Dreadful way to go; addiction (assuming this wasn't a one-off event which also led to his overdose) is a terrible disease and one which runs in my family to a large degree, so hearing of a notable overdose from someone who was seemingly functional always throws me for a bit of a loop. Condolences to his family and apparent s/o.
...which gets to my next question: is there a metric on how many executives (and possibly how many executives surrounding trending bay area startups) either are or end up immersed in the depths of addiction?
Not to downplay the addiction angle but I suspect that this incident, like a lot of drug-related deaths, contains an element of hubris: I'm successful, I don't have a drug problem, I can handle this.
Genetics, but also environmental. Children of addicts, IIRC, are close to an order of magnitude more likely to become addicts themselves (as compared to children of non-addicts)[0].
[0] Sorry, I can't cite that source ATM, just something I recall from foster parent training.
Yes. See, for example, this overview of studies of identical vs fraternal twins and other lines of evidence shows that an average of about 50% (up to ~70% for cocaine) of the variability in addictive behavior can be explained by genetic variation.
My train of thought is: addiction is one of possible symptoms of a certain method of dealing with stress; this method is learned behaviour; you learn from your close surroundings, i.e. family.
Short answer: no. Hereditary has nothing to do with it.
Long answer: if you’re white, under the age of 65, and live in suburban America — then yes, you are more prone to addiction because of your geographic make-up and likely have access to healthcare options that predominantly over prescribe opioids.
My family isn't exposed to any of that considering I'm the first among my kin born here in the United States.
As an aside, there's an interesting level of confidence in your initial response ("Hereditary [sic] has nothing to do with it.") considering that you're wrong.
"hearing of a notable overdose from someone who was seemingly functional"
And that is the stigma and misinformation surrounding addiction at work. Many, if not most, addicts are not only "functional" but sometimes super-humanly so. Especially when it comes to wealthy circles.
Drugs, even the hardest ones, aren't inherently bad, and can often have MANY benefits, many that are performance enhancing effects. Yes, even Heroin. Infact, particularly heroin. It can boost creativity immensely, boost your dedication and ability to work long hours, among many other benefits that people always like to brush aside "for the greater good/" and "the ends justifying the means" of misinformation or lack of information.
An example of more misconception: A seasoned heroin addict will actually durrive energy, motivation and insomnia out of heroin use. Its not always the sedating, "noding out", sleepy kind of drug most people picture it as. Sure all of that is still a thing, but not always, depending on the addict's tolerance, responsibility of use, and general experience.
Unfortunately, a lot of the "problems" hard drugs like heroin create are due to the fact that they are illegal. Yes there are health problems involved that are inherent regardless of legality, but when you can use a pure product, the correct way, even most of those issues go away, or aren't anywhere close to as bad as people think they are.
Heroin addicts who steal, lie, cheat, etc, only do so because of poverty, the cost of the drug, and the inability to source a consistent and unadulterated product. Wealthy people are immune to the issues revolving around poverty/price, which only leaves the health issues, and impurities... which again: Are largely due to the black market and inconsistency of the product. Without the war on drugs, it is entirely possible for most of heroin's "downsides" to be mitigated.
People don't want or like to believe this but: Its virtually impossible for an experienced heroin addict to overdose (unless they are explicitly trying to), on a product that is pure and consistent. Its not as easy as people think. But all it takes is that one time with a product that isn't what you thought it was. Or one night of irresponsibly mixing drugs (usually alcohol) that shouldn't be mixed
I'm not trying to advocate heroin use, but just pointing out that it isn't at all what most people think it is. Even very progressive and open minded people often still have a warped and misinformed perception of hard drugs. And the cold hard truth is: Responsible use of pure heroin is VERY safe. I would say as safe as alcohol (so not entirely safe, but far safer than the boogeyman drug it is purported to be)... its a fact that you never hear anyone say, but in my opinion and experience its entirely true.
I don't think you would be hard pressed to find professionals with experience in addiction and pharmacologist who would agree with me.
> I don't think you would be hard pressed to find professionals with experience in addiction and pharmacologist who would agree with me.
I'd be inclined to strongly disagree with this considering my own in-depth personal research on the topic. I'm also having difficulty sourcing anything you've said in your comment; are you able to help me out a bit here?
I have the impression that America has had an obsessive history with drugs, but still think legal weed is a downhill path, but guess you guys would just say I'm bigoted, weed is non-addictive，or the key is self-control etc.
You are assuming that there are advantages to it being illegal. There are not. Legality hasn’t been shown to increase consumption, necessarily. I assume that’s your major false assumption. Next, it’s clearly demonstrable that prohibition creates a variety of massive harmful effects, whereas treating it like a normal business with regulation and taxation has benefits for society.
If you think the government is going to prevent people from smoking cannabis it making it illegal, that policy has been clearly disproven by 40 years of failure. It’s ludicrous to dispute, but some vested interests and clueless people still try, I suppose.
22 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 64.8 ms ] thread...which gets to my next question: is there a metric on how many executives (and possibly how many executives surrounding trending bay area startups) either are or end up immersed in the depths of addiction?
[0] Sorry, I can't cite that source ATM, just something I recall from foster parent training.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3506170/
Long answer: if you’re white, under the age of 65, and live in suburban America — then yes, you are more prone to addiction because of your geographic make-up and likely have access to healthcare options that predominantly over prescribe opioids.
Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/podcasts/the-daily/opioid...
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/8/3/16079772/opi...
As an aside, there's an interesting level of confidence in your initial response ("Hereditary [sic] has nothing to do with it.") considering that you're wrong.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=addiction+genetics+dopa... — this may be a good starting point.
And that is the stigma and misinformation surrounding addiction at work. Many, if not most, addicts are not only "functional" but sometimes super-humanly so. Especially when it comes to wealthy circles.
Drugs, even the hardest ones, aren't inherently bad, and can often have MANY benefits, many that are performance enhancing effects. Yes, even Heroin. Infact, particularly heroin. It can boost creativity immensely, boost your dedication and ability to work long hours, among many other benefits that people always like to brush aside "for the greater good/" and "the ends justifying the means" of misinformation or lack of information.
An example of more misconception: A seasoned heroin addict will actually durrive energy, motivation and insomnia out of heroin use. Its not always the sedating, "noding out", sleepy kind of drug most people picture it as. Sure all of that is still a thing, but not always, depending on the addict's tolerance, responsibility of use, and general experience.
Unfortunately, a lot of the "problems" hard drugs like heroin create are due to the fact that they are illegal. Yes there are health problems involved that are inherent regardless of legality, but when you can use a pure product, the correct way, even most of those issues go away, or aren't anywhere close to as bad as people think they are.
Heroin addicts who steal, lie, cheat, etc, only do so because of poverty, the cost of the drug, and the inability to source a consistent and unadulterated product. Wealthy people are immune to the issues revolving around poverty/price, which only leaves the health issues, and impurities... which again: Are largely due to the black market and inconsistency of the product. Without the war on drugs, it is entirely possible for most of heroin's "downsides" to be mitigated.
People don't want or like to believe this but: Its virtually impossible for an experienced heroin addict to overdose (unless they are explicitly trying to), on a product that is pure and consistent. Its not as easy as people think. But all it takes is that one time with a product that isn't what you thought it was. Or one night of irresponsibly mixing drugs (usually alcohol) that shouldn't be mixed
I'm not trying to advocate heroin use, but just pointing out that it isn't at all what most people think it is. Even very progressive and open minded people often still have a warped and misinformed perception of hard drugs. And the cold hard truth is: Responsible use of pure heroin is VERY safe. I would say as safe as alcohol (so not entirely safe, but far safer than the boogeyman drug it is purported to be)... its a fact that you never hear anyone say, but in my opinion and experience its entirely true.
I don't think you would be hard pressed to find professionals with experience in addiction and pharmacologist who would agree with me.
I'd be inclined to strongly disagree with this considering my own in-depth personal research on the topic. I'm also having difficulty sourcing anything you've said in your comment; are you able to help me out a bit here?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18693689
"recreationally", good luck with recreational weed, Americans.
If you think the government is going to prevent people from smoking cannabis it making it illegal, that policy has been clearly disproven by 40 years of failure. It’s ludicrous to dispute, but some vested interests and clueless people still try, I suppose.