Remix.run Logo
sigmoid10 a day ago

>Seriously addictive drugs being sold OTC

Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances in existence and it is sold everywhere. If governments actually cared about addiction risk, a whole lot of things would have to disappear from normal stores.

vitally3643 a day ago | parent | next [-]

You have to provide ID and be over 21 to purchase nicotine. You can't advertise nicotine products. You have to be licensed to sell nicotine products.

Same for alcohol. Restrictions on who can buy, who can sell, and how you can advertise and market.

These are not the same as some random pill from a gas station sold to anyone with cash with zero regulations, safety, restrictions, or even any requirement to tell you what's actually in it.

m463 a day ago | parent | next [-]

I find it interesting when traveling.

I remember traveling to mexico and being surprised.

Giant "Marlboro Man" billboards.

Television advertisements for hard alcohol.

but what was also funny was Coca-Cola ads always had something like "Siempre come frutas y verduras" (Always eat fruits and vegetables)

(nowadays mexican food labeling is even more specific, saying stuff like "excess calories" or "excess sugars" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_labeling_in_Mexico )

newsclues a day ago | parent | prev [-]

When I was a kid, there were cigarette vending machines.

I am not that old.

bullfightonmars a day ago | parent | next [-]

Then what happened?

Better regulation, better enforcement, anti-smoking advertising campaigns, banning public smoking, and drastically reduced amongst youth and the general public.

Cigarette regulation to reduce smoking starting in the mid/late 90s is the poster child for public policy done well.

stasomatic 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't think it worked. I was floored by how much smoking I saw on a recent trip to Europe, by young people of all. Scary slogans on the packs, no effect. Cigs are barely a thing in the states now, you are kind of a low caste pariah if you smoke, but I guess vaping and cannabis picked up the baton. I am an ex pack-a-day smoker myself, but quit about 10y ago. Don't crave cigs or the smell, but do crave nicotine.

smcg a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

now they have vape vending machines!

nkrisc a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah, and where are they now?

mothballed a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Kids can still order wine and cigars from the internet without ID. When I was a child I did it. The law doesn't require signature on delivery, and the deliveryman has no idea what's inside and thus will accept signature from anyone including me when I was a child.

The regulations on selling tobacco in person AFAIK are only for cigarette and cigeratte labeled type rolling tobacco. You can still order perfectly cigarette smokable "pipe" tobacco online straight from an internet "vending machine" and probably a real one. Very few people know this though because it turns out to not actually be a much of a problem.

robobro a day ago | parent [-]

Or, heaven forbid, a kid could spill a pinch of bread yeast into a bottle of fruit juice, wait a week or so, put it in the freezer overnight, and get some alcohol stronger than wine! No internet required!

In practice I think most young people who want to drink will just get it from a "cool older brother" or steal it, whether from parents or corner stores. At least that is what I saw in semi-rural America.

People will do what they want to do, with or without vending machines and online ordering.

Legend2440 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Governments have spent considerable effort on it, but it's tough to ban something as popular as tobacco or alcohol.

Voters tend to get what they want, and a sizeable fraction of voters smoke or drink.

pstuart a day ago | parent [-]

> Voters tend to get what they want

I wish that was true. In the case of tobacco and alcohol, there's enough monied interests to ensure it would never be illegal.

So this defines the classic simple argument about the issue: alcohol and tobacco are dangerous and other than a weird House episode, have no medical value, and yet society has decided that some dangerous drugs are ok, because the right people are making money from it.

Propaganda has effectively sold the War on Drugs as "protecting people", but it's never been about that -- it's about enabling tools of oppression.

Legend2440 a day ago | parent [-]

That's cynical nonsense and I don't believe a word of it. Prohibition was repealed by popular vote, not by bought-out politicians.

And we're not 'oppressing' fent addicts by arresting them when they pass out on the sidewalk in front of my apartment. They are causing a problem for the rest of society that we now have to deal with. That's why we do the war on drugs.

tanseydavid a day ago | parent | next [-]

I will guess that you are not in SF where the War on Drugs is on a cease-fire.

pstuart a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Your certitude is not supported by your ignorance of history:

Prohibition was that generation's war on drugs, and it's not pretty.

The government went to obscene lengths to "discourage drinking": https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/government-poison-10000-am...

And the "voting" was the money'd class, not "the people": https://www.hagley.org/librarynews/prohibition-centennial

Let's not forget how well it funded organized crime, but not nearly to the extent that the current WoD has literally created the drug cartels south of the border.

Moving on to your "observations" of failure. The fact that we literally have a fent crisis nationally shows that the war not only was an abject failure but literally created the fent crisis (cheaper and easier than heroin and easier to smuggle).

As far as the oppression angle, there's plenty of documented history on this issue. For starters there's this: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/race...

I've lost friends to drugs, my brother died of a heroin overdose and my mother died from complications of alcoholism and smoking. Your simple-minded dismissal of the problem is insulting to their memories and millions of others.

Nobody should be doing fent recreationally, let alone passing out on the street. But if your answer to that problem is "Give the DEA billions of dollars more, and fill our prisons with those moral degnerates" then you are sadly mistaken.

ipaddr a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So is caffeine.

AshamedBadger56 a day ago | parent | next [-]

This is always mentioned when people talk about addictive substances being widespread. However, I think the key thing to think about isn't whether somethings addictive or not, but if said addiction comes with significant negative consequences/attributes. I don't think you'll find many people saying Caffeine is GOOD for you, but it just doesn't have significant negative outcomes like Tobacco.

switchbak a day ago | parent | next [-]

There's lots of evidence for positive influences of Caffeine on the body (some negative as well), especially the brain. In particular, there's active and promising research on the neuroprotective effects for Alzheimer's [1] and Parkinson's [2].

"There is a wealth of accumulating biological, epidemiological and clinical evidence to support the further investigation of selective adenosine A2A antagonists, as well as caffeine, as promising candidate therapeutics to fill the unmet need for disease modification of PD."

1: https://www.mdpi.com/2218-273X/13/6/967 2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33349580/

sweetjuly a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Psychology in general tends to make the same distinction. There are lots of behaviors which may be considered abnormal but do not have a meaningful impact on the quality of life of the person or those around them, and so there little reason to pathologize it. The goal of medicine (and, in my mind, well-designed public policy) is to prolong quality of life and not to ensure everything adheres to strict standards.

sanktanglia a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

caffeine addictions are good for you? so i guess all of the people taking stomach meds are doing it for fun and not how much coffee wrecks your stomach. also the number of our teens/young adults addicted to energy drinks is insane and no one can argue that stuff isnt a net negative to the body

ipaddr a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Nicotine has positive and negative effect tobacco is one delivery method.

unshavedyak a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Huh, i should look at this. I've been an aggressive drinker for most of my adult life (2 pots a day at my height), but for kicks i decided to cut all caffeine for about 9 months. No real issues aside from very short term headaches, though even those i mitigated by gradually moving down in quantity.

Aside from the headaches what addictive effects are you referencing?

ipaddr a day ago | parent [-]

Side effects of caffeine withdraw? Lack of focus, nervous, poor sleeping, vivid dreams.

unshavedyak a day ago | parent [-]

Huh, don't think i had any of those. Though arguably i had "Lack of focus", difficult to say how much is due to the lack of caffeine or due to undiagnosed ADHD though.

Generally i felt fine. I'll keep it in mind, thanks

ralph84 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

And sugar

munk-a a day ago | parent | next [-]

Sugar in moderation is a fine thing the issue the US has is more focused on how pervasive sweeteners have become in what looks like savory food. A ban would be a very silly thing but at some point America needs an FDA with teeth to actually crack down on labeling requirements.

parineum a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sugar is required for biology. I'm no more addicted to sugar than I am to water, air or just being alive.

gtowey a day ago | parent | next [-]

I had a biology teacher who was fond of repeating " everything is toxic, it's just a matter of dosage"

And it's true, you can die from water toxicity.

Water and air are ubiquitous, so we've naturally evolved defenses against overdosing.

Sugar has always been rare and valuable as a food source. In fact most organisms existence revolves around collecting enough chemical energy. It's only in the last 100 years that sugar has become cheap enough for many humans that overdosing is now a problem, and we have little in the way of evolved defenses that keep us from overconsumption.

Sugar addiction is real.

parineum a day ago | parent [-]

Your last sentence is non-sequitur.

The health implications of sugar consumption have no relationship to it being addictive (or not).

gtowey 21 hours ago | parent [-]

That's like saying the addictiveness of heroin has no bearing on its health implications. It is the literally the most important aspect to consider. Without addictiveness, it wouldn't have such a large impact.

BigTTYGothGF a day ago | parent | prev [-]

This is in the same category of statements as "ACTUALLY, everything in food is a chemical".

breezybottom a day ago | parent | next [-]

Which is true. The idea of "chemical-free" food and water is absurd.

BigTTYGothGF a day ago | parent [-]

[dead]

parineum a day ago | parent | prev [-]

The parent was the same category of statements as, "I don't eat food that has chemicals." While they sprinkle it a chemical based, flavor enhancing, preservative.

BigTTYGothGF a day ago | parent [-]

In both cases, you know what's meant by "chemicals" (the broad category of things like preservatives, colorings, and similar, that you find in lists like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_number) and "sugar" (refined white sugar, corn syrup, and similar that are added to foods one would not traditionally expect to have that).

Forgeties79 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

These are incredibly reductionist arguments y’all are engaging in.

rithdmc a day ago | parent [-]

How so? Sugar is having taxes added in many jurisdictions due to the health effects & habituation it can cause.

Forgeties79 a day ago | parent [-]

Different things are bad in different ways and need to be handled differently. You can’t functionally just go “both can be addictive and kill people therefore your argument is moot.” You’ve removed all qualifiers and context.

To compare them is to respond to a discussion on the threat of guns with some point about people weaponizing their cars and running people over because both can cause bodily harm. I think we can both agree that comparison strips all context and nuance from most conversations about guns OR cars and makes it difficult to talk about either in productive ways outside of the narrow/niche discussions.

TL;DR: this comparison spikes the conversation. Sugar and kratom do not present enough analogous health issues or enough of the same types risks to those around you to warrant lumping them together like that.

rithdmc 13 hours ago | parent [-]

We're talking about dangerous substances you can buy OTC, and the health implications of those. Of course kratom and sugar fall into that bucket.

4 hours ago | parent [-]
[deleted]
Forgeties79 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Nicotine is far more regulated and generally won’t lead you to pass out behind the wheel of a car or drown in a hot tub. You can’t even smoke in the vicinity of many buildings, but kratom? It’s basically an unregulated opiod that anyone over 18 can get and use wherever, whenever, with little to no control over what’s actually in it because it’s not food, medicine, etc.

sigmoid10 a day ago | parent | next [-]

So are most OTC drugs. Doesn't change the fact that you can get them everywhere. And long term nicotine use causes dependence similar to heroin.

Forgeties79 a day ago | parent | next [-]

It doesn’t even compare man. I am pro legalization of drugs but it doesn’t mean they should be as unregulated as kratom currently is

pstuart a day ago | parent [-]

Drug regulation should be very simple:

1. Purity, strength, and disclosure of ingredients.

2. Responsible advertising/promotion/distribution.

I'm pro kratom but I find it abhorrent the way it's marketed and sold without any warnings or acknowledgements of addiction.

ipaddr a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Not really but great talking point. The exact quote is it's as hard to quit smoking as heroin. But in reality getting off heroin cold turkey can kill you, where you need to be locked in room sweat it out. People quiting smoking still go to work but their mood is poor. Not the same at all.

switchbak a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Also you can just walk in a farmer's field, pick a mushroom out of a cow patty and boom - you're high AF! Someone should regulate cow shit, there's little to no control over it!

sanktanglia a day ago | parent [-]

most states require farmers to put additives in their cow feed to specifically prevent those mushrooms, they are already actively regulated

AngryData a day ago | parent | next [-]

Got a source for that? Ive never heard of that in my life and ive worked on multiple dairy and beef farms.

switchbak a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Thank God, we can't just have people getting high for free.

amanaplanacanal a day ago | parent | prev [-]

You just made that up, didn't you?

switchbak 20 hours ago | parent [-]

Supposedly it’s an urban (rural) legend going around for a long time. Good story, even if it’s not true.