PDA

View Full Version : Study: Alcohol is Deadliest Drug, More Dangerous Than Heroin, Crack Cocaine, or Meth



Wei Wu Wei
11-01-2010, 07:05 PM
http://www.dailytech.com/Study+Alcohol+is+Deadliest+Drug+More+Dangerous+Tha n+Heroin/article20038.htm


Study: Alcohol is Deadliest Drug, More Dangerous Than Heroin

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.


Now I have to say I disagree with how this is being reported, saying that alcohol is the most dangerous drug.

I would say that crack cocaine, methamphetamine, and maybe heroin and tobacco are more dangerous than alcohol.

However, it seems they are including some weight of the amount of use, because alcohol is used far more than illicit drugs, it does have more consequences as a result.

If we are looking at current sociatal trends then yes alcohol is the most dangerous drug but in itself it isn't the most dangerous (although it is surely one of the most dangerous).

lurkalot
11-01-2010, 07:38 PM
well... actually

alcohol is physically, socially and financially a greater drain. Individually and on society as a whole.

samurai
11-01-2010, 07:38 PM
http://www.dailytech.com/Study+Alcohol+is+Deadliest+Drug+More+Dangerous+Tha n+Heroin/article20038.htm




Now I have to say I disagree with how this is being reported, saying that alcohol is the most dangerous drug.

I would say that crack cocaine, methamphetamine, and maybe heroin and tobacco are more dangerous than alcohol.

However, it seems they are including some weight of the amount of use, because alcohol is used far more than illicit drugs, it does have more consequences as a result.

If we are looking at current sociatal trends then yes alcohol is the most dangerous drug but in itself it isn't the most dangerous (although it is surely one of the most dangerous).

I thought the same thing when I heard about this, especially since I heard about it from a guy as evidence that we should legalize marijuana and possibly even other drugs. The statistics are as high as they are precisely because it is legal, socially acceptable, and very common, NOT because it is so incredibly harmful itself. So how in the world does that suggest we ought to make other dangerous drugs more legal, socially acceptable, and common???

Gingersnap
11-01-2010, 07:47 PM
Alcohol is the "most dangerous" in the same way that walking "causes more fatalities than biking". Almost everybody does it and so there is an increased pool of potential problems.

In subcultures that are strongly negative toward drunkenness, alcohol drinkers have few problems. They simply don't get drunk and that's where the danger comes in. You can't really take a "social" dose of meth, ecstasy, heroin, or cocaine. The social dose is also the dose that impairs judgment (at least for a time).

Also, drug users tend to use around others doing the same thing. There is almost no social braking mechanism in play. If you have a dinner party and one guest gets a little too tipsy, you have someone take them home or you install them in the guest bedroom. You don't cheer on any violent, abusive, or sexually ill-advised behaviors.

The social context is pretty much the only important context here.

BadCat
11-01-2010, 07:50 PM
Life kills you.

You might as well enjoy it while it does.

Articulate_Ape
11-01-2010, 07:51 PM
Scientific studies (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2014332,00.html) are a dime a dozen. Kind of like fatwas from people in lab coats that don't walk on their knuckles.

Wei Wu Wei
11-01-2010, 07:59 PM
I thought the same thing when I heard about this, especially since I heard about it from a guy as evidence that we should legalize marijuana and possibly even other drugs. The statistics are as high as they are precisely because it is legal, socially acceptable, and very common, NOT because it is so incredibly harmful itself. So how in the world does that suggest we ought to make other dangerous drugs more legal, socially acceptable, and common???

I think drugs that are extremely addictive and that are able to cause death or violent behavior like methamphetamine, smokeable cocaine, and heroine are more dangerious for short term use and criminal behavior to feed addictions.

Long term use alcoholism may be the worst, it can destroy people like few other vices and is extremely common. Meth is still worse here in my opinion because long term abuse leads to amphetamine psychosis which is nearly indistinguishable from organic schizophrenia

There are many ways to analyze this but realistically, marijuana is relatively harmless when you compare the most popular drugs of abuse (legal and illegal).

The only arguments about it's danger are futile, health effects of THC are minimized through smart forms of consumption (not smoking) which are popular in areas where it is legal or decriminalized. The gateway drug argument is an artifact that of the criminalization of drugs, which makes people looking for a less harmful drug like marijuana dealing with black market types who also get connections to harder drugs. It isn't that one dreug leads to another, but rather that one means of obtaining the drug leads to exposure to others.

People need to be properly educated about the truth of drugs. The scare tactic has backfired. Another contribution to the so-called "gateway effect" is actually a disillusionment effect. Kids who were taught that marijuana was a terrible deadly drug learned quickly as they grew up that it was total BS, and this alone led them to distrust most warnings about other drugs. Much further experimentation, the "gateway effect" comes from this distrust of societal warnings after the exposure of obvious BS in our drug policy. Intelligent drug policy, not reactionary.

Gingersnap
11-01-2010, 08:15 PM
People need to be properly educated about the truth of drugs. The scare tactic has backfired. Another contribution to the so-called "gateway effect" is actually a disillusionment effect. Kids who were taught that marijuana was a terrible deadly drug learned quickly as they grew up that it was total BS, and this alone led them to distrust most warnings about other drugs. Much further experimentation, the "gateway effect" comes from this distrust of societal warnings after the exposure of obvious BS in our drug policy. Intelligent drug policy, not reactionary.

I'm for legalization of weed but not for any of the reasons you've stated. Your pitch seems to more of the same in terms of government policy, drug "education", etc.

Social factors are the only effective means of diminishing the negative effects of any kind of abuse. The social factors have to grow organically out of a cultural set of expectations. What I mean is: you have to judge people.

Orthodox Jews aren't notable drunks even though they give their kids watered wine every week. The Amish aren't lazy even though they are surrounded by examples of work-shirking. Peruvian peasants aren't addicted to cocaine when they just chew it. All of these are examples of cultural expectations. Basically, in traditional cultures substance abuse tends to be minimal because people have to work and they would be shunned socially and in terms of marriage if they were so addicted that they couldn't function (this happened in China).

In our culture, addicts don't need to work or function socially so there is less of an incentive for the marginal to exercise restraint. Government policy and education won't help that.

NJCardFan
11-01-2010, 08:19 PM
While I agree that the war on drugs is a waste of time and money, legalizing more stuff to inebriate people ain't the answer.

Articulate_Ape
11-01-2010, 08:21 PM
While I agree that the war on drugs is a waste of time and money, legalizing more stuff to inebriate people ain't the answer.

I adhere to the sage position of Denis Leary, "We don't need less drugs, we need more drugs; more drugs and give them to the right people."

Wei Wu Wei
11-01-2010, 08:21 PM
I'm for legalization of weed but not for any of the reasons you've stated. Your pitch seems to more of the same in terms of government policy, drug "education", etc.

Social factors are the only effective means of diminishing the negative effects of any kind of abuse. The social factors have to grow organically out of a cultural set of expectations. What I mean is: you have to judge people.

Orthodox Jews aren't notable drunks even though they give their kids watered wine every week. The Amish aren't lazy even though they are surrounded by examples of work-shirking. Peruvian peasants aren't addicted to cocaine when they just chew it. All of these are examples of cultural expectations. Basically, in traditional cultures substance abuse tends to be minimal because people have to work and they would be shunned socially and in terms of marriage if they were so addicted that they couldn't function (this happened in China).

Well actually I agree about these examples. What I mean is that if you have a proper, educated and moderate place within society for a drug, there is usually less abuse. If the drug doesn't have a proper place in society it's easier to abuse it since it's use at all is already a form of abuse.

An opposite example of those you mentioned are Native Americans, who didn't have a proper social location for alcohol use and have historically had higher rates of alcohol abuse.

Generally, using drugs in specific social situations and having both explicit and implicit rules about it's use (amount, context, ect.) leads to more responsible behavior than drugs that don't have a legitimate social space (prohibited drugs) and are more easily indulged in since restraints are never learned.




In our culture, addicts don't need to work or function socially so there is less of an incentive for the marginal to exercise restraint. Government policy and education won't help that.

It won't help on current addicts but children learning about drugs should learn a realistic image of drug use (including the fact that drug use affects developing brains differently than adult brains) rather than a blanket "Just Say No!" approach which has been proven to be a failure.

Big Guy
11-01-2010, 08:31 PM
I am against the legalization of drugs.

I have seen the effects of drugs on people and their children. I can and will NEVER be for legalization of drugs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCoC5XxK2oI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_7oK5YLsfU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETVGusZPVDQ

Big Guy
11-01-2010, 08:37 PM
This is acceptable?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IQpivWWaiI

Big Guy
11-01-2010, 08:40 PM
How about this? Is it okay with you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6e5ethjp1o

Articulate_Ape
11-01-2010, 08:44 PM
Clearly those things aren't going on with drugs being illegal.

Big Guy
11-01-2010, 08:46 PM
I have a strong opinion about illegal drugs and the effect they have on our country. I see the results of drug use every day at work. Young men and women with heart problems, having strokes, on dialysis, suffering from acute brain damage. Yea, lets make these drugs legal, more available. Great friggin idea, NOT. :mad:

malloc
11-01-2010, 08:49 PM
I know you aren't for legalization, and won't every change your mind. Prohibition didn't solve any problems either, all it did is get a lot of people who didn't have a choice killed in gangland violence. Just like it's doing today.

If an addict dies, he had a choice in that matter. When the addict's family is burdened with taking care of the addict, they have a choice in the matter. When innocent people are gunned down as collateral damage over a turf war by cartels, or other organized crime, those people didn't have a choice in the matter. Prohibition did one thing and one thing only. It drove the problems of alcoholism underground, and then added an organized, ruthless, black market power structure on top of that underground. This is what prohibition brings.

The addicted babies and deformities shown the videos pull on my heartstrings, but these things happened when the substances were already illegal, it stands to reason that this sort of thing is going to happen in a free society unless we want a highly regulated society which is the antithesis of freedom.

The argument really, is if this thing is going to happen more often in a non-prohibitive society than in a prohibitive society. I happen to believe that along with the complete breakdown of the organized power structure controlling the black market for drugs, we will also see less addiction and tales of woe in a non-prohibitive society because the law won't be driving the problem underground, and instead will allow addicts to seek avenues of treatment without fear of incrimination. Furthermore, the strain on our judicial and criminal systems will be lessened so that parents, who knowingly due this to unborn children may be properly prosecuted for neglect at the least, and murder at the max. After all, in my opinion, killing a newborn because you poisoned it in the womb, is the same as killing one with poison outside the womb.

Articulate_Ape
11-01-2010, 08:54 PM
I have a strong opinion about illegal drugs and the effect they have on our country. I see the results of drug use every day at work. Young men and women with heart problems, having strokes, on dialysis, suffering from acute brain damage. Yea, lets make these drugs legal, more available. Great friggin idea, NOT. :mad:

Fair enough, and I can appreciate your informed point of view. However, the 18th Amendment gave us all an object lesson in trying to stem the flow of a substance with a huge demand and who such prohibitions empower. Surely there must be a rational approach that addresses your valid concerns and yet successfully takes the criminals that thrive now out of the driver's seat. For example, legalizing marijuana and taxing it with all proceeds strictly dedicated to mitigating drug dependency, which I assume you are involved with in some capacity.

Big Guy
11-01-2010, 09:05 PM
There is no one answer to solving the problem of drug addiction and the negative effects on society. That being said, legalization is NOT part of the solution.

Just because we will never be able to solve the drug problem, don't mean that if we legalize it,... it will go away. Innocent people will still be killed because users are using and or will do anything for their next fix.

Alcohol is bad enough, adding Pot, Cocaine, Crack, Meth, Opium or the like will only exacerbate the problem.

Gingersnap
11-01-2010, 09:13 PM
What Malloc said.

If I seriously believed that harsher penalties on drugs would magically change people into sober, responsible citizens who respected their families and worked for the good of society, I'd be all for it. That is not the case.

People enjoy taking drugs for a wide variety of reasons, some good and some bad. Some people always do it for bad reasons and they do it too much. Those people have always been around in urban societies. They were around in Greek and Roman times, they were around in Regency England, and they were around in Chicago and NYC during the turn of the last century. Wherever you have enough wealth to support the idle or a large enough population to support anonymous crime and human trafficking, you will have addicts. No law can change that regardless of how draconian it may be.

Addicts are not the big social problem they are sometimes made out to be. Most mature out of substance abuse when they get too old for the life. Others tool along for decades being just as functional as their non-addicted counterparts.

The hopeless addict is tragic but not the biggest problem that drug use and drug laws creates.

Big Guy
11-01-2010, 09:14 PM
Fair enough, and I can appreciate your informed point of view. However, the 18th Amendment gave us all an object lesson in trying to stem the flow of a substance with a huge demand and who such prohibitions empower. Surely there must be a rational approach that addresses your valid concerns and yet successfully takes the criminals that thrive now out of the driver's seat. For example, legalizing marijuana and taxing it with all proceeds strictly dedicated to mitigating drug dependency, which I assume you are involved with in some capacity.

You are correct in assuming that I am involved in my community. I teach a class called "Meth is Death" using one of the video's I have posted. I have personally experienced the ill effects of drug use, I lost a close friend (Not a user) and in my profession I see broken family's and what it does to the children who have absolutely no say in what they are being put through.

I come across as a smart ass and sometime as an illiterate when I post here but there are certain subjects I take EXTREMELY serious, this is one of those subjects.

Articulate_Ape
11-01-2010, 09:17 PM
What Malloc said.

If I seriously believed that harsher penalties on drugs would magically change people into sober, responsible citizens who respected their families and worked for the good of society, I'd be all for it. That is not the case.

People enjoy taking drugs for a wide variety of reasons, some good and some bad. Some people always do it for bad reasons and they do it too much. Those people have always been around in urban societies. They were around in Greek and Roman times, they were around in Regency England, and they were around in Chicago and NYC during the turn of the last century. Wherever you have enough wealth to support the idle or a large enough population to support anonymous crime and human trafficking, you will have addicts. No law can change that regardless of how draconian it may be.

Addicts are not the big social problem they are sometimes made out to be. Most mature out of substance abuse when they get too old for the life. Others tool along for decades being just as functional as their non-addicted counterparts.

The hopeless addict is tragic but not the biggest problem that drug use and drug laws creates.

Very, very well said, Ginger.

Articulate_Ape
11-01-2010, 09:21 PM
You are correct in assuming that I am involved in my community. I teach a class called "Meth is Death" using one of the video's I have posted. I have personally experienced the ill effects of drug use, I lost a close friend (Not a user) and in my profession I see broken family's and what it does to the children who have absolutely no say in what they are being put through.

I come across as a smart ass and sometime as an illiterate when I post here but there are certain subjects I take EXTREMELY serious, this is one of those subjects.

And I understand where you are coming from. However, cannabis being lumped in with other much more destructive drugs smacks of the "comprehensive" and "omnibus" approach that is very much what is wrong with problem solving and legislation in this country. Problems should be nibbled at slowly and thoughtfully if you want to achieve lasting solutions. I see no reason why the drug issue shouldn't be approached in this manner, do you?

Big Guy
11-01-2010, 09:27 PM
And I understand where you are coming from. However, cannabis being lumped in with other much more destructive drugs smacks of the "comprehensive" and "omnibus" approach that is very much what is wrong with problem solving and legislation in this country. Problems should be nibbled at slowly and thoughtfully if you want to achieve lasting solutions. I see no reason why the drug issue shouldn't be approached in this manner, do you?

Cannabis in it's natural sate is fine, the problem is when it is mixed with manufactured drugs to "enhance" the effects.

Most Pot users just chill out and eat cheetos, they don't go out and victimize others just so they can get their next fix. My problem lies with the manufactured drugs and the effects they have on the innocent.

Articulate_Ape
11-01-2010, 09:30 PM
Cannabis in it's natural sate is fine, the problem is when it is mixed with manufactured drugs to "enhance" the effects.

Most Pot users just chill out and eat cheetos, they don't go out and victimize others just so they can get their next fix. My problem lies with the manufactured drugs and the effects they have on the innocent.

Ok, gotcha, and I agree about the laced shit. That is very dangerous.

Rockntractor
11-01-2010, 09:33 PM
Most Pot users just chill out and eat cheetos,
Fried for a crispy crunch or baked to a delicate crunch.

Big Guy
11-01-2010, 09:35 PM
Fried for a crispy crunch or baked to a delicate crunch.

Crispy, definitely crispy.

Gingersnap
11-01-2010, 09:39 PM
Cannabis in it's natural sate is fine, the problem is when it is mixed with manufactured drugs to "enhance" the effects.

Most Pot users just chill out and eat cheetos, they don't go out and victimize others just so they can get their next fix. My problem lies with the manufactured drugs and the effects they have on the innocent.

I understand your point of view (even though we disagree on the root causes). In fact, I share your suspicion of manufactured drugs. My own personal negative experiences of drug abuse come not from street drugs but from the drugs prescribed by legitimate physicians. Drugs prescribed every day in thousands of doctors' offices to treat the commonplace vagaries of a normal life.

While I won't stand with you in opposing legal weed, I would stand with you in calling for more oversight and patient education when doctors treat depression, insomnia, boredom, and the many media-manufactured "illnesses" we see on TV. ;)

Kay
11-01-2010, 09:40 PM
Agree. Crispy.

Articulate_Ape
11-01-2010, 09:43 PM
...and the many media-manufactured "illnesses" we see on TV. ;)


OMG, QFT

Big Guy
11-01-2010, 09:50 PM
I understand your point of view (even though we disagree on the root causes). In fact, I share your suspicion of manufactured drugs. My own personal negative experiences of drug abuse come not from street drugs but from the drugs prescribed by legitimate physicians. Drugs prescribed every day in thousands of doctors' offices to treat the commonplace vagaries of a normal life.

While I won't stand with you in opposing legal weed, I would stand with you in calling for more oversight and patient education when doctors treat depression, insomnia, boredom, and the many media-manufactured "illnesses" we see on TV. ;)


Doctor shopping, unscrupulous Doctors, and the like are a MAJOR problem that needs to be addressed. As you see on my posts, my issue lies with "Manufactured" drugs and the effects on our society, not "Weed".

Gingersnap
11-01-2010, 10:06 PM
Doctor shopping, unscrupulous Doctors, and the like are a MAJOR problem that needs to be addressed. As you see on my posts, my issue lies with "Manufactured" drugs and the effects on our society, not "Weed".

In my mind, doctor-shopping is only a small part of this problem. There are too many very well-meaning doctors who are willing to put someone on virtually lifelong medication for what is a phase of life.

Boys will be bored and disinterested in school. Overactive adults will have trouble falling asleep. People do experience romantic disappointment, career disappointment, and setbacks in life that make them sad, uninterested in fun, and annoying to other people. Men sometimes can't it up and women sometimes lose interest in it. Twitchy limbs come and go. Eyelashes are sparse. Peeing too much is often a sign of too much fluid intake.

We're too quick to medicate these kinds of things and the medications often have side-effects much worse than the (usually self-limiting) problem.

Big Guy
11-01-2010, 10:12 PM
In my mind, doctor-shopping is only a small part of this problem. There are too many very well-meaning doctors who are willing to put someone on virtually lifelong medication for what is a phase of life.

Boys will be bored and disinterested in school. Overactive adults will have trouble falling asleep. People do experience romantic disappointment, career disappointment, and setbacks in life that make them sad, uninterested in fun, and annoying to other people. Men sometimes can't it up and women sometimes lose interest in it. Twitchy limbs come and go. Eyelashes are sparse. Peeing too much is often a sign of too much fluid intake.

We're too quick to medicate these kinds of things and the medications often have side-effects much worse than the (usually self-limiting) problem.

I totally agree with you on your points,..... But (There is always a but) this is a totally separate issue. Illegal "manufactured' drugs vs the over medication of society. Two distinctly different issues. I suspect we don't disagree on these as issues, just that they are separate issues.

PoliCon
11-01-2010, 10:44 PM
While I agree that the war on drugs is a waste of time and money, legalizing more stuff to inebriate people ain't the answer.

QFT!

Articulate_Ape
11-01-2010, 11:13 PM
Yeah, 'cause they won't do it anyway. C'mon.

Big Guy
11-01-2010, 11:18 PM
Yeah, 'cause they won't do it anyway. C'mon.

That's the same argument as saying;

Lets make homicide legal, they are going to do it anyway. C'mon.

How about; lets make drinking and driving legal, they are going to do it any way, C'mon.

Rockntractor
11-01-2010, 11:21 PM
I generally stay away from drug legalization threads, they always end this way.

Big Guy
11-01-2010, 11:23 PM
I generally stay away from drug legalization threads, they always end this way.

It's always the same arguments. Neither side will give.

PoliCon
11-01-2010, 11:24 PM
It's always the same arguments. Neither side will give.

As long as the welfare state exists - there can be no discussion of legalization.

Big Guy
11-01-2010, 11:26 PM
The sad thing is;

Wee Wee started this thread and then friggin left, trouble maker.

Articulate_Ape
11-01-2010, 11:27 PM
That's the same argument as saying;

Lets make homicide legal, they are going to do it anyway. C'mon.

How about; lets make drinking and driving legal, they are going to do it any way, C'mon.

Not really even on the same rational plane, Guy. But, let's look at homicide if you want. It is unbelievably easy to kill another human being from a practical standpoint. The vast majority of homicides go unsolved. If you are going to kill someone, you are going to kill someone, Big Guy. The laws as they stand are no deterrent to the determined, and the police only catch (for the most part) the clumsy.

If you want to compare substance abuse to human violence, then you should compare it to suicide, not murder.

Rockntractor
11-01-2010, 11:28 PM
The sad thing is;

Wee Wee started this thread and then friggin left, trouble maker.
Actually on this one I think he was trying his Wei little best, he probably got over occupied with his bong and passed out in a pile of Duncan Hines soft and Chewys!

Big Guy
11-01-2010, 11:33 PM
Actually on this one I think he was trying his Wei little best, he probably got over occupied with his bong and passed out in a pile of Duncan Hines soft and Chewys!

He is still a trouble maker, bong or no bong. :D

wilbur
11-02-2010, 08:02 AM
That's the same argument as saying;

Lets make homicide legal, they are going to do it anyway. C'mon.

How about; lets make drinking and driving legal, they are going to do it any way, C'mon.

But notice that in the case of drunk driving, its not the consumption of alcohol that we prohibit. We tried that once.

The act of using drugs, in and of itself, is basically a victimless crime - that can't be said for murder, theft, or anything else of that nature. Those crimes necessarily have victims who experience harm. Its the act of theft, and the act of murder that causes harm. So society has an interest in actually stopping those acts.

You can argue that drug use can indirectly cause all kinds of harm to our society, and you'd be right. But note that the harm doesn't come from the act of taking drugs, it comes from all these indirect effects, which may or may not occur because of the act of a single person taking a drug. Our interest in regulating drugs is really to mitigate those indirect harms as much as we possibly can. Our interest is not (or shouldn't be) to necessarily prohibit the act of taking drugs, just because.

When I look at the drug war, I see a war with few wins... none of the indirect harms caused by drug use have even been reduced, much less eliminated, and the war has created many more indirect harms itself... some extremely bad harms; draconian seizure laws, extreme amounts law enforcement corruption, billions of dollars spent, erosion of civil liberties, and the worlds largest prison population.

Look what the war on drugs does to our neighbor to the south. Southern Mexico is basically ruled by drug lords. Remember that story where a whole town's police force quit on their first day, after being under siege by armed thugs with military grade weapons? Just another indirect result of our ongoing arms races with drug smugglers. They have the money to keep up with us because of the fertile black market for drugs. The drug war creates brutal war lords in third and second world countries, which we then usually have to fight with American lives and money.

From what I have seen, most supporters of continued prohibition like you, Big Guy, are usually concerned that all of the indirect harms that we experience as a result of drug use, will be multiplied because of greater consumption, if prohibition is lifted. I definitely can sympathize with that point of view... and I don't take it lightly, believe me. But I don't think that it is a given that legalization will cause consumption to sky-rocket.

People don't avoid heroine or crack because they are illegal.. they avoid them because they are incredibly dangerous, even under the "best" circumstances. I don't think that legalization would drastically increase consumption. There is some empirical support for this based on drug consumption rates in other parts of the world, where laws are less strict. And even if it did, it the indirect harms caused by that extra consumption would still be less than the indirect harms caused by the drug prohibition itself, in my opinion.

Big Guy
11-02-2010, 09:31 AM
But notice that in the case of drunk driving, its not the consumption of alcohol that we prohibit. We tried that once.

The act of using drugs, in and of itself, is basically a victimless crime - that can't be said for murder, theft, or anything else of that nature. Those crimes necessarily have victims who experience harm. Its the act of theft, and the act of murder that causes harm. So society has an interest in actually stopping those acts.

You can argue that drug use can indirectly cause all kinds of harm to our society, and you'd be right. But note that the harm doesn't come from the act of taking drugs, it comes from all these indirect effects, which may or may not occur because of the act of a single person taking a drug. Our interest in regulating drugs is really to mitigate those indirect harms as much as we possibly can. Our interest is not (or shouldn't be) to necessarily prohibit the act of taking drugs, just because.

When I look at the drug war, I see a war with few wins... none of the indirect harms caused by drug use have even been reduced, much less eliminated, and the war has created many more indirect harms itself... some extremely bad harms; draconian seizure laws, extreme amounts law enforcement corruption, billions of dollars spent, erosion of civil liberties, and the worlds largest prison population.


Drug use is not a "Victim-less" crime. Children of heavy drug users (Meth, Cocaine, X, Heroine and the like) are victims. They are often born with life threatening and debilitating defects directly resulting from their parents drug use.

Legalize the drugs and the drug war ends, but there will still be child victims. The children have no say on this matter, so I try to speak for them. I am not going to change anyone's mind, and no one is going to change my mind on this subject. I teach teenage children about the dangers of drug use, I do this in an attempt to make a difference.

PoliCon
11-02-2010, 09:44 AM
You want proof that drug use is not a victimless crime: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_23Nt5XumaU these stupid fuckers vote.

wilbur
11-02-2010, 01:50 PM
Drug use is not a "Victim-less" crime. Children of heavy drug users (Meth, Cocaine, X, Heroine and the like) are victims. They are often born with life threatening and debilitating defects directly resulting from their parents drug use.


Pregnancy is a special case.. any risky activity, including countless legal activities like drinking alcohol, also harm the fetus or child during pregnancy. The mother is essentially forcing another to take her drugs, which yea... that's not victimless. But again, the same is true for any activity in which the mother takes part.

So its special and most drug consumption is done by non-pregnant people. The point was that, in principle, murder and theft require that someone be harmed against their will, while drug use does not. So our approaches to the issues should reflect that difference.



Legalize the drugs and the drug war ends, but there will still be child victims. The children have no say on this matter, so I try to speak for them. I am not going to change anyone's mind, and no one is going to change my mind on this subject. I teach teenage children about the dangers of drug use, I do this in an attempt to make a difference.

Well, then you deserve a lot of respect... and I would be willing to bet that your work actually helps people, as opposed to drug prohibition.. which does little more than hurt and kill people.

I agree there will still be child victims.. there will still be tragic stories of junkies and stories of the absolutely absurd and awful things they have done to their families and friends because of their self-destructive ways. But its always been my argument, that the ones who are saved from such fates, will be saved by the hands of people like yourself - not drug laws.

Rebel Yell
11-02-2010, 02:02 PM
I've been saying this for years. Just watch Intervention on A & E. The worst addicts on there are the alcoholics by a country mile.

wilbur
11-02-2010, 02:02 PM
You want proof that drug use is not a victimless crime: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_23Nt5XumaU these stupid fuckers vote.

Gotta say, thats actually pretty damn funny.... if you think you'll see more people catch it at a tea party rally though... I'd say that's pretty deluded.

Rebel Yell
11-02-2010, 02:04 PM
Drug use is not a "Victim-less" crime. Children of heavy drug users (Meth, Cocaine, X, Heroine and the like) are victims. They are often born with life threatening and debilitating defects directly resulting from their parents drug use.

Legalize the drugs and the drug war ends, but there will still be child victims. The children have no say on this matter, so I try to speak for them. I am not going to change anyone's mind, and no one is going to change my mind on this subject. I teach teenage children about the dangers of drug use, I do this in an attempt to make a difference.

Pissing off a bridge is a victimless crime, unless you're pissing on somebody. Drug use by itself is a victimless crime. Unfortunately, someone is usually standing under that bridge.

hampshirebrit
11-02-2010, 02:46 PM
He is still a trouble maker, bong or no bong. :D

To be fair, I think he started a good thread and made some decent posts on it, too.

Big Guy
11-02-2010, 02:59 PM
To be fair, I think he started a good thread and made some decent posts on it, too.

He did start a good thread, good talking points. But he is still a trouble maker. :D

hampshirebrit
11-02-2010, 03:41 PM
But he is still a trouble maker. :D

Meh. Possibly, but still trainable. Credit where it's due, an all.

Well done Wei. I shall give you some "reputation points", to see if it bumps you up from "infamous round these parts" as your current tally has it, to something better.