Three Chiefs fans found dead of fentanyl overdose

I actually think where things are at right now is a pretty good balance? Like, it doesn’t make sense to keep weed illegal (with all the legal costs and implications that come with that), at least relative to booze. But I also don’t think that making harder, more addictive and life-destroying drugs even easier to access will work out well–as has been demonstrated in most places that attempt it.

I’m curious if there’s an opposing force to the idea of “gateway drugs” at work in markets like Michigan and other states have now. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that there is a certain number of people (X) for whom both of the following are true:

  • Marijuana serves as a gateway drug into harder and more destructive addictions
  • Absent cheap and easily accessible marijuana, these people would not have started using more serious and addictive drugs

Even accepting that second statement–which seems pretty dubious, IMO–wouldn’t there also be a certain number of people (Y) for whom cheap and easily accessible marijuana PREVENTS them from getting into harder and more addictive drugs? What I mean is, if there are still barriers (legal, financial, social) to getting on harder drugs, versus just going to a pot shop and getting 200mg worth of edibles for $5, isn’t there likely some number of people who stick with Option B, just because it works well enough and requires much less effort and risk?

How does the total number of Y compare to the total number of X? Probably not something you could ever actually prove, but just knowing human beings, I would expect Y is a lot bigger.

Yeah I don’t think I should go that route if ever on a cruise.


In a controlled setting with a known purity of the drug, it’s no problem to make a 0.01 mg/mL solution and infuse it over a known period of time.

Drug dealers sprinkle a little bit into their coke, heroin, or whatever and mix it up the best they can. Even if they got the weight proportions correct, the odds that they are able to really blend solids evenly are low.

1 Like

No it was great I would highly recommend it actually because if you’re having 2 drinks a day it pays for itself

15 a drink value is covered but you have to pay the gratuity on the package up-front which is basically 22 bucks a day and both people in the cabin have to get it so you don’t game the system m… so you’re at about 300 or so for the week for your drinks for both people. Plus it works in the restaurants as well not just the bars so if you’re having a nice dinner at the steakhouse and order a cocktail or glass of wine you’re good…

If your drink selection is a bit more premium and goes over that max value for drink they just charge you the difference.

Now this is when the drink package comes free that’s why you pay the gratuities out front and it’s part of Norwegians now long-standing promotion and I’ve seen it on other cruise ships too but if you were to pay for the drink package it’s around 75 to $100 per person per day plus tips

Perhaps this is a “vocal minority” situation, but it seems like most of the loud weed enthusiasts do think it’s a miracle supplement rather than a vice.

1 Like

By the same guys that moonlight as PFF statisticians, by the way.

(sorry guys, a little humor never killed anyone, unlike the topic at hand)

Are the “loud enthusiasts” ever a good litmus test? For anything.

I have a friend that is a “loud enthusiast” re: Ice climbing and I think he enthusiastically downplays the dangers of ice climbing.

i teach and ride my Harley and am loud about it … but, i also respect the fact it is literally the most dangerous form of transportation out there… i then talk about upon accepting the risk, how do we mitigate to the best of our abilities.

i get abit stupid with this type of writting so please take me with a grain of salt… i will not talk about dealers like they are human being doing business… they intentfully add the shit, knowing it is fatal… they are murderers…


People are notoriously bad at measuring risk, especially long tail risk, low probability/high consequence risk. Everything from bitcoin, to drinking/driving, to stds. We are all guilty of it.

And while I am an expert in certain types of risk, I am just as guilty in thinking myself immune elsewhere

1 Like

Love you brother!

Yeah our hardware was built when the average human was lucky to make it to 30 and the chances of them starving, getting killed by violence or by an animal or was very high. So yeah, we’re not built to consider long term consequence much. We’re built to pass on our genes early and often. :smile:

The Brightside of OD’ing.

Risk analysis is one of the most fascinating aspects of human behavior to me. We’re so terrible at it on both sides of the equation.

We overestimate risks with which we’re unfamiliar, and then we turn around and underestimate risks we’ve experienced before. People freak out about things that have fairly low odds of mortality (terrorism, COVID, etc.), but we happily continue to do things that are a real risk to our lives (smoke, drive, eat shitty foods, ride motorcycles, root for the Lions).

A lot of it boils down to heuristics. Our brains aren’t wired to take in and process a lot of data over time. Rather, it’s natural for us to make snap decisions with little information, using things like familiarity as a proxy for safety. That’s a great way to not get eaten on the savanna, but it’s decidedly less great for making long-term decisions based on objective data.


Great post. At the end of day I try and stay away from the semantics of discussions. All things can be a gateway drug. We dont view certain addictions as dangerous…mostly just narcotics. Emotionally, all addictions affect us in simialar fahions. It’s about chasing a high, natural or artificial. When people in group bring up “do you think weed is a gateway drug” they are usually doing it in an attempt to minimize whatever the discussion point is about legalization of drugs etc. I typically don’t address it from gateway other then saying what i mentioned earlier, anything can be. The focus i go at is the idea of putting anything into your lungs that could have a harmful effect on their longterm health. Ex) the people who were vaping w bad cartridges and damaged their lungs terribly. Lung transplants are not easy or the norm and the life expectancy of that transplanted organ isn’t as long as a kid who needs one might think is. If a person is using weed as a way to have a high that is less dangerous then say their high of choice, heroin, there are many who after a while say “■■■■ it, i want MY high of choice”. It is not a blanket statement thing, we all know people who safely move to weed and not go back to harder stuff. But is ghe ootential risk worth it? To risk total sobriety and perhaps instant death if a person says ■■■■ it, and goes back to the unstable powder that is heroine or anything else that may or may not be laced w fetynol?

Some of that is simply hedonism. I have plenty of friends that ride motorcycles and know that it’s the most dangerous thing that they do. They also tell me that nothing gives them the same degree of joy :man_shrugging:

1 Like

I’m not clear on which potential risk you’re referring to? Are you arguing that legal weed increases the risk of somebody getting into/going back to harder drugs? (Sorry to be dense, I’m not following.)

If that’s the case, I think that’s worth exploring–I’m not convinced that A definitively leads to B. I don’t know how much data exists on outcomes, or how you’d even structure a study to find out, but IMO it’s worth treating as an open question.

Though I will say, if you are chiefly trying to reduce risk of people dying because they bought something off the street that wasn’t what they thought it was, then it’s hard to imagine that full legalization (like selling FDA-tested meth/heroin over the counter at every local pharmacy, with big warnings on the bottle of what a lethal dose looks like) wouldn’t do it. I’m not in favor of this, as I think it would generate other negative social effects, but it’s hard to believe it wouldn’t reduce accidental overdoses.

1 Like

Sorry about that. I am not arguring. What i am saying that there is always a risk of relapse. And there always the potential of someone who is still partaking in an artificial high to relapse bc they “■■■■ it, i want MY HIGH”. This won’t happen everytime, and we all know people who have stayed away from harder drugd and just stayed w weed. But i am suggesting is the POTENTIAL risk of slipping back into a drug that can kill you instantly is something all should weigh before dabbling in other safer highs.

Anything can be a gateway. I never argue regarding gateways.

Sadly in a new fad for young people and social media
Is the dangerous thrill of subway surfing
And kids are dying while trying it

A friend of mine refused to wear a helmet with the ongoing excuse: I’d rather be dead than have my brains scrambled wearing a helmet

Sure enough, he got into an accident without a helmet and spent 6 weeks in the neuro ICU with scrambled brains. While he is managing well enough now he will never return to baseline, and this was entirely preventable

I never had a problem with him running helmet-free, but I don’t love the bad logic that justifies this and so many other choices

1 Like