
Vine Co-Founder Colin Kroll Dies - bgarbiak
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/16/nyregion/hq-trivia-overdose-colin-kroll.html
======
ce4
Yesterday's discussion:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18693689](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18693689)

------
eganist
Dreadful way to go; addiction (assuming this wasn't a one-off event which also
led to his overdose) is a terrible disease and one which runs in my family to
a large degree, so hearing of a notable overdose from someone who was
seemingly functional always throws me for a bit of a loop. Condolences to his
family and apparent s/o.

...which gets to my next question: is there a metric on how many executives
(and possibly how many executives surrounding trending bay area startups)
either are or end up immersed in the depths of addiction?

~~~
chrisper
How does addiction run in a family? Are people with specific genes more prone
to addiction than others?

~~~
smpetrey
Short answer: no. Hereditary has nothing to do with it.

Long answer: if you’re white, under the age of 65, and live in suburban
America — then yes, you are more prone to addiction because of your geographic
make-up and likely have access to healthcare options that predominantly over
prescribe opioids.

Sources:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/podcasts/the-
daily/opioid...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/podcasts/the-daily/opioid-
crisis-purdue-oxycontin.html)

[https://www.vox.com/science-and-
health/2017/8/3/16079772/opi...](https://www.vox.com/science-and-
health/2017/8/3/16079772/opioid-epidemic-drug-overdoses)

~~~
eganist
My family isn't exposed to any of that considering I'm the first among my kin
born here in the United States.

As an aside, there's an interesting level of confidence in your initial
response ("Hereditary [sic] has nothing to do with it.") considering that
you're wrong.

[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=addiction+genetics+dopa...](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=addiction+genetics+dopamine)
— this may be a good starting point.

------
spking
Outline version: [https://outline.com/sBqEv9](https://outline.com/sBqEv9)

------
cauldron
>did not have a drug problem, although he was aware that his son took drugs
recreationally.

"recreationally", good luck with recreational weed, Americans.

~~~
Finch2193
could you explain this comment?

~~~
cauldron
I have the impression that America has had an obsessive history with drugs,
but still think legal weed is a downhill path, but guess you guys would just
say I'm bigoted, weed is non-addictive，or the key is self-control etc.

~~~
code_duck
You are assuming that there are advantages to it being illegal. There are not.
Legality hasn’t been shown to increase consumption, necessarily. I assume
that’s your major false assumption. Next, it’s clearly demonstrable that
prohibition creates a variety of massive harmful effects, whereas treating it
like a normal business with regulation and taxation has benefits for society.

If you think the government is going to prevent people from smoking cannabis
it making it illegal, that policy has been clearly disproven by 40 years of
failure. It’s ludicrous to dispute, but some vested interests and clueless
people still try, I suppose.

