Jump to content

Alcohol more harmful than heroin?

norwaysaint

By norwaysaint,
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

norwaysaint

norwaysaint

Posted
Posted

It's not really worth commenting on unless you bother to read the article, but it's pretty interesting.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660210

 

The modelling exercise concluded that heroin, crack and methylamphetamine, also known as crystal meth, were the most harmful drugs to individuals, but alcohol, heroin and crack cocaine were the most harmful to others.

 

 

When the scores for both types of harm were added together, alcohol emerged as the most harmful drug, followed by heroin and crack.

 

Tobacco and cocaine are judged to be equally harmful, while ecstasy and LSD are among the least damaging.

 

One thing that's certain is that if alcohol and tobacco were discovered now instead of years ago, they would also be illegal drugs.

So should other drugs be made legal if these two are allowed? Or should they be illegal too? Or should we continue with a system where we've chosen two random harmful drugs to be legal?

Also have people who either drink or smoke any real right to look down on other drug users?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted (edited)

How many 'addicts' will carry out burglaries or muggings to get their alcohol / ciggie fix ?

 

How many murders are carried out in tobacco or lager 'turf wars' ?

 

How many third world countries are ravaged by corruption due to beer or cigarette production ?

 

Would any of the above stop if we legalise these substances ?

 

How many people have been killed because the driver of a car was incapacitated by nicotine ?

 

Are this group out to sensationalise something to get publicity ?

Edited by badgerx16
Link to comment
Share on other sites
norwaysaint

norwaysaint

Posted
  • Author
Posted
How many 'addicts' will carry out burglaries or muggings to get their alcohol / ciggie fix ?

 

How many murders are carried out in tobacco or lager 'turf wars' ?

 

How many third world countries are ravaged by corruption due to beer or cigarette production ?

 

Would any of the above stop if we legalise these substances ?

 

They're all good points, but they're all also directly related to whether or not the drugs are legal, not the eefects of the drugs themselves. Outlaw tobacco and alcohol and you would see similar issues arise around them. Hence the questions at the end of the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Smirking_Saint

Smirking_Saint

Posted
Posted
I think all drugs should be legalised. It should be up to the individual. By making drugs illegal all it does is put the supply in the hands of criminals.

 

This, jesus, i am agreeing with Dune :o

 

All making these drugs illegal is doing is forcing them undergorund and removing any chance of properly regulating them, ensuring they are pure and using the money generated to better understand, regulate and rehabilitate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted
I think all drugs should be legalised. It should be up to the individual. By making drugs illegal all it does is put the supply in the hands of criminals.

 

For once I am in total agreement with you dune. It should be down to the individual what substances they choose to ingest, not the state; particularly completely natural ones such as marijuana and magic mushrooms.

 

If all drugs were legalised and controlled correctly (as alcohol and tobacco are) then it would put the criminals who currently make millions from the industry out of business overnight. It could be taxed, bringing money into the exchequer, and it would be much safer as people would be buying their stuff cleanly from licensed outlets rather than from dodgy dealers who will put any old crap in with their merchandise to make up the weight.

 

There really is no sensible, logical argument for continuing with the policy of prohibition. It doesn't work. The war on drugs has been lost, and the 'druggies' have won. Time to accept it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted

If you legalise cocaine & heroin, then surely their production & transportation processes would similarly have to be legalised. What impact would this have on the economies of the countries affected ? How would the 'market' be controlled ? Would you leave it to the free market, or permit production to be nationalised. What effect on other areas of agriculture would this have ? Heaven forbid that Haliburton or some petro-chemical multinational gains control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bridge too far

bridge too far

Posted
Posted

I can't believe there's a subject on which I agree with June!!!!!!

 

I think alcohol is capable of causing more damage to others than either nicotine or drugs (unless DUI of drugs I suppose).

 

Generally nicotine and drugs damage only the user whereas alcohol can cause a lot of damage to others (not just driving but domestic / public violence too).

 

And yes, tax it and cut crime related to the supply as well - and it's not just street dealers, it's big time criminals and governments too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted

If all drugs were legalised, who do you expect to distribute & market them ? Would you permit advertising, as we do far too much with alcohol, or restrict this as with tobacco ? Would it be acceptable for private companies to be able to generate profits from the act of getting people addicted to such products ? ( After all it would be it their interests to get as many people as possible 'hooked' ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joensuu

Joensuu

Posted
Posted

I agree with Dune!!! Blimey, still in shock.

 

Legalising all drugs is the only rational solution IMO. It increases Government revenue (via taxation), while decreasing Government spending (Police, Justice, Prisons etc). It also means supply can be guaranteed as safe (so reduces costs to the NHS). It takes the profits away from criminals (meaning drug-funded crime is reduces). It allows some third-world countries to establish viable economies (meaning, say, Afganistan could legally produce drugs, establishing a real economy in Afganistan, which would undermine efforts by extremists, making both Afganistan, and indirectly the UK, safer places to live.

 

So to summarise: the government would have more money, crime would be reduced, terrorism reduced, the NHS saves money, third world countries are stabilised, and users get safer drugs.

 

Are there any disadvatages? Of course. The biggest one is that there may be an increase in the number of users, however, we don't know whether the total number would increase significantly or not. Let's face it, there are not many people considering whether to start taking heroin who are seriously put off by the legality of the drug... most people just aren't interested, whether legal or not. So my guess is that any increase in usage is likely to be minimal.

 

More importantly perhaps, our relations with America might suffer if we were to take such a radical step forward. This is probably the real reason we haven't taken such a sensible step.

 

For info, a bill to legalise all drugs got considered (but rejected) in Switzerland a few years back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joensuu

Joensuu

Posted
Posted
If all drugs were legalised, who do you expect to distribute & market them ? Would you permit advertising, as we do far too much with alcohol, or restrict this as with tobacco ? Would it be acceptable for private companies to be able to generate profits from the act of getting people addicted to such products ? ( After all it would be it their interests to get as many people as possible 'hooked' ).

 

IMO:

 

Distribution: a NHS drug department (combine support, advice with safe supply).

Advertising: none allowed, the NHS department could focus it's advertising directly on the users rather than scattergun on the general public.

Private companies: Not allowed to sell Class C upwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tpbury

tpbury

Posted
Posted

If alcohol and tobacco disappeared tomorrow, who would die? If the next generation didn't have any exposure to these drugs, would they need them? It is possible to have fun and celebrate without these drugs, but I wonder if it would be better for us all if they were completely eradicated. Don't think alcohol was ever meant to be drunk in bulk. I speak as a frequent user as both!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
IMO:

 

Distribution: a NHS drug department (combine support, advice with safe supply).

Advertising: none allowed, the NHS department could focus it's advertising directly on the users rather than scattergun on the general public.

Private companies: Not allowed to sell Class C upwards.

 

Where does the supply come from ? Who determines demand, and therefore the value of the market and volume of production ? Would the NHS be concurrently trying to 'cure' the users ? Where do new 'customers' come from ? ( Would you walk into an NHS drop-in centre and announce 'I want to become a heroin addict' ? )

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tpbury

tpbury

Posted
Posted
Where does the supply come from ? Who determines demand, and therefore the value of the market and volume of production ? Would the NHS be concurrently trying to 'cure' the users ? Where do new 'customers' come from ? ( Would you walk into an NHS drop-in centre and announce 'I want to become a heroin addict' ? )

 

I'm pretty sure the liver and kidney damage from heroin is greater over a shorter period of time than ethanol abuse. But your point is perfectly valid, "please dispense something that will get me out of my mind and lose control of my senses". That's pretty much what we say when we go to the bar! Gimme that sheeeeet, coz I wanna get fcked!

 

All drugs are the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
For once I am in total agreement with you dune. It should be down to the individual what substances they choose to ingest, not the state; particularly completely natural ones such as marijuana and magic mushrooms.

 

If all drugs were legalised and controlled correctly (as alcohol and tobacco are) then it would put the criminals who currently make millions from the industry out of business overnight. It could be taxed, bringing money into the exchequer, and it would be much safer as people would be buying their stuff cleanly from licensed outlets rather than from dodgy dealers who will put any old crap in with their merchandise to make up the weight.

 

There really is no sensible, logical argument for continuing with the policy of prohibition. It doesn't work. The war on drugs has been lost, and the 'druggies' have won. Time to accept it.

 

Legalise drugs...sod it..

 

sell them in outlets and make a wedge on TAX

 

I think all drugs should be legalised. It should be up to the individual. By making drugs illegal all it does is put the supply in the hands of criminals.

 

These!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
angelman

angelman

Posted
Posted
One thing that's certain is that if alcohol and tobacco were discovered now instead of years ago, they would also be illegal drugs.

 

What complete and utter tosh. Alcohol wasn't invented by man (although distilling spirits was). Alcohol is a natural by product of fermentation. For example, you leave a bit of fruit hanging about with a bit of warmth and the chances are that it will turn alcoholic. Check out this link which demonstrates fermenting pumpkins and their affects. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0so5er4X3dc

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted
What complete and utter tosh. Alcohol wasn't invented by man (although distilling spirits was). Alcohol is a natural by product of fermentation. For example, you leave a bit of fruit hanging about with a bit of warmth and the chances are that it will turn alcoholic. Check out this link which demonstrates fermenting pumpkins and their affects. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0so5er4X3dc

 

Yeah, and tobacco grows naturally on plants and doesn't need to be fermented. Marijuana grows in the wild and does not need to be prepared in any way other than drying it out, and hallucinogenic mushrooms can be eaten straight out of the ground.

 

The point is that any new substances that are found to have mind/body altering effects are immediately banned as a knee-jerk reaction. If the effects of alcohol were discovered tomorrow rather than thousands of years ago, it would be banned - simple as that. As for tobacco, I still can't work out what the positive side of it is, but it would still be banned if discovered in this day and age, because authorities simply can't have people getting out of their heads or, god forbid, actually thinking for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
franny

franny

Posted
Posted
, because authorities simply can't have people getting out of their heads or, god forbid, actually thinking for themselves.

 

Perhaps if they are out of their heads thay are not thinking?

You are right that maybe alcohol/tobacco may not be approved of if "discovered" today but the point is it wasnt and to go back is impossible but maybe trying to repeat the mistake with new substances (natural or otherwise) is not the way forward either. Two wrongs do not make a right. I have seen the impact on a loved one of too much skunk so believe me I know what an impact even a "light" drug can have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted

What a joke, pubs are one of man's greatest inventions. Millions of people enjoy a drink in a harmless friendly way. Just because a very small percentage of people who drink, do so to such an extent that they ruin lives does not make in comparable to hard drugs in anyway. How many Heroin users lead normal healthy lives taking a bit of Heroin with their friends and family to relax?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
angelman

angelman

Posted
Posted
What a joke, pubs are one of man's greatest inventions. Millions of people enjoy a drink in a harmless friendly way. Just because a very small percentage of people who drink, do so to such an extent that they ruin lives does not make in comparable to hard drugs in anyway. How many Heroin users lead normal healthy lives taking a bit of Heroin with their friends and family to relax?

 

Not sure really. The person who I knew best who took heroin is no longer with us. Not sure many of my other friends have really taken it. I know one but he a} talks a lot of bull's hit and b} did say that he scared himself ****less and would never do it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saintandy666

Saintandy666

Posted
Posted

Professor Nutt always has it right. I know you can't generally use personal experience to back up an argument as it isn't the overall trend, but as I see it Alcohol does cause much larger problems within society in a greater number of people from cradle to the grave... I'm not saying other drugs don't cause problems but Alcohol because of its prevalence causes more. I'm talking violence, crime etc etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites
angelman

angelman

Posted
Posted

Interesting that people have portrayed alcohol as the worst because of, amongst other things, the crime. It's a bit like blaming a gun for killing people rather than the person pulling the trigger. While I realise that it loosens people's inhibitions, it doesn't have to. I have been as drunk as many times as the next person, but I have not been involved in a fight nor been arrested. I don't go and cause petty crime either.

 

On the health front, what has happened to personal responsibility? I work in the booze trade and have a lot of it around me. I have a drink most nights (or probably 360 nights a year) but I am not an alcoholic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint Billy

Saint Billy

Posted
Posted

I was going to say that I don't want to live a life like a trappist monk thank you very much, and If I want to drink or smoke then I bloody well will as long as it harms no one else,

 

then I realised that Trappist Monks brew beer!

 

So, if it is good enough for them it is good enough for me.....cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deppo

Deppo

Posted
Posted
I was going to say that I don't want to live a life like a trappist monk thank you very much, and If I want to drink or smoke then I bloody well will as long as it harms no one else,

 

then I realised that Trappist Monks brew beer!

 

So, if it is good enough for them it is good enough for me.....cheers!

Not only that, they brew Buckfast. They're not phucking about!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Robsk II

Robsk II

Posted
Posted

The only legitimate measure in in harmful consequence, and Nutt has been telling it like it is for a long time. He was shafted by the last government. Just because most people in this country are reactive morons who don't seem to care about rationality or scientific fact, doesn't mean the government should pander to them if the government sees its role as doing what is best rather than what is wanted. If what was wanted is correct, we'd enver have gone to war in Iraq etc... I've kept up with this sort of research for some time, and while cultural things should be taken into account - ie amount of usage etc - Nutt does. It's fair to say that it would be harsh to ban alcohol completely because some take it far too far, and suffer real problems because of the substance. Yet the same applies for the majority of 'hard' drug users.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scotty

scotty

Posted
Posted
Interesting that people have portrayed alcohol as the worst because of, amongst other things, the crime. It's a bit like blaming a gun for killing people rather than the person pulling the trigger. While I realise that it loosens people's inhibitions, it doesn't have to. I have been as drunk as many times as the next person, but I have not been involved in a fight nor been arrested. I don't go and cause petty crime either.

 

On the health front, what has happened to personal responsibility? I work in the booze trade and have a lot of it around me. I have a drink most nights (or probably 360 nights a year) but I am not an alcoholic.

 

Ah, the american argument. Interesting that after that nutter went on a killing spree with a gun in that college the reaction of most americans was that all the students should have been armed, then he'd have done less damage.........ffs, just what we need, a load of hormonal teenagers armed to the teeth, that'll sort the problem. And while it is true that killing somebody with a gun is the fault of the person pulling the trigger, it is equally true that the ready availability of a firearm makes it a great deal quicker and easier to kill somebody, hence the massive disparity between the per capita murder rate in the states and the per capita murder rate here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...