Where Is The Harm?

Ask not "Where is the harm?", instead ask "Where is the good?"
-----
Join the community discord! ► / discord
Watch Us LIVE (And Click Dat Sub Button!) ► / gameboomers
GB Archive Channel ► / gameboomer
Dev Kit Channel ► / @thedevkit
SFO Backups Channel ► / channel
-----
SUPPORT THE SHOW:
BTC:bc1q6udqgvfm9uaj59l24ut7f73wvsfu707kk6pn3m
SubscribeStar! ► www.subscribestar.com/shortfa...
Streamlabs! ► streamlabs.com/shortfatotaku
Patreon! ► / shortfatotaku
Paypal! ► paypal.me/shortfatotaku
Humble Bundle Affiliate Link! ► www.humblebundle.com/subscrip...
Amazon CAN Affiliate Link! ► amzn.to/322aFAa
Amazon USA Affiliate Link! ► amzn.to/30PLxgN
Amazon CAN Wishlist! ► www.amazon.ca/hz/wishlist/ls/...
Amazon USA Wishlist! ► www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls...
-----
SFO-CIAL MEDIA! HYUK HYUK
DA TWEETS ► / sfosecretary
DA FACES ► / sfotaku
DA GABS ► www.gab.com/shortfatotaku
DA MINDS ► www.minds.com/shortfatotaku
DA PARLERS ► parler.com/profile/Shortfatotaku
DA STEAMS ► steamcommunity.com/groups/Shor...
-----
Credits:
Thumbnail ► vancouver drug progs
Background ► / cryomancerlex
Music ► • Parasite Eve OST - Out...
#HarmReduction

[@ShortFatOtaku]

playing final fantasy edgelord game tonight with good ol' dave: twitch.tv/gameboomers & kzbin.info - i will be taking attendance, if you do not attend i will remove your commenting privileges :^)

[@dapperwolf6034]

The way I could sum this up is your mother giving your toys to your little brother but then you take her credit card and give it to the homeless man on the street. Both are noble actions that harm everyone Sharing is caring until it's my stuff that being shared

[@ShortFatOtaku]

i thought xanderhal thought i was a fashy

[@loopyloon5401]

The problem I have with harm reductionists is that they are prolonging the existence of social parasites that live to feed off the angels of our better natures to sustain their inner demons. I suppose you could call me a harm expansionist, or rather an accelerationist, given that I recognize that drug addiction in a society would be a self-correcting issue if only we could learn to get out of our own way.

[@michaelmoore2679]

If you ever found an FC in FFXIV… that would be cool. I would join.

[@yekkub9425]

Honestly I think it would be pretty good to straight up start a drug war, but on the level of the Philippines. It seems to work there, just look at Davao. Maybe we could somehow replicate its intensity while removing some of the human rights violations? I don't know, maybe those human rights violations are essential to how effective it is. Or maybe it isn't effective at all and I've just been tricked by propaganda from the Philippines. This might be dumb, idk. What do you guys think?

[@han3wmanwukong125]

Please use the "my principle is to win" Vausch hot-take at will. It's glorious.

[@FireTalon24]

Absolutely. It's such a good example it should always be used.

[@AllHailToTypeSun]

It also implies that for him, it's actually about making it impossible for him to "lose", which has interesting ramifications when you consider this video

[@drewbakka5265]

I swear when vaush said that it was like the vlimax of monsters Inc where yhe ceo permanently foils himself saying "I'll kidnap a thousand kids before I let this company die!"

[@zanitzeuken]

activate it.

[@markzuckergecko621]

The only thing I enjoy more than that, is the Vaush fanboys trying to defend him on that take, because Vaush God, Vaush always right. They go back and forth between saying he didn't actually advocate for being dishonest to further the socialist agenda, but if he did, it's fine, because he's right. But he didn't. But he would be right if he did. But he didn't.....

[@sweetviolents29]

PLEASE NEVER STOP USING THAT VAUSH CLIP The way he trembles as he says it, as if the truth of it is so overpowering that he momentarily struggles to hold his own weight upright, the wild-eyed stare as he pauses, measuring the shadow of his own uncertinty before rejecting it altogether, the flaccid curve of his stubby pointy finger, pointed resolutely to his heart as if to declare his own name or to give a name to his very essence… this clip, dear Dev, is TOO BEAUTIFUL to retire

[@fiendishghoul1649]

Based

[@dexter2392]

He might have realized that he's a hypocrite, in that clip. Just for a moment.

[@annihilation777]

@@dexter2392 cognitive dissonance inside of a communist?

[@crocadillius6418]

@@annihilation777cognitive dissonance would require self awareness, something no communists have.

[@404errorpagenotfound.6]

Geez dude, where did you learn to string words together like that, impressive. Too smarts for YT comments.

[@psyxypher3881]

"Where is the harm?" The fact that taxpayer money is being used to fund someone's addiction.

[@Ranatosk]

Examples like that are partly why I repeatedly find tax evasion to be appealing, it’s hard enough not knowing what said tax money is gonna be used for

[@e.c.winner7252]

@@Ranatosk just assume it will be embezzled, mismanaged, or used to pay for something you wouldn’t agree with.

[@nwttp]

Well, currently my tax dollars are being used to enact authoritarian control over people's bodies. I'd prefer neither, but it only takes a couple brain cells to guess right as to which one is cheaper.

[@psyxypher3881]

@@nwttp Are you referring to vaccine mandates?

[@Josh-rn1em]

So what? It costs way more to fix the damage they do and to put them in prison. Also take into account the amount of addicts doctors have made.

[@elindred]

The one convincing argument I've heard in favour of safe injection sites is that they become gateway institutions to proper rehabilitative programs that can eventually lift them out of this cycle. But after over a decade of these places being in service and hearing no good news about the rates of rehabilitation I'm convinced the juice is not worth the squeeze.

[@EndlessDelusion]

People have to want to help themselves. Its like being morbidly tubby at a cake convention and there's a small group of dieticians who host it there who are telling you cake is not good for you but not allowed to stop you stuffing your face with cake. Even I would eat the cakes.

[@unpersonableme1805]

What squeeze? It does not cost considerable money, once you factor in externalities it probably costs the city less than not having it, Drug usage rates do not rise, and overdoses are completely eliminated, and people are off the street instead of freakin out locals.

[@richardruth9048]

Safe injection sites haven't done much in Seattle. Streets and gutters still full of feces and used needles. Just need to decriminalize and let those who will die, die...

[@harleymitchelly5542]

I wonder if the reason has to be more with where the data is collected. A California methodone clinic... let's be honest, who's actually expecting that to work? Meanwhile a boot-camp for junkies where yes, the heroin junkie can get a shot of morphine if he really needs it because that is a legit medical concern, but most people there are made to exercise, learn computing skills, or get trial work in things such as a call center because at the very least that's a job and some work experience while their lives are put under heavy scrutiny because yes, that is what is required to make sure needles don't find their way in, I'm not sure who, if anyone, is doing that.

[@alexdryver5090]

​@@unpersonableme1805 You hit the nail on the head just with the wrong end of the hammer. No, safe injection sites locals may be freaked out and try to get something done about wide scale drug addiction, and if they don't drug usage rates go down as ODs go up. Drug addiction really is a self correcting problem.

[@TorridPrime217]

To quote Garfield; "Every time I hit Rock Bottom; someone throws me a shovel!" UPDATE: So I actually tracked down the strip in question, but I didn't actually know this bull$#@% website won't allow you to post links in the comments. I tried posting the link twice, but it got instantly removed each time. Anyway; the strip in question features the Cat lying on his back proclaiming he's bored, then, in the second panel, Jon appears and excitedly declares they should go to the show store and try on socks, to which, in the third panel, Garfield declares "Every time I think I've hit bottom; somebody throws me a shovel" As you can see; while I got some details wrong, the quote is basically the same

[@jffry890]

But you can't shovel through bedrock. You'd need a pickaxe.

[@itchykami]

That was Calvin!

[@sergeant_chris6209]

literally the harm reduction strategy

[@budreviewsgames]

That sounds like a line from an emo rock song

[@markzuckergecko621]

Garfield the cat? Or Garfield the president? Or Garfield the Spider-Man? They're all cool, just asking for clarification.

[@MaverickhunterXZero]

The whole harm reduction feels insidious, as they get them hooked on their vice and then tell them "keep us in power or say bye-bye to your crutch." It feels evil.

[@twiztidsidfreak13]

Alcohol kills more people yearly than crack! Booz kills people who don't even use it! More people are killed by drunk drivers than are murdered by junkies while high!

[@LoneWolf-rc4go]

For me it's more just the unwillingness to admit that these vices are bad. We see it again and again where these behaviors are excused or even rewarded. Thieves are allowed to steal, morbidly obese people are told that they're 'healthy at any size' and people with serious mental health issues are left to live on the streets.

[@richardruth9048]

I can understand that feeling. That said, looking at the war on drugs, and it's absolute failure, maybe trying something different is warranted.

[@dorugoramon0518]

@@LoneWolf-rc4go Or the mentally ill being encouraged by society to cut important bits of themselves off and imbibe dangerous substances that make their mental illness worse.

[@Xplora213]

@@richardruth9048 never ever presume that the war has been lost because of the unworthiness of the goal. Plenty of wars have been won for crappy goals. The war has not been won because they don’t really want to win. Drug cartels are effectively terrorists in the severity of their impact. The west is happy to go to war over terror which is unwinnable. They leave cartels alone on purpose. After seeing the entrapment cases of the f b eye recently, I don’t have faith that they or the other agencies are actually trying to solve the problem.

[@lesthodson2802]

"Harm reduction" is about reducing the harm on people who choose to use drugs, and never about reducing the harm on those around them who did not choose to suffer.

[@dontmind_MyName]

If durg addicts dont break the law to make money to buy drugs, wouldnt that count as reducing the harm inflicted to society at large ?

[@Elegro86]

@@dontmind_MyName The time, money and resources used on the addicts could be used on other more useful things, like educating children, feeding and sheltering homeless people and so on. It is the broken window fallacy.

[@unpersonableme1805]

" never about reducing the harm on those around them who did not choose to suffer." This simply isn't accurate. In each of the studies looking at things like drug testing, safe injection sites, etc, they look at the effect of crime and other factors in the community. Some people interested in harm reduction are simply interested in it as a route legalization. However many people out in the field are highly compassionate individuals that want to build towards happy healthy sober crime-free communities.

[@dontmind_MyName]

​ @Prey R Did you ever look at Protugal ? They decriminalized drugs for comsumers in 2000. They have less drug addicts now. People do drugs wether its illegal or not. You could also argue that making something forbidden makes it more exciting for some people.

[@dontmind_MyName]

@@Elegro86 But how much money do governments really spend on all the Problems regarding drugs? How much does the DEA cost ? How powerfull did cartels get because of the war on drugs ? How much corruptions do you think resulted because of all the money that went into drug lords pockets ? As mentioned in another Comment: Portugal does it differenty and better imo. Im not saying you have to spend less, but you could use the money differently for better results.

[@gavinsmith9871]

When someone asks "what's the harm," just counter with "what's the good?"

[@ifeanyioraelosi7305]

"What's the good?" can be used to argue against any form of entertainment.

[@unpersonableme1805]

Reduction of pain and promotion of long-term pleasure when behavior is well regulated.

[@virtualtools_3021]

@@unpersonableme1805 repeated short term pleasure is not long term pleasure

[@unpersonableme1805]

@@virtualtools_3021 I was not advocating for repeated short-term pleasure the cost of long-term pleasure. That's what I mean by a well-regulated use pattern. Any short-term pleasure should also be towards the benefit of long-term wellness, if it doesn't, that's probably not a well-regulated use pattern.

[@HereTakeAFlower]

@@virtualtools_3021 short term pleasure can be good for a number of things, including feedback to create good habits, bonding with friends/partner, temporary mood regulation.

[@oliveranderson50]

I love the Vaush vid. Never stop using it. They chose their champion, defeating him is never a cheap shot or a low blow.

[@capricioushighblood4055]

I gave the "winning is my principle" quote to my Business Ethics professor the other day, he described it as "A product of an evil mind"

[@ChaplainJoshua]

Just don't do drugs. Please. My best friend, once girlfriend, was addicted to painkillers for years. She fried her cognitive abilities, plus was sexually abused. She's never fully recovered. She has severe anxiety everyday, reoccurring nightmares, and cannot function in a steady relationship. Stay away from drugs.

[@VG-fk6nk]

Tell her to just say no to drugs.

[@junior1388666]

Problem is most ppl start doing drugs when they're still very young, when they feel like they're immortal and don't really think about future consequences. Telling a teenager to "just say no" is like telling a child to not eat the candy

[@twiztidsidfreak13]

Alcohol kills more people yearly than crack! Booz kills people who don't even use it! More people are killed by drunk drivers than are murdered by junkies while high!

[@ghoulbuster1]

Average medical industry patient

[@KageMinowara]

@Alpha Legionnaire Did she ever get off the painkillers or is she still on them?

[@AquaStockYT]

When at 21 I got a phone call saying I was pre-diabetic I lost 120lbs over the next 3 years. Low points are scary yo, but so is going lower into the valley of eternal suffering. My old man lost a knee-joint (but kept the leg I'll let you picture that one) because he never lost weight.

[@theogeoaes4944]

120lbs in 3 years is no small accomplishment, it's very impressive good job.

[@Poodleinacan]

That's pretty impressive!

[@EndlessDelusion]

Bro that's like the weight of a 10 year old. Good going dude.

[@chillstoneblakeblast3172]

My low point was Crashing my truck. I vow to never repeat those same mistakes again. I now suffer from More Insurance expense but I learned my lesson the hard way....

[@jimbothegymbro7086]

A lot of people drop weight in low points, I dropped 30kg in 6 months when I was orphaned at 14 straight up went from chubby gamer kid to scrawny gamer dude, I'm good now I'm into fitness and nutrition but it sucked balls while it happened

[@sergeant_chris6209]

"Ask not where is the harm, but where is the virtue"-Dev the philosopher no really thanks Dev, that one's going straight on the wall

[@carneeki]

"Where is the virtue" is a fantastic question I'm going to start asking more often. Thanks Dev!

[@HenshinFanatic]

That's how I've always operated. Not "what's the least bad I can do" but rather "what's the most good I can do", and I've always felt like I was the only one operating under that principle, which was ever demoralizing as one can imagine.

[@kentonbaird1723]

@@HenshinFanatic Agreed. "what's the least bad I can do" could almost be construed as testing a limit. Daresay it's a mentality that shouldn't be encouraged.

[@kazumahazeuzumaki]

Oh man, your neck is disgusting. You should wear a paper bag over that thing.

[@BNK2442]

For example, where is the virtue in sports? Sports kill society, yet, sfo seems to think that women should play more sports. It is sad.

[@ICantThinkOfAFunnyHandle]

@@BNK2442 the virtue in sports is the competitive nature leading people to improve their lives.

[@lonewolfgames7779]

As someone that was on coke for two years and finally got clean stay away from drugs,it will ruin your life as well as excessive alcohol.Take care of yourselves ppl💪

[@jackalenterprisesofohio]

Coke? Well as long as it was Diet.

[@kentonbaird1723]

Good on you, man. That sort of feat takes strength of character. Keep being awesome.

[@Macleod1991]

It's a rare person that can think their way out of being a junkie. 99.999% of the time it has to take a shock and hit their rock bottom before they snap out of it. Everyone that went the coddling route had a very long, painful, unnecessary death, whereas the ones that got the shock ended up turning their life around.

[@azmanabdula]

House cat named bob ...in that tale the cat saved him, for he ended up spending his own money on cat food

[@-haclong2366]

That's because of the personality of the people who become junkies, I've done some hard drugs and I never had the feeling of addiction because my personality leads me to other things that I find addictive, but to the junkie the high is the best part of their lives, kicking the habit is like knowing that you'll never feel this good ever again. But for people like me these drugs don't feel special at all. 10% of the people who use cocaine get affected, this is a huge number and a high risk drug, but still 90% of its users don't suffer from bad mental effects, this doesn't mean that the 10% and 90% of these people are similar, they aren't. I wouldn't be surprised if the Pareto principle applies here where 20% of the users use 80% of the supply due to their addiction.

[@vallisdaemonumofficial]

This box contains : *C O C A I N E* 🤍☠️🤍🕊️🏳️🤍☠️🤍

[@RandomizedCTRL]

The problem with leftists asking "where is the harm" is also that it precludes erring on the side of caution; not all harm is instantly measurable or visible, and when you notice the consequences it's already too late. By demanding to be shown the immediate bad consequences of an action in order to refrain from it, you set a standard by which you could not even prohibit giving drugs to children. It's one of the many leftist moral positions that sounds logical but is total unfeasible in practice and also according to common sense.

[@DeandreSteven]

Mind if i zcreenshot this to share?

[@SA-rb5xq]

@@DeandreSteven he would not mind, but if you're feeling unsure, censor his name

[@Xplora213]

Excellent op. The Left embraces their virtue without any regard for the risks of vice. Their childish attitude towards life takes the lives of millions because they would prefer to have equitable misery than inequitable happiness.

[@16m49x3]

I'm wondering if this is not related to progressives infatuation with instant gratification. Maybe these people simply don't understand time. They live only in the now, literally.

[@hermitarcana3812]

>By demanding to be shown the immediate bad consequences of an action in order to refrain from it, you set a standard by which you could not even prohibit giving drugs to children. This explains why they were all for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors, putting the burden of proof on those with common sense objections to prove that it could be harmful.

[@Marxon1134]

Meanwhile I grew up in Florida, I remember the "bath salts face eating zombie" as just one of MANY instances of drug fueled violence the state is unfortunately famous for... Some drugs just result in irrational erratic and outright dangerous behavior, legalization won't stop drugs from warping peoples minds in wonderful and terrible ways.

[@Jack93885]

The reason bath salts and other chemical analogues (like spice) ever existed in the first place was to get around prohibitions. If the drugs they were trying to replicate weren't illegal in the first place, I highly doubt they ever would have caught on in popularity.

[@crazeelazee7524]

This is part of a much larger trend in politics, so called "sweep it under the rug" solutions. The point isn't to fix the problem but to hide the way these problems manifest themselves. For example, A) slavery was never ended, it was simply outsourced. But because the average prog doesn't know almost anything about the real world, let alone what happens on the other side of the world, he'll gladly use his smartphone and drink his coffee, completely oblivious that they both most likely required extensive use of slave labour. B) Another example is gun control. Instead of seeing why people die of guns, like depression (suicide accounts for over half of all gun deaths), gang culture, poverty + lack of proper policing in "those" parts of towns, political polarization and so on and trying to fix those problems, it's easier to just blame it all on guns since getting rid of one thing is much easier than to try and fix a whole bunch of broken things.

[@kateshiningdeer3334]

On your first point, I'm glad that some companies are starting to do something about this - it's now possible to get cocoa and coffee beans that are from independent farmers whi are paying fair wages. I even found one a while back that is entirely women-owned!

[@nathanjora7627]

It’s laughable to think that the average prog doesn’t know where their smartphones are built or to some extent in what conditions, everyone knows that people are being exploited in third world countries to produce a lot of the stuff we consume, especially progs, at most they aren’t aware of how much their conditions have improved, or how bad they are and were, but they do know it’s bad.

[@slashbash1347]

7:20 I don't think there's anything wrong with being an employee. If everyone started their own business, who would they employ? Besides that, I like the fact that once I punch out, work's over and I have free time. A small business eats up your free time.

[@ShortFatOtaku]

sure, and some people are happy in limbo in other areas of their life too. some people are happy in a minimum wage job, never taking the leap away from menial work towards a career. i'm not placing any moral judgment on people who plateau, i'm saying that a one-size-fits-all social strategy around plateauing is always going to be oppressive towards those who want more.

[@gerbilassassin3850]

They'd employ no one and everyone would just make their own stuff and trade for stuff they didn't have. However this doesn't work because you'd still have to work for someone for a bit to learn how to make stuff.

[@RobertMorgan]

Um, by definition if you are SELF-EMPLOYED, you ARE an employee by law. You will still have to pay unemployment insurance payments to the state ON YOURSELF in case you fire yourself. As Biden would say, not a joke.

[@slashbash1347]

@@ShortFatOtaku I see. Thanks for explaining, though I still disagree on the notion that it's a limbo.

[@chillstoneblakeblast3172]

At the very least the Small business is something you own, so if the Economy ever Bellies up, You still have those assets for what it's worth.

[@SmashedHatProject]

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing"

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

Interesting thought

[@SA-rb5xq]

Passivity itself can become an evil.

[@Morec0]

@DragonSlayer Marr Apathy is death.

[@terradraca]

I'm surprised this wasn't about how ideologues love the word "harmful" to discredit all that dare to displease them. Never let them get away with that. Every time they call something harmful, immediately demand details. Harmful to who? In what way? Under what circumstances? You'll get a blank stare.

[@utewbd]

Yes. Any time you get the feeling someone is just spouting buzzwords or parroting hollow politics, just ask "How?" or "Why?" You'll find out almost instantly if they have a clue about what they're saying.

[@mushyroom9569]

I think “harm” is similar to “safe,” in that it’s not actually meant to mean anything to the people directly involved in the conversation so much as it is a demand for action from a higher authority.

[@TheLurker1647]

If they say that you're "causing harm", laugh and explain that it is noble and good to harm one's enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women. It is better to be slayer than slain, better to be master than slave. They would do it to you. Bear no shame in being mightier than your foe.

[@dexter2392]

@@TheLurker1647 based and fascism-pilled

[@dfmrcv862]

I have always hated the "abstinence doesn't work" argument. Yes, it works... when you *do it!* I get people argue the "it's difficult" and some argue the more sensible "well, just telling kids not to do something isn't going to educate them on the topic" (which implies the way for kids to learn about a possibly unhealthy topic properly is to partake in it which... please no) but to suggest abstinence does not work really just ignores and oversimplifies reality.

[@GameFuMaster]

to some degree, kids do need to somewhat partake in it. I.e. "the kettle is hot". If you tell them that, and they touch it, and realize what hot means and that it's bad, the next time you tell them that something is hot, they'll be more careful. Now of course this doesn't exactly scale to mutilation or drug use, but the underlying factor is trust. There's a reason why helicopter parenting is a disaster, as much as absent parenting is. People need to understand some bad things in life so they can avoid worse things. To quote: "he rejects pleasures to secure other greater pleasures, or else he endures pains to avoid worse pains"

[@jht3fougifh393]

Spot on, stranger. As someone who used to do IV drugs, and who stopped first try, I hate the "it doesn't work" argument. People will relapse a million times and make excuses as though it isn't in their control. Abstinence 100% works. People are thinking short term and not putting in the work. I am NOT saying it is EASY, but it IS that /simple/. We need to stop saying otherwise. It helps nobody. You can be both kind and give the harsh truth, imho.

[@eliseosterbrink8000]

This is very true, but I don't think that this applies to sexual abstinence for a couple reasons. One is that having sex has the chance to create life, and a child will never be ready to take on the responsibility necessary to raise a child of their own. It's a lesson that results in a completely separate person being punished for their entire life for something that they did not choose to do. The second reason is that sexual experiences, especially with children and those who are generally not mature enough to handle them, are incredibly emotionally harmful. Children get emotionally and developmentally stunted if they have sex. Overall, abstinence for sex is the only way to go in my honest opinion, especially when it comes to educating children. The consequences for the lesson being taught by experience are far too great.

[@hagoryopi2101]

The argument is typically that abstinence-only education doesn't work for children, because depending on ignorance when all it takes is one bit of knowledge from another source to shatter the power of that ignorance is a very flimsy strategy. And in the era of the modern internet, that one bit of information, as well as a consequent rabbit hole to tumble down if one is curious, is easier to access than ever. So maybe providing a better education than random internet searches would provide is in order. I've heard that depending on abstinence alone to prevent unwanted pregnancy doesn't work, because expecting consenting adults, especially those in relationships or even marriages, to not have sex when they want to is ridiculous at its face. Now, with the advent of the sexual revolution, there are countless socially acceptable ways to get your rocks off without ever coming close to the risk of pregnancy, so I don't buy that argument. But that might be different than what you're discussing.

[@galahad3195]

It's one thing to tell teenagers to not listen to their overwhelming hormonal desire to have sex, considering the reproductive drive is literally hard-coded into our DNA. It's a whole other thing when it comes to drugs, because frankly if you warn someone not to put literal poisons in their body and they do it anyway that's just stupidity on their part.

[@Darkasasin80]

I spent years trying to quit smoking. It was hard because I genuinely enjoyed tobacco like many enjoy alcohol. It was a pleasure of mine but I have no self control and could feel it affecting my health in a negative way. Eventually I was only able to finally quit after getting very sick. The illness limited my ability to smoke which made it FAR easier to quit once I recovered. Almost three years later I still have cravings. If I genuinely didn't want to get over my addiction I wouldn't have made it this long. My mother and sister have switched purely to vaping. It's not great but it is a much better alternative at least and I would consider that a positive form of harm prevention. Ultimately when it comes to addiction and harmful behaviors in general, if the person doesn't want to change then nothing will really help. Even if you take away their substances, odd are they'll just return to them. I'm still battling my demons with my weight. It's hard. It's even harder because I'm not making progress. However I know if I keep trying one day I'll eventually succeed. I wish everyone else out there fighting their own fights success.

[@ryankasch5561]

One of the things I remember most from economics in college is that the rational position of a government to take in order to implement things like socialized healthcare is to convince the public to be more risk averse. Insurance only works when those least at risk of negative outcomes are still convinced to buy in. This reduces the positive outcome of those people while increasing outcomes of those most at risk. This whole prog outlook feels like that. "We must normalize everything" (normalize meaning equalize in this context but the other one also works with progs funnily enough). The heights are sacrificed to improve the valleys, and it just feels so inhuman. Something I've thought a lot recently is how the pandemic especially and the measures taken led to my life having little bad within it but not much good either, and that to me felt bad. A good life is not the absence of bad but the inclusion of good things. That's something any good parent will tell you about life with their kids, and I think that's a lot of what's in the Bible and most of western thought.

[@FinalLugiaGuardian]

Unrelated, but I hope you and your family are doing well Dev.

[@hagnartheviking6584]

Don't boost that filithy leaf's ego he has yet to upload the trucker vid.

[@FinalLugiaGuardian]

@@hagnartheviking6584 I don't follow. Please elaborate.

[@DephTInDepth]

What happened? P.s. I am still watching the video, in the begining of it, so if it says in the video, then just ignore this comment.

[@hagnartheviking6584]

@@FinalLugiaGuardian he said he was going to put out a video talking about the Trucker convoy in Canada. It has yet to show up and he keeps uploading these "yea no shit" videos.

[@chuckblaze5147]

hey people i just wanted to say i hope all of you and your families are doing well, I have no idea if Dev's are not but i just wanted all of you guys to randomly feel warm on the inside a bit. Seriously. Take care :D

[@GodEmperorSenpai]

Very much prefer the banana eating background with the perpetualy baffled expression.

[@shapeshiftingpedro]

Legalization of drugs doesn't even make sense economically, let alone from a "harm-reduction" standpoint: What sane insurance company would medically insure a "drug-doser" when the difference between getting a high and getting overdosed and killed is smaller than a needle head? The justification of "harm-reduction" is so shallow and narrow-minded, I have no choice but to think it a post-hoc justification/excuse to engage in vice with a "clear conscious".

[@MrLanceDaily]

My father quit smoking when the price of cigarettes went up a nickel. My mother has had part of her jaw removed and now has a prosthetic she has to put in every morning. She’s still smoking. Different approaches work for different people and sadly sometimes there’s no approach that works. In my experience working with people in active addiction I have seen harm reduction work well and also fail, depending on the individual. There are no utopias, but there’s always still hope for recovery. If anyone out there that’s reading this is going through some shit, I wish you the best of luck and remember recovery is possible

[@hektorlitch4993]

Ya know Dev, while it's true that no two people will agree on literally every political/social issue, I cannot think of a single take of yours that wasn't entirely reasonable and constructive, put in a compassionate yet stoic way. You have a talent for building bridges, never stop being you.

[@yekkub9425]

Apparently he's pro-porn, AKA the diametric opposite of what you're describing. Otherwise, sure.

[@Transformers2Fan1]

I dunno his "some people aren't entitled to the single most basic right" is effed up and very anti-libertarian.

[@kateshiningdeer3334]

@@Transformers2Fan1 I'm not sure what you're talking about - could you explain or post a link? Because I agree that would be a very effed-up opinion, but it's one I don't think I've heard from him - it's possible I missed the video in question, though.

[@Transformers2Fan1]

@@kateshiningdeer3334 life. He defends speech but not life, this is very frequent. He claims you can't have any right if you don't have speech, but you can't have speech if you don't have life. Abortion robs an innocent of the most basic right, and ~99% of the time it's because the woman couldn't be bothered to have the guy use a condom or smth.

[@IamaCosmonaut]

@Transformers2Fan1 Dev isn't a libertarian, so...

[@dannykeuerleber7419]

The worst part is the term used to describe a trend in Northern European drug use reduction strategies. they required drug users to remain in the facility and under go rehabilitation programs to continue to have access to the supply, If they left once they would not be allowed to return, and because of that they had a very high success rate.

[@willbilly8738]

I like what Sweden did. They gave people a safe place to sleep and clean heroin but it was basically bait. In order to get it they had to go for rehab and get a job

[@sergeant_chris6209]

lmao bamboozled

[@veteranimperial718]

"Principal of harm reduction" We are currently dealing with a highly edonistic generation of entitled scumbags, sadly the whole point of this article falls into deaf ears.

[@MidlifeCrisisJoe]

Unless you're Bri'ish or some sort of accent where you drop your H's, it's "hedonistic."

[@chad_bro_chill]

@@MidlifeCrisisJoe I bet there's a good catchphrase in there somewhere, like, "Take heed of hedonism."

[@AndrewConlan]

to me "Harm Reduction" is like keeping the whole area wet so it won't start a fire, sure there's no fire, but now the ground is waterloged and everything is sinking, you got rid of a brief but deadly occurance for a long term even more distructive option.

[@realhxq]

"Hunger being the gun Capitalist" , Vee made a great example with Vuash coconut argument that this is exactly how the tankies work. The State would never let their people starve deliberately, sure.

[@DonVigaDeFierro]

"Their people" meaning those who align. Of course the state would let everyone else starve...

[@lordchungus1552]

@@DonVigaDeFierro i.e the Holdomor

[@blzahz7633]

The harm reduction thing and handing out safe needles and whatnot, is fundamentally flawed in my opinion: even if you managed to make it 100% safe and removing the addiction by having a subsidized program that makes these things possible, you'd be paying someone's recreational activity i.e. hobby. Which I'm totally against; I'm not paying for your hobbies.

[@MidlifeCrisisJoe]

The problem with it and drug use mostly has to do with the particular issue. You can reduce harm with nudging on certain things in life, but Heroin and other opiates are EXTREMELY addictive on every level and giving just a little bit of it to someone keeps them as hooked as giving them a moderate amount.

[@robertstan9733]

The point of those things like providing free methadone etc is to not have junkies robbing everyone to get their fix. So you either pay for prison or methadone. Guess which one is cheaper?

[@rockytom5889]

@@robertstan9733 Or you can not pay for anything and legalize summary execution of criminals that have drugs in their system.

[@robertstan9733]

@@rockytom5889 lol like that would be enforced equally. It would amount to killing the working class and letting the "My father is a lawyer" types live. And everybody would just switch over to prescription drugs lol. No thanks, I know that the system we have in my country works rather well and I'm willing to contribute to it as I benefitted from it myself. Everyone tough on crime when it's not their family or friends on the chopping block.

[@rockytom5889]

@@robertstan9733 And how does that differ to "oh let's keep you all just high enough so you're dependant on us to stay alive"

[@Snakedude4life]

If continuing to do drugs has zero negative consequences; Why would an addict ever stop? 🎩 🐍no step on Snek! 🇺🇸🇭🇰

[@blackosprey2219]

The argument wpuld probably go along the lines of, "drugs don't hurt people, using them is only a problem bc society doesn't accommodate drug addiction." No, that doesn't account for how a lot of drugs are chemically dangerous to human biology, I know...

[@Axeallot]

@@blackosprey2219 Next they're gonna argue relationships with minors aren't harmful and should be legalized. Oh wait they have

[@twiztidsidfreak13]

Alcohol kills more people yearly than crack! Booz kills people who don't even use it! More people are killed by drunk drivers than are murdered by junkies while high!

[@hyperdimensionbliss]

"Where is the harm" is the druggie's more polite version of "let me be a disgusting degenerate anytime and anywhere I want with no regard to what other people think."

[@fatasssquirrel1731]

Sounds more like a democrat than a druggie

[@necrosteel5013]

Sounds like leftist mentality to a tee.

[@twiztidsidfreak13]

Alcohol kills more people yearly than crack! Booz kills people who don't even use it! More people are killed by drunk drivers than are murdered by junkies while high!

[@necrosteel5013]

@@twiztidsidfreak13 alcohol is basically a drug aswell. Worse infact due to it eroding other things besides your brain.

[@inkubus6192]

I agree with your interpretation. I presume the 4 other replies do too since, y’know, youtube won’t let me see them.

[@whatisaman689]

"Where's the virtue?" Is the question to ask about "ending babies" too.

[@r.connor9280]

the problem with the current strategy is "Reduction" not "Elimination" two bucks they don't want to cure people but string them along in a more roundabout manner

[@r.connor9280]

@Bla Bla Permission isn't the subject. Effectiveness of the current strategy is. And the current method is incomplete at best and incapable at worst. New strategy or regression to prior strategies is required

[@lunamaria8788]

Dingdingding! Can't make money if the people aren't sick!

[@e.c.winner7252]

Easier to control people (and tell them whom to vote for) when you’re the pusher and they’re addicted to what you’ve got.

[@oldskoolaspie]

@@e.c.winner7252 A form of bio-Leninism?

[@tripledigit4835]

@@r.connor9280 bro, the war on drugs failed. Five decades of disaster where people still took drugs, people were still dying from said drug use, families were still destabilised and organised criminality still existed in tact. The only thing the war on drugs succeeded at was throwing non violent men (particular of colour) in prison. The demand for these drugs will still exist saying “we should magically eliminate the demand by using ineffective policies” is just a virtue signal, no way meant to contribute to the dialogue in any substantive manner

[@_Mamimi]

I’ve been saying this for years, I live in Seattle and I’m an ex-addict. I was able to quit because I HAD to. It was that or be homeless and lose everything, if I was an addict now, with all the cities enabling drug programs that remove majority of the consequences, well I’d probably be 💀a long time ago. What we are doing here is pure evil

[@69SalterStreet]

I've said it before, but I'm continually blown away that one of the most coherent, erudite, and creative philosophers of my time is named fucking short fat Otaku. 😭

[@kateshiningdeer3334]

Yeah, but that's because he started using that handle LONG before he started doing online philosophy classes for the rest of us! 🙂

[@bighex5340]

The original Gorilla Dev artwork makes me nostalgic for the videos during the simpler times of pre-2020 😔

[@josephlinden1630]

Looking back we really didn’t appreciate how much better they were.

[@t_s_albatross3270]

The harm is not something that the government should control. If someone really wants it, they should be allowed to do it. But with that being said, only they can better themselves. Regardless of how driven the government may be to help others, change starts from within.

[@gawkersdeathrattle1759]

I'm not a huge fan of mandates, but if I were to mandate reading material, it'd be Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. The world could use a bit more stoicism.

[@junior1388666]

It also takes the power off drug dealers and cartels if the government can provide heroine (not to mention the fentanyl problem with illegal heroine). And if the dose is free, it will probably reduce drug motivated crimes, like robbery and theft

[@eliseosterbrink8000]

I almost 100% agree with this. The only problem is that certain types of harm affect people who never chose to partake in it. For example, many drug addicts become very violent once they're hooked. This could be because the drugs they take make them violent or because they need money to buy drugs but don't have any and don't or can't earn it on their own, so they resort to mugging and burglarizing others. If situations like this didn't happen and people who are self-destructive and are okay with their own harm kept everything they did limited to themselves, I would have zero problem with them doing what they do. But unfortunately, their bad decisions leak out and hurt others who never wanted to be hurt. Sadly, there is no good solution to this that I've seen. Really wish there was.

[@alittleofsomething]

I think there was a big problem of drugs in one city in Portugal (or Spain I don't remember), and they decided that instead of keeping people arrested for drug use, they'd legalize it and offer help for people that take it. That drastically improved the situation and lowered drug usage in that city. So, that being said, I agree with your statement, and want to add that it's important to approach such a problem with love and care, and not hatred.

[@MrOnay-px1jx]

@@junior1388666 if the dose is "free" the average productive member of society is paying for someone's self destructive hedonistic life style while giving them less incentive to quit and benefit their communities

[@mario387mario6]

A lot of the drug use is a symptom of underlying problems, often mental ones, if you don't resolve that you have little hope of tackling the substance abuse.

[@deliverus6856]

@Prey R yep. It starts at home

[@DS-ld8ns]

drug use is a sign of societal problems.

[@saeyabor]

To the extent those can be solved above the individual level, it's by removing people who implement "safe injection sites" from power. The Republicans are far from perfect but "grift, nepotism, and abortion bans" are a punch CIVILIZATION ITSELF can roll with.

[@g.g.moquete]

No. It's just a sign of problems within a person's life.

[@candyjack3659]

This conclusion is so true. As the Bible says "Where there is no vision; the people will perish"-Proverbs 29:18 Many people in politics get lost in the tit for tat mentality and forget what it is they were fighting for to begin with. Just think of Liberals originally fighting for the freedom to live as they please who find themselves screeching at someone for using the wrong pronouns or wanting to protect women's sports, or Conservatives originally wanting to protect their neighborhoods from criminal gangs but now are spending every waking minute trying to "own the libs" on Facebook. Both should remember their original visions and do something about them (Libs liberating Twitter, Conservatives forming neighborhood militias).

[@Arassar]

People who do BDSM aren't really inflicting "injuries" - the M's like feeling pain, and the S's like giving pain, but I'm pretty sure actually _injuring_ someone is very bad form.

[@AuroraAce.]

in most cases yeah

[@Screamingmanta]

Correct.

[@yahaloo7883]

Well it is looked down upon but like 5% of people really want their entire ass and thighs beaten blue. I noped straight out of that relationship

[@1guncrazy1]

Safe, sane, and consensual are the rules in those scenes

[@Polomance862]

It stops being BDSM once you injure or are injured. The fetish is a power play with pain and pleasure. You’re not supposed to get seriously hurt.

[@pyron3rd490]

"Harm reduction" is an application of the progressive political formula, which goes something like this: “Give me power, and I will create the Kingdom of God on Earth, and, under this regime of total righteousness, return humanity to an edenic state where there is no war, death, or suffering.” Insofar as progressive applications of political power have a goal, it’s along an asymptotic approach to said edenic state, where everyone lives in universal beatific bliss, no longer wanting for anything.

[@aidanquiett668]

The best option is likely a system where each person needs to go through some kind of screening before any action takes place. If they are barely in, give light therapy and refuse to help them get supplies to make things worse. If its already really bad for them, bring them into rehabilitation programs and give them access to safer supplies so they can get the tools to improve themselves

[@cameronphenix2096]

I forget which Nordic country does this, but one of them has these safe places you can legally do drugs. You're provided clean supplies and even the drugs, but the caveat is you will be monitored. And then, while you're there, you will be offered counseling or a weening plan. They've seen both deaths and chronic use decrease significantly.

[@highbread817]

I'm a former drug addict, that's my take and my biggest problems with libs. Their idea of harm reduction is easy access and freedom from consequences.... Which isn't even half of it. I definitely think you need to control it and have outs, like rehab and Suboxone (not methadone) clinics that are affordable... Which we don't have. They are all very expensive. I agree with a big part of Dev's take but I also believe that services for addiction are shit where I and most Americans live. I don't think Dev understands how shit the American healthcare system, he's Canadian iirc

[@kateshiningdeer3334]

@@highbread817 You're right, he's Canadian, and I also second your notion that the American system sucks. But at least if you're rich enough you can get healthcare! In a lot of places with nationalized health care, that's not true - which is why they occasionally come HERE instead, because they'd really like to get that cancer treated BEFORE it kills them while they wait to be seen by the professionals in their own countries...

[@miguy1989]

If only it were just about reducing harm to the drug user. I live in Seattle and the attitude of harm reduction has led to a surge in crime throughout the city. Not just theft but also assault and in some cases murder, because the homeless population that's addicted to mind-altering drugs doesn't have the self-control to behave like rational actors. And drug use is, of course, encouraged by the harm reduction types.

[@kateshiningdeer3334]

Not to mention that a huge number of the homeless were/are crazy to start with. Crazy plus drugs = WAY more than twice as crazy! You have the same problem all over the Pacific Northwest - it's part of why Portland is so crazy now, and even in my small town (we have around 25,000 people), the homeless are an issue. We've really got to bring back some kind of pipeline that sorts people by category and puts them in an appropriate environment - people who can be helped with therapy, those needing rehab, those who need long-term care (either more serious rehab or mental illness treatment), those with serious mental illnesses who shouldn't be unmedicated, etc. And we need better institutions to help those who can't be safe out in the public. We've got to realize again what our ancestors used to know - some kinds of crazy can't be fixed, and for those people, an institution is as good as it gets. We just need the institutions to be more humane than they used to be!

[@cerebraldreams4738]

@@kateshiningdeer3334 - Some of those institutions were in fact humane and good to their patients, over the entirety of their existence, but they got shut down along with the "lobotomy and zombie drug" hellscapes. A lot of long term mental asylums would actually let their patients leave whenever they wanted, because they knew those patients would be back for their dinner and evening medicine. When the patients did leave it was usually to visit family or go to the store, and they would always come back. There was no need to go out and find them, or to stop them from leaving. They had a warm bed and a hot dinner waiting for them, in a place that made them feel safe.

[@Liquid_Mike]

Just let people buy syringes at drug stores. It's literally as simple as that

[@lesthodson2802]

But then you wouldn't have a class of people literally addicted to the Democrats.

[@EFCasual]

I prefer the Phillipines model.

[@kateshiningdeer3334]

You actually CAN, in the US, if you have a prescription. I regularly buy syringes and needles for my Cat's pain medication - all they needed was a prescription from our vet. My Mom & Dad get diabetic pens AND needles for one of THEIR cats, too, who is using the same meds people do, just at a smaller dose - note to anyone in a similar situation - our Costco turned out to be WAY cheaper than the vet, just FYI.

[@CrazyJabberwock]

from what I read "Harm Reduction" as it was practiced in some places had little to do with the well being of the patient and more to do with keeping them from dragging society down, the goal was to enable a slow, quiet self destruction so they wouldn't be out on the streets shivving people for their next fix.

[@highenginseer8824]

Except when there are so many state enabled addicts, society is being dragged down. See the situations in California and New York.

[@CrazyJabberwock]

@@highenginseer8824 well see thats because those implementations, honestly seem like the goal there is engineering a societal collapse, globalists intending to kneecap the USA into a servitor to other nations.

[@Xplora213]

Brutal. Like putting all the homeless in camps, to get rid of the homeless problem. Putting junkies into programs sounds the same, putting them in camps without their consent until they are clean.

[@utewbd]

Call me old fashioned but that's what jail is for. Now make drug use on its own legal and we don't need "harm reduction centers."

[@Xplora213]

@@utewbd plenty of people ruin themselves with abuse of sugar, alcohol and smoking.

[@TheSilversepiroth]

I think that the term "rock bottom" is a good one, not because there's a bottom in how low someone will go, but rather because it's a limiter on how far someone is willing to tank their own life before becoming deeply disturbed with how thoroughly they've ruined themselves. It's different for everyone, but the shared attribute is that they're not willing to go lower

[@wickedlee664]

I lived in San Francisco for 15 years. I can tell you all about the HR movement. No surprise the types involved. It’s just “We are junkies and we are not even interested in stopping”. When you see someone with a HR hoodie on …..well, it’s junkie merch.

[@gunterstraus606]

One of the uses of 'Harm Reduction' I'm familiar with is that of firearms regulation. There are no principled reasons to restrict the type of weapon once you've crossed the threshold of being OK with armed citizens. The argument made is that with a smaller maximum magazine capacity will limit the shots fired, a non adjustable stock will make it statistically less likely to hit, a manual action increasing the window for those targeted to escape. This all looks plausible from abstraction, but as soon as one puts themselves in a defense situation, you quickly realize that unless you just hard ban everything, and criminal behavior doesn't skirt around it, an individual can still be shot.

[@kateshiningdeer3334]

And the real problem there is "And criminal behavior doesn't skirt around it" - I think we all agree we'd be perfectly fine not having any kind of defensive weapons if we knew we weren't going to be attacked by a criminal with a weapon!

[@libertatemadvocatus1797]

@@kateshiningdeer3334 I would still prefer a gun. If I am fighting for my life; I don't want a fair fight. I want overwhelming force.

[@BirthdayFreak67]

Harm reduction can also = Affirming care. You know, like what they call surgical lobbing off of healthy genitals.

[@DutchDeathZone]

14:00: you mixed them up. High time preference means you want things as soon as possible, and low time preference means you don't care so much about when the payoff comes.

[@ShortFatOtaku]

right sorry

[@TheNo15]

This is a great concept that you can apply to a number of society's ills today. Sure, being a hedonistic coomer who sits around all day waiting for their next hit of dopamine may not directly harm anyone, but where is the good?

[@rockytom5889]

The good is they won't procreate.

[@daks5122]

I remember seeing a documentary on this. Some dude straight posted up and just handing out all manner of hard drugs, for free. Gobsmacked, man.

[@bruhdabones]

I think harm reduction needs to be coupled with a reassessment of drug scheduling, as there are many drugs that cause minimal harm but we ban outright. LSD’s illegality has caused more harm than the drug itself, and that’s a problem.

[@Xplora213]

The research has been done decades ago. I suspect the lines have been drawn for a reason and the drug advocates don’t really know why, preferring to rely on personal anecdote than the results of classified military experiments.

[@bruhdabones]

@@Xplora213 interesting theory. However we are studying them again and we’re seeing results consistent with or even better than the safety profiles established by older studies, so I doubt such a conspiracy really exists. (At least with weed and some psychedelics, that is) Especially in the case of LSD, what use is there for the military in a drug that makes you hallucinate and often makes you very happy? It’s awful for interrogations, and it’s just as harmful for soldiers in the battlefield. The only use they could’ve found, it would seem, would be for strategists in an office trying to pull off strategic magic

[@Xplora213]

@@bruhdabones I think you will see Research confirming psychotic breaks with reality. We know about Deadheads… people who fried their brains with drugs. I am willing to entertain the possibility of Communist subversion of the hippie movement trying to hide significant damage from weed and lsd usage. Let’s face it… 99% of the reason drugs are cool is because the advocates of abstinence have been so uncool. If Brad Pitt and Kim Kardashian started pushing abstinence, the worlds would change. The acceptance of politics in the academy also makes me question anything they have to say as well at this point 😉

[@Xplora213]

@@bruhdabones oh I know. Social media is worthless when they won’t let you speak.

[@mushyroom9569]

@@bruhdabones Have you seriously never heard of MKUltra?

[@MeanBeanComedy]

The key is to just relegalise these drugs like when our great-grandparents were born. They weren't all addicts back then.

[@conservativedemocracyenjoyer]

Because they weren't prolific then

[@MeanBeanComedy]

@@conservativedemocracyenjoyer They were in every corner store pharmacy.

[@Szt1998]

@@conservativedemocracyenjoyer coca cola was literally made so you could have cocaine without wine in the picture... Cause they were drinking cocaine wine, and then alcohol was deemed too dangerous.

[@dolphinboi-playmonsterranc9668]

The only way to stop people from ODing is to make them controlled substances where they can use them safely. Same argument goes for guns, "They're already out there, and people would just get them illegally, so let people just have them"

[@Patraquashe]

How though? I see your point but unless people are injecting under the supervision of a trained nurse, doctor or other medical professional to make sure they're taking a "safe" dose, you can't really control what people put inside their bodies or how much. Narcotic are prescription drugs and even if those drugs are "cleaner", they will still kill you the same way as something you buy on the street. I think the idea you're putting forward here when comparing drugs to guns is that there is a "responsible drug addict", and to be honest, I'm not sure such a thing exists.

[@murunbuchstanzangur]

There are many many functional drug addicts. You dont notice them. A good example is the author and columnist will self. Sadly the only contact people have with addicts are the junkies. Desperate, dangerous people. but there are doctors, lawyers, all sorts of people who keep themself together, and function very well.

[@thattubechannel]

Societal virtue is always ultimately the greatest harm reduction

[@QUACK.ATTACK]

We really need to take sugar addiction more seriously. That crap kills more people than hard drugs.

[@joemadden4160]

That's an excellent point.

[@mrosskne]

harm / care is not the only pillar of morality, nor even the most important.

[@karthikboyareddygari568]

Hi Dev, great video as always! I just wanted to point out that you presented time preference backwards. People with high time preference are the ones who place a high valuation on getting something in the short term (placing a high value on the time they would need to wait); whereas, people with low time preference can stand to wait until a later time to receive gratification.

[@ExPwner]

This. Still good to point out the idea and how it shapes our behaviors.

[@ciarfah]

'Immediacy preference' would be less ambiguous

[@karthikboyareddygari568]

@@ExPwner Indeed, I was glad that he brought it up. I just wanted to correct the mistake.

[@karthikboyareddygari568]

@@ciarfah yeah, that would be less ambiguous. But ultimately the term used widely in economics is time preference, so I think Dev was trying to stick with that.

[@karthikboyareddygari568]

@@priapulida I think these are strongly connected but ultimately different things. Delayed gratification is, as I understand it, the action of choosing tasks which are not rewarding (or even costly) in the short term for the sake of a large reward in the long term. Whereas, time preference is, well, exactly that: a preference. In a way, high time preference makes it harder to exercise delayed gratification while those with low time preference for a particular payoff will have a propensity for delaying gratification whenever beneficial. So to sum up, I understand time preference to be a preference and delayed gratification to be an action/decision.

[@QueenAleenaFan]

As long as the individual in question pays for the harm reduction without tax money or insurance money oh, I see no reason why harm reduction strategies shouldn't be in place. However none of this burden should ever fall upon the taxpayer or the insurance company, because then it will just punish people who don't abuse drugs

[@SouthernGothicYT]

Another reason to bring back asylums. Seriously, hospitals can't do it alone, at least make them extensions of hospitals under the same management. Those at rock bottom need the constant monitoring and an environment that'll actually keep them on their path whereas any kind of out patient care opens them up to the same things that led them there initially. Obviously there's the issue of abuse in those places but its not like we don't see that today in schools, day care centers, nursing homes or prisons edit: ok asylum was too strong a word. I mean a place where junkies can actually get clean and sober without the ability to stumble off back into the drug den they crawled out of. Not a gulag

[@twiztidsidfreak13]

Alcohol kills more people yearly than crack! Booz kills people who don't even use it! More people are killed by drunk drivers than are murdered by junkies while high!

[@utewbd]

Have the balls to tell these halfprog shitlibs that the way you used the word asylum is just fine and appropriate to its definition.

[@jimass13]

This reminds me of Jordan Peterson's discussion about his nephew's dream (which was basically about attacking the root of the problem instead of its symptoms) and his idea that you should try to actively conceptualize what a good future would look like instead of just floating along.

[@Andyisgodcky]

Enabling a bad behavior is tacit approval of said behavior.

[@murunbuchstanzangur]

I think that harm reduction in terms of drug abuse has a very powerful place. Supplying drugs limits the black market which causes harm of its own, prevents overdose, and tramsmission of disease. You dont sel it in shops, you provide it to already existing addicts through medical channels. it needs to be in the context of a system that encourages quitting and prevention too. And actually, not criminalising addicts, but instead focussing on suppliers has been shown to be more productive, as has been seen in portugal.

[@nova_supreme8390]

Black market supplying drug use is merely one part of the problem. Another problem is the fact that profits it makes funds other criminal activity even abroad.

[@murunbuchstanzangur]

@@nova_supreme8390 absolutely. Both criminal gangs and state and non state bad actors. Not to mentiom the exploitation. It always piques my sense of dark irony that the same hipsters that brag about buying fairtrade, cruelty free, organic and ecologically friendly products will take cocaine at the weekends.

[@pointcuration1278]

I deal with heavy drug use and mental illness, but all of it is to embrace the good and to affirm life. I love my life and all those in it, even those I've never met. Jumping in with both feet into irrational but constructive behaviour is meaningful and gives me reason to continue.

[@Kaynadian1337]

I remember several years ago when "Harm Reduction" didn't involve government or legislation or politics but simply meant access to tools and information for people who use drugs for fun. Harm Reduction then for an addict was seeking help and treatment. A broader scope to get info to the public like Set and Setting and how important it is for people trying acid for example

[@ritalinSolution]

As someone who works in the homeless services sector I can attest that there is a thin, wobbly, blurry line between “harm reduction” and straight up enabling. Many facilities I encounter in my work just ignore it all together. I think if it’s carefully managed there is an element that is helpful, but some places the dealers post up in the parking lot or worse, get work as addictions counsellors, or start relationships with clients. Like literally, “ya bro, you’ve been doing great but I can hook you up”

[@Ravenbiter005]

Please make a full video about Bo Burnham's Inside. It irked me to see every single review gushing over it. You're the first person to call out some of the things I've had issues with 👌🏻

[@chillstoneblakeblast3172]

Really Solid Topic. Been thinking about being some sort of "Corrupted Dark One" due to addictions that I consider bad changing me...

[@MmntechCa]

I've been reading the book Unwinding Anxiety by Dr. Judson Brewer. I've found it's been helping me with my anxiety by teaching me how my brain works, about habit loops, and how to use mindfulness. Can't guarantee it'll help you, but it might be worth checking out. Recognize that most of your bad habits started out as useful survival mechanisms, at least from your monkey brain's perspective. That's why they became habits in the first place. Now they do more harm than good. But there are ways you can help recognize and move past them.

[@liamm1419]

One factor that harm reductionists neglect and I don't think you have mentioned is that addicts especially of hard drugs tend to use all of there money to fuel addiction and will try to drain family members and friends, ending up being completely severed from the safety net of family. Eventually this often escalates into petty crime - even if they somehow beat the addiction they often are completely financially ruined not to mention the life long side affects such as liver and kidney damage and a criminal record. What harm was reduced? You allowed them to harm their future prospects and health and put society at large in more harm from elevated crime and future healthcare costs and even helped fund the criminal gangs supplying the poison.

[@americankid7782]

5:36 YES! This has been my personal philosophy for years and it’s something I repeat whenever something bad happens to me. It allows me to get into a proper mindset to start building back up and carry on. “It could always be worse” is one of my favorite ways to look at life and it helps my mental stability a ton.

[@conserva-chan2735]

Please do a video on r/AZNidentity. They are some of the funniest to ever breed intersectional Marxism with inceldom.

[@Genrevideos]

What’s that?

[@Randomness65535]

"Rock bottom" kinda depends on who's experiencing in relation to their own morality. Of course if you lack any moral fibre, the concept of rock bottom means nothing.

[@houstonburnside8985]

So true. It’s like harm reduction won’t actually reduce the harm in the long run.

[@oldskoolaspie]

No, it will only prolong and proliferate the harm in the long run.

[@claytoniusdoesthings9598]

Enabling self-destructive behavior because people are "going to do it anyways" is the laziest and stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life.

[@g00gleisgayerthanaids56]

Abstinence is never the answer, self control and discipline are the answers. Thats why aa has a 6% success rate... I viewed my prescribed opiate dependency as chains, if the system ever failed, id be a total mess for weeks and it would probably be the end of me. All i had to do was view addiction as a form of slavery, at that point i just weened myself off. Did i completely swear off opiates? No, they absolutely have a use and when i inevitably got injured again, i had no issue with relapse.

[@louiscypher4186]

Only 19.4% of Americans have used drugs, So abstinence is way more effective then 6% in that area.

[@g00gleisgayerthanaids56]

@Prey R community enforced abstinence is AA... the 6% success rate speaks for itself.

[@g00gleisgayerthanaids56]

@@louiscypher4186 19.4% of americans polled* please, when was the last time you filled out a survey and did you ever answer truthfully? Hard doubt. 6% is the success rate of alcoholics anonymous, an organization that commits wholeheartedly to abstinence.

[@louiscypher4186]

@@g00gleisgayerthanaids56 Yes i'm not a drug user, despite what you junkies like to think not everybody does it.

[@g00gleisgayerthanaids56]

@Prey R you dont know shit about AA if you think it isnt a prime example of the total failure that is community enforced abstinence.

[@testing2741]

Dev, I think you really need to consider the problem of physical dependence and withdrawal, in particular with Opioids - and also the fact that many people manage to never hit "rock bottom" if they can manage their addiction (which admittedly is difficult when price/availability is so utterly distorted by the black market). Also, many people never want to quit, many if those who fit into the "functional addict" categort - a group of addicts that very much exist - the benefit from "harm reduction" to them is indeed helpful. If you want to quit no it is bad as enqbles; but for those who don't want to quit, it helps (at least its the only option until actual legalization occurs, which inherently incorporates nearly all harm reduction techniques). What addicts who have no desire to quit, and are "functional", would benefit the most from is not "harm reduction" but legalization. Legalization comes hand in hand with regulations in modern society, and "harm reduction" thus becomes unnecessary when the product prices isn't absurdly high and/or contaminated due to artificial scarcity due to a black market. Clean heroin is not toxic to tissue, and regulated labelled doses wpupd greatly reduce overdoses, etc, etc - "harm reduction" is then unnecessary, as its implemented either by the government or the industry itself (once the motivation for black market is gone). Enablement via "harm reduction" would no longer be neccessary. Also since most organized crime is finded by this black market, it lowers crime of all types. And the percent of addicts in the USA sits around 2%, and this percent didn't change post criminalization - no one did heroin previously just because it was legal. And making it illegal just makes it easier for kids to get it from criminals; while they have a hell of time buying the ond legal drug: alcohol . FYI the biggest blow to the Mafia was the end of prohibition; legalization of drugs would be the coffin nail. And the Cartels destroying mexico and the SW would lose all power if legalization occurred. On consent, the government removes your ability to consent to use drugs by outlawing the drug.

[@jesshorn257]

I think you are taking a lot of outcomes with the belief of "faith and hope"... if a person is chasing the dragon why would they follow the recommended dose to make it "safe". We just had the prescription opioid crises from "safe and legal" drugs that had people shopping multiple doctors so they could get their stash. If your plan is that taxes will pay for it then tell me why I need to pay for others "pleasure"...also I bought alcohol when I was 17 from gas stations so your belief that it is harder to get something if it is legal is bs...having substances that produces people that only driving force is the next high will lead to a nation that has no tax base because no one is working... you sound like a drug user that just wants their vice to be legal so they don't have to deal with the black market

[@Cassandra112]

Remember, as bad as everything is for you, as lost as you feel, at least you are not Anthony Burch.

[@jakehatton2910]

Wow I actually really needed to hear that ending section, thank you!

[@linguisticallyoversight8685]

I'm a former meth and heroin addict I have been in recovery for a year now and I agree with a lot of what you are saying Tho I must be clear on this criminalizing the use of a substance is a form of legislative morality and as such stands dynamically opposed to my beliefs I do not believe that one person or a group of people have the right to impose their sense of morality on others and as such criminalizing the use of a substance is immoral in and of itself I kind of hate to say this because it's the same argument that pro-choice activists use but their body their choice now I agree with certain concepts of the opposition I understand that those who use hard drugs like cocaine meth heroin often engage in other criminal activities to support their habits but if they did not have to do so I don't think they would from personal experience I can honestly say that if there was a ready supply of heroin I would never have shoplifted a day in my life that being said there are other deleterious effects of society but those effects are directly caused by the substance being illegal gang activity is the most prevalent Look at the legalization of recreational marijuana as an example

[@utewbd]

This was really coherent for having no punctuation.

[@kateshiningdeer3334]

@@utewbd Stream-of-Consciousness done right! 😀

[@utewbd]

@@kateshiningdeer3334 Absolutely. The word choice was so good that it ascended the need for periods or commas.

[@itzbeserker]

Harm reduction leads to lower rates of infection, mortality and use. As someone who has both experienced addiction and now advocates for HR/decriminalization. The concept of having to hit rock bottom to be able to get to that better outcome is just wrong, someone who is capable of getting better on their own will have an easier time with support, that same support makes recovery possible for people who otherwise could not.

[@pcarnold9]

How for HR lead to less use? Honest question. Isn’t the overall goal that people use these crazy powerful/addictive drugs less?

[@itzbeserker]

@@pcarnold9 Drug addicts are mostly marginalised people. HR provides them with a safe area and some added stability in their life. not needing to find ways to access drugs/paraphernalia frees up time and resources they can instead use to address the issues that led to their situation. It also puts users in direct contact with social workers and support networks that want to help them get back on their feet!

[@bruhdabones]

@@itzbeserker yes, if your facilities are staffed with professionals who can make conversation and start to become familiar with the regulars, it seems logical to me that this method could help get people on the wagon

[@La0bouchere]

​@@pcarnold9 Basically, the stability from HR makes it easier to quit and stay clean.

[@EmperorofChinaItwillgrowlarger]

That is just retarded

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

Spot-on and insightful.

[@donz6211]

This is a really good video dev, as always. Keep up the amazing work.

[@vangoghsseveredear]

Dev, you've hit a spot here with me where I disagree. Not entirely, granted, but if a lot of these things were in effect, a lot of my dead friends would still be alive. Like you said; I generally don't believe rock bottom is a thing. I was a junkie and shot heroin daily for 5 years. It got real bad, to where I would wake up at 3am dope sick, needing to do another shot to go to bed. In my area, I got clean needles and that was about it. Clean needles was a huge help in my community, because it was riddled with blood borne diseases. I've watched my friends die from drugs cut with fentanyl. Supplying heroin is a stance I'm unsure on. I mean, you can't have a chance to change if you're dead, which is what the fentanyl surge is doing. The thing that finally got me clean, hilariously, is that I was so sick of junkies I swore it off. I had died before, lost everything I had, totalled cars, etc. And it was just being mad at junkies that finally got me clean, for over 6 years now. Not only that, but I met my addictions counselor who helped me a lot at the needle exchange. I had been through many prior. Even if numbers aren't necessarily skyrocketing from safe injection sites to rehab, the numbers that do will be going in a lot less fucked up. Not having to shoot up alone would save lives. People who are addled with bloodborne diseases are inherently going to be less inclined to get help, because "I'm fucked now anyway". In regards to drugs, harm reduction is still a net positive, imo.

[@azmanabdula]

Are you always angry now? Honest question, Im not a user of opiates Ive heard once you give them up, you just are angry non stop at everything ...Im just a pothead drinker : P

[@utewbd]

One the one hand, there might be less people who will avoid help, or get very ill or die before finding it. But on the other hand, how many more people are just going to be barely functional junkie low lifes?

[@TheLurker1647]

I guess it depends on one's objective. Look at the bigger picture. Are most (if any) junkies viable to become productive members of society? Surely there's a dollars-and-cents analysis one could do to determine whether the public investment has a return. Personally, my gut instinct is that I would rather my taxes go to dead junkie corpse removal services than just giving them what they want. I sure as hell don't get what I want for free. Why should they? If junkies get AIDS and die, well, the upside is that they die out and then we don't have junkies anymore. Harm reduction is only a net positive if you want junkies to live. I see more dead junkies as a net positive, because it reduces the population of junkies, which is a benefit to the society as a whole.

[@ambmamb8370]

@@TheLurker1647 thats a pretty sociopathic approach tho

[@TheLurker1647]

@@ambmamb8370 Nothing sociopathic about it. Sociopaths tend to be lying and manipulative, while I've been open and honest. Sociopaths also tend to have no sense of morality: if I had no sense of morality, I wouldn't care at all that there were junkies around, and I wouldn't be concerned a lick about society at large. You may disagree with my ethical framework, but I certainly have one. Mine just is more concerned with the big-picture, long-term health of the entire society than on enabling the moral dysfunction of a particular set of individuals.

[@dragonturtle2703]

I’d be careful with the “where is the virtue” argument since that is the road Sargon is going down. But it’s also true, so I’d throw in this caviot to avoid the slippery slope: Where is the harm (specifically to others) is the question you would ask others, as it could negatively effect them. Where is the virtue is something to ask yourself, and only you have the right to final decisions on that.

[@torrasque0151]

The road Sargon is going down is a good one. Crossing my fingers for him to find religion.

[@specimenlarry6068]

Drug addicts? Doesn't sound like my problem.

[@samoto6943]

Great video, dev! Very insightful 👏

[@RedDragon412]

You have your "Low" vs "High" Time preference mixed up here. High time preference means that you're motivated by immediate concerns (preferring not to spend your time, placing high value on the near term, etc.), whereas low time preference means that you're looking to the future (placing low value on the time spent waiting for the reward). Great video, though.

[@Shiorevi]

Most addicts suffer from a mental process called 'Long-term Potentiation' or 'Long-term Depression', a repeated signal in neurons causes the strengthening or alteration/damage of those synaptic tracts, often being near permanent. In other words, it becomes easier over time to invoke brain activity to trigger impulse/ desires over time due to the brain being addicted to the excess dopamine euphoria those activities provide. This is why you never recover from addiction, as abstinence doesn't degrade nor repair the built or altered chemical pathways that had been strengthened/ modified; Ergo far more prone to repeat that behaviour regardless of willpower for self-control (AKA addiction)

[@Strutter1980]

I've heard 'where is the virtue in that' be said in anger/annoyance but I don't remmember specifically where and what context. Possibly multiple times in comics and cartoons but after this video I now read it in different ways than I did before.

[@Winterascent]

I remember when Brian was there for Stewie when he hit a rock bottom. He left and they drank chardonnay.