You don't solve a problem by demonizing it and giving people unrealistic information. You solve a problem by studying the root cause and the effects, and turn that understanding into a sustainable plan.
Should we reject any research or analysis into drug problems just because some people struggle with drug problems? Or should we just reject the parts that don't agree with our view of the subject matter?
The article is not trying to minimize the perception that drugs can cause harm. Rather, it is suggesting that we can reduce the harm caused by drugs by understanding addiction in a different way.
I don't think the point was to minimize the negative impact of drugs. The point was that our understanding and treatment of addiction is flawed, and we need to change that perception so we can really help those with addiction.
I disagree, this author is clearly trying to make the case that the idea that addiction being "progressive" is wrong. That is definitely minimizing addiction.
A perfectly reasonable counter to his arguments is the possibility that the data isn't terribly accurate. The data concerning people "classified as addicts" vs the hypothetical set of data for "actual addicts" might look very different (could we actually obtain this). The problem of classifying addicts or even really defining the term is very open as of now. Using datasets for addicts with the same confidence as datasets concerning those suffering from breast cancer for instance is foolish. The gray area as to whether someone does or does not have breast cancer is very small when compared to that same gray area with addiction.
My own experience shows that there are addicts who never get better, progressively get worse and tend to die very sad deaths. My family is riddled with this type of addict. The possibility that the author is not suffering from the exact same condition that my family members are afflicted with is not really considered. He spends one or two sentences describing how bad his addiction was as proof to the contrary but this is just shirking the real issue of identification. So yes, I think through the author's narrow-minded approach they are indeed treading dangerously on minimizing addiction and the "negative impact of drugs."
False dichotomy. Recreational drugs (such as cocaine and heroin) are dangerous. If 95% "grow out" of the addiction and 5% die (I made those numbers up) then the drugs are very dangerous, but the "growing out" premise is true.
LSD might cause a bad trip (if used under sane circumstances, such as with a non-tripping sitter) less than 1% of the time, but the medical establishment has good reason even still to be nervous about it. (It probably shouldn't be illegal to research it. It's also not "safe" in the recreational context; not even close.) If aspirin seriously hurt 1% of the people who used it, it'd be off the market.
Also, losing 3-5 years of your life and career to a stigmatized health issue is a Big Fucking Deal even if you remit fully.
The OP may be taken to under-report the long-term psychological and neurological damage that can occur even when the addiction itself (and the use) goes away. For drugs like cocaine and methamphetamine, the "graying" (the loss of the ability to feel pleasure due to dopamine floods) can last for at least a decade. Then there's all the heart damage, which is not to be taken lightly. Plenty of people die from drug-related damage in their 50s and 60s even when they haven't used in years.
Damage by cocain and heroin are well known to the our medicine, while LSD is NOT. There is still an huge grey/dark area when it comes to damage caused by entheogens such as LSD. All we have is little bits of data, some little experiment here or there.
No, I'm not saying LSD is fun nor safe, but the propaganda out there about it is pure bs.
Yes it is true that most people grow out of addiction.
But many do not. In my circle I count four dead, many more damaged by drugs.