If you drink alcohol, yet you are against other drugs...

Julie London · 08-02-2012 10:36AM

Alcohol ranks "most harmful" among a list of 20 drugs, beating out crack and heroin when assessed for its potential harm to the individual imbibing and harm to others, according to study results released by a British medical journal.

Alcohol is just a socially acceptable drug. But with new plans on the way to ban alcohol advertisements and bring in min prices on alcohol. It seems alcohol could be set to become as socially unacceptable as smoking in the next 10 years.
I used recreational drugs, alcohol and smokes for most of my early twenties. Im 2 years clean from everything. And the biggest difference inb my life has come from quitting alcohol. I would have been a social drinker. bingeing some weekends, not drinking much midweek. I was by no means what you could class an alcoholic. But the differences to my life from quitting are amazing.
Alcohol was way worse for me personally than the cocaine ( again social cocaine user thankfully clean now).
I think alot of people who drink, are doing so blindly because its the social norm. They just dont accept its a drug. They dont know what it feels like to be months clear of alcohol and how your mood and outlook on life changes for the better.

vtec_vixen · 08-02-2012 10:39AM

Look.. No one has to break laws they choose too.
No one has to take Drugs. Again they will do so if they want to.
Ive taken a few myself god knows.
That does NOT mean I want to see Gear and Crystal Meth legalised.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

So Ill Smoke my hypocritical fags, Ill drink my hypocritical vodka.
Ill smoke my Joints and pop my odd pill.
I honestly couldn't give a flying fcuk if they legalise them or not.

People always will and always have found ways to do what the like. Illegal or not. Making something legal I doubt will have very much effect on use levels and if it does it will only be until the novelty wears off.

Bruthal · 08-02-2012 10:39AM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

No - I was pointing out an inconsistency. He said, in a nutshell, 'I should be able to use my drug of choice (alcohol) while I support that you get a criminal record for using yours' (weed/E's/Cocaine etc).

I would agree a user probably should not be crimilised for actually using them.

I do support the legalisation of all drugs though but that's a different matter.

We will have to ban tea as well now:D

Sindri · 08-02-2012 10:40AM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What's yours? I believe all drugs should be legalised for a multitude of reasons.

No good reason.

Great.

Like say DDT or Asbestos? Yes, they are illegal because they have the potential to harm people who have no decision in whether they are at risk or not. Drug users choose to take drugs.

Because the 'cure' (prohibition and the criminality and violence* that orbits it) is worse than the disease (drug use).

* I include the violence of the state against peaceful people who choose to take drugs in this too.

Choose to take drugs, or are they highly addictive and in cases lead to OD? Many psychologists will tell you people don't choose to take heroin or cocaine, or pcp or crystal meth, all extremely dangerous and damaging drugs that people become addicted to for a multitude of reasons, but mainly because they are addictive.;)

People who abuse prescription drugs are directed by courts to go to rehab.

lugha · 08-02-2012 10:43AM

snowfinch wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous, no-one has to take illegal drugs. You just choose to do so thereby ignoring your social conscience and fund criminals to get your kicks.

Exactly. It is much the same argument that we make to prohibit the viewing of child pornography. I.e. Even if you do not harm a child directly you are supporting an industry that does.

Similarly, whilst people continue to use prohibited drugs they are supporting an industry that causes harm to an awful lot of people.

And no, I am not suggesting that pedophiles and illicit drug users are the same. The former did not make a choice to be what they are!

Seriously, the scenarios are different in that there certainly is a case to legalize certain drugs, clearly there is not for child pornography. But that is not relevant to my point.

Chuck Stone · 08-02-2012 10:43AM

lugha wrote: »

Think a little harder and I think you will find that they do have a choice. Not one they want to take, but choice they have?

Causal problem. The illegality takes away the choice.

You are basically giving license to anybody to break the law (for personal benefit mind, not any principled altruistic reason) if they disapprove of the law!

Appeal to common practice fallacy. Some laws are stupid and harmful. - think Godwin and S. African apartheid.

Might I ask, how do you distinguish between laws that we must obey (or are there any???) and optional ones that we obey only if we approve of them?

A person should have the freedom to peacefully consume the drugs of his choice unmolested without being labelled a criminal.

The reasons that drugs laws are fantastically stupid are primarily the above and also the below.

When it comes to drugs I believe the cure (prohibition) is far far worse than the disease (drug use).

Prohibition has been a costly disaster that hasn't worked, if anything it has caused untold misery and death.

AeoNGriM · 08-02-2012 10:45AM

Naomi00 wrote: »

Guinness is rich in iron, they used to give out free pints to people after donating blood.

That's true, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the alcohol in the Guinness.

Bruthal · 08-02-2012 10:48AM

AeoNGriM wrote: »

That's true, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the alcohol in the Guinness, so your point is invalid.

Although the blood-alcohol level might be higher from one pint, with having less blood:D

Chuck Stone · 08-02-2012 10:48AM

foxyboxer wrote: »

If I drink caffeine which is a drug but abhor and condone Heroin use, does that make me a hyprocrite?

Depends what you mean by 'heroin use'.

Refining it down to it's most active ingredient and then blowing it into your brain via hypodermic needle is drug abuse. Opium smoking was and is common in many countries and a lot less harmful I believe.

Sindri · 08-02-2012 10:51AM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What's yours? I believe all drugs should be legalised for a multitude of reasons.

No good reason.

Great.

Like say DDT or Asbestos? Yes, they are illegal because they have the potential to harm people who have no decision in whether they are at risk or not. Drug users choose to take drugs.

Because the 'cure' (prohibition and the criminality and violence* that orbits it) is worse than the disease (drug use).

* I include the violence of the state against peaceful people who choose to take drugs in this too.

* What about the violence caused by the mind altering effects of PCP that has police being bitten by a man who has the strength and energy of an ox as he rampages through a neighbourhood.

You know these arguments are very idealistic and there are valid points to be made by both sides, but practically how does the legalisation of these drugs stop the social issues they cause?

reprazant · 08-02-2012 10:51AM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Depends what you mean by 'heroin use'.

Refining it down to it's most active ingredient and then blowing it into your brain via hypodermic needle is drug abuse. Opium smoking was and is common in many countries and a lot less harmful I believe.

Its also highly addictive.

The OP's point is ridiculous. You either have to be a tea-totaller, against everything or for everything. There is no in-between. It is the type of argument propagated by someone with a very narrow mindset.

Chuck Stone · 08-02-2012 10:52AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAcnDevkTnc

Chuck Stone · 08-02-2012 11:04AM

Sindri wrote: »

* What about the violence caused by the mind altering effects of PCP that has police being bitten by a man who has the strength and energy of an ox as he rampages through a neighbourhood.

Parade of horribles.

A parade of horribles is also a rhetorical device whereby the speaker argues against taking a certain course of action by listing a number of extremely undesirable events which will ostensibly result from the action. Its power lies in the emotional impact of the unpleasant predictions

We don't ban cars because there are nasty crashes. We don't ban mining because there will be cave-ins. Why should we ban drugs? Why? Because puritans, racists, charlatans and colonists made these ridiculous laws in the first place?

how does the legalisation of these drugs stop the social issues they cause?

How does prohibition stop them? It makes them worse and hands a valuable revenue stream to thugs and criminals. Being put in prison is a lot more harmful than taking drugs or selling them I would argue. Remove the illegality and focus on treating addiction and you reduce the costs to society and people.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/07/drugs-policy-legalisation-report

Kolido · 08-02-2012 11:05AM

jimpump wrote: »

anyone that drinks alcohol or smokes tobacco yet are against cannabis,cocaine,heroin users are the biggest hypocrites there is

Maybe we are just law abidding citizens.

There is a difference between recreational use and medicinal use. To argue that some drugs are used in medicine to highlight there benefits is irrelavant to this tread.

saa · 08-02-2012 11:09AM

Sure I saw you taking that panadol, last night, in the kitchen.
Sure I saw you taking that cocaine, last night, in the kitchen.

No difference, I just can't understand why people get so uppity about drugs maaaan.

pirelli · 08-02-2012 11:21AM

One of the many health benefits of guinness is that it has many antioxidants which lower blood cholesterol, guinness acts much like an aspirin and prevent blood clotting and has fewer calories than larger. It's a social pastime, and while smoking cannabis is social it is also very cult. While heroin and cocaine are hardly sociable activities.

Sindri · 08-02-2012 11:23AM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

We don't ban cars because there are nasty crashes. We don't ban mining because there will be cave-ins. Why should we ban drugs? Why? Because puritans, racists, charlatans and colonists made these ridiculous laws in the first place?

How does prohibition stop them? It makes them worse and hands a valuable revenue stream to thugs and criminals. Being put in prison is a lot more harmful than taking drugs or selling them I would argue. Remove the illegality and focus on treating addiction and you reduce the costs to society and people.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/07/drugs-policy-legalisation-report

Please, it's not clever to Google fallacies and have them handy for any occasion. Typical internet warrioring.

I think you are mistaken if you believe these arguments are just fallacies to be dismissed, in fact that is incredibly pseudo-intellectual. They still make valid points, and fallacious arguments can make valid points.

The reasoning behind the points can still be valid, the manner of which they are expressed can be fallacious but the reasoning can still be valid.

Do you have proof it makes them worse, as I have heard arguments of where it was tried and abandoned.

Decriminalise the user yes, there is a financial incentive to that as well, but legalising dangerous addictive substances like opiates for recreational use, as is at your own volition, even though they are highly addictive and you will not be able to stop until you over dose or find help, which legally one would be forced to do any way were they illegal.

EDIT

This isn't a schools debating team.

AeoNGriM · 08-02-2012 11:37AM

robbie7730 wrote: »

Although the blood-alcohol level might be higher from one pint, with having less blood:D

It's a new money saving tip. Give blood, get drunk on far fewer pints, thus saving a small fortune!

Chuck Stone · 08-02-2012 11:45AM

Sindri wrote: »

Please, it's not clever to Google fallacies and have them handy for any occasion. Typical internet warrioring.

I've been through this argument on these boards so many times that it actually gets annoying to hear the same rebuttals so forgive me if I am able to pre-empt them before they happen.

What I might do is actually take the time to make out one single detailed post with the arguments for legalisation and a flow chart to the fallacies of the counter arguments when it comes to the legalisation of drugs and just copy-pasta. It would save me a lot of time.

I apologise if I sounded condescending or unmannerly.

And with that I'm out.

Sindri · 08-02-2012 11:51AM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I've been through this argument on these boards so many times that it actually gets annoying to hear the same rebuttals so forgive me if I am able to pre-empt them before they happen.

What I might do is actually take the time to make out one single detailed post with the arguments for legalisation and a flow chart to the fallacies of the counter arguments when it comes to the legalisation of drugs and just copy-pasta. It would save me a lot of time.

I apologise if I sounded condescending or unmannerly.

And with that I'm out.

Your grand.:)

I'm usually just playing devil's advocate any way. If something with interesting implications (moral or practical) occurs to me I always do it and try and disagree with a position that I hold and see where it takes me and see what I re-evaluate.

I find it intellectually stimulating, any way things like this are best discussed and speculated over a glass of whisky.

lugha · 08-02-2012 11:52AM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Appeal to common practice fallacy. Some laws are stupid and harmful. - think Godwin and S. African apartheid.

Amusing as it is to compare your desire to shoot up at the weekends to the South African struggle to be rid of apartheid I think the child pornography analogy is closer to the mark.

Do you subscribe to the view that it is right to prohibit the possession of child pornography on the grounds that it supports an industry that causes a serious amount of pain? And if so, what in principle is different about illicit drug use.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

A person should have the freedom to peacefully consume the drugs of his choice unmolested without being labelled a criminal.

The reasons that drugs laws are fantastically stupid are primarily the above and also the below.

When it comes to drugs I believe the cure (prohibition) is far far worse than the disease (drug use).

Prohibition has been a costly disaster that hasn't worked, if anything it has caused untold misery and death.

You are simply saying that you don’t think the law is a very good or sensible one. But that is beside the point. People like Seanie Fitzpatrick believed that regulations were an impediment to entrepreneurial efforts. Unfortunately for us all, many of our “entrepreneurs” took it upon themselves to ignore laws that they vehemently disagreed with.

Arguing that you personally are convinced of the wrongness of a particular law, purely for reasons of personal gratification, are not grounds to ignore it, especially when there are adverse consequences for the rest of society.

Cú Giobach · 08-02-2012 12:27PM

If someone makes a general statement like they are "against recreational drug use" yet they use a recreational drug, e.g. cannabis or alcohol, then yes, they are being hypocritical.

08-02-2012 12:28PM

Sindri wrote: »

Choose to take drugs, or are they highly addictive and in cases lead to OD? Many psychologists will tell you people don't choose to take heroin or cocaine, or pcp or crystal meth, all extremely dangerous and damaging drugs that people become addicted to for a multitude of reasons, but mainly because they are addictive.;)

What psychologists? Can you provide a source for this claim? Anyone who says this lacks a basic understanding anything and cannot be taken seriously, because you have to choose to put it into your body the first time.

You also cannot become addicted to anything on your first try because it is remains a conscious decision to take it again. Addiction is defined by dependence, i.e. you cannot choose to stop without enduring extreme cravings and/or withdrawals. From the anecdotal evidence I have read, it seems that heroin addicts typically begin as recreational users, then slowly use more and more often until they become dependent.

Chuck Stone · 08-02-2012 12:29PM

lugha wrote: »

Amusing as it is to compare your desire to shoot up at the weekends

Reported

to the South African struggle to be rid of apartheid I think the child pornography analogy is closer to the mark.

I mentioned S.A. to show that saying 'it's the law' is a facile argument.

Do you subscribe to the view that it is right to prohibit the possession of child pornography on the grounds that it supports an industry that causes a serious amount of pain?

Child pornography involves the abuse of minors by adults and is a disgusting and immoral deviancy.

And if so, what in principle is different about illicit drug use.

Do you really need me to walk you through the difference? What a nasty ill-though out strawman of an argument.

You are simply saying that you don’t think the law is a very good or sensible one.

Yes and harmful on top of it. Not just I. There are many like me.

People like Seanie Fitzpatrick believed that regulations were an impediment to entrepreneurial efforts. Unfortunately for us all, many of our “entrepreneurs” took it upon themselves to ignore laws that they vehemently disagreed with.

Sigh. Legalisation does not mean free for all. A legalised drug market could still be well regulated.

Arguing that you personally are convinced of the wrongness of a particular law, purely for reasons of personal gratification

This is nothing to do with personal gratification - the only drug I use is alcohol (which I'm off at the moment incidentally). Again I suggest you choose your words less recklessly.

I believe in in the legalisation of drugs because I care about what happens to people - not because I'm pro drugs or interested in self-gratification.

Sindri · 08-02-2012 12:31PM

Deleted User wrote: »

What psychologists? Can you provide a source for this claim? Anyone who says this lacks a basic understanding anything and cannot be taken seriously, because you have to choose to put it into your body the first time.

You also cannot become addicted to anything on your first try because it is remains a conscious decision to take it again. Addiction is defined by dependence, i.e. you cannot choose to stop without enduring extreme cravings and/or withdrawals. From the anecdotal evidence I have read, it seems that heroin addicts typically begin as recreational users, then slowly use more and more often until they become dependent.

Yeah I was referring to when they actually were addicted...:pac:

Cú Giobach · 08-02-2012 12:46PM

Doc wrote: »

I think you may be mixing up use and abuse. Just because I have a glass of wine at dinner but am against cannabis,cocaine,heroin use I am the biggest hypocrites there is? Grow up.

You seem here (and excuse me if I'm wrong) to consider using your drug of choice as "use", yet the use of any other drugs as "abuse". That seems a bit odd.

AngryBollix · 08-02-2012 01:06PM

Alcohol can be enjoyed and is not harmful as long as it is consumed in a responsible manner. More importantly its legal

lugha · 08-02-2012 01:13PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Reported

Rather hypocritical of you to find offense at the notion of you or anyone “shooting up”? So much for your proclamation that we should be free to use or not any drugs that we please.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Do you really need me to walk you through the difference? What a nasty ill-though out strawman of an argument.

I know what a strawman argument is. You have given a fine example of one here. I asked you to reconcile your contrasting attitudes in two situations where breaking the law leads to the perpetuating of a criminal industry and your respond with your view on how awful one of these industries in. You’re rebutting an argument that I am not making.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This is nothing to do with personal gratification - the only drug I use is alcohol (which I'm off at the moment incidentally). Again I suggest you choose your words less recklessly.

Again, a strange objection to a phrase I use. Personal gratification? All drug taking, legal or not, is about personal gratification! What would you call it?

paddyandy · 08-02-2012 01:16PM

Doc is correct and one drug is not like another .Their effect and cultures are very different.

Sindri · 08-02-2012 01:20PM

I'll just clarify my position on the legalisation of drugs.

I think all illegal recreational drugs should be decriminalised. I feel offenders should be sent to rehab as it's cheaper and has lower re-offending rates and is thus even cheaper (that's an argument for America). Our system for heroin users should follow that of Australia's and Switzerland's.

Certain drugs I feel should be legalised, I feel certain drugs should not be. I think there would be a huge rise in the use of opiates (believe me I've used opiates) there is only addiction with opiates. And I feel that such drugs would be marketed to the socially disadvantaged perpetuating a cycle of poverty, if you look at Afghanistan and see how the use of heroin as risen substantially since the war began, along with the population of Kabul, things will not be good there for a very long time. Opiates are extremely dangerous and highly addictive and I think, practically, their legalisation would be the knell for the socially disadvantaged. Crime and poverty rates would soar I think. Users should be treated to an exceptional standard and our system could learn a lot off of other countries that I have mentioned above, but legalisation of opiate derivatives IMO would be counter-productive and would just be an accident waiting to happen. If anyone has ever been addicted and has abused opiates in that they were not functional users of opiates you would understand.

People can be functional users, even though usually it turns into abuse and the only reason I am opposed to the legalisation of opiates is because of my perceived negative effects it would have on the socially disadvantaged.

I would only be in favour of legalisation of opiates on certain conditions, two important ones would be:

That we had a proper system for treating users - we don't.

That they could not be advertised.

If you drink alcohol, yet you are against other drugs...

Comments