I am extremely concerned about the page behind the hyperlink "suspect I was the kind of alcoholic who gave alcohol a bad name". The logic on that page leads to giving death sentences for minor crimes, as a deterrent so there will be no crimes. And the author calls himself a libertarian...
You have confused someone being able to convincingly walk down a certain line of logic for that person actually believing that line of logic. The author states one of many reasons right afterwards why he thinks that is a really bad idea:
>Why, though, shouldn’t we just double-down on orthodox prohibitionist remedies? Because you wind up punishing a vastly larger number of innocent people, that’s why. [...] When you ban intoxicants, you conceivably reduce abuse, but you definitely end up punishing an enormous number of innocent hobbyists - as well as the professionals who supply them.
I linked that page because, when I was an alcoholic, I was also an asshole to the people around me. I mooched off my parents, deeply worried my brothers, and refused to pull my own weight even a little bit in the household economy.
But there are plenty of people who drink alcohol who are not assholes because of it. They should not be thrown under the bus because I personally become an asshole when exposed to the substance.
The author recommends zero penalties for production or use of mind-altering substances, and infinitely harsher penalties for addicts. Because people are perfectly rational beings, especially when using mind-altering substances, they'll look ahead at the penalties and decide not to be addicts. That's the author's argument, and it's obviously completely wrong.
The war on drugs has been a failure, but giving addicts the death penalty (as opposed to helping them stop being addicts) isn't very good either.
I’ve noticed that people who resort to absolutism to repair their addictions (zero carbs, zero fat, zero alcohol, no smoking cold turkey, never gambling, no sex, no fap, no porn, no credit cards, etc.) tend to think everyone would benefit from their one easy trick.
That this approach doesn’t scale seems to be lost on them.
I've noticed people who leave comments like this tend not to actually read the links they wish to pass judgment on. If you did you'd know nowhere in my post do I claim quitting was easy.
The linked post implies that most drinkers should continue drinking, and maybe even drink more precisely because they aren't the kinds of drinkers that give alcohol a bad name. If you feel like being edgy, try taking that as your soapbox instead. Much more interesting than saying "the optimal amount of X'ing is nonzero" given a large enough group of people X'ing.
I understand having a knee-jerk personal reaction to this comment, but it wasn’t about you or your blog post. Both the parent comment and I are discussing the linked post, which has very little to do with your situation in any case.
But... you were wrong about the linked post, too. If you had actually read that one, you'd have realized it claims basically the exact opposite of what both you and the parent comment said.
Sorry, TB. I can't give you a magic pass on being wrong just because you are also an asshole. That wouldn't be fair to all the correct assholes out there who suffer for their art.
