Addiction - are all of the studies flawed?

lizzyvera · 25-08-2009 11:10pm

vinylmesh wrote: »

imo, if there was a real alternative to street heroin available legally the black market would disappear. At the moment you need to be an addict already to get methadone legally.

From what i have read the prescription heroin programme in switzerland seems to be having a real positive effect on the addicts and their families.

Cannabis can be quite addictive. Obviously not in the same league as heroin, but i would definitely not describe it as "not addictive".

Cannabis isn't physically addictive. I only study a bit of neuroscience and mainly pharmacology, so I don't know a lot about psychological addictions, but even if cannabis is in some other way addictive, it's not the same kind of addiction as I'm talking about.

I don't know why anyone would take heroin if they were in a sound, sensible frame of mind. I would not risk being enslaved by heroin addiction for any reason.

I know quite a lot of people who claim to not do drugs, but they drink. The legality of alcohol has made it "not a drug" in some (admittedly extremely stupid and narrow-minded) people's minds. I have no doubt that some people woud try heroin if it was legal, who otherwise wouldn't. People are far stupider than you realise, if you think you can provide heroin on tap and not cause any problems.

Do you know what one of the biggest health risks of alcoholism is? It's malnutrition... because addicts only care about their drug and forget about normal activities. Heroin is even more addictive, and no matter what, would be extremely expensive. You have surely seen the conditions junkies bring up their children in? These people's heroin habits cost more than I earn. They're not short of money! They just don't spend it on food for their children.

You seem to think that well made heroin would be cheaper- well made drugs are EXTREMELY expensive. Look up prices for codeine, it's almost the same thing. Chemicals are VERY expensive. Drug companies need lawyers, translators, pharmacists, chemists, biologists, very well paid management etc. The staff cost a lot. The chemicals cost a lot. The energy and processes cost a lot.

Addicts would still just buy crappy street stuff, rather than pay for quality.

Also, if it were legal, there would be an onus on the pharmacists not to dispense lethal or dangerous amounts. (They are not allowed to dispense dangerous amounts of paracetamol for god's sake!)
Most addicts take more than a safe amount of heroin. They'll just have to satisfy their cravings with street drugs, or other people will buy the heroin and mark it up for them. It will inevitably end up in the black market anyway.

I don't care about tax. It would harm so many people, it's not worth it.

watty · 26-08-2009 12:19pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8222090.stm

The number of women dying drug-related deaths in England and Wales rose by 17% in 2008 to 853, according to the Office for National Statistics.

The number of male deaths also rose 8% compared with 2007 to 2,075 - the highest total since 2001.

The ONS figures, which include both legal and illegal drugs, also show cocaine resulted in 235 deaths in 2008 - a rise of 20% from 2007.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8196998.stm

Scotland's drug death toll has risen by more than a quarter in the last year, new figures have suggested.

Figures from the General Register Office revealed drugs killed 574 people in 2008, up from 455 the year before.

The report found the number of deaths more than doubled in a decade and said the long-term trend "appears to be steadily upwards".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8196953.stm

Synthetic cannabis substitutes, including Spice, are as harmful as cannabis and should be made illegal, government drugs advisers have said.

Spice, a mix of herbs and man-made cannabinoids, is sold on the high street and online for about £20.

But the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs warns it can cause paranoia and panic attacks.

It wants all types of cannabinoids banned. The Home Office is expected to legislate later this year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8218688.stm

'Legal highs' set to be banned

Two so-called "party" drugs and a man-made cannabis substitute will be banned by the end of the year, the Home Office has announced.

At the moment, these "legal highs" are sold openly across the UK and on the internet, but ministers say they are an "emerging threat".

The two drugs, known as BZP and GBL, have been linked to a number of deaths.

Charity DrugScope said law alone was "a blunt instrument" and greater education was needed about the drugs' effects.

To that end, the Home Office said it would begin an awareness campaign in university freshers' weeks in September to highlight the dangers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/guernsey/8208054.stm

Legal high is to become class B

The legal high "Spice" is to be classified as a class B drug on Guernsey once its contents is known.

It is currently legal to buy the drug from the internet or off-island.

Guernsey's Home Minister, Geoff Mahy said: We have banned the commercial importation. It should be classified as a dangerous drug."

"As soon as we get the go-ahead from the medical officer on the identification of the contents we will take action.

The commercial importing and exporting of "legal highs" - herbs and chemicals sold as an alternative to some illegal drugs - was banned in April.

No doubt some addiction studies are flawed.

But does Boards and EYH really need to be giving a platform to people with a Drugs Promotion Agenda to quote out of context in a effort to minimise the damage Drugs and a Drug culture creates?

The [Drugs Deaths ]figures of course DO NOT show deaths on Roads, Building Sites, Farms, Home and Industry and related injuries attributed to accidents that are the result of a person's judgement impaired under the influence of Drugs. Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and Drink Driving are a culture we are belatedly tackling, we don't need to compound the problems society has.

26-08-2009 1:16pm

watty wrote:

But does Boards and EYH really need to be giving a platform to people with a Drugs Promotion Agenda to quote out of context in a effort to minimise the damage Drugs and a Drug culture creates?

Nobody here has a, at least conspicuous, drugs promotion agenda watty. Neither Boards or EYH are acting, at least intentionally, as a platform for drugs promotion, and nobody is seeking to minimise the damage that drugs have on both people and society. These points are off topic, so don't persue them on this thread, and that applies to everybody.

Prof.Badass · 26-08-2009 4:10pm

lizzyvera wrote: »

Cannabis isn't physically addictive.

Wrong.

Many drugs such as cortisone and beta blockers also produce withdrawal symptoms upon cessation, yet are not considered addictive at all.

To experience withdrawals you would have to be using the drug quite regularly. Regularly enough that (if you were a recreational user) you would most likely already be psychologically addicted before you experienced them.

There are many differences between cannabis and heroin that i think explain the differences in addiction, "physical addiction" is not one of them.

I don't know why anyone would take heroin if they were in a sound, sensible frame of mind. I would not risk being enslaved by heroin addiction for any reason.
I know quite a lot of people who claim to not do drugs, but they drink. The legality of alcohol has made it "not a drug" in some (admittedly extremely stupid and narrow-minded) people's minds. I have no doubt that some people woud try heroin if it was legal, who otherwise wouldn't. People are far stupider than you realise, if you think you can provide heroin on tap and not cause any problems.

I have asked this question to all my friends and not one of them has said they would start doing heroin if it was legal.

I really don't think anyone is gonna stop thinking heroin is a drug just because it is made legal. With the education schemes that would be in place, people would be well informed of the dangers and the rebellion factor would be gone (a significant factor in what makes the drug-culture appealing to teenagers). There's nothing cool about buying some pills in a pharmacy.

You seem to think that well made heroin would be cheaper- well made drugs are EXTREMELY expensive. Look up prices for codeine, it's almost the same thing. Chemicals are VERY expensive. Drug companies need lawyers, translators, pharmacists, chemists, biologists, very well paid management etc. The staff cost a lot. The chemicals cost a lot. The energy and processes cost a lot.

ORLY?

So let's say that's €6 (extremely liberal estimate) for 32x8mg. that's 256mg, and I'm leaving out the cost of the paracetamol!

Erowid puts a common dose for a heavily tolerant user at 20-40mg. Clearly legal heroin would be a lot cheaper than the stuff on the street.

JC 2K3 · 26-08-2009 4:11pm

lizzyvera wrote: »

I study pharmacology and that is not true. It permanantly down-regulates several nervous functions. Tolerance develops very quickly. You probably know someone who had an operation or cancer who developed some tolerance to opiates over a short time.

Opiate addiction IS a physical effect, when we talk about opiate addiction we are talking about the irreversible effect addiction has on the dopaminergic "reward system" in the brain. It down regulates this pathway, by over stimulating it, so the neurons compensate. That is the part that causes problems. There is no separating the "physical effect" from the addiction, because addiction is the physical effect on neural architecture.

This research has also been done on animals using very high standard, pure opiates. Brain activity can easily be monitored.

Would tolerance be really classed as physical harm? And does tolerance not decrease with abstinence?

And if tolerance is the only negative physical effect from heroin, it's hardly a huge problem if the user isn't addicted....

Also, you're talking about damage from addiction, from heavy use.

That said, heroin's addictiveness is why you shouldn't take it. It is not a good idea.

watty · 26-08-2009 8:46pm

Addictiveness is not the sole reason to avoid drugs. Nor the main criteria of the damage they cause.

watty · 26-08-2009 9:05pm

vinylmesh wrote: »

Erowid puts a common dose for a heavily tolerant user at 20-40mg. Clearly legal heroin would be a lot cheaper than the stuff on the street.

Extend this thinking logically and ALL items sold by criminals on a Black market basis should be legalised.

Treatment programs and Education yes. Cheap legally available Heroin is a criminally insane suggestion.

Experimentation and thus use would rise. People don't just take it due a rebel factor of it being Illegal. Existing users would be less likely to consider rehabilitation.

I'd agree the popular press overstates the dangers, addictiveness and deaths from drugs. The solution is not making Drugs cheaper or more legal.

Someone the other day claimed a girl died because she had the wrong advice about hydration regarding a particular drug. One reaction is that information should be more accurate and people better educated how to take the drugs safely, understand the addictiveness of the different drugs etc.

Rubbish. She died because she took drugs and no-one needs to or should be taking them. People don't need more detailed information about how to take things safely and how addictive they are. It's technical. That's why we have prescription drugs for medical treatment. That's why they have to be prescribed by a trained Doctor.

Maybe only an accident of history that more substances are not Prescription Only. Some people can't be trusted to self administer correct dosages of Paracetamol. Most Recreational drugs, if legalised would need to be Prescription Only.

Trained Doctors consider bodyweight, other conditions, other drugs already in use and such when prescribing. Even with all their training and being their profession they make mistakes.

It's not at all reasonable to educate the general public or Drug Users to use Heroin Safely. The goal needs to be to educate as to the stupidity of taking recreational drugs, especially Heroin, at all.

Studies of Addiction, and nuances of purity vs risk etc are technical subjects for Medical people. It's too easy for a "lay-person" to read such studies and see what they want to see out of context to back up their own world view.

Prof.Badass · 27-08-2009 12:35pm

watty wrote: »

It's not at all reasonable to educate the general public or Drug Users to use Heroin Safely. The goal needs to be to educate as to the stupidity of taking recreational drugs, especially Heroin, at all.

Alcohol and caffeine are drugs also. From a rational point of view your arguments should apply to them also. Or are you going to suggest that they are somehow different?

Are you denying the possibility that there could be a drug out there that could substitute for alcohol that is safer than alcohol but not more addictive?
As drugs go, alcohol is pretty nasty (not that I fully agree with the link, but some people on this thread seem to place absolute trust in peer-reviewed journals (ps, i can hit you up with the full article if you want;))).

--amadeus-- · 27-08-2009 12:38pm

^Interesting link

27-08-2009 12:39pm

vinylmesh wrote: »

As drugs go, alcohol is pretty nasty

If anybody is interested, here's a documentary portraying and explaining the same data which vinylmesh has linked to above.

JC 2K3 · 27-08-2009 2:06pm

watty wrote: »

Addictiveness is not the sole reason to avoid drugs. Nor the main criteria of the damage they cause.

Well, I was talking about heroin specifically. I've made this point several times on boards. The word "drugs" is used in a retardedly general context all too often.

So, addictiveness and overdosing aside. What would you see to be the main problems with heroin?

Can I ask why you are against the use of substances to alter brain chemistry in order to induce pleasant sensations? Your view seems to very much along the lines of "people shouldn't be taking drugs full stop", without any real explanation as to why you feel this way.

tbh · 27-08-2009 2:25pm

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Well, I was talking about heroin specifically. I've made this point several times on boards. The word "drugs" is used in a retardedly general context all too often.

So, addictiveness and overdosing aside. What would you see to be the main problems with heroin?

Can I ask why you are so against the use of substances to alter brain chemistry in order to induce pleasant sensations? Your view seems to very much along the lines of "people shouldn't be taking drugs full stop", without any real explanation as to why you feel this way.

my problem with drugs and the sensations they produce is that they are only temporary.

Most people who post on boards would never get into heroin because they have too much to lose by getting addicted. Most people who get addicted to heroin have nothing to lose, or at least not as much to lose as the rest of us. They may be from families that have several members, even several generations, on heroin. They may have no job and no prospects. If I was in that position, and someone said "If you take this, it'll make you feel fantastic", I might say no the first time, or even the second, but I'm sure I'd probably succumb the 20th or 30th time.

So, I take it, say heroin, and I feel amazing. Now, even if there is no physical addiction whatsoever, I'm now confronted with a choice. I have the easy choice, just keep taking the drug and feeling good (for as long as that lasts), or "get out of bed" if you like and try to fix the problems in my life. However, it's the inability to fix those problems that put me in a position where I was agreeable to the idea of taking heroin in the first place.

So, my main problem with drugs is that it seems to offer an alternate, pain free existence to people who are usually in some amount of mental pain to begin with. However, it's all a lie. It doesn't help, it makes things worse.

This song by Damien Dempsey expresses it well, I think (some lyrics nsfw)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXCHJTt-Eu8

27-08-2009 2:33pm

vinylmesh wrote: »

Alcohol and caffeine are drugs also. From a rational point of view your arguments should apply to them also. Or are you going to suggest that they are somehow different?

It's laughable to compare them with heroin though.I sometimes get a headache if for whatever reason I havent had a cup of tea in the day but by heck I'll stand over any statement that drinking tea is not bad for me despite the cafein.

I mean there are plenty of studies around broadly accepting that alcohol in moderation ( eg 1. ) is good for you.I'm sure there are for tea..In fact I know there are.

You'd be hard set to find similar as regards heroin in moderation...
Besides,heavy drinkers and alcoholics are subject to bad social stigma's,some are pariah's and most have personal problems.

Anyone attempting to hold the presence of that up as a reason for to laud heroin use or similar drugs widespread availability would be dredging an empty barrell.It would be pathetic.

tbh · 27-08-2009 2:40pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I mean there are plenty of studies around broadly accepting that alcohol in moderation ( eg 1. ) is good for you..

Even better if you smoke a couple of joints at the same time

link

(link summary: A study just published online by the journal Neurotoxicology and Teratology suggests that marijuana may protect the brain from some of the damage caused by binge drinking.)

27-08-2009 2:48pm

personally I'm actually pretty open minded on moderate use of marajuana.
It's interesting that most people I know that have used it have been able to give it up pretty early on.
I'm also familiar with the cases for and against it's medical use.

Thankfully I subscribe to other ways of making myself happy and don't need it medically at this time

Beruthiel · 27-08-2009 3:01pm

JC 2K3 wrote: »

So, addictiveness and overdosing aside. What would you see to be the main problems with heroin?

Addictiveness and overdosing

Can I ask why you are so against the use of substances to alter brain chemistry in order to induce pleasant sensations?

Are you suggesting that people take Heroin to induce pleasant sensations?
If not, please clarify that, because as your comments stands, they are not at all clear.

watty · 27-08-2009 3:52pm

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Can I ask why you are so against the use of substances to alter brain chemistry in order to induce pleasant sensations? Your view seems to very much along the lines of "people shouldn't be taking drugs full stop", without any real explanation as to why you feel this way.

Your Opinion.

Why are you so determined to promote EXTRA proven dangerous substances. Of what value is it other than self-indulgence? What advantages can possibly out weigh the disadvantages. We are having enough difficulty with over indulgence (either too much in one go, or too often) of Alcohol and reducing Smoking without adding more problems.

<snip>I know you have good intentions watty, but keep it relevant to this particular discussion. We don't want this thread going down the same path as the other 4/5 threads, so I'm going to remove this part. Thanks.<snip>

mark renton · 27-08-2009 4:03pm

Ive never seen so many mods in the one place

boards addiction methinks

The answer to the question is that addiction studies are not flawed, they are just never going to reach the full understanding of what it is like for a human/animal to be totally dependant on a substance/item - so much so that all of the basic needs to survive food/shelter etc go out the window

how can a study put accross what goes on in a persons mind/soul while they are going through this?

Prof.Badass · 27-08-2009 4:36pm

Addiction is 1000 times more important than any factor in why people should not do heroin. But aside from addictiveness, the main reason not to do legal heroin would be because heroin has nothing to offer.

Drugs like alcohol, mdma and to a lesser degree cannabis, can help people socialise and maintain good bonds with their friends.

Drugs like psychedelics and cannabis can help people see things differently and apreciate things they otherwise might never have. Not to say there's not risks involved with such drugs, but people do find long-term benifits in their occasional use.

Drugs like cocaine, heroin and nicotine do not really alter your mind, they just make one feel good (and my guess would be as a result they're better at tricking your brain into thinking the high is natural and as a result they are more addictive).
Apparently most people who try heroin find it boring and move on. My guess would be that they have satisfied their curiosity and realise that there would be no lasting benifit in doing it again.

watty wrote: »

We are having enough difficulty with over indulgence (either too much in one go, or too often) of Alcohol and reducing Smoking without adding more problems.

Without going into whether or not it should be legal, do you think people just shouldn't use alcohol full stop?

tbh · 27-08-2009 4:46pm

vinylmesh wrote: »

Drugs like cocaine, heroin and nicotine do not really alter your mind, they just make one feel good (

nicotine doesn't make you feel good. Withdrawals from nicotine make you feel bad. Taking nicotine alleviates that - same with heroin after a tolerance is established. It's like wearing a tight pair of shoes just for the relief you feel in taking them off.

Prof.Badass · 27-08-2009 5:11pm

tbh wrote: »

nicotine doesn't make you feel good. Withdrawals from nicotine make you feel bad. Taking nicotine alleviates that - same with heroin after a tolerance is established. It's like wearing a tight pair of shoes just for the relief you feel in taking them off.

I know from personal experience that this is not true.

As a nicotine-naive individual I once experimented with nicotine gum. I took 4mg (I have worked this out as 4 times as much as i would have gotten from a cigarette).

It made me feel good. Not kinda good, but really good. We're talking noticeable euphoria.

Granted most smokers don't get the same dose as me and thus the euphoria might not be as noticeable, but it is still hitting all the right receptors in the brain. And unlike when i did it (which required 20 minutes of chewing gum to get high) the nicotine hits a smokers brain within seconds of inhaling it so it bears a greater resemblance to a natural rush, which the brain associates with the behaviour of smoking.
After this experiment I decided that there was no real gain from using nicotine and I have not taken it since.

watty · 27-08-2009 5:18pm

vinylmesh wrote: »

Without going into whether or not it should be legal, do you think people just shouldn't use alcohol full stop?

There is a culture of Alcohol Abuse (different from Alcoholism). Both Binging and too much and every day(or even recommended units). The BMA in UK criticised the UK gov for emphasising a daily amount as they argue the system needs a rest for a day or few. So near the "limit" every day isn't a good thing.

Drinking a week or fortnight's "recommended Units limit" in one night is "binging". Binging is much less than most people think apparently.

What ever the benefits of Stout or Red Wine, I suspect Spirits, the more pure & clear and alcoholic the less value?

But it's not about my personal preferences. I'd not drink and drive and think that anyone that does is fooling themselves as to their abilities.

I think whether I drink, or how much is not relevant to broader discussion about drugs and addiction.

Overnight prohibition of anything that has hitherto been legal and widely acceptable in society is proven to be a bad idea. That's why Prohibition is not a current option in anti-smoking. If smoking is brought down to a lower level, then raising the age, tighter controls and eventual prohibition is what will happen to tobacco. The Age has be raised, recently in shop display/adverts banned.

I don't think we are likely to see the same approach on Alcohol.

watty · 27-08-2009 5:39pm

vinylmesh wrote: »

As a nicotine-naive individual I once experimented with nicotine gum. I took 4mg (I have worked this out as 4 times as much as i would have gotten from a cigarette).

It made me feel good. Not kinda good, but really good. We're talking noticeable euphoria.

Granted most smokers don't get the same dose as me and thus the euphoria might not be as noticeable, but it is still hitting all the right receptors in the brain. And unlike when i did it (which required 20 minutes of chewing gum to get high) the nicotine hits a smokers brain within seconds of inhaling it so it bears a greater resemblance to a natural rush, which the brain associates with the behaviour of smoking.
After this experiment I decided that there was no real gain from using nicotine and I have not taken it since.

Do it for a while and taking it only gives relief from not taking it. I don't recommend that, because that is then nicotine addiction.

My mother started smoking at college to be "cool". By the time my sister was walking she wanted to give it up. I don't beleive it was ever for a "high".

Over 50 years later she gave it up after being rushed to hospital one night. Later she discovered it was an Asthma attack, not a heart attack. But it helped her find the will power to finally give up. One thing of my Father did really really annoyed her. One day he said "I'm giving up smoking". And he did. I don't believe he has ever smoked since, over 40 years.

So different people cope differently with addiction, some need no external motivation and others need serious life threatening condition to find the strength to change. Just anecdotal of course, not statistically significant.

mark renton · 27-08-2009 5:48pm

vinylmesh wrote: »

Addiction is 1000 times more important than any factor in why people should not do heroin. But aside from addictiveness, the main reason not to do legal heroin would be because heroin has nothing to offer.

Drugs like alcohol, mdma and to a lesser degree cannabis, can help people socialise and maintain good bonds with their friends.

The difference between the 2 types you described above is that one type are somewhat socially acceptable (alcohol, mdma and to a lesser degree cannabis) and the other is not socially acceptable (heroin)

If you legalise heroin you remove the social exclusion that is associated with this particular drug - therefore all the above mentioned will fall under the same category

watty · 27-08-2009 5:56pm

Also I think it's inappropriate to group Alcohol, mdma (Ecstasy) and cannabis together.

The UN regards MDMA as an illegal drug. Only some Muslim States ban Alcohol.
Almost all countries ban cannabis and derivatives, also cannabis (marijuana) is commonly smoked. This also affects bystanders. For the user, smoking joint is the most harmful method.

tbh · 27-08-2009 5:58pm

vinylmesh wrote: »

I know from personal experience that this is not true.

I smoke. I promise you, it is true

Prof.Badass · 27-08-2009 5:59pm

watty wrote: »

There is a culture of Alcohol Abuse (different from Alcoholism). Both Binging and too much and every day(or even recommended units). The BMA in UK criticised the UK gov for emphasising a daily amount as they argue the system needs a rest for a day or few. So near the "limit" every day isn't a good thing.

I would personally agree with the BMA in this instance. The advice doesn't seem to be relevant to what i would hope is the majority of drinkers. It really annoys me when they say "do not regularly exceed 3-4 units", what does regularly mean, and how much can you exceed it by? For example, is it ok to take 7 units all at once on a saturday night if you don't drink at all during the week?

:mad: Anyway,

I think whether I drink, or how much is not relevant to broader discussion about drugs and addiction.

Not whether or not you drink, but whether or not you see drinking as ok. After making this statement;

watty wrote: »

It's not at all reasonable to educate the general public or Drug Users to use Heroin Safely. The goal needs to be to educate as to the stupidity of taking recreational drugs, especially Heroin, at all.

I would be really interested in seeing whether or not you think drinking alcohol is stupid. It is very relevant to the discussion. Afterall, alcohol is a recreational drug.

watty · 27-08-2009 6:12pm

The "alcohol" card is traditional ploy in drugs discussions.

I've discussed the other one "tobbaco".

I've already said what aspects of Alcohol culture I think are stupid. I'm not going to comment more as I don't think it's relevent.

Prof.Badass · 27-08-2009 6:21pm

watty wrote: »

Do it for a while and taking it only gives relief from not taking it. I don't recommend that, because that is then nicotine addiction.

My mother started smoking at college to be "cool". By the time my sister was walking she wanted to give it up. I don't beleive it was ever for a "high".

I would think it was to avoid the removal of the (not very noticeable) high. Perhaps smokers grow so accustomed they see their nicotinated state as "normal".

tbh wrote: »

I smoke. I promise you, it is true

Don't take this too seriously but, are you calling me a liar

?

Most natural highs are not strong enough to be overtly noticeable.But they still affect our behaviour. The same goes for nicotine.

watty · 27-08-2009 6:24pm

OK I changed my mind ... A crumb.

Some churches use grape juice. Some use real wine. They are quite divided on it. Some (possibly erroneously) even use any dark red berry juice.

The bible was all (if you accept that Luke was a convert to Judaism before a Christian) written by Jews. They claim either is acceptable in ceremonial use. The Southern Baptist Church in Jerusalem unusually serves both at communion (or did in late 1980s).

The Biblical blessing is "Blessed are thou O lord God who brings forth the fruit of the vine". Jesus's first miracle was turning well water into fine wine. Not grape juice.

I think if people have a drinking problem, they should not drink alcohol at all. AFAIK only some Moslem countries ban alcohol. I do think it should be well controlled and not sold to young people.

Certainly real white, rosé or red grape juice unlike Alcohol free beer is an honest product. Gene Roddenberry and his Synthale! Sounded like he thought the Human Race should be Alcohol free. Did he drink?

Addiction - are all of the studies flawed?

Comments