|
|
|
|
|
|
by sverige
5056 days ago
|
|
|
I understand papaver's statement is contrary to the article's assertion that the majority of heroin users are able to use in moderation. My response is challenging the implicit assumption in the article (and in your reply) that the moderate use of heroin is worthwhile in light of the real risks that are entailed in that use. In other words, is the high really worth the chance of becoming dependent and/or possibly dying from overdose? At what point does that risk become so suboptimal that deciding to go forward with a decision to use for the first time (when the individual cannot know for certain how he or she will react) is considered folly? And I would try to edit that long sentence, but I cannot figure out a way to break it up without losing the intent. If only there were some symbols I could use to express the same thing mathematically in a way that would be more easily understood . . . |
|
|
Oh I don't think that moderate use of heroin is worthwhile--I simply think it is possible.
I don't disagree that for most people the inherent risks of using heroin outweigh the benefits, but that doesn't preclude from believing that the risks of using heroin are still exaggerated.
For instance, I believe that it would be optimal if the majority of 10th graders didn't have sex, but I don't believe we should tell them sex will likely result in death.
Present the actual risks, not exaggerated propaganda.
I'm not sure if you're from the US, but here we have an anti drug program called D.A.R.E where police officers talk to young kids about the dangers of drugs.
The dangers presented are so ridiculously exaggerated, that when kids inevitably learn that smoking marijuana doesn't necessarily lead to death and destruction--they begin to question everything else they learned from the program. Lying in order to persuade children is almost never a good option.