this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2026
1419 points (99.7% liked)
Curated Tumblr
7558 readers
66 users here now
For preserving the least toxic and most culturally relevant Tumblr heritage posts.
Here are some OCR tools to assist you in transcribing posts:
-
FOSS Android Recs per u/m_f@discuss.online: 1 , 2
Don't be mean. I promise to do my best to judge that fairly.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Here's how science works: you collect data, use it to determine what's effective, then you tell the politicians so they can implement a solution. Most of us would consider giving free heroin to people a bad thing. What we consider it is completely irrelevant because it's based on our emotional reaction.
If the data shows that this approach is effective, especially if it's more effective than what you're currently doing, that's what you do.
The only thing that matters here is: does it work?
At the most basic level: yes it really is that simple.
But there is some nuance here.
Science can tell you how to efficiently achieve your goals, but it can’t tell you what your goals should be.
And we have certain constraints that we want to uphold, even if they limit how effective we can be in achieving our goals. (Eugenics is a prime example there.)
And finally, the assumptions that we start with, the questions we decide to ask, and the explanatory models that we build are all culturally-defined. They aren’t completely arbitrary, but they do involve a degree of personal judgment.
I say this not to disparage science (I fucking love science), but to make sure that we understand that we aren’t off the hook for having moral agency even if we believe we are merely pursuing efficacy. We’ve seen regimes that decided to value efficacy above all else, and the inhuman results that can occur.
Also, Dr. Fatima’s videos have programmed me to think about this stuff automatically.
Some good ones:
thanks for the insight and the video recommendations!
Apparantly it does, it's been done since 1998. The quality of life gets better for the addicts, and about half gets clean within five years. The program seems to be only for addicts above 35 years old with a habit for over 5 years, and only if earlier attempts to get clean (without medical heroin) failed.
Politics is all about emotional reactions though. Is it more important to you to reduce the harm of drug taking, or do you find the idea of drug taking to itself be so immoral that harm as a result is actually desirable?
I find people taking this stance, shortighted and stupid. They complain about drug addicts, on the streets and stealing their shit, and all sorts of problems caused, harming themselves. And then they want even more of that, as a solution!
Yes, people often hold one thing to be negative, while finding a potential solution to that negative thing being even worse. That isn't really stupid.
Fair! In this case I just think it is idiotic, since there is an alternative offered, that fixes a lot of the problems. But no, they do not want that, but rather suffer more. Not believing in scientific results, nor logic, is stupid! But yes, people often are, when it is about beliefs and emotions.