Here we go. Alcohol being ATTACKED. More harmful than Cocaine and Heroin

reply to post by darkdays4u


really have you tried those illegal drugs? I did rails of ice,speed for my first time today (halloween)
and honestly if i drink a 2/6 i get more messed up then i have from coc aine, speed. I never have tried herion or crack and dont plan to that # is really #ed ive watched people take hoots n lines , never an injection

Originally posted by deltaalphanovember
I agree that alcohol is extremely dangerous - because of the fact that is so socially acceptable for many people to get drunk, get in their cars and cause absolute mayhem.
It is also a huge factor in the breakdown of indigenous societies such as the Australian Aborigine, native American, Hottentot etc.

But it is not the alcohol per se - it is the abuse of alcohol.

I don't believe the authorities will ban alcohol (just as they have not banned cigarettes) - simply because of the huge revenue derived from the taxation of such products (alcohol and cigarettes are deemed to have an elastic demand).

Alcohol kills,heroine kills,meth kills,cigarettes kill,fast food kills,overeating kills..........you see where I'm going with this?Everyone has a choice and we don't need the government to tell us what should and shouldn't do,and we sure don't need another study to tell us what we already know.Excess of anything is not healthy,but it should be our choice.

In the U.S. , how many people are killed in marijuana-related traffic accidents each year ? How many women and children are abused by someone who has lit one up ? How many times does a fight ensue from a group of people who are partaking of the green leafy substance ?

I could go on and on but , I think my point is clear enough .

Why get so upset over a study?
It gives us information, though most of us knew this already. Alcohol does more damage to society than heroin does. The more we know the better, right?

Prohibition has been done and failed. Knowing alcohol has a downside is hardly going to bring that back. Besides, too much money in it, the government could never get away with it.

What this study might do is make pollies more likely to legalise marijuhana, and that would beone more prohibition off our backs.

Originally posted by LiveForever8
Heroin in moderation? I've never heard of it.

I've got a pack of legal heroin capsules here beside my desk. Got them free in a hospital for serious back pain after a bungled operation.
24 capsules, got them 10 years back. One of those and I'm in heaven all day long. But I've still got 21 left. They're great, but I had too much I wanted to do that I couldn't do so well stoned, stuff I needed all my wits for. And now they're well past their expiry date.

Drug addiction is not caused by drugs. It's caused by extreme poverty, misery, malnutrition, emptyness.
Make things bad enough and anyone will find a way to numb themselves, even if it's knocking their head against a wall.

The exception is when people are purposely addicting others to create new customers. But it's only the laws against drugs that make drug-pushing worthwhile.

No substance, no matter how addictive, destructive, or harmful should be banned from ingestion. To dictate what people can and cannot put into their bodies is tyranny. The government does not know what is best for us. Do I really need to explain? Think about it.

What the government can do, and should do, is educate kids long and hard about the dangers of addiction. I'm not talking about some half-ass D.A.R.E program (that stuff is garbage). I'm talking a whole year of serious, in depth analysis of exactly what happens in the brain if you abuse a substance. They should not present the facts from a bias, but instead they should present scientific research only.

Originally posted by okbmd
In the U.S. , how many people are killed in marijuana-related traffic accidents each year ? How many women and children are abused by someone who has lit one up ? How many times does a fight ensue from a group of people who are partaking of the green leafy substance ?

I could go on and on but , I think my point is clear enough .

The answer to all your questions... NONE

Good post

reply to post by Wide-Eyes


This is true, BUT it does cause significant mind damage.

.. and you'd be surprised what one can do to himself and others when he becomes schizophrenic.

But I agree.


If we lived in a perfect world, the plant grown with chemicals by a big corporation would be illegal, and the one grown from the ground with sunlight and water is legal.

reply to post by Agit8dChop


Theres no evidence to suggest taking marijuanna causes any of what you mentioned in you post.
You do know how they came to the conclusion that smoking marijuanna made you dumb and caused brain damage right??? Well if not il tell you

They got a bunch of monkeys and basically suffocated them with the marijuanna smoke....they were inhalling the equivillent of 15000 joints an hour....thats why the monkeys lost brain cells and died. Not because of the marijuanna...you pump 15000 of anything into ones lungs and im sure the results would be identical.

There are plenty of documentries outlining the reasons why its illegal, the effects, and the health risks associated with it. Id suggest you take some time to look into the real reasons it has been demonized over the past 70 years. A lot of the information you may have read is probably propaganda...like i say there is no evidence to link ANY of those conditions solely to the use of marijuanna.


Sorry mods if im not allowed to speak about this and please remove accordingly, but i think misinformation is not helping anyone.

EDIT: I feel that these people are correct in their findings. Alcohol is a very dangerous drug as not only is it addictive, it is a depressant and mind altering substance.
Many many deaths can be attributed to direct consumption of alcohol. Lets just look at alcohol poisoning for example...50,000 people die each year in the usa because of drinking too much
( source www.buzzle.com... )
Lets measure that against....lets say marijuanna....0 deaths in the usa EVER.
These people are right to label alcohol a dangerous drug, its attributed to millions of deaths each year world wide, its destroyed families and careers.
People have been brainwashed into believing alcohol is not a drug....and pushed propaganda demonizing safer alternatives.
Marijuanna is not illegal because its more dangerous than alcohol....its illegal because it would be a nightmare to tax.

MODS : Im not condoning the use of illegal subtances in any way....im pointing out relevant facts to compare alcohol

reply to post by loves a conspiricy


... how about myself?

Who' smoked regularly. I don’t drink, I didn’t do other things.. i smoked.

.. it messes with your mind. Im sorry but any scientific paper you have is meaningless.

How about my best friend, who smoked more than I, didn’t do drugs, and ended up in a mental asylum for 6 months because of severe depression and schizophrenia?

Marijuana affects your brain. No two ways about it.

I have seen first hand the damage to families, and the damage done to society as a whole by alcohol.
The fact that it's socially accepted does not alter the fact that it's a nasty toxin.

reply to post by Britguy


Actually, he's full of rubbish when claiming that alcohol is more dangerous than heroin, etc.

Alcohol ABUSE is what he means. People who drink in a manner that is responsible and don't drive drunk, etc are no more of a harm to society than people who partake in a certain herb.

I would venture as far as to suggest that cigarettes are far more deadly to society, not only to their users, but the people around them. They should do studies on people who smoke in households with kids to see if there's any correlation between a rise in lung/breathing disorders and childhood exposure to cigarette smoke.

That being said, most substances are fine in moderation. I would however prefer that my tax dollars be used to snub out cigarettes, meth, heroin, crack and MDMA.

reply to post by The Sword


I agree with most of what you say but the war on drugs is a failure. New approaches need to be taken to clean up the problems with addiction.

Btw, what harm does MDMA do to society? It's not addictive, there are no recorded deaths and contrary to what people believe, it doesn't damage your brain.

reply to post by Wide-Eyes


Good question.

I'm just not ready to legalize ALL drugs. Though it would be a noble experiment if someone did.

I have a three point agenda I guess...

Point 1...

Taking an article from the AP who receives details written by a SINGLE scientific study (regardless of prestige) and using it as a defense for a SINGLE point is a dangerous game. This reminds me of the cliche "statistics are lies...damned lies." I disagree with this statement as a whole because statistics define the probabilities that make up our existence and are the most rational way to make relatable predictions. However, this statement holds truth in the fact that you can set any parameter for a statistic and use it to represent whatever point you choose. Don't believe me? The very title of the thread claims alcohol is more DANGEROUS than coc aine or heroin. Yet the article itself states:

"They found heroin, crack coc aine and methamphetamine, or crystal meth, to be the most lethal to individuals"

So, what now? What truth does your statement hold?

AH HA! The article goes on to claim that the social effects of alcohol are equally as hazardous. Really? I'm pretty sure this is a scientist's opinion expressed by a journalist (kind of like hear-say in a court of law).

This is my point exactly...we can define the parameter (which is worse lethality or social withdrawal?) and then apply a statistic to make one drug appear worse than another (alcohol is worse because it causes you to withdraw from society and spend years in depression). Not only that, we can also fund a scientific group to help us mould this statistic from an interesting experiment in order to bolster its veracity.

Statistics are valuable, but in the wrong hands they can lead to disinformation. Which brings me to...

Point 2...

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by Wide-Eyes

 

This is true, BUT it does cause significant mind damage.

.. and you'd be surprised what one can do to himself and others when he becomes schizophrenic.

But I agree.


If we lived in a perfect world, the plant grown with chemicals by a big corporation would be illegal, and the one grown from the ground with sunlight and water is legal.

It's even worse to make a statement without substantial backing. This is disinformation...and I will refute this segment by saying there is no SCIENTIFIC STUDY which connects marijuana to schizophrenia. The only "dementia" EXTENDED marijuana usage causes is short-term memory loss, which is arguably a pretty bad consequence. The phrase SIGNIFICANT MIND DAMAGE scares me as it is a term that was undoubtedly picked up from somebody who must have disinformed you at some point along the road. Your evidence may be poor, but your intentions were good and for this I apologize if I seem rude. (I think your last statement validates this fact). Which brings me to...

Point 3...

The key with any psychoactive compound is to use it in moderation as to not let become the major mode of your reality. What I mean by this is that while all drugs have dangers, it is their overuse that is the crucial problem. This is a "NO DUH" concept that I feel must be reiterated. All things should be legal, but humans have shown a propensity to take advantage of situations in order to gain an advantage over other members of society. This is a much deeper issue which I must avoid in order to simplify my post.

Freedom of choice should always be coupled with moderation and knowledge about a subject. Statistics have both a dark and a light side and must be judged beyond face-value to gain this knowledge. Avoiding disinformation is the key to discovering the truth behind these statistics.

IMO,
-Matthew

Alcohol is more deadly than other 'mind-altering' substances BECAUSE it's a legal substance, as opposed to the other substances to which it was compared,

Once again, it all boils down to the manipulation of public perspective. Have you ever heard of the phrase "forced perspective"? It's very popular in photography and cinematography.

Basically, we are all being manipulated to see/view/understand our current environment based upon what the PTB want us to grasp as reality.

Reality is what we make of it. In essence, it's nothing more than the sum of our own individual experience(s).

I don't care what anyone else says or implies. I am my own person (as is each reader of this post), and I will make my own determinations based upon the experiences that I have had in my own life.

Do I believe that the authors of the research believe in their own hypothesis? Yes.
Do I believe that this is a majority view and/or actuallity? No.

For instance, alcohol is not my forte. It creates problems for me therefore, I avoid the substance. There are alternatives, although they may be considered 'illegal', that do not have such a negative effect on me.

Go ahead and tear me apart. To each his/her own is what I say. And judge not, unless you have absolutely nothing in your own closet.

Lets for argument sake, say that the federal government did decide to go through and attempt to ban the sale of alcohol. What arguments would they use, what areas would they encompass and how would it be presented so everyone would agree it is a good thing? After all alcohol is a very popular thing, people do purchase and consume it. It stands to reason, that certain members of the government will take this into account, as the mindset has been, we know what is best for you, we have college degrees. Or well you did not take responsibility for your actions and life, so we will for the good of society do such. And most of the people are willing to agree and give up their very freedom of choice for this to happen. But back to the main question, what would the basis of the arguments be, the position and how it would be presented. Keep in mind that this may be speculation on my part.
The arguments that could be presented to ban the sale and consumption of Alcohol would be 4 points: 1) Medical, 2) Economic, 3) Political, and 4) Social. Each is based on a series of facts that can not be disputed, as it is proven that such does and has occurred.
1) Medical: Alcohol is bad for a person, as they tend to drink to excessive amounts. It has been well documented where many young people, especially in college and young teenagers, tend to experience alcohol in their youths, leading to them making very bad choices and decisions, as well as, putting themselves at danger and risk. Studies have shown that many young people who drink, tend to do such excessively, and a few will drive drunk, increasing the chances of a fatality. The drunk driving is still happening on the road, with fatalities and serious injuries happening. There is a portion of repeat offenders, who have continued to re-commit this kind of horrendous crime. When someone is killed due to an alcohol related incident, it often is a emotional burden of the surviving parent and the children. Alcohol abuse is known to lead to the suffering of sclerosis of the liver, which can lead to a painful death. Can we as a responsible government and people continue to allow this action to continue on?
2) Economic: In this time of economic downturn, alcohol is a luxury that many people can not afford, yet will continue to expense out, leading to the possible starvation and hunger of children, as the parents did not purchase the right amount of healthy food. Many statistics will show, that when a worker gets drunk or drinks, and is on the job, the number of accidents that occur will rise, costing the respective company hundreds of thousands of dollars to cover the medical costs of those who got injured, along with the costs of legal fees and court. Money spent on the sale of alcohol does not benefit the local community as a majority of the businesses and makers of alcohol are often not in the same location as the consumers, so the financial benefit to the local communities are not there. Combined with the actual toll and carbon foot print that is associated with the manufacture and transportation of alcohol and the costs will skyrocket up, along with the use of the resources. Water is short in different states and soon it the choice will have to be between a child having a drink of water and the production and sale of beer.
3) Political: Many people of the country voted for us to help guide and govern their lives. It is our duty under the laws to fulfill the promises we made and to ensure that their economic, safety and well being are secure so they can sleep peacefully at night knowing that we did the right thing. There are people in our districts and states that are forced to make decisions that is making life to them.
4) Social: The last point of all, is that there is a growing problem of the number of homeless in this country that often spend everything they have to get and consume alcohol, leading to them being on the street and acts of public indecency. Some of those people have families and the children are bearing the brunt of them not having gainful employment and are often forced to endure abuses at the hands of a parent who is drunk. Many married couples often find when times are tough, turn to drinking and getting drunk further adding to the problems of their marriage and this leads to arguments, domestic abuse and eventually divorce of the family unit, leaving the children to suffer. It is seen where the parents drink, the children will often copy their parents and start drinking, only to become addicted to it and eventually alcoholics, often leading to another cycle of abuse and destructive behaviors.

Now before you flame me, those arguments in a nut shell were used once again. But instead of using the original arguments, the only argument that was not given, was the social one that contended alcohol against religion. I changed the wording to match the problems of today. The very core of those arguments were made and won the passing of the 18th amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. You can take and change the words around and put in anything that the government would want to try to ban or even restrict, the arguments are the same, only the words change. Take a look at all that any government has tried to ban or is in the process of banning. It starts out with an idea, then a study, then they cherry pick the best parts, failing to follow through and report the whole study and base the arguments around those 4 points, using words that would stir up emotion and gather public support. And if you do not agree with such, well then the words change, slowly, but they do change, and questions are asked about those who disagree with what ever it is, using the same arguments, but turning the tables. Under what is presented, if you do not agree, the question could be asked, do you not like the children? Do you hate the planet? Why do you think that the family unit should not stay together?
That is how the government tries to get things passed, that is how the government operates. Do not be fooled, this is just one more nudge and push for the government to regulate our lives and to limit the choices we have.