backtop


Print 112 comment(s) - last by bandstand124.. on Nov 5 at 11:22 AM


Alcohol is the worst drug, by far, when you look at personal and societal impact an extensive new study says.  (Source: The Girl Who Ate Everything)

Marijuana, while illegal in the U.S., is less harmful than the alcohol and tobacco -- both legal -- according to the study.  (Source: Mile High Remedy)

Magic mushrooms were deemed the least harmful of the twenty major drugs the study examined.  (Source: Photobucket)
Tobacco is second most dangerous legal drug, marijuana, ecstasy, and shrooms are respectively safer

A new study by London's Imperial College's chair of neuropsychopharmacology, David Nutt, claims that the three most dangerous drugs in the world are alcohol, heroin, and cocaine -- in that order.  In the study Drug Harms in the U.K., published in what is arguably the medical community's most prestigious journal -- Lancet -- Professor Nutt outlines a convincing case for the controversial claim that alcohol is the most dangerous drug illegal or legal in the world today.

The study examined twenty different drugs, including tobacco, marijuana, methamphetamine, ecstasy, cocaine, heroin, and -- you guessed it -- alcohol.  The study gave each drug a rating in terms of its propensity to cause various personal problems --

health issues, injuries, dependency, mental impairment, loss of material wealth such as being fired from a job, and relationship loss.  Each drug was then rated on societal problems it caused -- crime, local decay, family problems, and a general economic cost to society.

Heroin and crack cocaine proved to be the most dangerous drugs to individuals.

However, when combined with the societal impact, alcohol came out ahead as the world's most dangerous drug.  And in most societies alcohol, unlike crack and heroin, is perfectly legal for adults to consume.

After alcohol, heroin, and crack cocaine, the next worse drugs were crystal methamphetamine and powder cocaine.  Then comes tobacco -- another legal drug.  In seventh place is amphetamine/speed.  Marijuana -- which is the subject of legalization controversy in the U.S. -- is deemed the eighth most harmful.

Surprisingly club drug ecstasy, despite a bad rap, is only in a three-way tie for fourteenth most harmful with qat and anabolic steroids.  Qat is a tropical flowering evergreen plant whose leaves can be chewed to provide a stimulant effect.  It is found in Northern Africa and on the Arabian Peninsula.

The least dangerous drug of the twenty evaluated in the study was magic mushrooms.

Despite the fact that the study states that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, Professor Nutt has urged that the drug be reclassified in the UK from a class C drug to a stricter Class B drug.  Conversely he's advocated that ecstasy -- which is also listed as less harmful by the study -- be downgraded from a Class A drug to a Class B or C drug.  Those opinions earned him termination from his government post.  Professor Nutt has worked on devising a less-harmful alcohol substitute consisting of valium-like solvated molecules.

Professor Nutt says this information is critical, in light of the ongoing international debate concerning what drugs should be legal and which ones should be made illegal.  He states on his personal blog, "By legislating on a substance without reliable scientifically based evidence, we run the risk of causing more harm through criminalizing users than might be caused by the drug itself. The evidence on drug harms should not be sacrificed for political and media pressure. "

In the article Professor Nutt asserts that "[Alcohol and tobacco do] have commercial benefits to society in terms of providing work and tax, which to some extent offset the harms."

But he says their legality increases their harmfulness, commenting, "[M]any of the harms of drugs are affected by their availability and legal status."

He concludes, "[A]ggressively targeting alcohol harms is a valid and necessary public health strategy."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Brilliant!
By MrTeal on 11/1/2010 5:43:27 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Heroine and crack cocaine proved to be the most dangerous drugs to individuals. However, when combined with the societal impact, alcohol came out ahead as the world's most dangerous drug. And in most societies alcohol, unlike crack and heroine, is perfectly legal for adults to consume.


In other news, water is the most dangerous weapon in existence. While on a per-use basis thermonuclear weapons are considered more deadly, many more people have died from drowning than from getting set up the bomb.




RE: Brilliant!
By chmilz on 11/1/2010 5:48:29 PM , Rating: 4
In other news, this study is retarded.

Do a new study taking an equal number of problem users from every substance abuse group, and determine their individual and societal impacts.

If heroine use was as widespread as alcohol consumption, the human era would be over, with us reduced to junkie gutter trash and warring cartels.

Epic fail, science community.


RE: Brilliant!
By dubldwn on 11/1/2010 6:22:27 PM , Rating: 5
Lets see.

"Hey Dad, I had a couple beers and did shots over the weekend."

or

"Hey Dad, I smoked crack and shot Heroin over the weekend."

Yeah. Fail.


RE: Brilliant!
By jonmcc33 on 11/1/2010 6:55:41 PM , Rating: 5
I agree. Not to mention crack and heroine are considerably more addictive and life ruining once you start them compared to alcohol.


RE: Brilliant!
By SPOOFE on 11/1/2010 7:13:15 PM , Rating: 3
Crack and heroin use is very actively and uiversally discouraged by huge, wealthy, and powerful agencies across the vast majority of most any first world country. There is no comparison; the usage numbers speak for themselves.

Saying alcohol is more dangerous than heroin and crack does NOT mean they're saying heroin and crack are safe.


RE: Brilliant!
By YashBudini on 11/2/2010 12:05:44 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Crack and heroin use is very actively and uiversally discouraged by huge, wealthy, and powerful agencies across the vast majority of most any first world country.


Except those that employ Kate Moss.


RE: Brilliant!
By theapparition on 11/2/2010 10:36:56 AM , Rating: 4
What I found interesting was the omission of the far more individually dangerous drug of methamphetamine.

Perhaps meth use is not as widespread in Europe, but in the US, probably the most widespread and dangerous drug, especially in central plain states.

I'd wager (with no supporting data) that meth use has an even larger socio-economic impact than alchohol.

Even so, claiming alchohol is more dangerous than Heroine is pure stupidity, even if I understand what he is trying to conveigh. The impact of alchohol abuse may be larger due to the small percentage of abusers of a very large sample size, but the majority of alchohol consumers don't abuse the product.

Typical socialist agenda. Restrict the rights of majority of responsible alchohol drinkers, to protect the very small minority of abusers.


RE: Brilliant!
By YashBudini on 11/2/2010 11:39:37 AM , Rating: 2
Europe worries more about uppers than downers, it's more about one's impact on others.


RE: Brilliant!
By PrinceGaz on 11/2/2010 2:13:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
After alcohol, heroin, and crack cocaine, the next worse drugs were crystal methamphetamine and powder cocaine.


RE: Brilliant!
By SPOOFE on 11/2/2010 3:00:50 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
but the majority of alchohol consumers don't abuse the product.

They don't have to "abuse" it, necessarily, in order for it to be harmful. And the difference between the number of regular heroin users and regular alcohol users is at least a couple orders of magnitude.

Again, I think you're falling into the trap of "moderate mental image of legal drug users" and "extreme mental image of illegal drug users". Many alcoholics are in much worse straits, health- and social-wise, than some meth or heroin or cocaine users.


RE: Brilliant!
By BaronMatrix on 11/2/2010 3:39:34 PM , Rating: 2
They do mention speed later in the article, but I think you're ALL missing the point. OF course, you will die faster from overusing Heroine or cocaine, but most people pass out or are incapacitated with those drugs.

Bars are full of reasons why alcohol is worse. How many heroin addicts start fights or are physically and verbally abusive? Because of the illegality of heroin you won't see lots of heroin-addicts driving high.

And I don't know how heroin or cocaine affects you in the morning but I know that alcohol makes it MUCH harder to get up in the morning. They are all about tied for physical problems, though alcohol causes much greater mental\physical deterioration during use.

Junkies just pass out or hang floating in the air. Drunks stumble through windows and become belligerent.( Yes, I've been belligerent while intoxicated.)


RE: Brilliant!
By SPOOFE on 11/2/2010 4:20:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
most people pass out or are incapacitated with those drugs.

Ehhh... cocaine users will be awake for a long time and feel like superman. It can make them quite the handful. Heroin users will be incapacitated by their drug, but being off it will make them irritable, potentially violent, disoriented, hallucinate, etc. Similar to the delirium tremens of alcoholics waiting for their fix.

quote:
And I don't know how heroin or cocaine affects you in the morning but I know that alcohol makes it MUCH harder to get up in the morning.

Much the same with the other drugs you mention. Coke in particular can leave a person feeling completely bereft of energy or significant thoughts. Heroin can cause physical pain and nausea if the subject is in withdrawal.


RE: Brilliant!
By michael67 on 11/4/2010 11:08:33 AM , Rating: 3
First of all I have to say, noting is black and white, specially when it comes to drugs.

I hate the arguments of people use about this subject, miss quote ore do quote digging to spice up there point, that only know there equal in how creationist that do.

And first of all don't take my stand of legalizing all drugs, as being the same as promoting them, its mouths more a stand for having control over them, I come from a family that is on my fathers side all borderline alcoholics (alcoholism can be genetic family trade) if it was not from there strong old fashion upbringing that people should work hard, still one uncle died from alcohol abuse.

I actually come from a country (Holland) that has legalized cannabis for years now.

And i can see overall more real world benefits from it, than down side's, and so we have only fight the drugs that are deemed destructive to society.

The first thing that happened when separating and categorizing the different drugs types was, is that for the less dangerous drug the police would only give a slap on the wrist if you get caught whit it, when you have to mouths whit you, and you have to be more afraid of the tax system then the criminal system if you sell over a certain amount, so you don't see dealers of soft drugs selling hard drugs, its just to dangerous for them.

And even do we legalized cannabis we are the Nr2 spender per head on drug enforcement in Europe, after Sweden, do Sweden having less then half the amount of people that Holland got, they have almost twice the amount of drug deaths, and problems related to drugs.
But then Holland spends almost half of that budget on education about drugs, and taking care of edicts, so we spend more on it, but save also a lot of money from the side affects.

We even had a trail whit giving heroin edicts, free heroin, do they had to stop it because of all the back lash from other country's, and a cardinal from the Vatican was even saying on television that this was the works of the devil.

The main problem is whit junkies is that there crimes are really costly (braking a window of a car to steel something worth $10 leaving $500 amount of damage to the car) and have also huge impact on the feeling of safety to a neighborhood, of all criminals they are the most destructive, because they are driven not by reason but by need, next to that, junkies have huge destructive impact to there family.

Do the results of the test whit 50 heroin drug edicts over a 2 year period was telling a hole other story, about 80% of the junkies could mange, to stop being a criminal, and stop being a destructive criminal force to society, more then half of them even could keep a job whit support (intensive in the beginning) of government and non profit support organizations.
And about a 30% could because they did not have there whole daily routine evolved around “ware do I get the money for my next fix” ware because they lived in a more stable citation be able to even get clean.

Overall even including the cost to tax payers of the program, if it would be done nation wide would be that cost to society would be reduced by a factor of between 10 to 20x if all factors ware to taken in to account.

Other benefits would be that if the state would give heroin (ore other drugs) on free subscription the junkies get a less dangerous product, but even more important, it would take the heroin trade out of the hands of criminals, and make it less accessible to new users!
Doctor will not subscribe a new subscription to a kid that comes to the doctor, “hey doc give me some heroin I hear its cool”, so even if a friend is a junkie he will not give his heroin to him, try it out its cool as he needs it him self.

Now on the subject of why alcohol is so mouths worse then cannabis, I don't know anyone that is addicted to cannabis in a way that destroyed there way of function in society compared to alcoholics.

And then the myth that cannabis is the road to doing hard drugs only is true if you criminalize cannabis the same way you do hard drugs.

As in Dutch sociality, its ok to drink, its ok to do xtc if you going to a party, and its ok to get stoned some times, as most drugs get used on the weekend, but you are seen as a real loser if you use hard drugs, ore let them control you so that you cant do your job right.

Now I live in Norway thats very similar to Sweden and that has also very strict rules, and all drugs are bad, but a wile a go I was in town whit a friend that likes a joint once in a wile, and I went whit him to get some weed, found out that the same guy selling weed was also selling cocaine and literally any other drug I would like to have if I had given him some time.
(guise what even being one of the riches countries in the world they have the same problems as Sweden)

Maybe its just me, but I prefer the model ware my kids cant get hard drugs from the same guy that sells them there cannabis, because chances are real good of what ever I say, that they are going to try it out!

You properly cant see it in your own region thats why I added the torrents, this is one of the beter documentaries about narcotics.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/our-drugs-war
http://torrent.zoink.it/Ch4.Our.Drugs.War.1of3.Eve...
http://torrent.zoink.it/Ch4.Our.Drugs.War.2of3.The...
http://torrent.zoink.it/Ch4.Our.Drugs.War.3of3.Bir...

Also just imagine what the benefits would be if all the drugs ware given only by doctor subscription.
In one go, you would:

1. Decriminalize drug trade and you take away all the profits of the cartels.
2. You get writ of the circle ware drug users are in so they can easier get out of it.
3. Because you bring it in a legal system you can prevent new users from getting in to it. (you have to be a known user to get subscription)
4. Think of all the savings it will bring because you have to enforce less (90% of the problems in the hood are drug related, and Mexico has literally got sorta civil war going on whit the cartels for control of the country)
5. Take away a lot of criminality. (the harder and dangerous you make a crime, the higher the stakes will be, and the tings people are willing to do to get there money)


RE: Brilliant!
By bandstand124 on 11/5/2010 11:22:46 AM , Rating: 2
I hope you are, like, 12 years old because your reading comprehension is absolutely atrocious.

Alcohol is the reason the ER is packed out on the weekend, the mornings as well as the evenings.

Alcohol kills, sickens millions.

Alcohols costs people their jobs, friends and family.

Yet this report does not recommend banning it but acknowledges we are stuck with it.

What this report does recommend is decreasing the criminality of certain drugs that do no harm and the hypocrisy of limiting peoples freedom to use drugs that are much safer than the ones that are already legal.

BTW, US could do with some socialism. Some people work 7 days a week for nothing more than food and shelter. Even the slaves of Rome had days off! Your attitude is leading you and your fellows to ruin.


RE: Brilliant!
By cjohnson2136 on 11/3/2010 1:32:48 PM , Rating: 2
I would agree with you about heroine and crack being worse but i think the point of the article and correct me if im wrong is the fact that alcohol can be just as devastating because it is legal and has easier access to it.


RE: Brilliant!
By thurston on 11/1/2010 7:19:33 PM , Rating: 4
I would say, "Son, I would much rather you just smoke marijuana than drink alcohol, smoke crack or shoot heroin."


RE: Brilliant!
By akaproteus on 11/1/2010 7:24:27 PM , Rating: 5
Assume 40% of us were alcoholics and 1% were heroin addicts. (I made those numbers up). Which drug would you rank as the most dangerous?


RE: Brilliant!
By B3an on 11/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: Brilliant!
By joex444 on 11/1/2010 9:07:27 PM , Rating: 5
Think they tried banning it once. Heard it didn't go so well.


RE: Brilliant!
By thurston on 11/1/2010 9:21:25 PM , Rating: 5
About as well as banning any other drug has went.


RE: Brilliant!
By SPOOFE on 11/1/2010 10:17:39 PM , Rating: 4
Are they calling for a ban on alcohol, or suggesting that maybe we're wasting our money trying to enforce a ban on certain other substances? Do you like wasting money? I don't like wasting money.


RE: Brilliant!
By spamreader1 on 11/2/2010 9:11:23 AM , Rating: 2
Wasting money like this study you mean?


RE: Brilliant!
By SPOOFE on 11/2/2010 3:03:53 PM , Rating: 3
If they had done this study forty years ago, we would have saved hundreds of billions of dollars that's been wasted on the War on Drugs. Sounds fiscally sound to me.


RE: Brilliant!
By YashBudini on 11/4/2010 1:18:07 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yes of course, when armed with facts politicians go out and do what's best for the people.

Wow, was that a scientific conclusion in Simpleton-ville.


RE: Brilliant!
By saintkamus on 11/1/2010 11:13:00 PM , Rating: 2
You are retarded...

When you run someone over under the influence you go to jail end of story. it's his own damn fault for putting himself under the influence in the first place.

I drink every now and then, i don't go over running people, and i shouldn't have my right to having some drinks because of those people.

Same goes for drugs, they should be legal. And anyone that commits an offense while under the influence should be punished the same way we punish those drunken idiots.

To suggest that it should be banned means you have no clue what is going on south of your borders.
30,000 people dead because of cartels fighting over who gets to sell drugs illegally.
get your head around that fact before you say that something should be banned.

Basically it's like saying "yeah, 30,000 violent murders are bad... but people doing drugs is much worse!" (which guess what, they already use. AND they get it from these assholes)

It's 30,000 murders because of that in the last 3 years. not to mention the fact that the money these cartels make is used to fund what can only be described as terrorism in Mexico at this point.
There's a huge surge of kidnappings by organized crime, armed robberies, extortions to just about every business operating in Mexico, armed car jackings.
The list goes on.
And most of this crime is only possible because of how much money they make from drugs in the first place.

These aren't simple street gangs either, the amount of money they make means they operate in a very organized way, comparable to the military.

So understand this:
Using drugs, alcohol, smoking, etc. is bad for your health.
But you can't go around telling adults what they can, and can't do when there's nothing morally wrong with it (this isn't child rape, it's them doing what ever the hell they want to get high)

So, basically, drugs should be sold to adults only, just like alcohol. (even though we know this doesn't really work, it's the best we can do)

Because as it is right now, people that are buying using drugs are treated as criminals, they put themselves at risk by buying the substances from shady dealers, and the drugs they buy might even be mixed with even deadlier substances to dilute them.

With drugs being legal at least they'd have the piece of mind of getting what they paid for, and not worried about being chased like a criminal because of their recreation practices.

This isn't a criminal issue, it's a health issue.
Just slap some warnings on those drugs, with pictures even, of what they will do to you if you use them. And that's the best you can do, educate the public.

So yeah, if you want stuff like that being illegal, i suggest you move to Mexico and experience just what it means to make things like that illegal, i guarantee you'll change your mind after a few months of living here in Mexico.
Or if you don't want to see the mayhem for yourself, read some history books on what prohibition did to Chicago.


RE: Brilliant!
By robert5c on 11/2/10, Rating: 0
RE: Brilliant!
By Iaiken on 11/2/2010 10:05:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
'm not going to point out every way that your wrong.

but my government needs to protect me


Do you realize how stupid you sound? The government can no better protect you from getting hit by lightning than from getting hit by a drunk driver.

quote:
because we have good security


HAHAHAHAHAHA! Wow... That's why estimates state that only about 9% of all opiates and cocaine are intercepted before they can be sold on the streets.

Find all the drug dealers, find all the terrorists? Hell, you guys can't even find all the Mexicans. :P

lol! Good security...


RE: Brilliant!
By guffwd13 on 11/2/2010 10:46:47 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
but my government needs to protect me


well then i suppose the government should outlaw driving privileges since sober drivers kill more people in the US than anything else.

seriously it makes no sense to ban something that mullions upon mullions of people enjoy and consume responsibly because a few thousand people are too stupid to function.

does it affect the lives of the innocent? yes and its very unfortunate. but making a mistake on the road kills other innocent motorists/pedestrians/bicyclists too. the problem isn't alcohol, its the car. too many people are driving that shouldn't be.

here's one: invest more money into computer-controlled automobiles: no more sober or drunk deaths!


RE: Brilliant!
By SPOOFE on 11/2/2010 3:08:53 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
but my government needs to protect me

The courts disagree. That's why you can't sue the police if they don't show up on time.

YOU are responsible for your safety, and nobody else.

quote:
yea cause our jails are not full already

With an inordinate number of marijuana users, yes. Intelligent drug laws would have had a different result.

quote:
and punishment sure has been doing alot

Punishment works in a lot of ways, just not when someone gets ten years for smoking a doobie. People don't respect nonsensical laws or extremely harsh punishments. Gun crime, on the other hand, has seen near-universal, 'cross-the-board drops when mandatory extra sentencing was attached to commission of a crime with a firearm.


RE: Brilliant!
By robert5c on 11/2/2010 1:48:37 AM , Rating: 2
to your point about people not making it obvious that they are on another drug, its generally because they know the drug they are on is illegal, and so they lay low, however being intoxicated with alcohol is allowed or in the cases where its not has much less severe penalties, therefore people are not as secretive about its use.

to the other point, i much rather society stay drunk then high...some in society will always abuse something, having everything banned will only increase the use of other drugs. now that everything is illegal might as well go for the hard stuff.

this actually makes a good case for keeping marijuana illegal. sure its not that bad right now, but if its use gets anywhere close to tobacco or alcohol use it will impact society as a whole this bad, probably worse.


RE: Brilliant!
By SPOOFE on 11/2/2010 3:13:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
but if its use gets anywhere close to tobacco or alcohol use it will impact society as a whole this bad, probably worse.

There is no basis in reality to support your assertion:

-There is no link between lung cancer and marijuana, despite marijuana being more carcinogenic per "serving" than tobacco.

-Being high does not impair one's ability to, say, control a motor vehicle on any level even close to alcohol. Some studies have found that regular pot smokers are safer drivers than completely sober people.

-Nobody has ever died from smoking too much marijuana. It's just, essentially, physically impossible. One would have to hit and inhale an entire ounce's worth of THC.

Then we have to take a look at the fact that there's no indication that legalization will significantly increase use. Just about anyone that wants it can get it. You're just spreading extremely baseless FUD.


RE: Brilliant!
By cjohnson2136 on 11/3/2010 1:45:18 PM , Rating: 2
I was actually hoping Prop 19 in California would have passed so we could have seen the results of having legal pot somewhere, but sadly we won't see tht today.


RE: Brilliant!
By raumkrieger on 11/1/2010 6:34:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Epic fail, science community.

If this guy is a scientist, then I'm a bloody <random animal>.


RE: Brilliant!
By JediJeb on 11/1/2010 6:58:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Epic fail, science community.


I have to disagree somewhat. I think your point about taking the impact and looking at them with equal number of users was taken into account in the study. That is why alcohol is higher up the list than heroin. If there were as many users of heroin as alcohol then the results would have had it at the top of the list. The study not only looks at what the drug can do, but on what scale it is doing its particular damage. There is more accuracy here than many want to admit.

Also, of the ones calling the study bogus, how many of you use alcohol on a regular basis? Could that be introducing some bias into the opinions on the study?


RE: Brilliant!
By SPOOFE on 11/1/2010 7:03:27 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
There is more accuracy here than many want to admit.

Drunks hate being called drunks, especially when they're drunk. And it's a proven scientific fact that 90% of Dailytech readers are raging alcoholics. :D


RE: Brilliant!
By DNAgent on 11/2/2010 9:18:27 AM , Rating: 2
And statistics never lie!


RE: Brilliant!
By putergeek00 on 11/2/2010 9:56:53 AM , Rating: 2
Reminds me of one of my favorite Dilberts of all time! http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-05-08/


RE: Brilliant!
By SPOOFE on 11/1/2010 7:01:09 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
If heroine use was as widespread as alcohol consumption, the human era would be over, with us reduced to junkie gutter trash and warring cartels.

You make the assumption that illegality is the only thing keeping people off smack. I assure you, the drug's objective effects are what preclude your fantasy from becoming reality.


RE: Brilliant!
By thurston on 11/1/2010 7:16:35 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of people make that assumption, but it is not true. If someone wants to try an illegal drug they will, illegal drugs are not hard to get. Ask any teenager which is harder to get, alcohol or an illegal drug? Drug dealers don't ask for ID.


RE: Brilliant!
By Reclaimer77 on 11/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Brilliant!
By thurston on 11/1/2010 8:12:22 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Prove to me that legalizing drugs won't have the same result.


Prove that it will. Do you really think society would have as many people doing heroin as alcohol if only it were legal?

Illegal drugs are not hard to get. I've never done heroin in my life but if I wanted to right now I would have no trouble getting some.

I would have figured that someone opposed to big government such as yourself would be for the legalization of drugs. Why should big government be able to tell anyone what they can or cannot put in their bodies? Maybe we should outlaw sugar, diabetes complications kill many people every year.


RE: Brilliant!
By Reclaimer77 on 11/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Brilliant!
By Gzus666 on 11/1/2010 8:36:07 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Even if it's only ONE more person, do we really need more people on heroin? I don't understand.


Appeal to emotion, stop being stupid. We don't need alcoholics either, but they are all over. If you don't have a legit reason for your stance, just say so and I think people may actually respect you more.

quote:
OR the very first time you try to "get some", you get busted. And please, don't tell me that doesn't happen. If drug users were THAT smart, jails wouldn't be full of them.


Explain to me how that deters people who actually want to do heroin? There are countries in Europe that don't enforce drug laws and have less addicts than us by proportion, so reality proves you wrong as usual. I am amazed by people like yourself who are so steadfastly ignorant and so caught up in your own BS to see things from all angles. Stop pressing your stupid beliefs on everyone and come with facts, no one cares what you believe or think, only cold hard facts.


RE: Brilliant!
By Reclaimer77 on 11/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: Brilliant!
By SPOOFE on 11/2/2010 3:19:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This isn't a "cold hard fact" type of topic anyway.

Yes, it is. The cold hard fact is that our laws are off-balance.

quote:
And Europe has been Defining Deviancy Down for decades now, no surprise.

As opposed to Defining Deviancy Up? Marijuana got banned to keep the black man "in his place". Hell, LSD didn't get banned 'til, what, 1963? Does that mean acid was just hunky-dory before that?

Do you really think a stupid piece of paper is all it takes to make something "good" into something "bad"?

No, you're being an apologist for bad drug laws. The deviancy isn't being defined down, it's being redefined. And it didn't start with drug legalization, it started when people started to see how awful alcohol abuse can be. It wasn't until the past twenty or thirty years that people really began to take it seriously.


RE: Brilliant!
By thurston on 11/2/2010 9:13:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
1963?


1966


RE: Brilliant!
By YashBudini on 11/2/2010 10:47:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even if it's only ONE more person, do we really need more people on heroin? I don't understand.

There's seems to be a lot more effort put into avoiding the answer than to just saying no.

quote:
Appeal to emotion, stop being stupid. We don't need alcoholics either, but they are all over. If you don't have a legit reason for your stance, just say so and I think people may actually respect you more.


Oh so 2 wrongs make a right, now that's scientific and logical. Doesn't get any more legit than that.


RE: Brilliant!
By YashBudini on 11/2/2010 11:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even if it's only ONE more person, do we really need more people on heroin? I don't understand.

I'd like to see a cops viewpoint on this subject.

+1 for you, emotional or not, the message got through while others could not get past the messenger.


RE: Brilliant!
By wordsworm on 11/1/2010 8:37:21 PM , Rating: 5
You should check out the program in Switzerland. A couple of things to think about.

If you are an addict and you want to quit, in Switzerland they'll help you. In the rest of the world, they'll do everything they can to keep you going on it. In Switzerland, when there is a medical issue related to taking the drug, the people are already in a clinic and can get immediate attention. Everywhere else, not so good. In Switzerland, heroin addicts don't have to sell their bodies or commit crimes to feed their habits. Everywhere else, it costs a lot, and people will do what they must to get it. Finally, a drug dealer will cut the drug with all kinds of nasty stuff to increase profit. At the pharmacies in Switzerland, they don't do that.

Legalizing all drugs is the right thing to do. It decreases crime, makes parks safer (since the addicts don't have to hide in there to use or look for folks to rob), it improves quality of life for everyone. I could go on. But my point is that legalizing drugs in a careful way makes an awful lot of sense. Even heroin ought to be legal.


RE: Brilliant!
By freeagle on 11/2/2010 10:07:55 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Legalizing all drugs is the right thing to do


True.

First of all, if someone is an addict, he already has a lot of problems, making him a criminal just makes it worse. Which in turn increases his problems, probably makes him wanting the drug more, which criminalizes him more and so on...

Second, drugs are not the problem. Problem is, that people want to use drugs. Yes, getting totally rid of heroine ( extremely hard to do ) will get rid of heroine addicts. Does it prevent them from becoming addicted to something else? No.

Third, legalization not only brings money in ( which can then be used to fight the problem ), it also gives you a lot more control over the drug market. Much more than you have now, with almost everything being illegal.

But, you know, "think about the children..."


RE: Brilliant!
By SPOOFE on 11/1/2010 8:38:45 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
do we really need more people on heroin?

Not every heroin user ends up like Jared Leto in Requiem for a Dream. Just as there are functional drinkers, there are also functional dopers. This is not an endorsement, mind you.


RE: Brilliant!
By thurston on 11/1/2010 8:43:50 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Even if it's only ONE more person, do we really need more people on heroin?


No more so than we need more people using alcohol. Where did you get that I said we need more drug users?

quote:
If drug users were THAT smart, jails wouldn't be full of them.


I guess by that logic if black people were as smart as white people their wouldn't be such an unproportionally large black population in prison.

quote:
I'm really getting tired of people taking the cheapshot of turning my beliefs in on myself in order to ram through their argument.


I think you're just upset because it shows what a hypocrite you are.


RE: Brilliant!
By Reclaimer77 on 11/2/2010 12:23:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I think you're just upset because it shows what a hypocrite you are.


I don't think that word means what you think it means. If I WAS on hard drugs, saying what I just said, THEN I would be a hypocrite.

To clarify, I'm personally against this "War on Drugs". I'm against billions of tax dollars spent to stop millions in drugs. I'm against it being used to carte blanche expand government power over the citizen in the extreme. I'm not even convinced we NEED a DEA, at least not one this massively funded and empowered. I think drugs should still be illegal, but I think what you do in your own home or whatever, within reason, is your business.

I think we shifted from protecting society, the original reason you ban substances, to labeling people and going on witch hunts. We need to get back to a more sensible approach.

That way the worst of the worst, those who negatively impact society, harm others, and blatantly break laws get busted. Joe Schmo everyday user, well /shrug Life and Liberty and all that.


RE: Brilliant!
By thurston on 11/2/2010 9:20:19 PM , Rating: 2
I know what the word means.

I just don't think you are capable of comprehending why you are a hypocrite. You seem to be in favor of freedom to do anything as long as it's what you want, but fuck anything that anyone else wants.


RE: Brilliant!
By YashBudini on 11/2/2010 10:52:16 PM , Rating: 2
Not totally. If you want to jump off a cliff feel free, but many won't be joining you.

But just the same aren't you glad your mom didn't use drugs while she was pregnant with you? Or am I assuming too much?


RE: Brilliant!
By SPOOFE on 11/3/2010 2:50:35 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
If you want to jump off a cliff feel free

The issue is that it's considered okay to jump off some cliffs and not others.

quote:
aren't you glad your mom didn't use drugs while she was pregnant with you?

Our ignorant drug laws have INCREASED the rate of pregnant women using drugs.

Not sure you have a point other than the one atop your head.


RE: Brilliant!
By YashBudini on 11/3/2010 2:22:58 PM , Rating: 2
I was assuming too much.

So sorry.


RE: Brilliant!
By YashBudini on 11/2/2010 10:59:07 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If drug users were THAT smart, jails wouldn't be full of them.

Jails are filling up with felong DWI and drug users. What do they have in common? They all hired the wrong lawyer. You'll never afford the right one at $14/hour.


RE: Brilliant!
By SPOOFE on 11/3/2010 2:52:14 AM , Rating: 2
What do they NOT have in common? DWI convictees had to do something other than take a drug, whilst many of the drug users in prison did nothing but.


RE: Brilliant!
By YashBudini on 11/3/2010 1:06:01 PM , Rating: 2
Your segregation speaks for itself.


RE: Brilliant!
By YashBudini on 11/2/2010 12:11:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Prove that it will.

Pick up a history book and see what the US was like just before so many drugs like cocaine and heroin became illegal. Why the hell does history have to repeat itself?


RE: Brilliant!
By SPOOFE on 11/2/2010 1:18:51 AM , Rating: 4
I don't know what you think is attributable to cocaine or heroin prior to its ban. Could you outline some of these cause-effect relationships you seem to allude to?


RE: Brilliant!
By YashBudini on 11/2/2010 10:43:01 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know what part of history alludes you. Just because science hasn't proven it doesn't automatically make it not real. Anything science hasn't proven remains just that, unproven.


RE: Brilliant!
By SPOOFE on 11/2/2010 3:24:10 PM , Rating: 2
Your statement makes no sense.


RE: Brilliant!
By YashBudini on 11/2/2010 10:26:08 PM , Rating: 2
Sadly, I have no doubt you believe that.


RE: Brilliant!
By SPOOFE on 11/3/2010 2:53:26 AM , Rating: 2
What I believe (or don't believe) won't change the fact that you seem preternaturally incapable of expressing a single salient thought.


RE: Brilliant!
By YashBudini on 11/3/2010 1:14:51 PM , Rating: 2
So sorry I chose not to be limited to your little private Idaho of a vacuum tube scientific world where everything not proven to your satisfaction does not exist.


RE: Brilliant!
By YashBudini on 11/2/2010 10:54:09 AM , Rating: 2
Back in the 1970's scientists stated you can't become chemically dependent on coke. BFD, tell that to those who became psychologically addicted.


RE: Brilliant!
By SPOOFE on 11/2/2010 3:26:54 PM , Rating: 2
Cocaine was illegal in 1970. And their statements have been substantiated by later studies, indicating that cocaine is not a physical addiction but an intense psychological addiction, much as how people can become addicted to television or World of Warcraft. You seem dismissive of the findings, despite the fact that it's very important to know the nature of an addiction if you are to treat it.

So far you've made no sense whatsoever. I only mention this on the off-chance that you desire to, in which case: You're doing it wrong.


RE: Brilliant!
By YashBudini on 11/2/2010 10:33:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You seem dismissive of the findings, despite the fact that it's very important to know the nature of an addiction if you are to treat it.

A more reasonable comprehension of what I said would understand it's the one who's addicted who would be dismissive of the findings. At the time the implication of the findings was that it was not addictive.

We see here an excellent example of why eye-witness testimony is becoming irrelevent in US courts. No need for a urine test from you.


RE: Brilliant!
By SPOOFE on 11/3/2010 2:57:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A more reasonable comprehension of what I said would understand it's the one who's addicted who would be dismissive of the findings.

That's the opposite of reasonable. I don't think you're saying what you want to say.

quote:
At the time the implication of the findings was that it was not addictive.

False. There is no implication: They outright state that addiction to cocaine is markedly different than addiction to heroin or alcohol.

quote:
We see here an excellent example of why eye-witness testimony is becoming irrelevent in US courts.

If you're competing to squeeze the greatest number of inaccurate statements in a single post, you're on the right track.


RE: Brilliant!
By YashBudini on 11/3/2010 2:11:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
False. There is no implication: They outright state that addiction to cocaine is markedly different than addiction to heroin or alcohol.

The "scientific" conclusion of what the average guy got out of it.

quote:
They outright state that addiction to cocaine is markedly different than addiction to heroin or alcohol.

And your continued arrogance the addict gives a damn about the differences you stated.


RE: Brilliant!
By YashBudini on 11/2/2010 12:13:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why should big government be able to tell anyone what they can or cannot put in their bodies?

Send the DEA a letter you're going to take cyanide, see if they care.


RE: Brilliant!
By Nutzo on 11/2/2010 10:51:40 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is always, legalize it for whom?

Just adults aver 21?
How about over 18?
What about pregnant women?
What about airline pilots? Brain surgeons? Big Rig drivers?

What do you do to someone who gives/sells legal drugs to a minor?

If you want to blame someone for the drug violence in Mexico, blame the drug USERS.
If they didn’t use, there would be no market, and no drug cartels. Using illegal drugs is the ultimate selfish act. Users don’t care what it does to others, to other countries or even themselves, all they care about is the feeling they get from being high.


RE: Brilliant!
By freeagle on 11/2/2010 11:12:40 AM , Rating: 2
And you are selfish when you dont want them to do so because it collides with your world


RE: Brilliant!
By SPOOFE on 11/2/2010 3:30:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If they didn’t use, there would be no market, and no drug cartels.

Irrelevant statement: They DO use, and there IS a market, and there ARE drug cartels. Deal with reality, not fantasy.

quote:
Using illegal drugs is the ultimate selfish act.

So? Why can't people be selfish? People should act selfish. There's something wrong with those that don't.


RE: Brilliant!
By SPOOFE on 11/1/2010 8:34:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No but it's a big factor, no denying that.

I can deny it plenty. I will go so far as to assert that I believe that fewer people want to be doped on opiates than want to be buzzed or drunk.


RE: Brilliant!
By priusone on 11/1/2010 8:22:56 PM , Rating: 5
If "suicide" or "murder" was as widespread as alcohol consumption, the human era would be over. Sadly "stupidity" is as widespread as alcohol consumption, point in case, your comment.

I know lots of people who would just assume bite down on the barrel of a shotgun than take heroin or cocaine. Sure, there are people addicted to all sorts of things; chocolate, sex, drama, pain, you name it. For the majority of us, eating a few cupcakes may lead to lifelong cravings, but a sandwich usually fixes the problem. Yum, cupcakes.

Government agencies like to say that substances like ecstasy, marijuana and magic mushrooms are 'gateway drugs'. Well, how does a person get a hold of such substances? Probably from someone who has access to much harsher drugs. That friendly drug peddler may even lace the their drugs with stronger ones. When you go to the store to buy beer does the clerk offer you some crack? No, they just stick the beer in a brown paper bag.

A dear friend of mine went to a bar with some friends on her birthday, got completely wasted and during a brief period where her friends couldn't find her, ended up in a vacant lot next door with her pants ripped off. They should do a study on which drugs have lead to the most rapes. Sure, steroids lead to violence, but I know lots of people who have gone to bars with the specific purpose of getting into a fight.

I grew up during the whole "DARE" campaign and was very weary of any drug. Was told that drinking alcohol would turn me into an alcohol and the caffeine in coffee is highly addictive. I spent six years in the Army, as while there was a lot of alcohol consumption in 'permanent party', I somehow dodged the addiction bullet. Sadly, a lot of Joes didn't.

Call this study retarded all you want, but we are being force fed a bunch of lies about drugs.


RE: Brilliant!
By GodLovesPunk on 11/1/2010 11:10:10 PM , Rating: 2
Well put.


RE: Brilliant!
By YashBudini on 11/2/2010 11:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
caffeine in coffee is highly addictive

OK, but whats the most worst thing a person has done during caffeine withdrawal?

Addressing only some variables is not useful.


RE: Brilliant!
By SPOOFE on 11/3/2010 3:03:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Addressing only some variables is not useful.

We KNOW you're not useful.


RE: Brilliant!
By YashBudini on 11/3/2010 1:18:20 PM , Rating: 2
Is that tactic part of your learned scientific process?

A role model of assured objectivity?

So pathetic.


RE: Brilliant!
By YashBudini on 11/3/2010 2:40:13 PM , Rating: 2
Hey Reclaimer77, give this guy the ad hominem speech, you do a good job with that.


RE: Brilliant!
By vanionBB on 11/1/2010 6:09:24 PM , Rating: 2
With the time it took to read this article I could have browsed porn, or voted, or done something productive at work. I have been cheated, don't let this happen to you!!!


RE: Brilliant!
By thurston on 11/1/2010 7:07:08 PM , Rating: 2
A better analogy would be guns are the most dangerous weapons in existence. While on a per-use basis nuclear weapons are considered more deadly.

I personally think all drugs should be legal. A raging drunk is no less difficult to deal with than a crackhead.


RE: Brilliant!
By nvalhalla on 11/1/2010 7:55:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hey, this drug people have been drinking for 10,000 years is the most harmful drug in the world!

In completely unrelated news, I am devolping an alternative for alcohol!


RE: Brilliant!
By Hiawa23 on 11/1/2010 8:41:46 PM , Rating: 1
Weed should be legalized cause if you want it now you can easily get it & the money wasted policing could be turned into profit. Tax it, put some people back to work planting it, & wallah. They are not stopping anyone who wants it now from getting it now.


RE: Brilliant!
By foolsgambit11 on 11/2/2010 9:08:38 PM , Rating: 2
That's the problem - measuring individual problems from drug use is (relatively) quantifiable and fair. But societal problems from drug use are relative, not just to an individual society's values, but much more importantly, to the extent of use in the society, since these woes increase non-linearly with extent of use, whereas individual woes only increase linearly.

Ultimately, it's the wording of the conclusion of the report that seems faulty. It is very likely that, overall, alcohol does more damage to society than cocaine or heroin right now. But that doesn't mean it is more dangerous - a wording which would imply an evaluation made on an even footing.


RE: Brilliant!
By SPOOFE on 11/2/2010 10:14:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But that doesn't mean it is more dangerous

It doesn't mean that, all else being equal, it is more dangerous. It DOES mean that the detrimental impact to a society is greater, and in that sense it is more dangerous.


RE: Brilliant!
By sokmo on 11/2/2010 9:27:16 PM , Rating: 2
dude

you're missing the whole point.

and the same goes to ppl who rated u.

i bother not explaining social study to the likes of you.


Thread Logic
By YashBudini on 11/2/2010 10:38:40 PM , Rating: 2
Since guns have killed more US civilians living in the US than gernades then lets pass out gernades to all who want them.




RE: Thread Logic
By SPOOFE on 11/3/2010 3:05:39 AM , Rating: 2
Took you all day to think of this? Did it hurt?

Are you suggesting there are those in this thread insisting that we start handing out heroin to all who wants it? I'd like to see you cite that comment.


RE: Thread Logic
By YashBudini on 11/3/2010 1:20:48 PM , Rating: 2
Scientific objectivity hard at work or just " Spoofe d?"


RE: Thread Logic
By YashBudini on 11/3/2010 2:17:33 PM , Rating: 2
Oh its SPOOFE all upper case, wow that means you must be telling the truth.
</scientific conclusion>


RE: Thread Logic
By Skywalker123 on 11/3/2010 4:19:39 PM , Rating: 2
Don't know what a "gernade" is but if you mean grenades, put me down for a couple cases.


RE: Thread Logic
By YashBudini on 11/3/2010 5:04:11 PM , Rating: 2
Finally, a scientific conclusion.

No spell check here, so I dialed 1-800-DAN-QUAYLE


40:1 Ratio in Alcohol Deaths
By boochi on 11/1/2010 7:33:09 PM , Rating: 3
Alcohol kills more than 85,000 people in the U.S. each year.
About 4,500 are killed by Heroin and Cocaine(Including Crack)combined each year in the U.S.. Alcohol is responsible for almost a 40 to 1 ratio over any single illegal drug. However more than 450,000 people are killed each year from 1st and 2nd hand cigarette smoke related illnesses. Marijuana is also responsible for some cancer related deaths but it would be hard to prove how many scientifically.




RE: 40:1 Ratio in Alcohol Deaths
By joex444 on 11/1/2010 9:16:21 PM , Rating: 2
So, alcohol kills 18.9x more people than heroin. Let's round it to 20x.

There's about 600k heroin users in the US... let's round it to 1M to include some "recreational" use even though this is a terribly addictive drug. That means heroin use is more likely to kill you than alcohol use if there are fewer than 20 million people who drink in the US.

Guess what?


RE: 40:1 Ratio in Alcohol Deaths
By SPOOFE on 11/1/2010 11:06:05 PM , Rating: 2
I'd be very surprised if a mere 20 million people regularly consumed alcohol in the United States.


RE: 40:1 Ratio in Alcohol Deaths
By martyrant on 11/1/2010 9:52:36 PM , Rating: 2
It's actually been proven, by rather...let's say creditable sources that marijuana actually can stop cancer cells from reproducing. There's 60 cannabinoids (there may be 62, I can't remember) and we don't rightfully know what all of them do, but we've figured out a few of them, and they are tremendously beneficial. Though I will give you smoking marijuana is not the safest way to do it and the inhalation of crude combustion products is more likely the cause of cancer than marijuana itself.

The article? The facts?

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/59872/t...


So... Alcohol is more dangerous than Lara Croft?
By CharonPDX on 11/1/2010 5:56:26 PM , Rating: 2
Or Wonder Woman? Or Eowyn?

"Heroine" = female form of the word "hero", or a person who works for the greater good, sacrificing their own personal well being.

"Heroin" (no trailing e) = illicit drug derived from morphine, originating with poppies.




RE: So... Alcohol is more dangerous than Lara Croft?
By torpor on 11/1/2010 6:06:10 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, you're exactly right about how Heroin got it's name - it was originally synthesized as a replacement for morphine, hoped to be less addictive.

You can probably guess at how things went in "clinical trials".....

As for alcohol, it's a natural result of what humans had to do to preserve food (beer/wine) for the thousands of years before refrigeration. That makes it a foodstuff, in its way. Nothing else on the list has that background, ergo, nothing else on the list is as widely accpeted.


By ppardee on 11/1/2010 7:37:34 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, alcohol is a natural waste product of yeast, which occur naturally... in nature. The white stuff on grape peel(skin?) is wild yeast feasting on the nummy goodness of the grape sugars, and putting off alcohol (in VERY small quantities) and carbon dioxide.


By CharonPDX on 11/1/2010 8:04:47 PM , Rating: 1
Ah, he fixed it.

The article originally had all instances of "heroin" misspelled as "heroine".


Verifies something I thought
By JediJeb on 11/1/2010 6:51:17 PM , Rating: 3
I always wondered why tobacco was targeted so aggressively while alcohol was left alone when alcohol can be just as bad for the health of a person and far more dangerous socially. Never heard of someone smoking a pack of cigarettes then beating their spouse of children or driving over someone standing on the side of the road, but have heard of those things after someone drinking too much alcohol.

Either can be used in moderation safely, but both can be hard to use in moderation because of their addictive properties. Try to make either illegal and you will have riots on your hands as has been seen during Prohibition in the US, though the targeted attack on tobacco would make its prohibition more accepted. But everyone who likes alcohol should be wary, because thirty years ago nobody would have thought tobacco would be on its way out through regulation the way it is now. Alcohol may be next, because this time the people wanting it gone will take the slower approach because they see how well it can work.




RE: Verifies something I thought
By SPOOFE on 11/1/2010 7:08:28 PM , Rating: 2
I think a lot of motivation for studies like these comes down to perception; since alcohol has "always been there", it's easier to overlook.

But some people are tired of spending money to get rid of something that isn't really harmful compared to some other things. I'm not talking about heroin or cocaine, of course, but a lot of substances on that list just plain shouldn't carry felony possession charges.


What was Professor Nutt smoking?
By serkol on 11/1/2010 8:40:51 PM , Rating: 2
If all people who drank alcohol 10 or more time used cocaine, heroin or other crap the same 10 or more times, their "health issues, injuries, dependency, mental impairment, loss of material wealth, and relationship loss" would be much worse. In my opinion, he is one of those scientists who get lost in numbers and lose common sense...




RE: What was Professor Nutt smoking?
By SPOOFE on 11/2/2010 1:26:10 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
If all people who drank alcohol 10 or more time used cocaine, heroin or other crap the same 10 or more times, their "health issues, injuries, dependency, mental impairment, loss of material wealth, and relationship loss" would be much worse

10 or more times over what time period? In a month? In a day? In a year?

How much cocaine? How much heroin? If someone goes through a gram of cocaine in a week, how many "bad points" is that compared to, say, a couple handles of Jack Daniel's over the same time period?

I'm wondering how many people condemning the stuff actually know a damn thing about it.


Not really !
By Beenthere on 11/2/2010 2:16:15 AM , Rating: 2
Alcohol and tobacco may kill more people but they are not necessarily "more deadly" as in toxic, more powerful or faster acting. You can die real fast with a drug OD whereas it takes quite awhile and a large consumption with alcohol or tobacco.

It would be good ban ignorance and stupidity.




By Thelookingglass on 11/2/2010 11:22:47 AM , Rating: 2
This study takes into consideration current legality of all drugs evaluated.

Personally, I believe addictiveness is the absolute key factor in determining any drugs effects on a person and by extension society.

Heroin is extremely addictive. If it were legal, many of you are right. It would likely cause huge societal problems.

Psilocybin Mushrooms are certainly not addictive. Marijuana is not addictive. It becomes an oral fixation or a ritual but ceasing use does not cause withdrawal effects on the scale of Tobacco, Crack, Heroin, Cocaine, or even Alcohol.

Hallucinogens are still quite dangerous. Anything that affects a persons perspective and mental function to that extent should still be illegal, especially in public.

Marijuana laws are irrational for many reasons. But responsible use is still needed and laws must be drafted to enforce it. In my opinion its use should still be discouraged much like tobacco and alcohol, but making it illegal causes such a burden on the system.




Perilous
By snikt on 11/2/2010 12:43:55 PM , Rating: 2
After reading this article on how dangerous and bad drinking can be, I'm never going to read again.




McDonalds Fries
By The Raven on 11/2/2010 4:23:24 PM , Rating: 2
Why didn't this study include fries from McD's? I think it would've been useful in illustrating the personal danger and societal damage that overeating has. Or use porn, facebook, video games, gambling, etc.

That way it would be easy to see where these drugs fell in the spectrum amongst things that we come in contact with everyday. And that way it would be easy to see how 'damaging and dangerous' these substances are in comparison to other 'damaging and dangerous' things we do as a race.

Looking at the comments it seems that most people are looking at this study with two different POVs.
1) It prompts them to say, "Holy crap! Alcohol is dangerous! Let's ban it!!!"
or
2) It promts them to say, "Weed isn't as bad as alcohol! Let's legalize it!"

Personally I don't think this is a very good way to look at this study. I think this study is useful in seeing the lie of the land as of now, and not an end all to the discussion.
I think it merely should be used to see where we need to focus our efforts in educating people and shaping our socio-political policies. For example, beer is everywhere we look these days and as a society we just lap it up. I think we should see this study and try to change that starting with our own homes and social circles.

For example, whoever started the trend of drinking wine while you take your kids trick or treating? Come on people. You just had to find another place to fit in some drinking, didn't you? Seriously!

---------------------------------

But I must stress that I do not think the gov't should be involved in what people do in their own homes and I don't care if someone wastes their life away in their mom's basement. That just means that some other kid who was down on their luck has a better chance to do something with his life.

Personally, I say legalize it all in a responsible manner. I know that with legitimate businesses behind these drugs they will be marketed to increase sales, but we can also counter act that with educational campaigns. But at least we will have it all out in the open and allow us to better focus on the truely criminal elements out there (rapists, corrupt labor unions, wall street schysters, corrupt politicians) instead of just criminalizing stupidity.

And for those who think this is some radical anti-alcohol/pro-weed organization that funded this, I submit the following from the study to show that it would appear this is mostly unbiased.
quote:
Funding:
Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (UK).

quote:
Conflicts of interest:
DJN and LAK received travel expenses to attend the decision conference meeting. LAK is a consultant to the Department of Health and the EMCDDA. LDP is a director of Facilitations Limited, which paid him a consulting fee because it was the company engaged by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies to run the study and analyse the data.




"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki