Trigger warning: Drugs

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Hey guess what, guys? Under perfectly controlled ideal conditions, drugs are pretty safe!

Not what I was saying.

Heroin gets given this boogeyman status because of it's incredible addictive potential, it's not factually accurate to assign it a higher physical harm potential than drugs like meth, or coke, which even when pure and of known dosage are still doing serious physical harm to the body.

In the regular world, down here on the ground, which kind of dead is worse?

So why have two axes on the graph and not just one?

Come on, man...It was a simple question.

Yep, and a rhetorical one.  Dead is dead, and it sucks, and heroin will get you there.

Then it IS factually accurate to compare it to other drugs that kill you. 

[Pergamos]

Hey guess what, guys? Under perfectly controlled ideal conditions, drugs are pretty safe!

Not what I was saying.

Heroin gets given this boogeyman status because of it's incredible addictive potential, it's not factually accurate to assign it a higher physical harm potential than drugs like meth, or coke, which even when pure and of known dosage are still doing serious physical harm to the body.

In the regular world, down here on the ground, which kind of dead is worse?

So why have two axes on the graph and not just one?

Come on, man...It was a simple question.

Yep, and a rhetorical one.  Dead is dead, and it sucks, and heroin will get you there.

Then it IS factually accurate to compare it to other drugs that kill you.

Sure, but why put two axes on the graph if everything is going to line up in a nice diagonal line and actual differences between addiction potential and physical harm potential are ignored?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Hey guess what, guys? Under perfectly controlled ideal conditions, drugs are pretty safe!

Not what I was saying.

Heroin gets given this boogeyman status because of it's incredible addictive potential, it's not factually accurate to assign it a higher physical harm potential than drugs like meth, or coke, which even when pure and of known dosage are still doing serious physical harm to the body.

In the regular world, down here on the ground, which kind of dead is worse?

So why have two axes on the graph and not just one?

Come on, man...It was a simple question.

Yep, and a rhetorical one.  Dead is dead, and it sucks, and heroin will get you there.

Then it IS factually accurate to compare it to other drugs that kill you.

Sure, but why put two axes on the graph if everything is going to line up in a nice diagonal line and actual differences between addiction potential and physical harm potential are ignored?

Don't ask me.  I'd instead ask "which ones cause the most misery?"

Oh, wait.  Suddenly the "2 axes" thing makes a whole lot of sense.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

In any case, I'm bailing on the drug issue, because we've got a real, live Nazi to kick around.

[AFK]

Hey guess what, guys? Under perfectly controlled ideal conditions, drugs are pretty safe!

Not what I was saying.

Heroin gets given this boogeyman status because of it's incredible addictive potential, it's not factually accurate to assign it a higher physical harm potential than drugs like meth, or coke, which even when pure and of known dosage are still doing serious physical harm to the body.

In the regular world, down here on the ground, which kind of dead is worse?

So why have two axes on the graph and not just one?

Come on, man...It was a simple question.

Yep, and a rhetorical one.  Dead is dead, and it sucks, and heroin will get you there.

Then it IS factually accurate to compare it to other drugs that kill you.

Sure, but why put two axes on the graph if everything is going to line up in a nice diagonal line and actual differences between addiction potential and physical harm potential are ignored?

They aren't ignored, they are right there on the graph.


However, I'm also not a fan of that kind of discussion, in that, a drug doesn't need to kill you.  A drug can spare killing you but still irrevocably fuck up your life, whether it be through physical harm to your body, your brain, or socially.  It is a limiting way to think about the true impacts of any and all drugs on people.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Hey guess what, guys? Under perfectly controlled ideal conditions, drugs are pretty safe!

Not what I was saying.

Heroin gets given this boogeyman status because of it's incredible addictive potential, it's not factually accurate to assign it a higher physical harm potential than drugs like meth, or coke, which even when pure and of known dosage are still doing serious physical harm to the body.

In the regular world, down here on the ground, which kind of dead is worse?

So why have two axes on the graph and not just one?

One axis is for addictiveness and the other axis is for physical harm.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Hey guess what, guys? Under perfectly controlled ideal conditions, drugs are pretty safe!

Not what I was saying.

Heroin gets given this boogeyman status because of it's incredible addictive potential, it's not factually accurate to assign it a higher physical harm potential than drugs like meth, or coke, which even when pure and of known dosage are still doing serious physical harm to the body.

In the regular world, down here on the ground, which kind of dead is worse?

So why have two axes on the graph and not just one?

Come on, man...It was a simple question.

Yep, and a rhetorical one.  Dead is dead, and it sucks, and heroin will get you there.

Then it IS factually accurate to compare it to other drugs that kill you.

Sure, but why put two axes on the graph if everything is going to line up in a nice diagonal line and actual differences between addiction potential and physical harm potential are ignored?

OH NO



Can you please unsay that?

Pergamos, I don't know how far you got in math. But that diagonal line of data points is how you determine correlation. IF you have a bunch of X data points, AND you have a bunch of Y data points, and you put them on a graph and you end up with something that looks like a diagonal line, that shows correlation. That is how it works. It is not "ignoring" anything.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Sometimes you don't get a line, and then you don't have a correlation. Or you get a parabola or something else complicated.

[Cain]

-

[AFK]

It's pretty common sense if you actually think about it.  It makes sense that the more addictive a drug is, the more physical harm it is going to do because, well, they are using it a lot more often.


A big part of that is building the tolerance and chasing that bigger high.  This makes a drug like heroin quite insidious because at a certain point the user is never going to get the same high they got the first time they used it.  it just becomes trying to maintain an equilibrium so they can "function". 


To try to cast a drug like heroin off as "benign" in the way that Pergamos is doing is patently ridiculous and flys in the face of reality.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think that Pergamos is essentially saying that he doesn't think that secondary harm that results from regular and frequent heroin use should be considered harm from heroin. I disagree, because by that logic we can also say that HIV is harmless because nobody gets sick from HIV, they get sick from secondary infections made possible by their HIV-compromised immune systems. Secondary physical harm is still physical harm, particularly when you're looking at an addiction rate of about 23% of all users.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

RWHN AND I AGREE ON SOMETHING

STOP THE GODDAMN WORLD.

[Cain]

-

[AFK]

Taking advantage of the apparent agreement on this chart, can i just point out that Cannabis is kind of in the middle, with its Dependency rating being on par with Amphetamine amd higher than other illicit drugs.

[Lord Cataplanga]

Taking advantage of the apparent agreement on this chart, can i just point out that Cannabis is kind of in the middle, with its Dependency rating being on par with Amphetamine amd higher than other illicit drugs.

And lower than some licit ones.
A few pages from now, you are going to remind us that cannabis should be evaluated on its own merits, so it's a moot point anyway.