If taking a substance removes our desire to shop, then I'm sure there are powers in this world that will stop it from happening.

Illicit drug trade has demonstrated that even long term prohibition does not work.

Depends on the molecule. Cannabis can be produced by any teenager in a closet with a grow light. Quaaludes on the other hand are now impossible to come by.

I imagine the reason for the popularity of Quaaludes was easy access. Remove that, and the myriad other substances available become more attractive, be it MDMA, LSD, magic mushrooms, 2-CB, Ketamine, cocaine, heroin, or a number of others.

The interesting thing is the rise of fentanyl in the wake of marijuana legalization. The cartels were making tons of money off illegal marijuana. When marijuana went legal, a lot of that money went away. But the cartels already had this distribution channel and weren't about to go legit. So they found this other way of making money with the existing channels they had.

And China is happily funding fentanyl as low intensity warfare on the united states, supplying the raw materials and likely providing "other" support.

It really does highlight how failed the drug war is. The only effective weapon against rampant cartel violence is decriminalization and legalization.

I just watched Sicaro over the weekend, yeah about 4 years late. The thing is a right wing wet dream take on the drug war, and the interesting thing is it's exactly like the vibe that came out of Vietnam war, another failed war.

"The politicians won't let us use unrestrained violence to win". Of course, both the Vietnam were and even more so the drug war are founded on completely illegitimate policy foundations, and only continue because of budgetary territory defense and a lack of desire of unelected officials to maintain power.

The point is preventing regular mass consumption.

Sell AMZN and buy LLY

It strikes me as an ideology of hatred towards humans to argue against something so incredibly beneficial for the individual in this way. Yes, being free from addiction will certainly change the way people vote and their political outlook on life, just as exercise and eating healthy will do.

It is not selfish to improve yourself and it does not make you sick that somebody else is healthy. You know very well that people who dedicate themselves to being healthy are very eager to help others as well.

> It strikes me as an ideology of hatred towards humans to argue against something so incredibly beneficial for the individual

It’s not an ideology of hatred to consider unintended consequences.

This is the plot of like 20% of science fiction, where unintended consequences backfire at a societal level.

That might arise from curiosity, imagination, or concern for the future of our species.

There are studies that show when dopamine receptor activity is inhibited in mice, their motivation for basic survival plummets. They will continue to consume food if it placed in their immediate reach, but they will otherwise put forth only the bare minimum effort to survive.

That is to say, there are very real implications of messing with hormone responses, and it’s definitely not a given that it doesn’t backfire spectacularly down the road.

I also think most people would and should choose the quality of life now, even if that has longer term side effects we don’t know about yet.

> It’s not an ideology of hatred to consider unintended consequences.

It seems as an ideology of hatred to sacrifice the well being and health of real humans to prop up the false belief in something called "society", which has never existed and will never exist.

I have nothing against arguments questioning the side effects of the drugs for the individual, but that's another debate.

Should we also argue against exercise and a healthy diet, since these things also have an impact on people's political views?

It strikes me as incredibly naïve to think that we've just stumbled into an absolute cure for addiction, no caveats. That's second coming level of world change from "just take this drug once a day". Being cautious about <insert new thing> is not hatred towards humans.

Yeah, isn’t that how the (most recent) opioid epidemic got started - a pharma company telling everyone their new opioid was way less addictive - almost a sort of miracle cure?

The difference here is everyone involved in the opioid epidemic knew opioids were addictive. They just enjoyed the CYA aspect of it.

It’s like sexual harassment training. Literally no one needs to be “educated” that sexually harassing your coworkers is bad. It’s done to cover the companies ass and for no other reason. The drug companies offered that cover and the rest of the establishment knowingly used it to cover their bad actions. No doctor prescribing hydrocodone thought it was a non-addictive substance.

Perhaps there will be some severe second order long term side effects with GLP-1 drugs. Time will tell, but considering we are nearly 20 years in on these and on 4th and 5th generation therapies I suspect we would have had a small hint of those by now.

I’m extremely cautiously optimistic about these drugs. They seem to be an antidote to the poison that is the modern western lifestyle.

Sure, but it’s also how antibiotics started, and that time it turned out that the miracle was real. It’s not something we can presumptively rule out.

Being cautious isn't presumptively ruling it out.

That's a different argument completely. The comment I responded to was an argument that assumed that the drug was a cure, no caveats.

Don't worry: we mostly don't have a "reward center". If you're thinking of ventral striatum, it does something more like motor vigor. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262044059/vigor/