from some serious mental problem, or must have been blackmailed or under some kind of duress. Certainly they do deserve sympathy and help.

I imagine - hey, free chainsaw!

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47550939)

Someone who deliberately cuts off their own legs with a chainsaw don't get sympathy. So why should addicts?

Why wouldn't that evoke sympathy? Anybody doing that is either engaging in self-mutilation, in which case they're profoundly disturbed, or had a terrible accident, in which case, they had some absolute shit luck completely beyond their control.

Given that mental illness is a real thing beyond people's control, and shit luck could happen to any one of us, and is certainly also beyond our control - why wouldn't you feel sympathy for someone in that situation?

In the same sense - addicts arrive at their condition through a variety of routes - some are addicted to painkillers after surgeries, some are mentally unstable and 'self-medicating' to try and maintain their mental balance, some are just dumb, hopeless, or acting out. I can muster sympathy for any of those people, without saying that I think their decisions and behavior makes them good role models. I can pity them because they've made some bad decisions, or had some bad luck, and want to help them "get better" and arrive at a better place in their lives, while still acknowledging that they have to be ultimately responsible for achieving and maintaining their own recovery.

Why can't you? What fundamental human quality are you missing that you seem to think it's fine to look at the suffering of a fellow human being, shrug, and say, "LOL SUCKS TO BE YOU LOSER"?

Re:The only good thing (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 4 months ago | (#47552005)

Some people are on earth to serve as a warning to others.

To others: Don't make the life choices this person made!

To them: Better luck next reincarnation.

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47552333)

"It's heartless because it implies that addicts sat down at the kitchen table, made a Pro-Con list of addiction, and came to a reasoned decision to become an addict."

No, it implies they did something and continued to do it over and fucking over again until they became addicted.

Re:The only good thing (1)

jythie (914043) | about 4 months ago | (#47549663)

Pain killers are a problematic example since you can get addicted to them even following doctor's orders on dosage and time.

Re:The only good thing (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 4 months ago | (#47549897)

Cigarettes and other form of tobacco are problematic since you are SUPPOSED to get addicted to them following the manufacturers instructions, hopes and dreams. Alcohol, it can be argued, you are supposed to 'enjoy responsibly' (and only get addicted to if you have some form of mental or genetic deficiency).

Ka-CHING! *

* to all you young folk who have never seen a real cash register, that's the noise the device makes when it rings up a sale.

Re:The only good thing (1)

F.Ultra (1673484) | about 4 months ago | (#47550247)

smoke or drink excessively

I hope that you understand that you can get lung cancer and be an alcoholic from moderate smoking and driking right? Excessive drinking can increase the risk of beeing an alcoholic but it is by no means a necessity.

And as a side note, do you believe that people who started using drugs did so in order to be addicted to it? Or could there be a whole world of other reasons why they did that?

Re:The only good thing (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 4 months ago | (#47552043)

The mythical; 1 glass of wine with dinner alcoholic?

Some definitions of alcoholic are incredibly broken. Do alcoholics really have a 75% spontaneous recovery rate? (75% of college students that would test as alcoholics spontaneously start to drink responsibly when their lives become more responsible!)

Re:The only good thing (1)

F.Ultra (1673484) | about 4 months ago | (#47556155)

That's not the ones I'm referring to. A small percentage of the populous have a genetic disposition to be alcoholics without needing large amounts of alcohol. Not that a single glass of wine once in their life triggers the sickness but it's not far from it either, i.e "love at first sight" so to speak.

Re:The only good thing (1)

david_thornley (598059) | about 4 months ago | (#47561675)

I've known people who became alcoholics through normal social drinking. I don't know anybody who set out to become an alcoholic, and darn few who deliberately decided to drink to excess.

And, by "alcoholic", I mean somebody who more or less trashes his or her life because he or she can't stop drinking.

Re:The only good thing (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 4 months ago | (#47552649)

Where's the -1 fallacious appeal mod?

Re:The only good thing (4, Insightful)

LainTouko (926420) | about 4 months ago | (#47548907)

How about the entirely unnecessary, bigoted coercion and force used against them by society to incarcerate them, which they wouldn't have to suffer if they were addicted to something mainstream, i.e. alcohol or tobacco?

Having your life ruined merely for being different is something which should attract sympathy from anyone.

Re:The only good thing (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47549009)

Note you're the one bring the war on drugs into this. I'm merely addressing the CHOICE people make to start taking drugs in the first place. Why? Taking drugs is not "being different". You're not born taking drugs. In fact you have to go out of your way to do those things. Taking those substances is one of the very few things you are not forced to do in advanced society. Even if there were no war on drugs, people still get addicted and ruin their lives, or die, for something completely unnecessary.

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549139)

You live in a gated community, don't you?

Re:The only good thing (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47549447)

One of my best friends growing up was an Aborigine, against the advice of my parents. I got suspended from school a few times. Maybe being poor and Chinese helped me? No one more sensible than a poor Chinese with poor Chinese parents.

Re: The only good thing (2)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 4 months ago | (#47549479)

No, you've demonstrated repeatedly that being sensible isn't one of your strengths; I'm sure you'll be relieved to know you can abandon that particular delusion. ;)

Re: The only good thing (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47549647)

I am a middle child, but I'm the only one of my siblings who graduated "on schedule" and got a job right out of university. I never claimed to be the most sensible person, but I can look at my life from an outside perspective and realize I'm doing pretty fucking well even on a modicum of sensibility.

Re: The only good thing (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 4 months ago | (#47549915)

I'll bet you're a blast at parties....

Re: The only good thing (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47550005)

Oh no, I'm very introverted, and I decided I liked that from a very young age. I consider it a good thing that I grew up not thinking that being a blast in parties was the only worthy goal in life.

Re: The only good thing (1)

pitchpipe (708843) | about 4 months ago | (#47551765)

I'll bet you're a blast at parties....

Oh no, I'm very introverted, and I decided I liked that from a very young age. I consider it a good thing that I grew up not thinking that being a blast in parties was the only worthy goal in life.

I bet you're great at picking up on sarcasm...

Re: The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47552227)

I'll bet you're a blast at parties....

Oh no, I'm very introverted, and I decided I liked that from a very young age. I consider it a good thing that I grew up not thinking that being a blast in parties was the only worthy goal in life.

I bet you're great at picking up on sarcasm...

Many people have discovered that the best defense against unwarranted insults that are delivered as sarcasm is to pretend that the other person was speaking literally.

Re: The only good thing (1)

NoImNotNineVolt (832851) | about 4 months ago | (#47553057)

Hi here, me again. This thread caught my eye, and I wish I could say I was surprised to see that you were involved. I'm no doctor, but you seem to either be suffering from some autism-spectrum disorder or well on your way to becoming a master troll. In any case, carry on.

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549593)

Well, the thing is that you should leave your father's iron fisted tyranny at home. See, that's part of the problem. Everyone thinks the whole world should live as their family does. Nothing like a good beating to teach discipline.

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47553247)

One of my best friends growing up was an Aborigine, against the advice of my parents.

"I can't be racist - I have a friend who's black!"

The stupid goes right down to the bone with you, doesn't it?

Re:The only good thing (0)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about 4 months ago | (#47549193)

Do you drink coffee? Congratulations: you take a recreational drug. And no, you didn't start with any more information then anyone else. You did it because everyone else does it.

Re:The only good thing (1)

Bigbutt (65939) | about 4 months ago | (#47549245)

Just for me personally, no. I don't drink coffee or alcohol.

[John]

Re:The only good thing (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47549303)

Do I drink coffee? No, actually. At least, not regularly enough to be called a "coffee drinker". I certainly don't drink it for the caffeine - I'm not sure I've ever felt the effects of it. I drink it for the bitter-sweet-milk taste. Otherwise, I mostly drink tea.

Re:The only good thing (4, Interesting)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 4 months ago | (#47549649)

Do I drink coffee? No, actually. At least, not regularly enough to be called a "coffee drinker". I certainly don't drink it for the caffeine - I'm not sure I've ever felt the effects of it. I drink it for the bitter-sweet-milk taste. Otherwise, I mostly drink tea.

What's it like having to live among the Visigoths? You probably should tine down your message of superiority, For there but for the grace of (insert favorite deity here) go you.

The point here is not how great you are, and how if only these weak minded individuals would have listened to their teachers all would be well in. The point of the story is that this is a different story.

Your teachers probably did not sell the idea of the suburban living, family person, with a good paying job and college education as the drug addict.

They probably sold you the bleary eyed guy living under a bridge, stealing to support his addiction, or the once beautiful woman in an alley with her fubber hose, having turned to prostitution to support her heroin habit, or at best, just a stoner, who has permanently addled his brain by taking a hit off that kickass doob some cute girl handed him saying "Come on - everyone's doing it - don't you want to do it?

No, this is an entirely different group. What is worse, by their addiction, they are serving the stockholders. If you have 10 people working 80 plus hours a week, you don't have to pay 25 people to work 40 (remember the inefficiencies - it doesn't scale 1 for 1). This is not your teacher's and societies addicts.

Having worked my share of 24+ hour days, and having my full complement of hours in by Tuesday morning, I can imagine a lot of people becoming addicted to something that keeps them going, then getting involved in downers to bring them back. I never did, managing to get by on coffee abuse only. But I understand very well the pressure. You have the stockholders, the family, and the corporation behind you, demanding anything to increase your productivity.

So yes, I fully understand exactly how this can happen. I avoided it because I understand there is a price to pay, an inevitable crash and burn if you try to do this on a extended basis.

I just don't have your smug attitude about it.

Only perfect people are allowed to be smug. And smugness is a sign of imperfection.

Re:The only good thing (0)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47550077)

Your teachers probably did not sell the idea of the suburban living, family person, with a good paying job and college education as the drug addict.

No. But they did teach that ANYONE could become addicted and ruin their lives. Which amounts to the same thing.

I just don't have your smug attitude about it. Only perfect people are allowed to be smug. And smugness is a sign of imperfection.

I can tell your problem with me is your inferiority complex. I don't say all of this to show that I'm perfect. If I was perfect, I wouldn't have gotten addicted to television and actually got good grades to get the science career I wanted when I was young rather than being a computer programmer. My addiction was piss weak, but I take responsibility for it and I don't excuse it.

Re:The only good thing (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 4 months ago | (#47550563)

I can tell your problem with me is your inferiority complex. I don't say all of this to show that I'm perfect. If I was perfect, I wouldn't have gotten addicted to television and actually got good grades to get the science career I wanted when I was young rather than being a computer programmer. My addiction was piss weak, but I take responsibility for it and I don't excuse it.

Now you are just being silly. Reading your posts would probably convince most people that you are suffering from self-esteem issues, and trying to compensate for it via adopting a disdainful attitude toward other people. Your pulling out the "inferiority complex" card so quickly is another red flag symptom.

Try a little compassion, unless you have a fear of getting close to people, and getting emotionally hurt.

Re:The only good thing (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47550721)

Reading your posts would probably convince most people that you are suffering from self-esteem issues

I think self-esteem issues are funny, especially when exaggerated. An inside joke.

Your pulling out the "inferiority complex" card so quickly is another red flag symptom.

In response to you pulling out the "smug" accusation very quickly. Kind of disingenuous to imply it was apropos of nothing.

Try a little compassion, unless you have a fear of getting close to people, and getting emotionally hurt.

I vote on the left side of the political spectrum for a lot of issues and highly despise the social darwinist policies of the right. I prefer to direct my compassion to those that deserve it.

Re:The only good thing (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 4 months ago | (#47551281)

Your pulling out the "inferiority complex" card so quickly is another red flag symptom.

In response to you pulling out the "smug" accusation very quickly. Kind of disingenuous to imply it was apropos of nothing.

Which "smug" comment you seemed to approve of until I used it as an example of possible issues on your part - as part of your comment egarding how you enjoy lording it over other people. Saying someone is "smug" is merely saying they show excessive pride. Which you do. But coupled with your reflexive accusation of me as having an inferiority complex. might start to look like aggressive compensatory behavior.

Try a little compassion, unless you have a fear of getting close to people, and getting emotionally hurt.

I vote on the left side of the political spectrum for a lot of issues and highly despise the social darwinist policies of the right. I prefer to direct my compassion to those that deserve it.

We are very lucky to have you as the arbiter of who does and does not deserve compassion. And hopefully if and when you need a little, someone will be there to give it to you.

Re:The only good thing (1)

Sciath (3433615) | about 4 months ago | (#47569127)

You're not an evil atheist... you're more like a Christian.

Re:The only good thing (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47570937)

I'm an evil atheist, because I'm an atheist, but I also support the idea of being responsible and sensible. Atheists like you consider it evil to have any sort of rules for good living whatsoever. You also commit the genetic fallacy that because some ideas may be in common with religions, it is somehow tainted by those religions.

If you didn't realize, the BUDDHISTS have actual guidelines for living that are not justified by divine revelation. You can take or reject them as you like, but you cannot seriously deny that the Middle Eightfold Path (unlike the Ten Commandments) is sensible for the most part without relying on divine punishment as an enforcer.

Re:The only good thing (1)

NoImNotNineVolt (832851) | about 4 months ago | (#47553033)

I have no horse in this race, but I'll just chime in here. You do come across as smug. Your tea contains caffeine, so mentioning that you don't drink coffee was disingenuous at best. In the end, you're a caffeine addict either way.

Television is not addictive. It's habit-forming. You suck at English.

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47550117)

> You probably should tine down your message of superiority

Grandparent poster tried it first; parent poster gives a legitimate smackdown in response.

Did you out the bad, criminal employees? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47551419)

Did you out the bad, criminal employees? Like most everyone on slashdot wants the "good" cops to out the bad cops?

If not, then you contributed to the problem as much as anyone working there.

Currently unemployed and unlikely to ever work again in a culture that demands you destroy your health (mental and physical) to earn a barely living wage I laugh at the people who succumb to these stresses. Especially the rich ones.

In their greed, they richly deserve the addictions, health problems. etc. Race to the bottom. Enjoy it.

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47551887)

I agree with what you are saying but I think you made an arithmetic error. Having 10 people work 80 hour weeks is more equivalent to 8 people working 40 hour weeks, at least for people who use the brains for work.

Remember the standard for a 12-hour work day in programming is

    - 4 hours to fix bugs
    - 4 hours to write new features
    - 4 hours to write new bugs (to be fixed the next day)

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47553373)

No, this is an entirely different group. What is worse, by their addiction, they are serving the stockholders. If you have 10 people working 80 plus hours a week, you don't have to pay 25 people to work 40 (remember the inefficiencies - it doesn't scale 1 for 1). This is not your teacher's and societies addicts.

There is some inefficiency from needing additional communication for additional people; everyone also loses efficiency for being tired or trying to concentrate too long on a single thing. If a neutral observer compared the quality and amount of work you're doing during routine 80 hour weeks, they might well find a coworker who was merely working 40 was being more productive.

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549943)

Since you trust your teachers implicitly and rabidly disagree with libertarianism, I assume you were taught this and strongly agree with it:

"No man is an island entire of itself"

Sit and meditate on that thought for a while and consider how choosing to live your life as an exception from others will result in trouble in your future.

Another popular phrase to chew on, if you were educated elsewhere:

"Deru kui wa utareru"

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47550935)

Wow how self righteous are you? Guess what, not everybody grows up in a sheltered environment. And like a poster mentioned before, when teachers lie to you about one drug why should you believe them about other drugs?

Oh right, you always did what your teachers told you without verifying.

One day you're going to learn to think for yourself and realize what a pile of shit you've been fed your whole life.

Re:The only good thing (1)

Some_Llama (763766) | about 4 months ago | (#47561129)

"Do I drink coffee? No, actually. At least, not regularly enough to be called a "coffee drinker". I certainly don't drink it for the caffeine - I'm not sure I've ever felt the effects of it. I drink it for the bitter-sweet-milk taste. Otherwise, I mostly drink tea."

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA
"I certainly don't drink it for the caffeine"
"Otherwise, I mostly drink tea"
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA

omg THAT WAS AWESOME!! thanks for the laugh today.. awesome...!

Re:The only good thing (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47549461)

To add:

Maybe you assume I drink coffee because I'm on Slashdot and chances are I work in IT, if not a programmer and all IT/programmers drink coffee to be productive? Well I don't. I'm less productive on coffee because I'm easily distractable.

Re:The only good thing (1)

marsu_k (701360) | about 4 months ago | (#47549707)

So... you're not sure you've ever felt the effects of coffee, yet you are easily distracted after consuming it?

Re:The only good thing (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47549829)

I suspect it's more psychosomatic. AND I get distracted even without drinking coffee. I haven't done a double blind test to be sure that I am affected by coffee. It could just as well be the sugar.

Re:The only good thing (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 4 months ago | (#47552175)

There's your problem. Sugar in the coffee. Didn't your parents/teachers warn you?

Should be Irish Whiskey.

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47552739)

In my personal experince the people who "ruin their lives" have nothing left to live for anyway.

Re:The only good thing (1)

OutOnARock (935713) | about 4 months ago | (#47553883)

fuck dude....humans have been creating and taking drugs to alter state of mind since....

oh i don't know......

since humans have existed.....

enjoying altered states is in our genes.....

that some people cannot control it does not mean the rest of us cannot enjoy it

I can sit and enjoy a beautiful sunset straight

I can enjoy it after a cocktail

and I can enjoy it after a joint

Re:The only good thing (1)

Some_Llama (763766) | about 4 months ago | (#47561107)

" You're not born taking drugs."

for being mr science you sure don't know shit about how the brain works do you? FYI the only reason any drug works is because they either mimic the molecular properties of drugs that already are produced by your brain or stimulate the drugs the brain produce.

So yes you are taking drugs from the moment of birth.

Re:The only good thing (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 4 months ago | (#47549537)

Only on Slashdot would some one compare heroin to alcohol and tobacco.
The difference is that you can use alcohol and not be addicted. Tobacco while really bad does not seem to cause health issues as quickly as heroin.
I don't drink or smoke and even I can see a world of difference between them.
BTW Drunks do often get thrown in jail for any number of reasons. Drug users often get off with community service and drug treatment programs for first offenses.

Re:The only good thing (1)

LainTouko (926420) | about 4 months ago | (#47549775)

Actually, heroin would be safer than alcohol or tobacco if it wasn't for prohibition. Long term use of tobacco, or overuse of alcohol significantly increases your chance of dying from various things. Long term use of heroin doesn't actually do very much. It's the unreliable doses, sky-high costs, substances it's cut with and injection hazards which make heroin so dangerous under prohibition. None of these would be a problem if it was legal.

Re:The only good thing (1)

dryeo (100693) | about 4 months ago | (#47553961)

Long term use of heroin doesn't actually do very much.

Don't lie, it's a well known fact that opiates, including heroin, have a tendency to make people constipated, much worse then destroying your liver or your heart and lungs which is why it is illegal while alcohol and tobacco are legal.

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47550063)

Only on Slashdot would some one compare heroin to alcohol and tobacco.
The difference is that you can use alcohol and not be addicted. Tobacco while really bad does not seem to cause health issues as quickly as heroin.
I don't drink or smoke and even I can see a world of difference between them.
BTW Drunks do often get thrown in jail for any number of reasons. Drug users often get off with community service and drug treatment programs for first offenses.

Alcohol addiction (why they have detoxes) is much, MUCH worse than heroin addiction. It just takes longer to get addicted.

Heroin users with means can actually maintain for a very long time. I believe Bill Burroughs was well into his eighties when he checked out.

I happen to know quite a few ex-druggies (I have my reasons for knowing them quite well) who have spent PLENTY of hard time -decades- in Camp Cupcake for drug and drug-related offenses. Often, the first offense.

The worst I've seen with drunks (and I've seen a lot), is a year in County lockup for killing someone (a much more common statistic than you seem capable of grokking), and that was after several DUIs.

It's very interesting to read this comment thread. I can pretty much pick out those of you I might be seeing some time down the road.

Have fun!

Re:The only good thing (1)

F.Ultra (1673484) | about 4 months ago | (#47550327)

Well you can use Heroin and not be addicted also, yes the chance or probably magnitudes higher but still. Also according to some studies, once addicted, alcohol seams to be one really ugly mother: http://www.webmd.com/mental-he... [webmd.com]

Re:The only good thing (1)

znrt (2424692) | about 4 months ago | (#47554149)

Only on Slashdot would some one compare heroin to alcohol and tobacco.
The difference is that you can use alcohol and not be addicted.

funny, because i snorted plenty of heroin and cocaine in my youth but never got addicted to it. i am, however, fully addicted to tobacco now, and not quite sure about alcohol.

the point is, casual heroin (cocaine, whatever) use without addiction is entirely possible, and not at all uncommon. it's always about the person and the circumstances, not about the substance.

Re:The only good thing (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 4 months ago | (#47558209)

And these comments have pushed me right of the maybe legalizing pot is ok into the not a chance.
You all are nuts.
The argument that it is no worse than tobacco is at best amusing since tobacco is a terrible drug.

Re:The only good thing (1)

robsku (1381635) | about 4 months ago | (#47559243)

Only on Slashdot would some one compare heroin to alcohol and tobacco.

Hardly - I guess you haven't actually participated in much arguments around these things.

Comparisons between these three are sometimes made by medical professionals. I would include at least meth though, but heroin, alcohol and tobacco are quite often referred to as the top hard drugs.

Now tobacco has at least the same addiction potential as heroin. And if talking of purely pharmaceutical effects of the substances, tobacco far outweighs heroin. It also seems less people seem able to quit tobacco than heroin. So even if we count the health effects of heroin that have more to do with it's legal status and poverty, tobacco could still have more chance of killing you.

Alcohol - not potentially as addictive but certainly, if you get addicted to it, far more damaging to your mental and physical health than heroin ever could be. Heck, some former addicts (and I've even known some) are in better shape after years of daily use than former alcoholics, who have the same length of use behind them - for one reason because alcohol is *neurotoxic*. It's toxic for your brain, and it's toxic for your organs.

Heroin isn't. That can't be said for all opioids, in fact there are some that are very toxic to your body, but mostly the commonly used ones are not. Read into it, you may find it surprising.

The difference is that you can use alcohol and not be addicted.

You can use any drug and not be addicted. Yes, even heroin, though I would not suggest to try your luck. But yes, the addiction potential of alcohol, for most people, is much lower than for heroin.

Tobacco while really bad does not seem to cause health issues as quickly as heroin.

True. It will most likely of these three cause addiction though and it most likely will kill you if you get addicted to it (provided you don't die on something else before).

Those people in country (countries?) - was it Switzerland? - in the "treatment" where pure heroin is given freely to addicts who have failed rehab, are not likely to die because of their habit anymore (now that they are out of need for street heroin, make money - mostly illegally - to finance their habit and can actually be beneficial, not just cost to society).

Because it's not heroin, the substance itself, that causes their health problems and most of their inability to cope with normal life.

In fact that program started out of a test on "hopeless cases", group of heroinists who had failed enough rehab attempts to be categorized "hopeless". The program surprisingly showed that not only, as expected, the people didn't have to finance their habit with crimes and their health improved, but also many of them got hang of their lives, got a job, etc. - and even, after all this improvement, volunteered for rehab - which surprisingly many of these hopeless people now succeeded in. Look into it.

I don't drink or smoke and even I can see a world of difference between them.

There is a world of differences - they are mostly different than most average people who haven't studied the subject think.

BTW Drunks do often get thrown in jail for any number of reasons. Drug users often get off with community service and drug treatment programs for first offenses.

Whether you think that drunks should get the same treatment as "druggies" (which they too in fact are) or the other way around, that's a problem with ill designed system.

Re:The only good thing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47550075)

That's a good point, people addicted to alcohol and tobacco should be incarcerated too.

Re:The only good thing (4, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | about 4 months ago | (#47549051)

Yup, they're constantly warned by old people and movies alike, that only dumb, cool, sexy people with exciting lives do drugs. It's much safer to live like your boring suburban parents, who incidentally probably also do drugs-- at least alcohol, coffee, and antidepressants, if not marijuana and cocaine.

I actually don't do any illegal drugs or prescription drugs. I'm just pointing out that our society sends some seriously mixed messages.

Re:The only good thing (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47549109)

Do teachers tell their students to take drugs? That's a pretty fucking clear message. They even tell kids not to believe in movies. Even as a kid I knew to listen to them. What excuse do other kids have? That they didn't want to be teacher's pets?

My parents never did drugs. My father escaped communism in China and my mother's family were poor. They buckled down and got out of poverty and avoided all addictions, even gambling. It isn't hard to not do something that isn't necessary.

Re:The only good thing (1)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about 4 months ago | (#47549159)

Fine, you're a shining example and the rest of us larvae are not worthy, but please note you are living on a planet with 7 billion people on it; chances are they are not all as amazing as you. Hell, we can't even build integrated circuits with the latest and greatest technology that well.

Re:The only good thing (4, Insightful)

Scottingham (2036128) | about 4 months ago | (#47549477)

Exactly. I think Evil Atheist's message basically boils down to: 'You made a mistake, now fuck off and die. Scum.'

Believe it or not, some people choose to see addicts as people who have made a mistake (at least one!) but are still human and deserve respect.

These sort of arguments along the lines of 'don't get addicted in the first place derp!' sound just like the anti-abortion wackos who say 'don't get pregnant in the first place derrp!' Those arguments fall on their face when you have a baby in your hands, or an addict in the ally. Or you know...fuck em. Right?

Re:The only good thing (1)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about 4 months ago | (#47549621)

He's a child. He'll grow up. Hopefully.

Re:The only good thing (1)

sjames (1099) | about 4 months ago | (#47553841)

He'll probably end up in an ally shooting up and explaining why unlike all the other junkies, it really and truly isn't his fault.

Re:The only good thing (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 4 months ago | (#47549691)

My parents never did drugs. My father escaped communism in China and my mother's family were poor. They buckled down and got out of poverty and avoided all addictions, even gambling. It isn't hard to not do something that isn't necessary.

And once you learn to not lord your obvious superiority over us weaklings, you will have achieved perfection.

It has to be lonely up there are the top though. So consider donating sperm. They really go for perfect people in those places. You could be the start of a new race of overlords.

Re:The only good thing (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47549855)

I love that people get offended when people tell them they can do the right thing. I don't do it JUST to lord it over people, even though that is an added bonus. I'm here to tell people that it's OKAY to not follow the crowd, and yes even godless atheists can decide to not take drugs despite there being no divine command to do so.

Re:The only good thing (2)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 4 months ago | (#47550527)

I love that people get offended when people tell them they can do the right thing. I don't do it JUST to lord it over people, even though that is an added bonus. I'm here to tell people that it's OKAY to not follow the crowd, and yes even godless atheists can decide to not take drugs despite there being no divine command to do so.

Consider that I am not offended, but just letting you know that unless you want to come off as pompous, rigid, and condescending you might be having a different effect than you think.

I'm at least as atheistic as you are, it is irrelevent to the conversation.

But I also understand that you seem to have a really rigid outlook on this. I know a woman who was in a car accident. Spent a month in the hospital, and came out addicted to pain killers. Quite a conundrum when you have to wean yourself, but as you do, the pain returns.

My wife takes prescription pain killers for a collapsed disc. Kind of keeps her able to function. But If she goes off them, I have no doubt there will be minor withdrawal symptoms, along with the return of constant pain. Where do these people fit in your rigid ideology? Would you refuse to take painkillers if your pain level was at 10?

Or do you figure they are just just following this mythical "crowd" you refer to?

Even these Silicon Valley people, they aren't taking drugs to escape, they are taking them to try to get their jobs done. Addiction through work ethic. And that is mildly insane. But pathetically so.

I don't do it JUST to lord it over people, even though that is an added bonus.

DId something happen to you in the past that makes you so bitter? Your lordliness doesn't get you much, merely causes people to either laugh at you or feel pity (more so than your desired annoyance).

I've done both now, having at first laughed at your pomposity and rigidity, but now seeing this remark, I feel kind of sorry for you.

Re:The only good thing (1)

david_thornley (598059) | about 4 months ago | (#47562671)

You know, I'm going to give you a little good spiritual advice. Go out, get drunk, and get laid. Smoke some pot.

Re:The only good thing (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47562817)

Why would I? The problem is exactly people like you who are prescribing the lifestyle people must have: get drunk and smoke pot.

Well no, that is such a common cop out that being sensible is not the norm anymore. Everyone must follow the crowd to appease your own personal guilt and shame. Well fuck that. You should feel guilt and shame, and even more guilt and shame for trying to rope everyone into your lifestyle because you can't bear the thought of doing it alone.

Re:The only good thing (1)

david_thornley (598059) | about 4 months ago | (#47565345)

No, I'm suggesting not being so self-righteous. I neither drink alcohol nor smoke pot, but I have had self-righteousness problems. This was meant as spiritual advice, not lifestyle advice.

Re:The only good thing (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47565571)

I don't need your spiritual advice. I know I'm a MILLION times as humble as thou art.

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47550955)

Please listen to what posters are responding to you with. You really come off as a holier than though asshat.

Travel a little bit. See how others live. It's not always a "choice".

Your attitude will not serve you well in life. Trust me.

Re:The only good thing (1)

DrLang21 (900992) | about 4 months ago | (#47549129)

Did you seriously just compare prozac to alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine????

Re:The only good thing (1)

nine-times (778537) | about 4 months ago | (#47549389)

Yes.

And please note, in case you don't understand how comparisons work, that you don't compare things that are identically the same. They're the same, so it doesn't make sense to compare them. You also don't compare things that are so similar that people have a hard time understanding the differences. In those cases, it's much more meaningful to contrast them.

The only time it really makes sense to compare things is if they're significantly different and yet have similarities. Coffee and amphetamine are very different, and yet both are addictive stimulants that lots of people use in order to be productive. That makes for an interesting comparison.

Prozac vs. Ethanol, MJ, etc. (1)

billstewart (78916) | about 4 months ago | (#47551753)

It's actually a great comparison. Depression, both unipolar and bipolar, is quite common, and self-medication with alcohol and/or marijuana are quite common. One of my coworkers was bipolar and spent some time in the local hospital mental ward after a crisis, and said that most of the people there for alcohol detox were bipolar folks who'd gone off their meds (because meds are boring) and switched back to drinking until it caused them problems. Another coworker who's hypomanic said she used to need a couple of martinis or a joint to unwind in the evenings, but eventually went to a psychiatrist to get some better-tuned meds.

So yeah, some people are alcoholics or stoners because they like being drunk or stoned all the time, but for a lot of them it's really dealing with underlying mood problems that could also be addressed with prozac and its relatives. Cocaine's a bit different, but if you want to be manic-depressive and aren't that way naturally, it's a good substitute.

Re:The only good thing (1)

catmistake (814204) | about 4 months ago | (#47549831)

Drug abuse in the tech industry is growing

No. It isn't. Its always been there, always been there in every workplace and every industry, and always will be... it may fluxuate in popularity within certain parameters, but it is nothing new and it is not "growing." Never heard of it? Clue: illicit and illegal drugs are hush hush; loose lips sink ships. "Do not share with Brad... that guy will not shut up. Who is that guy he's talking to... is that a damn reporter?!"

Re:The only good thing (1)

nine-times (778537) | about 4 months ago | (#47549929)

I think maybe you meant to respond to someone else?

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47551767)

You say you don't do prescription drugs. You will, just wait until you have a significant surgery or your molars pulled. Yeehaa, fun stuff, that. It's not the pain during the day that's the issue. It's the stuff at night when you're semi-coherent and trying to sleep.

I might be persuaded to make a caveat if you're a ginger. I am and I can say that my pain threshold is different than non-gingers. Regardless, though, hard core pain is not something to be cavalier or macho about. All you're doing is displaying your lack of experience (i.e. ignorance) in the matter.

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47552007)

You will, just wait until you have a significant surgery or your molars pulled.

I actually find OTC NSAID drugs (taken at a prescription level dosage) to be more effective than opiates at pain management after having a tooth extraction or most other oral surgery. The down side is that they take a couple hours to become effective, so you don't dare miss a dose. Over all, I find that they last through the night and allow me to sleep and they do not have cognitive side effects. I will say though, I was thankful for my opiates the first couple days after having my wisdom teeth out, but that was a lot more extreme than a typical extraction.

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47556171)

Seriously, America sounds fucked up. Come to India for peace of mind and spirituality.
As Mahatma Gandhi pointed out, civilization is not about what is outside but what is inside you.

Re:The only good thing (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 4 months ago | (#47549571)

Your ignorance is exceeded only by your phenomenal stupidity.

Re:The only good thing (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47549689)

My ignorance and stupidity?

Boy it feels so stupid to finish university on schedule, get a job right out of university, take up guitar and fencing, and buy a house while resisting the bank's push for me to get a bigger loan than I was comfortable with.

But GOOD ON YOU for fighting back against me for making you feel stupid for your stupid life choices. You're right. You should always be made to feel like a special snowflake because it's not your fault you decided to take drugs against all advice.

Re:The only good thing (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 4 months ago | (#47549771)

You are stuid because you sit at a table at a restaraunt and read the menu, look around you and see bars and night clubs, probably drinking yourself from time to time in some of those establishments, and think it isn't a social norm to use drugs. In other words, you most likely use drugs yourself. You are lucky you aren't an addict, unless of course you smoke cigarettes, in which case you are an addict.

"But GOOD ON YOU for fighting back against me for making you feel stupid ...

The sad part is, you actually think you could make me feel stupid. I don't use drugs, but I could use a whole shit ton of them, and still be more educated and more intelligent than you. Thanks for the laugh though!

Re:The only good thing (0)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47549811)

You are stuid because you sit at a table at a restaraunt and read the menu, look around you and see bars and night clubs, probably drinking yourself from time to time in some of those establishments, and think it isn't a social norm to use drugs.

I'm stupid because I don't follow the crowd? Gotcha. You must be very intelligent.

In other words, you most likely use drugs yourself.

You're grasping at straws, mate. The closest I came to drugs was when my mother made beer chicken. I tasted awful. It's kind of sad that you try to make yourself feel better by trying to implicate me into your bad habits. Not going to work. Squeaky clean.

unless of course you smoke cigarettes, in which case you are an addict.

I even hold my breath when walking behind a smoker.

Re:The only good thing (2)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 4 months ago | (#47549853)

"I'm stupid because I don't follow the crowd?

No. You are stupid because you just admitted that most people use drugs, and still can't see how it is absurd to claim that choosing to use drugs is the cause of addiction.

" The closest I came to drugs was when my mother made beer chicken."

... and you are stupid for openly admitting that you have no experience with the subject matter, but are willing to hold yourself up as some kind of expert anyway. You are doubly stupid for continuing to paint me as the ignorant one after blatantly and openly exposing your ignorance.

Re:The only good thing (0)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47549939)

No. You are stupid because you just admitted that most people use drugs,

You're amazingly stupid for not realizing I never claimed otherwise in the first place.

still can't see how it is absurd to claim that choosing to use drugs is the cause of addiction.

You're also stupid for trying to make this a legitimate reason for addiction. Bowing to peer pressure is also a choice. If you think ruining your life because you don't want to lose "friends" who would ditch you for not getting addicted with them is a good decision, then you're stupid.

... and you are stupid for openly admitting that you have no experience with the subject matter, but are willing to hold yourself up as some kind of expert anyway. You are doubly stupid for continuing to paint me as the ignorant one after blatantly and openly exposing your ignorance.

So for someone to be not stupid on this issue, they have to have experience in ruining their life? How about the fact that I avoided any chance of ruining my life as a legitimate experience? Not only not ruining, but having a pretty good life as experience that it is absolutely okay not to use drugs just because other people do.

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549955)

Holy shit. You have to be one of the stupidiest motherfuckers I have ever seen post on Slashdot. Seriously.

Re:The only good thing (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47549977)

Okay. I am stupid. I'll stupidly enjoy my life that I built by not doing something as inherently smart as taking drugs. Enjoy your gutter freedom.

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47550981)

Enjoy your addiction to righteousness.

Re:The only good thing (1)

Some_Llama (763766) | about 4 months ago | (#47561203)

" by The Evil Atheist (2484676) Alter Relationship on Monday July 28, 2014 @08:01AM (#47549977) Homepage
Okay. I am stupid."

self realization can be wonderful, congrats on finally seeing your true self.!

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47551101)

Boy it feels so stupid to finish university on schedule, get a job right out of university, take up guitar and fencing, and buy a house while resisting the bank's push for me to get a bigger loan than I was comfortable with.

Umm... all the stuff you just described? Yeah, that's pretty much following the crowd:

62.5% of high school graduates go on to college in the US - you're in the majority.
In 2012, about 25-30% of new college grads were unemployed - you're in the majority.
Guitar and fencing are hobbies - congratulations, most people have those.
~65% of Americans own their home - once again you're in the majority.
(Source for all these? Google them. I did, and I don't much feel like pasting links in right now.)

You HAVE followed the crowd in every aspect of your "unusual" life that you've just cited. You are squarely in the majority - meaning you're not a special little snowflake, and you're not anywhere near as smart or worldly as you're trying to portray yourself. Please understand that your sense of smug superiority is not born of being a superior person, it is born of being a terrified, craven, chronically self-doubting little piss-pot who tears down other people to feel good about himself. Once life has knocked you around a little, I suspect you'll grow up and learn that you lose nothing and gain much by being a sympathetic human being. Until then... please just stop posting your world views. You sound like a parrot who's confusing the big words he's been taught with original thought.

Re:The only good thing (1)

znrt (2424692) | about 4 months ago | (#47554263)

to finish university on schedule, get a job right out of university, take up guitar and fencing, and buy a house while resisting the bank's push for me to get a bigger loan than I was comfortable with.

dear little evil, you seem very proud of all that. have my sincere compliments and keep it going. however, let it not happen that you ever wake up to see all of that squandered, disappearing, vanishing in one single unexpected turn of life. that day, however, you will understand why they called you stupid. best of lucks.

Re:The only good thing (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47554403)

I live with that fear a lot, so I don't need you to remind me. But I choose not to medicate myself out of that fear, but live in it.

You would do well to remember that this is an article about drug addiction, not the fleetingness of socio-economic status. I have a great deal of empathy and compassion for those who are hit by hard times. I vote left on most social issues because I want there to be a safety net. But I will not be emotionally manipulated to feel sorry for those who choose to put themselves in that position that takes absolutely zero effort to avoid.

Re:The only good thing (1)

Some_Llama (763766) | about 4 months ago | (#47561217)

" But I choose not to medicate myself out of that fear, but live in it. "

" that takes absolutely zero effort to avoid."

these two statements do not seem to reconcile.

can you help explain how not doing drugs takes zero effort when you have to constantly make sure to force yourself to live your life without them?

Re:The only good thing (1)

Sciath (3433615) | about 4 months ago | (#47569223)

One of the advantages of being atheist is that you no longer have to believe in the concept of perfection. And since perfection no longer exists you also don't have to require perfection from imperfect beings. Everyone makes mistakes, some worse than others.

Re:The only good thing (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47570905)

Yeah you do. There's the idea of perfecting one's art, if you're an artist. Or an athlete. Your attitude is what I don't like about your type of atheists. "There's no perfection, so fuck it let's do stupid shit".

Re: The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549605)

Because, they need mental help.

The believe the ownership class got their status thru working harder than other people.

Instead of seeing reality, they see themselves as failing to work hard enough. They traded all quality of life to chase an illusion.

Re:The only good thing (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47550699)

Is that the same society that teaches you that you have to push for more, push harder, climb the ladder and strive for more, no matter the cost, no matter the pain, anything is fair for the gain?

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47550715)

Why should they get sympathy?

Because they're rich.

Re:The only good thing (1)

suutar (1860506) | about 4 months ago | (#47550717)

I hope you have good teeth, because if you have to get a root canal without painkillers you are not going to be a happy person.

Re:The only good thing (1)

stephanruby (542433) | about 3 months ago | (#47633103)

Why should they get sympathy? No one told them they had to get addicted. In fact they're constantly warned by society not to take them.

It sounds to me like what killed him was his addiction to call girls, not his addiction to drugs.

When Hayes began to overdose, Tichelman allegedly consumed a glass of wine and left the scene without calling 911.

Re:The only good thing (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47548871)

"Drug misuse is not a disease, it is a decision, like the decision to step out in front of a moving car." --Philip K. Dick

Re:The only good thing (5, Insightful)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about 4 months ago | (#47548917)

Or the decision to be born into a hopeless environment with poor parents, all the while being kept that way by the drug and soda companies that profit hugely from your misery, like the Appalachians.

But hey, it's not like we don't give them a chance, right?

Re:The only good thing (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47549031)

The people working at silicon valley don't sound poor to me.

Re:The only good thing (1)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about 4 months ago | (#47549039)

Um, who said otherwise? Are you intentionally misunderstanding or was I too quick?

Re:The only good thing (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47549075)

By bringing up economic status in the comments for an article about Silicon Valley workers, YOU. Otherwise, your comment was irrelevant. One or the other. Incorrect or irrelevant.

Re:The only good thing (1)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about 4 months ago | (#47549181)

You always spend your time responding to incorrect or irrelevant posts, or do you just like to read yourself type?

PS: The summary itself brought up economic status, so I don't know what your problem is. Perhaps you should go back to your Mensa meeting and fellate people on your own level instead of wasting your precious, perfect time on grubs like us?

Re:The only good thing (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47549243)

The summary brought up people working in Silicon Valley. You brought up poor people. Irrelevant.

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549329)

It's time for you two to get a room and have some make up sex.

Re:The only good thing (1)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about 4 months ago | (#47549635)

His parents would probably disapprove of a half breed like me.

Re:The only good thing (1)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about 4 months ago | (#47549629)

" among technology workers and executives in high-pay, high-stress Silicon Valley."

The summary brought up rich people.

Re:The only good thing (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47550021)

Yes. And they didn't bring up POOR people. YOU did. "Economic situation" is a euphemism for people who are poor. Rich people don't have an "economic situation".

Re:The only good thing (1)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about 4 months ago | (#47550323)

That's right, that's called a conversation. I'd also appreciate you didn't re-define the English language at your whim, thanks.

http://dictionary.sensagent.co... [sensagent.com]

Or did your parents teach you otherwise?

Re:The only good thing (1)

OutOnARock (935713) | about 4 months ago | (#47554001)

Holy shit dude.......

Your girlfriend......do you get out of breath when you inflate her, or do you have a pump.....

Your parent's basement - all the posters hung with your semen?

You remind me of the teacher from the wall.......

Do you love your fat and psychotic wife thrashing you to within inches of your life?

You know, some drugs would level her out..

Oh then again, you probably don't listen to music.....created by addicts and all.....

Re:The only good thing (1)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about 4 months ago | (#47554251)

If you stopped taking drugs, maybe you'd be able to make a coherent argument.

Re:The only good thing (1)

Some_Llama (763766) | about 4 months ago | (#47561231)

ah, so you are just a troll.

Re:The only good thing (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about 4 months ago | (#47551111)

Wall-Street or City bankers on 1m plus basic and multimillion dollar bonuses are high paid someone in it in SV making as much as a Dr and Lawyer is just upper middle class.

Re:The only good thing (1)

Pope (17780) | about 4 months ago | (#47550951)

The Appalachians profit hugely from misery? That's new to me.

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47551431)

If you're trying to help them commit suicide to get out of it, there are more humane methods. I do agree with treating addiction similarly to illness, but behind it is a very foolish choice that we repeatedly warn people against. The prospects for people who simply ignore those warnings to make it through the rest of life are relatively dismal.

Re:The only good thing (2)

h5inz (1284916) | about 4 months ago | (#47548999)

A guy has written a couple of nice stories. Oh lets quote him on a medical science issue, he can't be wrong!

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549073)

Pretty fucking sure PKD knows a thing or two more than the average asshole like yourself about drugs.

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47548993)

It's not a drug problem if you can afford it... that's why rich white people have done drugs for years and no one cares. It's when you start stealing VCR and car jacking to buy your crack that it really becomes a problem.

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549431)

It's still a problem, just not one that affects other people. Psychologically, ever increasing reliance on drugs to obtain happiness is a downward spiral that will cause misery.

Not saying it should be illegal, just warned against.

Re:The only good thing (1)

colin_young (902826) | about 4 months ago | (#47549003)

Of course. That's exactly how it played out in the financial industry in the 80s.

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549371)

is that now that rich white people have drug problems (ie, "real" people), maybe we can muster up some sympathy for other addicted people now?

Nah, I'm dreaming.

What makes you think that rich white people addicted to drugs is a new thing?

Re:The only good thing (1)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about 4 months ago | (#47550453)

Do we piss on them the same way we piss on poor people? Or do we glorify it when it's rich, famous, attractive or powerful people? "Sex, drugs and rock and roll"? Got my answer, thanks.

Re:The only good thing (2)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 4 months ago | (#47549565)

"The only good thing is that now that rich white people have drug problems (ie, "real" people), maybe we can muster up some sympathy for other addicted people now?"

Hey, it worked for Rush Limbaugh! Oh wait ...

Re:The only good thing (1)

jythie (914043) | about 4 months ago | (#47549651)

Eh, does not work that way. Only the really expensive drugs get sympathy, poorer addicts are still considered morally inferior. After all, rich stressed people actually NEED the drugs, poor people are just weak.

Re:The only good thing (1)

wiggles (30088) | about 4 months ago | (#47550097)

> rich white people have drug problems

As someone who grew up in the 80's, drugs have been big with rich, white people for a long, long time. Powder cocaine was the drug of choice for people back then, now it's meth as cocaine becomes more and more expensive, or painkillers for the percieved 'safety', changing to heroin when safety ceases to matter to the addict and cost becomes the primary factor.

In the 40's and 50's, it was GI's coming back from the wars hooked on morphine. In the 60's, it was everything. 70's was when cocaine really took off.

Rich white people have had drug problems as long as there have been rich white people.

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47550335)

Are you talking about people from real America ?

Re:The only good thing (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | about 4 months ago | (#47550575)

now that rich white people have drug problems (ie, "real" people), maybe we can muster up some sympathy for other addicted people now?

Sure we can. We can feel sympathy for all those who were addicted due to a doctor's incompetence in prescribing drugs (it's not their fault!) Or for those valiantly sacrificing their health to pay for the 47% moochers' share.

</I wish I was joking >

The fact is, cocaine and pain-killers have always been an upper-class drug; and the penalties and stigmas surrounding both reflect that.

The one surprising thing was the accusation of meth use; but I feel like that's likely purposeful conflation with other amphetamines by someone with a vested interest in exaggerating the problem.

Re:The only good thing (1)

Matheus (586080) | about 4 months ago | (#47550823)

What do you mean "now" ... rich white people have had drug problems for a very *very long time. Ever heard of this decade called the 80's? It was practically trendy back then. This article (and many of the comments) are so buried in naivete I'm not sure where to even begin...

The only thing that's "new" about all of this is maybe the "tech" focus (Check out Wolf Of Wall Street for "prior art") but really how readily doctors prescribe drugs like Percocet and Adderall because 'why not?!' It's a rationalization thing... "I'm not a druggie I don't use "hard" drugs... I just take these pills the doctor gave me!" A little harsh education would be nice...

Hey you taking Adderall/Dexadrine/etc every day... Guess what you're a meth head.

Hey you taking Vicodin/Percocet/Oxy every day... Guess what you're a junkie.

It's not gateway... it's the same fscking thing wrapped in a pretty package and delivered with a prescription.

Re:The only good thing (1)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | about 4 months ago | (#47550999)

The (heartless) thing about it is that drugs are not too different from many other things in society that are used by rich and poor alike but harm the latter much more.

The rich are far more likely to own firearms than the poor and far less likely to shoot someone or be shot.
The rich buy far more alcohol than the poor but are far less likely to drive drunk or be alcoholics .
The rich do far more drugs than the poor but are far less likely to become non-functional addicts.
The rich are far more likely to waste their education on party schools than the poor but are less likely to suffer the career consequences.
The rich and the poor engage in about the same amount of premarital sex but the former are less likely to have kids out of wedlock.
The rich gamble more often than the poor but are far less likely to become chronic gamblers.

To my mind, this suggests that the ultimate cause of these problems isn't the particular vices, but rather the cultural and economic context around them that causes them to be destructive. We should work at fixing that context, along with providing opportunity and support for everyone to work towards their own success, rather than wasting our time on proximate causes.

Re:The only good thing (1)

Princeofcups (150855) | about 4 months ago | (#47551275)

is that now that rich white people have drug problems (ie, "real" people), maybe we can muster up some sympathy for other addicted people now?

Nah, I'm dreaming.

You obviously didn't live through the late seventies, early eighties. Cocaine was everywhere in the affluent white community, and quite out in the open. Then we had a decade of drug abuse clinic stories for the rich and famous. No sympathy for non-rich non-white people was had.

Re:The only good thing (1)

Krishnoid (984597) | about 4 months ago | (#47555403)

Sure thing! Here you go [wikipedia.org] .

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47556153)

America has become a fourth-world shithole of drug addicted ignorant insular xenophobic racists.

Re:The only good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47559295)

Hey kid, where have you been? Do you know *why* there even *are* such things as "treatment centers" and coverage for addiction in health insurance? That would be the boom in coke among the MBAs (those "rich white people" you speak of) of the 80s and 90s (I know, before you were born, ancient history). Before that, if you did illegal drugs (and got caught), you did jail. And you *sure* as hell didn't keep a white-collar job....

Money - the ultimate natural selector (5, Insightful)

src1138 (212903) | about 4 months ago | (#47548811)

The article goes on and on about "workaholism" fueling the need for drugs. My ass - the key story referenced is the one about Hayes getting offed by a hooker injecting a heroin overdose on his yacht. I don't feel a lot of workaholism in that story - ridiculously overpaid unscrupulous douchebag with too much time and money that has saddened and humiliated his family managed to have what looks like plenty of leisure time.

Oh, and this shit is not new at all - been happening in this industry for decades. more noticeable now that a Googler has publicly disgraced himself.

I feel for his family - what a piece of shit.

Re:Money - the ultimate natural selector (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47548913)

Drugs are a geat way to network.

Line up a guy with some coke, next thing you know, you got a job.

It's done in other places too and with other substances. How many of guys got a job at a local bar during happy hour? Or get the inside scoop on a new position?

I mean the folks who think skills are all the matters or even are the most important thing are fooling themselves.

It''s all about who you know. Obviously, you can't be a fuck up because they'll know you're one. But if you're good enough and save them the whole hiring process, you're in.

Re:Money - the ultimate natural selector (4, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 4 months ago | (#47549959)

Not everybody works in marketing.

Re:Money - the ultimate natural selector (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47548941)

You're a real armchair critic. What did this guy do to you that was so terrible that it warrants calling him a piece of shit? Live and let live. He was probably a better contributor to society than someone like you. Get out of your parents basement much?

Re:Money - the ultimate natural selector (1)

src1138 (212903) | about 4 months ago | (#47549055)

I got out of my parent's country as well - go back to your room, junior.

And, yes - what he did was bad enough for me to declare him a pile of feces.

Re:Money - the ultimate natural selector (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549191)

What did this guy do to you that was so terrible that it warrants calling him a piece of shit?

How about what he did to his family? Either he was this massive workaholic--that the article tries to imply is a basis for the drug use--obviously too busy getting drugged and/or hookered up on his yacht to spend time with his family or he was just someone who was too busy getting drugged and/or hookered up on his yacht to spend time with his family. Sure, "Hayes' family requested that the media not approach the front door of their gated $4.2-million mansion on Laurent Street" and they have the yacht to sell. But he's fucking dead. He could have well enough left the industry and retired some time ago to spend more time with his family, but then how could he fuel his drug/hooker addictions?

Live and let live. He was probably a better contributor to society than someone like you.

Yep. If he's paid millions of dollars, then all his moral wrongs can be just ignored in the name of being rich. And of course he deserved it, as clearly there's a hundred million jobs in the US that pay millions as a salary so it's just a matter of working hard and nothing to do with a severe selection bias that limits a handful of people who, no matter how hard they work, are paid disproportionately most heavily as a byproduct of luck. And it's all just to feed the most important things in his life--not his five kids or his wife which are relatively cheap, but his drugs, his hooker, and his yacht. Guess what got him killed?

Get out of your parents basement much?

Sure. To work. And since plenty of people work in areas with such high property rates, actually getting out of one's "parents basement" is a very uphill climb. Of course, in the old days it was considered pretty standard to live with family for a good bit of one's life because (1) family was important and (2) there wasn't some inherent shame in living with family. But, no, we got to have everyone be self-made millionaires who move out on their own. But since in cities there is so much more value out of commercial vs residential zones, be prepared to live in a shoe box apartment. Or if you live in the suburbs to pay through the nose and burn through plenty of unneeded gas because the public transport system wasn't built out property when the suburbs came in and those in the suburbs now don't want to have to be with the "common" people on the trains or otherwise see their area be devalued in any way or pay more in taxes to subsidize any sort of public system.

Because to make it, you have to have your own house with your own lawn and your own car. And that ridiculously expensive house can't go down in value or your "investment" just lost hundreds of thousands dollars. But damn the city for all those property taxes!

PS - Yea, over the top. And I agree the GP was to some extent, too. But the way you quickly fawn over the guy as "better" because of his "[contribution] to society"? The biggest way any father can contribute to society is by being a good role model for his children and helping to mold them to be good members of society. I don't think his death on a yacht helps in that regard.

VERY GOOD DANIELSAN... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47550355)

You utterly OBLITERATED every single "so-called 'point'" your b.s. spewing "detractor/naysayer" vainly tried, BRILLIANTLY IMO, & you did so, with TRUTH: the ultimate weapon, & point-by-point too, no less...

(Don't discount the fact that "necessity IS truly the MOTHER of 'invention'" albeit in this case, to not invent, but get a career that would/could EASILY FEED such a tremendously powerful addiction as well... THAT was that moron's "driving force", instead of those who loved & depended on him - his children, above ALL else!)

* :)

You're a "man after my own heart" & 'GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE', & I agree with you, 110%, completely... + remember 1 thing here as well:

YOU are probably 'battling' junkies here too, & trust me on this much from having witnessed it since 2008 on my end here - it is THEIR addiction's talking for them, attempting to setup 'strawman' illogical b.s. arguments vainly & effetely *trying* to justify their OWN stupidity for falling into one of life's MOST horrible traps - heroin addiction (& my further thoughts on it, based on a 1/2 century of existence + observation here, are here & on a "portent of things to come" unfortunately -> http://developers.slashdot.org... [slashdot.org] as well as further, with a terrible prediction I *truly* HOPE I am incorrect about also -> http://developers.slashdot.org... [slashdot.org] )

APK

P.S.=> Gotta give credit, where it's due is all - good job!

... apk

Re:Money - the ultimate natural selector (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47551469)

GP sounds a lot like the silly news articles where they talk about what a great husband/father he was. Right after they talk about what he was doing with the hooker on his yacht.

I feel bad for his wife, especially, I hope she got tested, who knows what he exposed her to?

Re:Money - the ultimate natural selector (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549381)

The guy wound up dying in the public eye when he hired a hooker to shoot him full of illegal narcotics. His family, wife and kids are now living in grief and shame, personally and publicly.
Yeah, a real saint, that one.

Re:Money - the ultimate natural selector (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549703)

"He was probably a better contributor to society than someone like you."

Well, at least he was a great sponsor of pimps and dealers. That has to count for something.

Re:Money - the ultimate natural selector (1)

pla (258480) | about 4 months ago | (#47549081)

I don't feel a lot of workaholism in that story - ridiculously overpaid unscrupulous douchebag with too much time and money that has saddened and humiliated his family managed to have what looks like plenty of leisure time.

I agree with you about the workaholism angle as complete BS, but I think you go too far with the second half of your statement.

Geeks in general seem to seek out novelty, which as an underlying character trait, makes us good at what we do. Seeking altered states of consciousness, in my experience, just comes with that territory. That doesn't depend solely on having too much money and free time (though the lack of either certainly limits opportunities to get high) - Just how we view the world.


Oh, and this shit is not new at all - been happening in this industry for decades. more noticeable now that a Googler has publicly disgraced himself.

Really? I don't see it as all that disgraceful - He died having a good time, rather than lying in a hospital bed in agony. Good for him! I hope to die as well, someday.

Re:Money - the ultimate natural selector (1)

OneSmartFellow (716217) | about 4 months ago | (#47549103)

I hope to die as well, someday

Don't worry, you will.

Re:Money - the ultimate natural selector (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549449)

He betrayed his wife and has damaged his children. That's more than enough to condemn the guy.

Re:Money - the ultimate natural selector (1, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | about 4 months ago | (#47549157)

I have worked directly with CEO's in the past, when they are doing leisure they are still working. Their phone will go off all times of day.
So he may be on a Yacht, he was probably still working there.

The issue with drugs is it gives people an unfair advantage. At the cost of their long term health. If you are in an environment where everyone else is working 80+ hours per week, you need to in order to not look like a lazy employee dragging everyone down.

Re:Money - the ultimate natural selector (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47550973)

I'm not a CEO, and in fact, my phone will go off all times of day.

But I'm certainly not paid enough to afford a Yacht. Or hookers. Or heroin. Nor do I get enough vacation-time to make use of a Yacht or hookers or heroin, if I could afford those.

Most workers in Silicon Valley are paid what looks (to outsiders) like a metric fuckton of money. And for most of them, that BARELY covers their rent, let alone the rest of the bills of "normal life". It's guys like that Google executive who lobby the government for more H-1B visas, and put together secret non-compete agreements with other companies, in order to keep the rest of their workers effectively poor.

Agreed on the family end AND? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549533)

THIS is coming (mark my words) -> http://developers.slashdot.org... [slashdot.org]

* What was it Johnny Depp said in the film about the coke tzar? Oh yea "Once film stars & musicians accept it, it will be accepted by the ENTIRE culture" (more-or-less)... he IS exemplary (in a BAD WAY though) of it (not that I respect 'executives' - I don't. Not unless they "grew from within the ranks & have walked MANY a mile in their subordinates shoes" that is).

APK

P.S.=> That link I posted is ALL ABOUT 1 thing & it is VERY effective (much as how peddling Linux to poor youth is): "Seize the YOUTH, seize the future"... & what I truly DO *think* is yet to come as a result of cheap dope flooding the streets of our nation, ESPECIALLY targetting affluent youth (basically future leaders, destroying them, before they can EVER mature into sensible adults, & essentially turning them into, more-or-less, bloodthirsty vampires craving heroin)... apk

Re:Money - the ultimate natural selector (1)

wienerschnizzel (1409447) | about 4 months ago | (#47549737)

Plus, the article does not seem to understand the drugs it's talking about. Caffeine is definitely a workaholic's drug and I can see how it could be upgraded to cocaine. But oxycodone and other opiates? Those will not help you pull another over-nighter. They'll knock you out instead.

Re:Money - the ultimate natural selector (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47552235)

After working an 80+ hour week you might need to knock yourself out.

Re:Money - the ultimate natural selector (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47550275)

There is a pattern there: you go high with the help of cocaine and methamphetamine at the start of the career, burn up and then go down at the end with the help of heroin and pain killers. That is the pattern familiar to people who fought in Afghanistan.

Re:Money - the ultimate natural selector (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47558957)

Just because he was on a yacht he didn't work hard? I don't get this logic. I wake up around 7, check my email and IMs, get to the office, work between 6 and 16 hours, go home and often get phone calls in the middle of the night for some outage. Yet, you act like that because I go get plastered with my coworkers on a regular basis I not only don't do anything, but am a piece of shit. That's asinine.
 
Look, I don't know how much he worked. Some exec's are simply good at looking pretty, sure. But we can't go basing the man's entire life story on a single crazy night gone awry.

Re:Money - the ultimate natural selector (1)

stephanruby (542433) | about 3 months ago | (#47633255)

I don't feel a lot of workaholism in that story

Speak for yourself! I do all my best coding on my yatch with a prostitute between my legs.

Darwinism in action ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47548813)

If you can't take the heat, take meth.

If that kills you, you just weren't meant to survive.

No sympathy.

LSD and Intel (3, Interesting)

scum-e-bag (211846) | about 4 months ago | (#47548821)

Internet folklore from the days of Usenet had stories of Intels R&D divisions using LSD to creatively solve problems. It was never talked about, except when the compulsory workplace drug testers came to find their walkway blocked by higher powers when entering the R&D division.

Google has removed references from its search results.

Re:LSD and Intel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549363)

Since LSD is water soluble and active in such minute quantities, then unless they'd dropped a few hours before the drug test, there wouldn't have been anything to find...

Re:LSD and Intel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549577)

A source on this would be greatly appriciated

Re:LSD and Intel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47563719)

A source on this would be greatly appriciated

I don't have a source and it wasn't Intel. I never tried it myself, but I will say that the best coder I knew in university used subclinical doses. Never enough to induce hallucinations or feel any sort of high. Disclaimer: a sample size of one, no control group, anecdotal, is not science. Was damn intriguing, though, and it was at a time when it was available.

Re:LSD and Intel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47552101)

Intels R&D divisions using LSD to creatively solve problems.

Maybe that explains i432...

Re:LSD and Intel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47552411)

the good ol' days

Re:LSD and Intel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47553363)

This story would be plausible were it not that LSD becomes entirely untestable before the trip has subjectively ended.

Abusing Ice... (4, Insightful)

creimer (824291) | about 4 months ago | (#47548829)

I must be doing something wrong if the only thing I'm abusing is the ice pack on my sore back from sitting in front of a computer all day long.

Re:Abusing Ice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549547)

So, stand then.

Re:Abusing Ice... (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#47549769)

No, you're abusing your back by sitting in front of a computer all day long. "Making a living" is fairly addictive.

Re:Abusing Ice... (1)

creimer (824291) | about 4 months ago | (#47550337)

Probably doesn't help that getting to and from work is a two-hour bus trip each way. I'm pretty sitting for 12 hours straight. I started taking 15-minute walks during my breaks and lunch to loosen up my back muscles.

Re:Abusing Ice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47552331)

Get a car.

Re:Abusing Ice... (1)

creimer (824291) | about 4 months ago | (#47553459)

My last car died from a blown head gasket three days before I got my layoff notice. I was out of work for eight months and took out a bank loan to pay the rent while starting a new job. You want to chip in for getting me a car?

Workaholism for the mega wealthy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47548833)

Did you just fucking make an excuse for a super rich person getting addicted to drugs? Because he overworked himself? SERIOUSLY?

I bet you also look down your nose at the very poor to get sucked into drug addiction.

FUCK YOU

Re: Workaholism for the mega wealthy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47548905)

It is called workaholic for a reason. All addictions have the same underlying causes.

And now that decriminalization . . . (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47548839)

And now that decriminalization of all drug use (not just pot), by the WHO, is being suggested as the means to get rid of AIDS in the world . . the smart guys are going to do what?

Re:And now that decriminalization . . . (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 4 months ago | (#47549101)

not have to buy shady cut up drugs, and therefore have less of a chance of an OD because they can gauge how much they are taking??? no thats to loggical

Anytime there is significant money and pressure (1)

bferrell (253291) | about 4 months ago | (#47548849)

There are "solutions" that become problems in and of themselves. Workaholism is in the same category... It solves a problem for a while and then becomes a problem itself.

Dragnet (1)

BlackHawk-666 (560896) | about 4 months ago | (#47548853)

"Looks like I picked the wrong week to give up amphetamines."

Re:Dragnet (5, Informative)

Skater (41976) | about 4 months ago | (#47548891)

That was Airplane!

Re:Dragnet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47548989)

That was Airplane!

+1 Informative (if I had mod points left)

Re:Dragnet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47563749)

That was Airplane!

It looks like a big Tylenol, but that's not important right now.

Prescription != illegal != illicit (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 4 months ago | (#47548863)

illegal drug use (including abuse of prescription painkillers)

Is it illegal to abuse legally obtained drugs?

Re:Prescription != illegal != illicit (1)

EzInKy (115248) | about 4 months ago | (#47548889)

Is it illegal to abuse legally obtained drugs?

Yes, it is. If your prescription says to take 1 tablet every 6 hours for pain and you take the whole 30 tablet bottle in a day you are illegally abusing a legally prescribed medication.

Re:Prescription != illegal != illicit (1)

countach (534280) | about 4 months ago | (#47549455)

"If your prescription says to take 1 tablet every 6 hours for pain and you take the whole 30 tablet bottle in a day you are illegally abusing a legally prescribed medication."

Really? Can you cite what law you're breaking?

Re:Prescription != illegal != illicit (1)

EzInKy (115248) | about 4 months ago | (#47549511)

The laws that forbid you to abuse medications. The limits on their use are clearly labelled.

Re:Prescription != illegal != illicit (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 4 months ago | (#47550049)

The laws that forbid you to abuse medications.

That's a tautology. Can you cite the laws or not?

The limits on their use are clearly labelled.

A label is not a law.

Have you just assumed that it's illegal to mis-use your own prescription meds?

Re:Prescription != illegal != illicit (1)

Pascoea (968200) | about 4 months ago | (#47548927)

Is it illegal to abuse legally obtained drugs?

Um.... Yeah, it is.

Taking it in any way that is contrary to the written prescription is illegal.

Re:Prescription != illegal != illicit (3, Informative)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 4 months ago | (#47550027)

Is it illegal to abuse legally obtained drugs?

Um.... Yeah, it is.

Taking it in any way that is contrary to the written prescription is illegal.

As another user asked above, can you cite the law that would be broken?

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecr... [cdc.gov]

The above page, for example, discusess "seven state legislative strategies that have potential to impact prescription drug misuse, abuse and overdose," but none of these are about what the patient may do with medication.

I love the little mitigatory clause in there (5, Insightful)

argStyopa (232550) | about 4 months ago | (#47548869)

"...illegal drug use (including abuse of prescription painkillers) among technology workers and executives in high-pay, high-stress Silicon Valley. ..."

I know a shit-ton of people whose lives/work is JUST as stressful working their 3 jobs to make ends meet, but since it's not "high pay" that would probably mean they're not worth talking about, right? Certainly, we're less interesting in the 'why' of their drug abuse issues, because they can only afford cheap mood-altering chemistry like booze and cigs.

Personally, I'd say the fact that Silicon Valley folks make stupid-large amounts of money means they have even LESS of an excuse to complain.

Lots of people have more stress for much less self-inflicted reasons than pursuing of giant piles of cash.

Re:I love the little mitigatory clause in there (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47548957)

But you don't understand.
We can't have the rich assholes in California dropping dead from drugs. Poor people are boring and can fix their own shit.
But we need those rich people. Otherwise how will their money trickle down to us if their not there it make it and spend it?

Re:I love the little mitigatory clause in there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549023)

isn't the point rather that they do drugs because they can afford it - poor people have to suffer without.

Re:I love the little mitigatory clause in there (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47549161)

Those people working 3 jobs are lucky, LUCKY!
Their low pay is keeping them out of harms way, they're not taking illegal drugs BECAUSE of their low pay.

Those highly paid googlers, they're living with that sword of Damocles above them. Think about that for a second.
That's why they deserve the extra pay.

Re:I love the little mitigatory clause in there (1)

khallow (566160) | about 4 months ago | (#47549765)

It means that those Silicon Valley workers can fund their drug habit. The high stress part is motive. The high pay part is opportunity.

Re:I love the little mitigatory clause in there (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about 4 months ago | (#47551233)

This is just a sympathy run for those sorry professionals with afluenza. Nobody gives a shit about poor people addicted to drugs.