Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Broken_Hippo 2376 days ago
I'm very much for pro-fact-based drug education. Not just for THC, but for the most common things that folks can come into contact with. No scare tactics, just answering questions like what happens to one's body, what "high" feels like, realistic methods of ingestion, and benefits.

Unfortunately, the greater public - the government at least - hasn't been so keen on such things because the focus is more on keeping drugs a scary evil. Even current drug education is such, though thankfully it isn't so "Drugs are bad, mkay?" as it was during the 'just say no' heydays in the 80's and 90's.

2 comments

Seriously, apart from just cultural ideas at this point, it would be so easy to at least start to study it in a more fact-based way by just removing weed from schedule 1.
Indeed, we seem to have ample evidence that Tylenol seems to be strongly associated with autism[1] and weakly with ADHD[2], yet its use is not only widespread but unquestioned. The problem, of course, is that it's complicated; correlation isn't necessarily causation. So how to respond? Should all high school students be taught how to think critically of bioscience results? It's not easy to distill down to distinct usable facts. Suggesting at all that it is safe for teens to vape THC is a very dangerous proposition. I think you'd have to at least prove that it is safer than lead in gasoline, and that is not easy.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18445737 [2] https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/10...

Your first source is a bad one but here is a review: [1] The association is really not strong but the authors do advice against indiscriminate paracetamol use.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29341895 [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26930528

Tylenol/paracetamol use should be sparing to begin with just because of its harsh effect on the liver.
While the liver toxicity alone would seem to argue against indiscriminate acetaminophen (google tells me that is the same as "paracetamol" but that is a new name to me) use, I would expect common sense to argue against indiscriminate use of anything that is not simply food. I'd look to evidence like you provide to advise me as to how, exactly, I should discriminate. But indiscriminate use of most things seems inadvisable.
Is there any alternatives suggested for this medicine?
Naproxen is far, far better for pain, and doesn't have anywhere near the possibility of cooking your liver.
Umm NSAIDs like Naproxen have their own list of issues which may be worse than Tylenol. Another issue is that Tylenol is often used because it does not interact with other NSAIDs so if you are not sure if someone has taken medication with a NSAID in it, you can safely give them Tylenol, generally speaking, where as if you give them more NSAIDs you could potentially risk an overdose. So its not as simple as Napoxen is superior to Tylenol. IANAD,
Trying to compare Tylenol (Paracet) to drug education is silly. Few folks take Tylenol recreationally and we don't have decades of propaganda around it.

Others have already addressed the veracity of your links: But honestly, we already know of the dangers of tylenol. Liver damage with high use. But it isn't always so simple - it doesn't react with drugs as much as NSAID's do, and for some, it is really the only appropriate option for pain relief.

I'm not suggesting at all that it is safe for teens to vape THC either. I'm not sure where you got this information from my writing. Fact-based education would mean things like telling teens that it is probably best to wait until one is older to start smoking regularly, if one smokes regularly at all. At the same time, we could explain that it if one is going to make a habit of a drug, they could do worse. Alcohol and tobacco are both more difficult for most people to quit and alcohol tends to destroy lives at a greater pace (folks can still lead normal lives while stoned).

You can do all of this without proving that it is safer than lead in gasoline. I don't even know why this is mentioned as it isn't remotely the same category of things. Few folks are going to huff gasoline at the rates folks do other drugs.

Ok, I like your message and tone but I have to point out a couple of things where are not quite communicating. You are absolutely right that people can do worse than THC, e.g. alcohol and tobacco. (Although it is unclear if nicotine itself is worse. Worn as a patch it might be as harmless as caffeine.)

The potential dangers of Tylenol/Paracet is not about liver damage. There is an unexplored correlation with behavioral disorders in pregnancy that is not entirely explained away by assuming that people with behavioral problems take more Tylenol. Yet in the widespread population Tylenol is basically considered completely safe, as safe as apple juice.

My point is that drug education is not trivial and is full of unfinished threads, and there is plenty of room for abusing the messages.

Lead in gasoline is my benchmark for how hard it is to know that a drug (atmospheric lead) is having a negative widespread effect in the population (violence and IQ reduction). In that case, it took decades before the data was there, and decades more to build political action on the issue.

Yes, drug education is a good thing, but we also have to know that messages can and must change when data comes back. At what point is the data strong enough to put in high school literature? For example, the research showing a correlation between chronic marijuana use and testicular cancer[1]; should we put that in the literature? It is impossible to say at this point whether that is causal or simply related to a behavior that occurs when using marijuana, or perhaps even hormonal (people that like marijuana have a body chemistry that also maybe produces testicular cancer)? We simply have no idea. So yes, drug education is good, and we need more research on the effects of marijuana, and I don't think we can really speak authoritatively on its risks relative to nicotine or even alcohol. (No, not everyone can lead a normal life while stoned. Learning is most certainly inhibited, and a normal life involves learning things.)

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4642772/