Alcohol "more harmful than heroin or crack"?

St._Andalou

An interesting article today on a report in the Lancet medical journal suggesting that alcohol is more harmful to society than heroin or crack. It's a follow up to a recent report which called for a reclassification of the drugs system. That report rated alcohol as the fifth most-dangerous drug, ahead of tobacco, cannabis, and ecstasy.

What do you think? I think the drugs classification system is a bit of a joke. Alcohol problems cost the state, on average, 2.5 billion a year. Although to be fair, the Government probably makes much more than that by high taxing on alcohol.

I'm not a pioneer, I don't have a puritan attitude towards alcohol, but I hate binge-drinking. When I was in college I used to occasionally smoke weed. A few of my friends would chastise me, call me a loser, then fail to see the irony when they went out regularly to drink themselves to the point of unconsciousness.

In brief:

Today's study offers a more complex analysis that seeks to address the 2007 criticisms. It examines nine categories of harm that drugs can do to the individual "from death to damage to mental functioning and loss of relationships" and seven types of harm to others. The maximum possible harm score was 100 and the minimum zero.

Overall, alcohol scored 72 – against 55 for heroin and 54 for crack. The most dangerous drugs to their individual users were ranked as heroin, crack and then crystal meth. The most harmful to others were alcohol, heroin and crack in that order...

For overall harm, the other drugs examined ranked as follows: crystal meth (33), cocaine (27), tobacco (26), amphetamine/speed (23), cannabis (20), GHB (18), benzodiazepines (15), ketamine (15), methadone (13), butane (10), qat (9), ecstasy (9), anabolic steroids (9), LSD (7), buprenorphine (6) and magic mushrooms (5).

Duggy747

A hangover is manageable, a scag isn't :P

I'd imagine if heroin / coke / tabs were as popular as alcohol then the stats would be a bit different

PanchoVilla

Ok, that fact that cannabis ranked above ketamine, steroids, methadone, and LSD leads me to believe that study is completely skewed.

Edit: That being said, I agree that alcohol is pretty dangerous.

St._Andalou

Duggy747 wrote: »

A hangover is manageable, a scag isn't :P

I'd imagine if heroin / coke / tabs were as popular as alcohol then the stats would be a bit different

Well if coke or heroin were as popular as alcohol and the Government were making billions of Euros in revenue off it, I imagine the public outcry would be much bigger.

St._Andalou

PanchoVilla wrote: »

Ok, that fact that cannabis ranked above ketamine, steroids, methadone, and LSD leads me to believe that study is completely skewed.

On what grounds?

biko

Of course alcohol is damaging society more:
* More sick days taken as people are hung over.
* Fights between drunk people outside pubs.
* More domestic violence because of alcohol than drugs.

Are you saying we should allow heroin and crack as well as alcohol OP?

PCPhoto

Duggy747 wrote: »

A hangover is manageable, a scag isn't :P

I'd imagine if heroin / coke / tabs were as popular as alcohol then the stats would be a bit different

whats a scag ?

(shows my knowledge/ignorance)

the problem is that everything is related to alcohol - the alcohol producers know how to market their product and do so properly - unfortunately our government doesn't have much of a backbone.

antodeco

I'll have a 27, 15 and a number 5 please. Thanks

Sanjuro

Hard to say really. Every case is different. I have someone close to me who is an alcoholic, and a cousin who has a pretty bad drug problem. The alcoholic is worse in terms of the damage this person does to the people around them. The cousin at least, is only harming himself. But that's one individual case. I don't think it's one of those things you can actually measure accurately.

Wolf Club

Duggy747 wrote: »

A hangover is manageable, a scag isn't :P

I'd imagine if heroin / coke / tabs were as popular as alcohol then the stats would be a bit different

By tabs I assume you mean either LSD or ecstacy? If so, in terms of both physical dependence and harm, you're wrong.

Duggy747

PCPhoto wrote: »

whats a scag ?

A hangover x1000 making you feel like a couple of fortnights in a bad balloon. :pac:

PanchoVilla

St._Andalou wrote: »

On what grounds?

On the grounds that I've taken both ketamine and LSD and know for a fact they can both cause permanent psychological and behavioral damage. Ever heard the term "acid casualty"? I've known a few people who took huge amounts of both and they're completely fúcked. They can barely hold a normal conversation with someone.

Wibbs

PanchoVilla wrote: »

Ok, that fact that cannabis ranked above ketamine, steroids, methadone, and LSD leads me to believe that study is completely skewed.

+1. On the surface something like LSD looks harmless enough. Low addiction potential, low medical impact on the body but can you imagine as many people dropping acid of a weekend that have a few pints? Or ketamine? Sweet jesus. :eek: It's nada to do with harmful as far as each drug goes and all to do with how each impacts society, so of course alcohol is going to have the biggest impact as it's more widely used by a huge degree. Even still the figure for pot seems very high(no pun). I've known a fair few doobers in my time and can only think of a couple where it impacted their lives badly. Though even there I think it was as much to do with them as people. If it wasn't pot it would have been something else. With alcohol and accounting for percentages, I can think of many many more who have been badly affected.

smk89

antodeco wrote: »

I'll have a 27, 15 and a number 5 please. Thanks

One from the bottom and 5 from anywhere else please Carrol

Duggy747

Wolf Club wrote: »

By tabs I assume you mean either LSD or ecstacy? If so, in terms of both physical dependence and harm, you're wrong.

So you've never heard of anyone being addicted to heroin, coke, or pills?

PanchoVilla

Also, methadone should be up there with the most harmful drugs. It's just as addictive as heroin, if not more so, and has the potential to cause much more harm. They give it to addicts because it's cheap and pharma companies make a nice profit on it.

http://www.drugs.com/sfx/methadone-side-effects.html

Wolf Club

Duggy747 wrote: »

So you've never heard of anyone being addicted to heroin, coke, or pills?

No, I agree with you on your points about heroin and cocaine. But ecstacy? (which is what i assume you mean when you say "tabs" and "pills") No, I have never heard of anyone with a physical dependence to ecstacy. Have you?

St._Andalou

biko wrote: »

Of course alcohol is damaging society more:
* More sick days taken as people are hung over.
* Fights between drunk people outside pubs.
* More domestic violence because of alcohol than drugs.

Are you saying we should allow heroin and crack as well as alcohol OP?

Of course not. I don't want to sound self-righteous about alcohol, because I'm really not. I just find our attitude to alcohol interesting as a society. My own family was permanently damaged by my father's alcohol habit -- beatings, abuse, etc.

I mean, look at the hysteria that surrounded magic mushrooms, head shops, etc. All this while alcohol does more damage to Irish society in a week than magic mushrooms do in a decade (drunk drivers, anti-social behavior, hospitalizations, etc.) Still the government makes billions off it, and we positively glorify it.

Duggy747

Wolf Club wrote: »

No, I agree with you on your points about heroin and cocaine. But ecstacy? (which is what i assume you mean when you say "tabs" and "pills") No, I have never heard of anyone with a physical dependence to ecstacy. Have you?

Yea I have, there are people who think they can't have a proper time socialising without taking some. I've known of some people who nearly destroyed themselves by living such a way.

To combat the come-down they'd usually have a batch of anti-depressants like Valium or D10s.
Nuts, really and sure as shìt ain't good for the mental and physical self.

As a whole, this report seems more about the impact on society as a whole rather than individual damage.

St._Andalou

RE: the point about cannabis.

To be fair it got a rating of 20, which is much lower than alcohol and relatively low on the scale itself. I'm going to try and read the report in full to see what the nine criteria are, and then I'll have a better understanding.

I'm not sure about the effects of LSD and steroids. The report seems to take effects on society into account more than effects on the individual, which may explain the low ratings.

I'm not sure the effects LSD and steroids have on society as a whole would be hugely significant.

PanchoVilla

St._Andalou wrote: »

RE: the point about cannabis.

To be fair it got a rating of 20, which is much lower than alcohol and relatively low on the scale itself. I'm going to try and read the report in full to see what the nine criteria are, and then I'll have a better understanding.

I'm not sure about the effects of LSD and steroids. The report seems to take effects on society into account more than effects on the individual, which may explain the low ratings.

I'm not sure the effects LSD and steroids have on society as a whole would be hugely significant.

Ah yeah, good point. If the study looked at harm to society as a whole then I can understand that. I'd be interested to see a study that just dealt with individuals. I think alcohol would still rate pretty high. Permanent brain damage and liver failure are no laughing matter.

mathepac

St._Andalou wrote: »

... I think the drugs classification system is a bit of a joke. ...

The UK drugs classification system, while laudable in its intent is undoubtedly flawed. However it has no standing legally or otherwise in Ireland.

The original study, published while Nutt was the UK's "drugs czar", was an insightful initial attempt to better reflect individual and societal harms in a drug classification system. Maybe it's a study we need to undertake here. As well as including alcohol, steroids and illicit drugs in such a study, its scope could include two of the scourges of modern Ireland, antibiotics and benzodiazepines.

flyton5

You don't see too many alcos mugging people with a syringe full of dirty blood for the contents of their wallet/bag now do you? Yes alcohol is damaging. But heroin is a totally different animal.

Pace2008

Wibbs wrote: »

+1. On the surface something like LSD looks harmless enough. Low addiction potential, low medical impact on the body but can you imagine as many people dropping acid of a weekend that have a few pints? Or ketamine? Sweet jesus.

You’ve got to bear in mind that even if LSD were readily available to all it would not be used nearly as widely nor as frequently as alcohol because, as you’ve pointed out, it’s recognised as having a very low potential for abuse. Alcohol offers temporary oblivion. It allows you to escape your problems in the short term, and it also serves as a replacement for confidence and personality to the extent that people become dependent on it to function in social situations. Acid is more likely to force you to face up to your demons, whether you’re ready for it or not, and a drug can have you bellowing with laughter at the sight of a tree isn’t exactly conducive to dutch courage. LSD ranks up there as one of my favourite drugs, yet I don’t feel the desire to drop it more than once or twice a year.

Despite all this, despite the low addiction potential and lack of adverse physical effects, it’s misleading when people describe it as a harmless drug (there exists no such thing, in my opinion). It only takes one nightmare trip to leave one mentally ****ed up. This generally happens to idiots who take the drug in a threatening environment, but I’ve heard enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that it can happen to experienced trippers. I guess having a really bad trip might be analogous to witnessing a disturbing event like a rape or a murder – on a physical level, nothing’s happened to you, but it’ still likely to leave you emotionally scarred.

Acid also has the habit of making you think you have a decent handle on the situation, when in reality you haven’t a ****ing clue what’s going on. I dropped a few tabs at a festival over the summer and found myself amongst a group whom I believed to be gypsies/travellers with colour-shifting eyes. This might have been a bit intimidating were it not for the fact that I’d befriended a wealthy British explorer garbed in an imperial redcoat army jacket, who I believed “knew the way of the travellers.” When I snapped out of my drug****ed stupor I realised the “travellers” were in fact run-of-the-mill country lads, and my illustrious adventurer friend was a Cork lad wearing his county colours. During the whole experience, it had never struck me as odd that he’d been feeding me with fat rocks of MDMA crystal.

This was all pretty benign, and funny in hindsight, but I could see how more sinister delusions could lead one to act in an erratic and possibly dangerous manner.

Sea Sharp

Anything less dangerous than alcohol should be legalised and have a government health warning slapped on it.
Problem solved, increased tax revenue, increased exports in the form of tourism and less p1ss heads clogging up the A&E on Saturday nights

ceadaoin.

flyton5 wrote: »

You don't see too many alcos mugging people with a syringe full of dirty blood for the contents of their wallet/bag now do you? Yes alcohol is damaging. But heroin is a totally different animal.

How often does that happen though? How often have you seen drunk people on the streets fighting/puking/passed out/walking out in front of cars etc? It's every single weekend.

I would say alcohol causes the most damage to society and families and is a major cause of domestic violence and neglect. Not to mention the huge increase in relatively young people with liver failure due to their drinking.

Not saying that families of drug addicts don't have the same issues, but there are a hell of lot more alcholics or problem drinkers than there are heroin addicts.

Ash.J.Williams

Duggy747 wrote: »

A hangover is manageable, a scag isn't :P

I'd imagine if heroin / coke / tabs were as popular as alcohol then the stats would be a bit different

they are not and never will be, hence alcohol is worse.

Charlie3dan

biko wrote: »

Of course alcohol is damaging society more:
* More sick days taken as people are hung over.
* Fights between drunk people outside pubs.
* More domestic violence because of alcohol than drugs.

Are you saying we should allow heroin and crack as well as alcohol OP?

I hate this kind of thing.....
I drink frequently and I've never had a fight outside a pub. Nor have I gone home and battered the missus.

Alchol doesn't cause these things.
Alcohol does lower inhibitions, but you have to be given to this type of behaviour in the first place to carry it out.

Another contributing factor is simply the fact that there's alot of people in a public place at the same time. That increases the liklihood of a fight in itself.
If drink were the main cause of violence, we'd see old man Tom and old man Jim figting over their favourite barstool at 7:30 pm on a wednesday.

Pace2008

Charlie3dan wrote: »

I hate this kind of thing.....
I drink frequently and I've never had a fight outside a pub. Nor have I gone home and battered the missus.

Alchol doesn't cause these things.
Alcohol does lower inhibitions, but you have to be given to this type of behaviour in the first place to carry it out.

Another contributing factor is simply the fact that there's alot of people in

I don't believe this is true. I replied to an essentially identical post recently, so I'm going to be lazy and C+P my reply:

I disagree with you completely here. For some people, the stupefying effects of huge amounts of alcohol do not simply bring out dark, suppressed elements of their personality. They completely obliterate the person that's normally there and, for a few hours, replace it with some shambling shell of base instinct lacking completely in normal human faculty.

I know many people who are not violent in a sober state, nor do they even have any semblance of violent tendency, but when they get to they "blackout" stage they have absolutely no control of their actions. I number amongst these people.

Note that when I say they have no control of their actions it doesn't mean they aren't responsible for them.If someone knows they're liable to turn into a lunatic when they're legless, they shouldn't be drinking to such an extent. If someone knows they have no control over how much they drink once they touch so much a drop, they shouldn't be drinking at all.

I hate the attitude that exists here that allows people to consistently get ****ed up and act like a dickhead, only to be excused time and time again because they were drunk, and "Sure aren't they harmless when they're sober?" That's bull****, I think people are defined by their actions rather than some vague sentiments of niceness during their sober hours.

Tl;dr: I don't think one needs a predisposition towards violence to behave like a dick when they're drunk.

FreudianSlippers

Sea Sharp wrote: »

Anything less dangerous than alcohol should be legalised and have a government health warning slapped on it.
Problem solved, increased tax revenue, increased exports in the form of tourism and less p1ss heads clogging up the A&E on Saturday nights

I was talking about this a few weeks ago (in Politics I think).

Alcohol is dangerous, moreso in some ways than other drugs. But it is a drug which is socially acceptable and is regulated and controlled (stupidly I might ad... but I digress).
Marijuana is not dangerous. The fact that we are not selling this in dispensaries is beyond my comprehension. Firstly, it takes sales away from drug dealers. It takes shadiness out of purchasing Marijuana and its derivatives (hash, etc.).
Secondly, it would be a huge tax increase for the Government. I think I worked out the figures in another thread - I'll try to find them later.
But it was a pretty big increase nonetheless.
Also, it can be grown in Ireland. There are many farmers who simply cannot compete with Europe and Africa growing stuff for absolute pennies on the pound (so to speak), so what do we do? We give them subsidies! The fact that people are outraged by bailing out our banking institutions but fully ignore the fact that we are also paying some farmers to actually NOT grow things is amazing.
Let some farmers apply for a licence to grow and sell the entire plant (obviously also usable for hemp fabric - another source of tax and income).

Start to finish here is what you get by immediately legalising marijuana, taxing and regulating it:
[*] Jobs - growing, dispensing and transporting it. New shops akin to off licences would have to be opened around the country. This has impact on Real Estate as well as employment. More money in the coffers for PRSI, lower unemployment (marginally), less subsidisation for some farmers who can now make money off of growing and selling marijuana.
[*] Tax - increase in tax is potentially in the hundreds of millions (exact figure estimation to follow). This is simply from the sale of these goods which can be taxed at a rate similar to alcohol and cigarettes.
[*] Justice - less money invested in battling the sale of marijuana by drug dealers (and less money going to drug dealers), less court time wasted with dealing with possession of marijuana, less people going to jail for possession and sale of marijuana (sale is questionable as the dealers will still have the hard stuff, but there will be a decrease likely).
[*] Health - not only less people involved in crime related to sale of marijuana, but also the increase in use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. It is clinically proven to assist greatly in patients receiving chemotherapy, radiotherapy who have decreased appetite. It is also clinically proven to promote appetite and ease discomfort in terminal cancer and HIV/AIDS patients as well as those suffering from various other conditions. Studies are beginning to show that contrary to prior belief, smoking straight cannabis or marijuana buds is not directly related to cancer - aka they seem to not be carcinogenic.

I'm sure I've left things out, but it seems to be a pretty straight forward proposal.

Dudess

Alcohol will cause aggression moreso than ecstasy would though.

St._Andalou

OisinT wrote: »

Secondly, it would be a huge tax increase for the Government. I think I worked out the figures in another thread - I'll try to find them later

Can you post those figures if you find them, or provide a link? I know it's completely unofficial but I'd be very interested to read them.

Rabble Rabble

It seems that the report is taking the effect of the drug on society, not on the individuals - although there is no denying that alcohol can really affect some people. Obviously alegel acceptable drug will have more effect on society.

They are all dangerous in their way. I distrust the medical community on this - they see the effects on people who over-indulge and would often ban everything, if the could.

Certainly ecstasy is a relatively safe drug. And a cider party is bound to get more violent than a party with ecstasy.

Rabble Rabble

OisinT wrote: »

I was talking about this a few weeks ago (in Politics I think).

Alcohol is dangerous, moreso in some ways than other drugs. But it is a drug which is socially acceptable and is regulated and controlled (stupidly I might ad... but I digress).
Marijuana is not dangerous. The fact that we are not selling this in dispensaries is beyond my comprehension. Firstly, it takes sales away from drug dealers. It takes shadiness out of purchasing Marijuana and its derivatives (hash, etc.).
Secondly, it would be a huge tax increase for the Government. I think I worked out the figures in another thread - I'll try to find them later.
But it was a pretty big increase nonetheless.
Also, it can be grown in Ireland. There are many farmers who simply cannot compete with Europe and Africa growing stuff for absolute pennies on the pound (so to speak), so what do we do? We give them subsidies! The fact that people are outraged by bailing out our banking institutions but fully ignore the fact that we are also paying some farmers to actually NOT grow things is amazing.
Let some farmers apply for a licence to grow and sell the entire plant (obviously also usable for hemp fabric - another source of tax and income).

Start to finish here is what you get by immediately legalising marijuana, taxing and regulating it:
[*] Jobs - growing, dispensing and transporting it. New shops akin to off licences would have to be opened around the country. This has impact on Real Estate as well as employment. More money in the coffers for PRSI, lower unemployment (marginally), less subsidisation for some farmers who can now make money off of growing and selling marijuana.
[*] Tax - increase in tax is potentially in the hundreds of millions (exact figure estimation to follow). This is simply from the sale of these goods which can be taxed at a rate similar to alcohol and cigarettes.
[*] Justice - less money invested in battling the sale of marijuana by drug dealers (and less money going to drug dealers), less court time wasted with dealing with possession of marijuana, less people going to jail for possession and sale of marijuana (sale is questionable as the dealers will still have the hard stuff, but there will be a decrease likely).
[*] Health - not only less people involved in crime related to sale of marijuana, but also the increase in use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. It is clinically proven to assist greatly in patients receiving chemotherapy, radiotherapy who have decreased appetite. It is also clinically proven to promote appetite and ease discomfort in terminal cancer and HIV/AIDS patients as well as those suffering from various other conditions. Studies are beginning to show that contrary to prior belief, smoking straight cannabis or marijuana buds is not directly related to cancer - aka they seem to not be carcinogenic.

I'm sure I've left things out, but it seems to be a pretty straight forward proposal.

It doesnt matter. The relatively sane attitude on this forum will be drowned out by the Joe Duffy listeners were drugs legalised.

gollem_1975

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

It doesnt matter. The relatively sane attitude on this forum will be drowned out by the Joe Duffy listeners were drugs legalised.

the joe duffy listeners (and even Joe himself) will not live forever.

I think the generation of people who became adults from early 1990's onwards, who shall we say "experimented" , who will eventually be the vocal majority - might have a different view of decriminalisation.

however speaking as someone who has recently become a father will I also inherit the previous generations paranoia and fear of "illegal" drugs ( whilst not batting an eyelid to the accepted and also harmful substances Alcohol and tobacco )?

Charlie3dan

I've read that a few times and I actually think you are supporting my argument rather disagreeing with it.

This bit:

I disagree with you completely here. For some people, the stupefying effects of huge amounts of alcohol do not simply bring out dark, suppressed elements of their personality. They completely obliterate the person that's normally there and, for a few hours, replace it with some shambling shell of base instinct lacking completely in normal human faculty.

I know many people who are not violent in a sober state, nor do they even have any semblance of violent tendency, but when they get to they "blackout" stage they have absolutely no control of their actions. I number amongst these people.

Doesn't seem to match what you say here:

Note that when I say they have no control of their actions it doesn't mean they aren't responsible for them.If someone knows they're liable to turn into a lunatic when they're legless, they shouldn't be drinking to such an extent. If someone knows they have no control over how much they drink once they touch so much a drop, they shouldn't be drinking at all.

I hate the attitude that exists here that allows people to consistently get ****ed up and act like a dickhead, only to be excused time and time again because they were drunk, and "Sure aren't they harmless when they're sober?" That's bull****, I think people are defined by their actions rather than some vague sentiments of niceness during their sober hours.

and in fact I agree with everything in the second part and it supports my view.

Rabble Rabble

gollem_1975 wrote: »

the joe duffy listeners (and even Joe himself) will not live forever.

I think the generation of people who became adults from early 1990's onwards, who shall we say "experimented" , who will eventually be the vocal majority - might have a different view of decriminalisation.

however speaking as someone who has recently become a father will I also inherit the previous generations paranoia and fear of "illegal" drugs ( whilst not batting an eyelid to the accepted and also harmful substances Alcohol and tobacco )?

That's a forlorn hope. The first generation to experiment have come and gone, and we have had presidents, and prime ministers who admit to some drug use when young. People also change as they grow older. The belief in the acceptance of legalisation is widespread but not very deep - who votes on that alone? - and the opposition is less widespread but fervent.

I think drugs should be legalised with restraints, but it is way down my list of priorities were there an election.

Besides all that the government who legalises drugs will be blamed for any increase in usage - and I think there will be some increase - so that, too, is a no goer.

FreudianSlippers

St._Andalou wrote: »

Can you post those figures if you find them, or provide a link? I know it's completely unofficial but I'd be very interested to read them.

Yeah I'll have a look when I get home. I'm "working" now

They were figure I estimated based on a study done in California in relation to tax which I substituted our population, a percentage who admit using marijuana in Ireland (which I think I sourced in the OP) and our alcohol tax percentage.

I must have had too much free time on my hands. Especially because I don't even smoke marijuana, I just think it should be legal

Pace2008

Charlie3dan wrote: »

I've read that a few times and I actually think you are supporting my argument rather disagreeing with it.

This bit:

Doesn't seem to match what you say here:

and in fact I agree with everything in the second part and it supports my view.

I'm simply saying that enough alcohol can turn people who are not innately aggressive into violent animals. It's not simply exacerbating negative personality traits; it is temporarily creating a new person that bears no resemblance to their lucid counterpart. In cases like this is is their civic obligation to drink less, or abstain completely, so they are not a danger to themselves or others.

We're obviously on a slightly different wavelength here because I don't see the contradiction.

Charlie3dan

Alcohol can lower inhibitions but I don't think it can make you violent. it doesn't make a completely new person. If that were the case it would actually be fine to say "i was drunk" and that would be a valid excuse, but it's not.

It can lower inhibitions, it can make you loose some of the control you would normally have over your emotions. It does not however, turn a non-violent person into a violent one. It does not change your understanding of right and wrong, it just coulds your judgement.

OisinT

OisinT wrote: »

Marijuana is not dangerous.

Come on have you seen the state of people who smoke Marijuana regularly even over a fairly short space of time, they life in slow motion Ive seen lads in college who was struggling to talk sense after a year or two smoking it, yet we all drank like fish during college/still drink a our fill most weekends and it has zero effect on our heads.

Its also been strongly linked with schizophrenia.

gollem_1975

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

That's a forlorn hope. The first generation to experiment have come and gone, and we have had presidents, and prime ministers who admit to some drug use when young. People also change as they grow older. The belief in the acceptance of legalisation is widespread but not very deep - who votes on that alone? - and the opposition is less widespread but fervent.

I think drugs should be legalised with restraints, but it is way down my list of priorities were there an election.

Besides all that the government who legalises drugs will be blamed for any increase in usage - and I think there will be some increase - so that, too, is a no goer.

out of interest were you part of the first generation ? or are you one of the popes children ?

tbh you are probably right though , there were no huge protests in favour of keeping Head shops open and because of their illegality we are unlikley to see any class of people come out in big numbers to support decriminalisation or legalisation.

I believe that many of the problems caused to society by illegal drugs are as a result of their illegality. Are the vulnerable in society any more protected by the fact that they are illegal ?

Manic Moran

It seems that the report is taking the effect of the drug on society, not on the individuals - although there is no denying that alcohol can really affect some people. Obviously alegel acceptable drug will have more effect on society.

I'd caveat that. I think you have it right, but to make it more clear, the report is assessing the current effect of the drug on society in its current environment: i.e. legal alcohol use has greater effect on society than illegal drug use (presumably not accounting for crime related to the provision of the illegal drug use), and it makes no conclusions as to which would be more dangerous to society were the currently illegal drug made legal (and thus, presumably, more prevalently used).

He does, you will note, also rank the effects of the drugs on individuals, and alcohol rates lower on that basis.

NTM

Pace2008

Charlie3dan wrote: »

Alcohol can lower inhibitions but I don't think it can make you violent. it doesn't make a completely new person. If that were the case it would actually be fine to say "i was drunk" and that would be a valid excuse, but it's not.

It can lower inhibitions, it can make you loose some of the control you would normally have over your emotions. It does not however, turn a non-violent person into a violent one. It does not change your understanding of right and wrong, it just coulds your judgement.

I'm going to have to disagree here because I simply am not a violent person when I’m sober, or on any other drug for that matter, yet I can turn quite aggressive when I hit the blackout stage.

And I’m not talking about a few drinks, I’m talking about the paralytic, incoherent, countless JD+coke level of intoxication.

Pace2008

Alden Thousands Strikeout wrote: »

Come on have you seen the state of people who smoke Marijuana regularly even over a fairly short space of time, they life in slow motion Ive seen lads in college who was struggling to talk sense after a year or two smoking it, yet we all drank like fish during college/still drink a our fill most weekends and it has zero effect on our heads.

Spending your time in a perpetual state of intoxication is going to turn you into an idiot, regardless of the drug.

And bear in mind that Alzheimer's, cancer and liver cirrhosis aren't likely to manifest themselves at the average college-going age.

gollem_1975

Alden Thousands Strikeout wrote: »

Come on have you seen the state of people who smoke Marijuana regularly even over a fairly short space of time, they life in slow motion Ive seen lads in college who was struggling to talk sense after a year or two smoking it, yet we all drank like fish during college/still drink a our fill most weekends and it has zero effect on our heads.

how can you be sure ? your comparing yourself to peers who as you say "also drink like fish".

Alden Thousands Strikeout wrote: »

Its also been strongly linked with schizophrenia.

..and alcohol has been strongly linked to depression/gbh/unwanted pregnancies/cirrhosis etc.

btw can you provide a link for that ? my understanding is that supposed strong links have been disputed (apart from people that are already disposed to schizophrenia)

Pace2008

Pace2008 wrote: »

Spending your time in a perpetual state of intoxication is going to turn you into an idiot, regardless of the drug.

And bear in mind that Alzheimer's, cancer and liver cirrhosis aren't likely to manifest themselves at the average college-going age.

But the chances are the binge drinking done by most people from late teens up to around 30 will have little or no effect on health in later life once its not kept up. Where as most if not all illegal drugs have the potential to ruin you for life in a very short space of time.

Pace2008

Alden Thousands Strikeout wrote: »

But the chances are the binge drinking done by most people from late teens up to around 30 will have little or no effect on health in later life once its not kept up. Where as most if not all illegal drugs have the potential to ruin you for life in a very short space of time.

You've just unwittingly provided a very succinct summary of Ireland's utterly broken attitude towards drinking.

Rabble Rabble

gollem_1975 wrote: »

out of interest were you part of the first generation ? or are you one of the popes children ?

Late seventies so yeah, Pope's.

gollem_1975

gollem_1975 wrote: »

how can you be sure ? your comparing yourself to peers who as you say "also drink like fish".


..and alcohol has been strongly linked to depression/gbh/unwanted pregnancies/cirrhosis etc.

btw can you provide a link for that ? my understanding is that supposed strong links have been disputed (apart from people that are already disposed to schizophrenia)

The comment on drinking like fish was a general comment applied to most people in college, defined as having a good feed of drink 2 or 3 times a week.

I'm comparing our ability to get very high grades in University and going on to get good jobs or continue in college towards PhD's etc as the measure of a brain which is working pretty well.



http://www.medindia.net/news/Marijuana-Linked-to-Schizophrenia-39033-1.htm

http://www.examiner.com/pop-culture-in-hartford/marijuana-linked-to-schizophrenia-say-scientest-but-is-it-a-weak-link

I have also head it from family members who work in the medical profession.

Rabble Rabble

Pace2008 wrote: »

You've just unwittingly provided a very succinct summary of Ireland's utterly broken attitude towards drinking.

is that true? I did binge drink when I was in my twenties, but I have no been drunk since, more than once a year. I have seen no reports of problems with liver etc. from Doctors. It does heal. Live like an old-style alcoholic and you will suffer later on.

I believe that many of the problems caused to society by illegal drugs are as a result of their illegality. Are the vulnerable in society any more protected by the fact that they are illegal ?

In Mexico the vulnerable are the entire society because the US wont legalise. Poor Mexico, it probably would legalise if it could.