07 Mar 11
5 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'd have thought you'd know better than to have drawn such a conclusion by taking a phrase out of context.
Isn't that obvious? If they scored it without taking usage into consideration then its no surprise that it scored worst. It wouldn't surprise me if sugar scored even worse than alcohol. After all, obesity probably kills more people than alcohol does.
Let's put it back in context:
Heroin, crack and crystal meth are deadliest to the individual user, the study showed, but when their wider social effects are taken into account, alcohol is the most damaging, followed by heroin and crack.
Experts said alcohol scored so high because it's so widely used AND has devastating consequences not only for drinkers but for those around them. Excessive drinking damages nearly all organ systems, and is also connected to higher death rates. It's also involved in a greater percentage of crime than most other drugs, including heroin.
Its wide-spread use was only one of SEVERAL factors that influenced the results of the study. The way you pulled the phrase out of context makes it seem as if it were the main if not the only factor. Placed back in context, it's clear that this isn't necessarily the case.
You also could have looked at the results of the study instead of blindly jumping to your conclusion.
It reads in part:
The extent of individual harm is shown by the criteria listed as to users, whereas most criteria listed as to others take account indirectly of the numbers of users...alcohol is an extremely harmful drug, both to users and society; it scored fourth on harms to users and top for harms to society, making it the most harmful drug overall.
Alcohol scored only behind crack cocaine, heroin and metamfetamine in individual harm. Those four scored well above the other 16 drugs which include cocaine, amfetamine, tobacco, cannabis and lsd. Alcohol scored over double that of cannabis in individual harm and over triple that of LSD. What vaulted alcohol above crack, heroin and crystal meth overall was its harm to society where it scored significantly above all the other drugs. So where the writer said, "Experts said alcohol scored so high because it's so widely used", he was referring to its being placed above crack, heroin and crystal meth in the overall score because of its score for harm to society. Even without that it scored significantly above the others.
07 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobI'm guessing you've also known any number of individuals for whom alcohol is a "communal drug". But why ruin RC's story with the facts.
This is one scenario you've painted and then stereotyped everyone who smokes weed to it. Sounds a lot like my life for a 5 year spell though.
What you're neglecting to mention is that many people who smoke weed actaully have a job and a family and get stuff done, they don't sit around getting 'caned' all day. I know numerous people who work 9-5, and ...[text shortened]... home from work and smoke a spliff or two. They then get up the next morning and go to work.
07 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobyes i know, my youngest brother, he runs a successful IT business is like that. I was also in the house of a University lecturer once when he pulled out some 'oil', built a huge splif and smoked it all to himself! Presumable it did not effect his ability to give lectures. I think i did differentiate between this aspect and that of alcohol.
This is one scenario you've painted and then stereotyped everyone who smokes weed to it. Sounds a lot like my life for a 5 year spell though.
What you're neglecting to mention is that many people who smoke weed actaully have a job and a family and get stuff done, they don't sit around getting 'caned' all day. I know numerous people who work 9-5, and ...[text shortened]... home from work and smoke a spliff or two. They then get up the next morning and go to work.
07 Mar 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou've lost me.
yes i know, my youngest brother, he runs a successful IT business is like that. I was also in the house of a University lecturer once when he pulled out some 'oil', built a huge splif and smoked it all to himself! Presumable it did not effect his ability to give lectures. I think i did differentiate between this aspect and that of alcohol.
What exactly are you trying to say here?
07 Mar 11
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneMaybe I didn't have enough context? I don't feel like going and reading the whole study, so I only went on what was posted here.
I'd have thought you'd know better than to have drawn such a conclusion by taking a phrase out of context.
Alcohol scored only behind crack cocaine, heroin and metamfetamine in individual harm. Those four scored well above the other 16 drugs which include cocaine, amfetamine, tobacco, cannabis and lsd. Alcohol scored over double that of cannabis in individual harm and over triple that of LSD. What vaulted alcohol above crack, heroin and crystal meth overall was its harm to society where it scored significantly above all the other drugs. So where the writer said, "Experts said alcohol scored so high because it's so widely used", he was referring to its being placed above crack, heroin and crystal meth in the overall score because of its score for harm to society. Even without that it scored significantly above the others.
I am afraid it is still far from clear as to how alcohol compares to other drugs when used in the same quantities (ie the same number of people using either a little, a lot, or excessively).
07 Mar 11
2 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]If you didn't believe you had enough to go on, then why make a derisive comment like "Isn't that obvious?...It wouldn't surprise me if sugar scored even worse than alcohol" seemingly based on the phrase "Experts said alcohol scored so high because it's so widely used..." which was taken out of context whereby it appears to mean something other than what was intended?
Maybe I didn't have enough context? I don't feel like going and reading the whole study, so I only went on what was posted here.
[b]Alcohol scored only behind crack cocaine, heroin and metamfetamine in individual harm. Those four scored well above the other 16 drugs which include cocaine, amfetamine, tobacco, cannabis and lsd. Alcohol scored over doubl ame quantities (ie the same number of people using either a little, a lot, or excessively).
I am afraid it is still far from clear as to how alcohol compares to other drugs when used in the same quantities (ie the same number of people using either a little, a lot, or excessively).
You've confused me here. No idea what this has to do with the quoted text. No attempt was made to clarify what you believe is lacking. It's phrased as if you had expectations that it should have.
07 Mar 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAgreed.
i smoked weed for ten years Karoly, as much as i could, almost daily, i have also indulged in more amphetamines, hallucinogenics natural and synthetic and other stimulants than i care to mention. What are you trying to say? That weed is good for you? I would have to dispute that, for while there may be medical grounds for its use and even those who ...[text shortened]... it is spiritualist (not to be confused with spirituality), which the Bible naturally prohibits.
I have this thing of being honest with myself and impulses. I dont try to repress anything.
And yes, for certain lifestyles marijuana is good. I have seen it first hand.
My main tenet along these lines is "dilute" . Thats my way of cutting down and quitting , others may have a different method.
07 Mar 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobYou'd better tell that to my home country, Hungary.
Smoking weed all day everyday is certainly not a good thing, just as drinking alcohol all day everyday isn't a good thing. It's only going to end in disaster.
A little alcohol every now and again, with the occassional drinking to excess isn't going to do you any harm, except spending a day with a hangover. Personally, i can't see how applying the same philosophy to marijuana will do you any harm also.
Drinking all day is a very much accepted part of life there for many.
Surprisingly, they're quit fit still
07 Mar 11
1 edit
I'm afraid its the suppression of the way people look rather than actually chasing drugs that the police are worried about in my state of Australia. Admittedly, it is loosening up, to fall in line with other states, but the laws are and will be there for some time to come.
As for categorizing people, thats all these cops do.
The actual three piece suit heroin users spend way more on the stuff than the "bum junkies" on the street. Our western culture has an image to maintain, after all, if tv says so, it must be right. 😛
And yes, people from all walks of life take drugs. Just goto Amsterdam and go into a coffe shop. You see teachers. lawyers, a whole array of straight looking people.
Juxtaposed to this , we have the new spiritual warrior archetype, the ones with the dreads and the tats and the Disturbed or Slipknot t-shirts who dont get into drugs at all and get offended if you ask them for a puff. Hahaha.
08 Mar 11
I don't think it should be the job of government to tell us what intoxicants we can or cannot use. Let the politicians instead just tax drugs based on their cost to society. If nothing else it would take a vast amount of money out of the hands of 'criminals' and make organised crime a far less profitable venture. Pipe-dreams, of course. I suspect that the real problem with marijuana from a government point of view is that it facilitates people opting out of the capitalist ideology.
08 Mar 11
Originally posted by avalanchethecatYes, thats the tip of the iceberg.
I don't think it should be the job of government to tell us what intoxicants we can or cannot use. Let the politicians instead just tax drugs based on their cost to society. If nothing else it would take a vast amount of money out of the hands of 'criminals' and make organised crime a far less profitable venture. Pipe-dreams, of course. I suspect tha ...[text shortened]... government point of view is that it facilitates people opting out of the capitalist ideology.
When the government make laws for ones own safety, they are taking away our human rights as adults.
So when I was a kid I could ride without a helmet, now I have three fines in my mid thirties for no helmet.
Not only is it just revenue raising,(they dont really care if you hurt yourself), it tells people that the government have a right to keep you safe.
Now if the government were in the possesion of the secret to immortality and they said "do this dont do that to yourself to be immortal", then they would have a point, but since we all die, I think ones life should be left for one to do with as they see fit.
I mean suicide is illegal . Think about it🙄