samiyam wrote:   Thanks,at least two sane animals here !
   Never understood nicotine..shortens your life,makes you pale,yellow teeth and fingers,makes a big
   dent in your wallet,everything in your aparment stinks and gets sticky,and there is no fuzz or buzz out of  it,I have tried it so I know,but if I smoke pot,that has so many good impacts on my body,I am off to the big house ! And you wonder why I don't like this planet ?

 Coaxial wrote:

That says more about its popularity than its lethality. It takes some effort to kill yourself quickly with alcohol, much easier with, say, barbiturates.

"Dangerous" is a culturally-loaded term and has to be seen in context. If alcohol was illegal (and rare) and Oxycontin was available in vending machines we might be arguing for alcohol legalization as a safer alternative.

The argument to have isn't the one over which drugs should be banned but whether the government should have the power to ban any drug.

 callum wrote: 

How many people die every year from alcohol abuse?  How many die from drug abuse? Alcohol is by far the most lethal.

 callum wrote: 
in an immediate time frame, you're right. but over time, alcohol abuse takes a big toll. and because some can somewhat still function, it makes it even more insidious.

 HazzeSwede wrote: 
Agree

 callum wrote: 
I don't think there are many who would argue that alcohol is worse than speed, crack, heroin or even prescription pills. I sure don't. I think that when you hear that argument it is more of a comparison of alcohol with Marijuana and its perception and treatment by the law. I will say that in every measure you wish to take on it; alcohol abuse is far worse than marijuana abuse IMO and the opinions of a lot of DEA and EMTs who, as you have noted have a front row seat to the adverse effect that all drugs have not only on our bodies, but on our society as a whole.

The worst of all the drugs,nicotine,is legal!

You hear quite a lot about how alcohol is the 'worst' drug of all etc.  Personally I take issue with this.  I have over-indulged in alcohol once or twice; most people have.  Its not at all good for your body, but I was at least able to barf most of it back up and just make a mess then wake in the morning feeling grim...  Contrast this witht he people I see on duty with St John Ambulance as a first aider.  It might be their first experience of crack, speed whatever...and they don't really know what is going on.  The drugs are far more potent than alcohol, and the repercussions if they overdose are huge.  Whereas my bad experience with alcohol could have resulted in my death - choking on my own vomit or something - ending up with one pupil twice the size of the other in A&E is not so easy to get around.

 oldslabsides wrote: 
Hear hear!

What I choose to smoke, drink, snort, shoot up or otherwise put into my body is no one's business but my own.  If I do not own my body, I am a slave.

Why something so basic is so difficult for some to understand completely escapes me.

 phineas wrote: 

There you go- interesting article.  One wonders how Belgium scores so high in the tables!

 Coaxial wrote: 
He'll need a couple Labatts to go with that(them)

 phineas wrote: 

You want a vicodin? Then you could probably figure out how to link it.

Hooked: Canada's painkiller problem

"Ottawa's war has been on the wrong drugs."
 

edit: I can't seem to put the link in:    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/hooked-canadas-painkiller-problem/article1362848/

 samiyam wrote: 
I've long maintained that the double standard, one legal and the other medical, that allows the rich and powerful to profit most from people's addictions, promotes a vicious cycle that guarantees a steady stream of new victims for these profiteers.  It's absolute insanity!  Either addiction is a crime or it's a disease.  Pick ONE.

Obviously our prisons are filled with drug offenders as a direct result of laws that redefined productive, gentle members of society as criminals that deserved mandatory punishments that often exceeded those for first degree murder.  But the medical condition is very real.  The thing is that alcoholism and addiction is the one disease for which no medical treatment exists!

Not only do drug laws need to be brought back down to sane levels, new laws which limit the ability of the medical community to troll for alcoholics and addicts for their insurance dollars need to be enacted.  If we want to have any success in helping the afflicted, we must first save them from the predators who use them for monetary and political gain.  That, along with a lot of myth-busting public awareness campaigns would make for some real change, on many fronts.

 geordiezimmerman wrote: 
I know of a man (actually met him) who told me that he had used heroin for 20 years, fifteen of them while working for Merrill Lynch as a broker and he supported his habit from his salary.  The man had a $35,000 a year habit and never once resorted to crime to support his addiction.

However, he destroyed his life and basically had nothing to show for all that money he made, never had a wife or kids.

He's now sober and married, with two kids and a job as a drug councellor.  He's a big advocate of legalization... but he doesn't support drug use.  He's against drugs but he knows from first-hand experience that people would be better off if drug use became a medical issue rather than a legal one.

 Pyro wrote: 
No we don't and this is one of the main reasons why governments and many peoples attitude towards drugs will never change. For me it's all about responsible behaviour. If you take/drink something then you have to be responsible for that and be honest with yourself that if you don't like it then don't do it. I love a drink  and I like geting drunk amongst my friends. I don't count my drinks, I know I'm not an alcoholic but in my opinion I don't act irresponsibly when I'm drunk. As servo said earlier addictions can build up over a period of time and this is something everyone can fall victim too if they are not careful but there are many many drug takers who live normal everyday lives and yet you very rarely see that side of things.

On a slightly different note, I watched a program the other day set in a womens prison and pretty much all of them were in for drug offenses. However, One story really shocked me. A young girl was in prison because she was a self harmer and a sometimes tries to committ suicide and sometimes she did this in a public place, which is illegal apparantly.  The reason she does this is because she was so horrifically sexually and mentally abused by her father when she was a child she can't bring herself to talk to anyone about it and so therefore self harms and takes heroin. She is often in solitary confinement often on 24 hour watch while serving her sentence, is then transported on her release to the pyschiatric hospital to be drugged up to the eyeballs then sent back on to her estate where the whole sorry process happens again. Slightly off topic I know but all i know is the current system clearly isnt working for her(and millions of others).

 Pyro wrote: 
Sure you do.  They're the ones who are "homeless" through no fault of their own.  They say that they don't drink or use drugs, but just "had a run of bad luck".  I know a lot of these people from local news stories, and from watching them on the street.  They're using.  Every last one of them.

The people who you see on TV who did use hard drugs, and are older and successful have all long since quit even dabbling.  I don't know of anybody who has successfully dabbled with drugs with strong physical addictive properties without eventually becoming addicted.


They might be in the minority of all people, but that's because the majority of all people draw the line at being serial felons.  And since using hard drugs is a felony crime almost everywhere...well you can do the math.  Usually the college graduate who's looking for their first job, and knows that drug testing is ubiquitous these days will drop that occasional habit for good in order to secure (and keep) a good job.


It just goes to show you — we're all unique in so many ways.  Cool, isn't it?

 Pyro wrote: 
So by one definition, you're a light drinker.  You probably count your drinks because you have them with food or after eating.  So it's hard to tell immediately when you've had enough.  That seems perfectly rational and normal to me.

IME the groups that set unrealistically low bars for defining alcoholic behavior are the ones that have a profit motive.  Hospitals with psych wards, treatment centers, for-profit "evaluation specialists" that get their clientèle from the court systems; all of these have something to gain by convincing someone that they need "treatment".  I can state unequivocally that none of these do any good whatsoever, charge a lot of money for access to what can be had for free, and can ruin your insurance coverage.

If you are an addict and/or alcoholic, you'll know beyond a shadow of a doubt without any questionnaire.  If so, get thee to an AA meeting ASAP.  Otherwise, don't let profiteers put ideas in your mind.

 Servo wrote: 
I think you're right.  It's just that we never see those "UNaddicted" folks on TV being interviewed....

Plenty of folks can use whatever drug...and do it infrequently...including alcohol.  Those with addictive personalities, not so much.  I do think folks who are able to use drugs infrequently (and are not addicted) are in the minority.

I tried crack once.  Wasn't impressed.

I'm wired for ganj and not alcohol.  Go figure.