Alcohol "most harmful drug"

[Bar Sinister]

You know what they say about assumptions..... I have provided a number of recent studies on a number of drugs in a number of topics over the last couple of years, and not all of them shined a particular drug in a good light all the time.

I do favor a certain drug (like some people favor drinking alcohol or coffee), but that's irrelevant since I believe no drug, including alcohol, should be illegal.... which also includes drugs I'd never touch and personally think are bad.

I was making a point about what happens when you only rely on hearsay or studies, which depending on the date the study was conducted and by who, you can get conflicting information and claims, and that's the problem..... especially where conflicting studies can come from equally respectable sources.

Most studies have improved a lot over the years in regards to their bias and accuracy, but there are still groups out there who will hold onto older studies that have since been debunked and there are examples out there of some politicians openly citing false information from out dated studies...... Just as there are some US politicians who still suggest the 9/11 terrorists came from Canada...... it's not about the truth or accuracy, it's about fear tactics..... and using a source you claim as being a study can be enough to sway those too lazy to look into things themselves..... most of the time they forget to mention the finer details of that study they used.

^ This doesn't happen all the time, but it does happen, that's all I was saying.

I used weed as an example, I was aware of what you were talking about.

And whoever claimed weed makes someone smarter, richer or better looking in the first place? (Or any drug for that matter?)

If weed (as an example) was really that bad as they say (some studies claim it's more harmful then cigarettes)..... then Willie Nelson, Cheech & Chong should have died years ago.

Tell you what, rather then asking me to show you a drug that does all these magical things to turn someone into a Prince..... how about you show me documented cases of people who have died directly from the intake of marijuana without the influence of any other form of narcotic and I might believe your claim of "The Drug" being harmful on any level that someone would give a damn about.

Died? Very few people die from the use of any drug. Why should death have to be the measure of a drug's harmful effects? The only drug I know that kills a great number of people is tobacco. However, since you are fixated on marijuana in spite of the fact that my original comment was meant to apply to all drug use, I can find a few studies that list problems associated with its use.

Here is one associating use of marijuana with damage to the teenaged brain.
Marijuana damages teenage brains

Here are a few potential affects of the drug on any user.
Marijuana Side Effects

I'm not sure that you would give a dam about any of these problems, but that does not mean that they do not exist.

 

[Cliffy]

Drugs have been used since early man climbed down from the trees. They may be more widely used and there may be a greater variety of natural and synthetic drugs in use today. But to blame society's woes on drug use is to ignore the root problems that cause such behaviour. Most people can handle most drugs without serious side effects and addiction. Generally speaking, only a small percentage of users become addicted or experience severe medical harm. Of course, there are some synthetics, like crystal meth, that harm a much larger percentage.

Each drug presents its own set of pros and cons. Lumping them all together is to do a great disservice to everybody. Mind altering drugs like pot, Psliocybin, peyote and a great number of other natural drugs have been used in shamanistic and spiritual practices for thousands of years. Problems begin to arise when these drugs are used for recreational purposes. That is not to say that recreational use is bad per say, but those who are suseptable to addiction and adverse health problems tend fall under the "problem" aspect of drug use.

It is very naive to think that the problem can be mitigated or legislated. After tens of thousands of years of drug use, it is quite possible that the human brain is hard wired to drug use. Education may be the answer, but it very difficult to find reliable information and even more difficult to find sources that are not biased. "Just say no to drugs" was idiotic and even elementary school kids could see through it.

Legalize it all and use the money saved for research and rehab. Every other attempt to "do something" about it has failed miserably and created a black market and criminal class to supply it. I think it is a no brainer but obviously some people can't wrap their minds around the concept.

 

[Unforgiven]

Died? Very few people die from the use of any drug. Why should death have to be the measure of a drug's harmful effects? The only drug I know that kills a great number of people is tobacco. However, since you are fixated on marijuana in spite of the fact that my original comment was meant to apply to all drug use, I can find a few studies that list problems associated with its use.

So if you can find a few studies, why do you post a link to a couple of uncredited editorials like these below?

Here is one associating use of marijuana with damage to the teenaged brain.
Marijuana damages teenage brains

Little more than a sheep in wolves clothing I say.

When you read the opinion, it's obvious to all other than the most close minded person seeking only to discredit Cannabis and those who use it. Some teenagers (not all) with a predisposition to schizophrenia may contract the decease early.

Compare this to those who drink alcohol and smoke tobacco. Where would you put this "danger" on a scale compared to the two others I mentioned?

Here are a few potential affects of the drug on any user.
Marijuana Side Effects

Potential? Really? Prey tell, what could potentially happen while you are waiting for the bus? Now make a short list and find where these potential side effects of Cannabis falls on the range of danger in that list.

I'm not sure that you would give a dam about any of these problems, but that does not mean that they do not exist.

Should we take great concern with the level of breeze in any give room or, the inherent danger of eating a meal at a restaurant? Are these arguments even relevant on a comparative level with other drugs commonly consumed by people in modern life? I have to say no. Life is fraught with peril from one moment to the next. But we're equipped for the most part to deal with those perils in a way that allows both the freedom of living a fulfilling life with the ability to last long enough to live that life. You can't Nerf the world neither can you expect the world to be a completely safe place for one and all.

If you choose not to drink, smoke or enjoy Cannabis, I say it's your choice to make. It should also be mine to make for myself rather than the government attempting to make that choice for me and failing at everyone's expense to manage that.

 

[Praxius]

Died? Very few people die from the use of any drug. Why should death have to be the measure of a drug's harmful effects? The only drug I know that kills a great number of people is tobacco. However, since you are fixated on marijuana in spite of the fact that my original comment was meant to apply to all drug use.......

And that's where your argument fails.... that's where the War against Drugs fails..... because you can not categorize all drugs in such a way..... you can not apply a general statement to all drugs as if it'd relate.... be that tobacco, alcohol, weed, shrooms, LSD, Ex, Cocaine, whippets, caffeine, etc.

The only statement that can be applied to all in an equal fashion is that they all have their own ways of affecting various parts of our bodies and minds, be that positive or negative..... anything beyond that is "debate-wank"

, I can find a few studies that list problems associated with its use.

I can find studies that list problems associated with just about everything under the sun, including the oxygen we breath..... what's your point?

"Problems" isn't justification for banning or making something illegal...... alcohol included.

Here is one associating use of marijuana with damage to the teenaged brain.
Marijuana damages teenage brains

I don't give a rats ass what it does to teenagers..... teenagers shouldn't be doing the sh*t in the first place, nor should they be smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol.... that's why they have age limits for those things..... and if teenagers are doing these things, then perhaps someone should give their parents a kick in the ass and tell them to keep an eye on their children better.

Here are a few potential affects of the drug on any user.
Marijuana Side Effects

I'm not sure that you would give a dam about any of these problems, but that does not mean that they do not exist.

Never said they didn't.... but thanks for not reading anything of what I was saying in my previous post.

There's no point listing off minor or possibly moderate side effects or risks with marijuana or any drug, because this entire topic.... the very first post was all about the levels of risk and danger each drug has involved with it..... thus logically there'd be some for marijuana, just as there's some for tobacco & alcohol.

I didn't ask for a list of minor inconveniences..... I asked if you could show me evidence where marijuana in particular was directly linked to the death of someone......

Why I asked you had more to do with the whole point of why marijuana and similar drugs are made/kept illegal in the first place.

If a particular narcotic does not directly cause serious side effects or issues with the greater majority of the population that uses them and there are no direct ties with death or terminal illness with mentioned narcotic.... and the only concern against said narcotic are possible side effects or reactions that would only affect a small % of people compared to the overall population...... THEN WHERE IS THE LOGIC AND JUSTIFICATION TO WARRANT A NARCOTIC TO BE LISTED AS ILLEGAL AND TO PUNISH THOSE WHO USE THEM IN THE PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN LIVES WHO DO NOT POSE A THREAT OR DANGER TO ANYBODY AROUND THEM???

Bee stings don't seriously harm or produce serious side effects to the greater majority of the human population..... but they can cause serious side effects and even kill a select % of the population...... should we now make a War on Bees & Hornets and make them illegal and try to eradicate their populations?

^ It makes about as much sense.

 

[Ariadne]

It seems so obvious now that someone has officially announced that the most dangerous drug to society (those around people that drink ) is alcohol. Of course it is. It's a legal drug, one that is used publicly and irresponsibly, and the only realy restriction is that people that are drunk shouldn't drive ... but everything else is okay.

 

[TenPenny]

It seems so obvious now that someone has officially announced that the most dangerous drug to society (those around people that drink ) is alcohol. Of course it is. It's a legal drug, one that is used publicly and irresponsibly, and the only realy restriction is that people that are drunk shouldn't drive ... but everything else is okay.

Not really.

There are restrictions on who can purchase and possess alcohol. There are restrictions on who can sell it. There are restrictions on where it can be consumed. There are laws against being intoxicated in a public place.

Just to name a few.

 

[ironsides]

Drunks not only destroy their own lives, but those around them as well. If anyone knows how to create a total ban on it with more importantly controls that stop bootlegging totally I am all for it.

 

[Praxius]

It seems so obvious now that someone has officially announced that the most dangerous drug to society (those around people that drink ) is alcohol. Of course it is. It's a legal drug, one that is used publicly and irresponsibly, and the only realy restriction is that people that are drunk shouldn't drive ... but everything else is okay.

It's also illegal to be intoxicated in public, you can not consume alcohol in a public area unless that area is licensed, there are age restrictions based on the state/province, if you're at a bar and the bartenders can tell if you're intoxicated, by law they are supposed to no longer serve you alcohol (though that's not enforced all that much)....... it's not just the irresponsibility of the drinkers, it's also the irresponsibility of law enforcement not actually enforcing the existing laws surrounding drinking besides drinking and driving.

I find there's more enforcement of the law against smokers then there seems to be against drinkers.

Drunks not only destroy their own lives, but those around them as well. If anyone knows how to create a total ban on it with more importantly controls that stop bootlegging totally I am all for it.

And since that will never happen, you'll just have to deal with reality that drinking, smoking and the use of all those other drugs out there will continue to happen, regardless of what laws say what and whatever forms of control you can think of enforcing to prevent boot legging.

If Homer Simpson can get away with it, anybody can.

 

[TenPenny]

Drunks not only destroy their own lives, but those around them as well. If anyone knows how to create a total ban on it with more importantly controls that stop bootlegging totally I am all for it.

So? What's your point? Not everyone who drinks is a drunk. Not everyone who does drugs is an addict.

Some people are bad drivers, are you suggesting that all cars be banned? Some people become addicted to porn on the internet, and it ruins marriages and families. Should we ban the internet?

 

[mentalfloss]

Drunks not only destroy their own lives, but those around them as well. If anyone knows how to create a total ban on it with more importantly controls that stop bootlegging totally I am all for it.

What? Oh brother..

 

[Bar Sinister]

And that's where your argument fails.... that's where the War against Drugs fails..... because you can not categorize all drugs in such a way..... you can not apply a general statement to all drugs as if it'd relate.... be that tobacco, alcohol, weed, shrooms, LSD, Ex, Cocaine, whippets, caffeine, etc.

The only statement that can be applied to all in an equal fashion is that they all have their own ways of affecting various parts of our bodies and minds, be that positive or negative..... anything beyond that is "debate-wank"

I can find studies that list problems associated with just about everything under the sun, including the oxygen we breath..... what's your point?

"Problems" isn't justification for banning or making something illegal...... alcohol included.

I don't give a rats ass what it does to teenagers..... teenagers shouldn't be doing the sh*t in the first place, nor should they be smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol.... that's why they have age limits for those things..... and if teenagers are doing these things, then perhaps someone should give their parents a kick in the ass and tell them to keep an eye on their children better.

I cannot categorize all drugs in terms of their relative harm to society? Of course I can. And I have provided evidence to support it in other threads. The fact that you can find problems with many other products is not relevant to this thread as we are not discussing other products. The thread is about the harm caused by drugs and alcohol and if you read my original post I responded to that topic. I said nothing specific about marijuana. For some reason you have tried to turn the thread into a debate about marijuana.

BTW if you don't really want proof of what I say then please don't ask for it. I note that you have not refuted a single fact in the studies I posted about the harmful affects of marijuana other than to say than this little gem: "I don't give a rats (sic) ass what it does to teenagers." What a noble sentiment.

 

[talloola]

alchohol is dangerous, along with drugs. to say which on is most harmful is useless. depends on the
individual, the strong can drink without being harmed, the weak can't.

they both are a black stain on society, and the ruination of lives and families, they both line the pockets of
criminals and governments, whom both don't give a rat's ass about anyone, just their profits.

both are substances which pull the 'weak' of society into it's clutches, and won't let go.

 

[Unforgiven]

I note that you have not refuted a single fact in the studies I posted about the harmful affects of marijuana other than to say than this little gem: "I don't give a rats (sic) ass what it does to teenagers." What a noble sentiment.

I did and you some how managed to excuse yourself from responding to that. What you offer up as evidence is nothing more than that of a monster hunter drawing up a conclusion from a few coincidences or a bible thumper holding up a bible and telling me no more questions are needed.

The facts we have don't lie and so far refute all that you have posted about drugs here.

 

[Praxius]

I cannot categorize all drugs in terms of their relative harm to society? Of course I can. And I have provided evidence to support it in other threads. The fact that you can find problems with many other products is not relevant to this thread as we are not discussing other products.

In fact we are because what really matters, regardless of the product in question, is the mentality and perception people have of said product, regardless of evidence or studies, which allows one thing to be legal, while something of equal risk or possible damage to "Society" as the legal product is left illegal.

I didn't say you couldn't categorize all drugs in terms of their harm to society, but considering the original post for this topic already did that, it's irrelevant if you do or not.

The problem isn't categorizing them all based on their harm to society..... it's your responses and comments that "Generalize" all drugs as being equally damaging and destructive to society and that's why they're illegal, when in reality, you're just picking and choosing what you want to hear and/or believe and portray a very narrow perspective on the topic and the substances we intake.

The thread is about the harm caused by drugs and alcohol and if you read my original post I responded to that topic. I said nothing specific about marijuana. For some reason you have tried to turn the thread into a debate about marijuana.

I didn't try and turn this debate into a debate about marijuana..... I used marijuana as an example to show you that your generalized view of "All" drugs, including alcohol and including marijuana is inaccurate, biased and slightly ignorant.

I could have use Shrooms or LSD as the example, it doesn't matter to me.

BTW if you don't really want proof of what I say then please don't ask for it. I note that you have not refuted a single fact in the studies I posted about the harmful affects of marijuana other than to say than this little gem: "I don't give a rats (sic) ass what it does to teenagers." What a noble sentiment.

I don't care what noble sentiments you think are in what I say.... kids shouldn't be smoking marijuana, nor should they be smoking tobacco, or drinking alcohol, or drinking coffee...... they all have certain adverse affects on kids, which is why there's age restrictions for most of the things that are regulated and legal..... for adults.

In regards to your other link, while I can access your first link, I unfortunately can not view the second one where I am due to some of the web tags being filtered out at work and notifying me the site has to do with narcotics and drug use..... for the record I can't view YouTube here either.... meanwhile some pages about drugs work, while others don't.... that second link doesn't work, therefore I can not actually read, let alone debate any content on that particular page.

However, since a few others in here (Unforgiven) Can view the page and noted to you about the level of bias and skewed perspective on the site you provided, it looks like I don't have to.

Though if you really want me to, when I get home for the weekend, I'll check out your page and then tear the living crap out of it in very fine and long winded detail.

 

[JLM]

Died? Very few people die from the use of any drug. .

I'm surprised to see this comment coming from you- What about Jimmy Hendrix, Janice Joplin, John Beluchi, Jim Morrison and scads of other young entertainers? Kurt Coburn?

 

[Praxius]

I'm surprised to see this comment coming from you- What about Jimmy Hendrix, Janice Joplin, John Beluchi, Jim Morrison and scads of other young entertainers? Kurt Coburn?

Kurt Cobain?? He didn't die from an Overdose, he took a shotgun to his head and left a note regarding something along the lines that he couldn't take the fame..... though he did do drugs, one can not say without a doubt that it was the drugs that made him do it, or if it was really his own personal problems with the fame and attention, which he was always known to have issues with.

^ Anyways, those are all good examples of what happens when one abuses a substance or acts as though there are no consequences for their actions...... just as others abuse over eating as if there are no consequences for their actions.

For the amount of famous actors and musicians who died from drug use, there's still a larger number of actors and musicians who are still alive today who either did use or are still using (Willie Nelson, Cheech and Chong, Neil Young, Ozzy Osbourne, Iggy Pop) and there are those who lived long and healthy lives and eventually died from something else.

It doesn't matter if it's drugs, food, exercise, sports, sex or gambling........ too much of anything isn't good..... one must understand balance, responsibility and have respect for whatever they may be doing.

^ Without any of that, regardless of what you're doing, there's a good chance it's not going to end well for you.

 

[Unforgiven]

alchohol is dangerous, along with drugs. to say which on is most harmful is useless. depends on the
individual, the strong can drink without being harmed, the weak can't.

they both are a black stain on society, and the ruination of lives and families, they both line the pockets of
criminals and governments, whom both don't give a rat's ass about anyone, just their profits.

both are substances which pull the 'weak' of society into it's clutches, and won't let go.

Is this sort of confusion that helps keep the punitive measures that support organized crime and corruption alive and well when it comes to drugs.

Drugs and alcohol aren't harmful. The abuse of some of it is. There is a distinction, it should be recognized and understood. Far more people have been helped by drugs and alcohol than have been harmed. So we should really get things straight rather than generalizing and lumping the good in with the bad.

 

[YukonJack]

Actually, the most dangerous drug is dihydrogenoxide!

Everyone who ever tried it became hooked. Everyone who ever tried it DIED! Once one tries it, can not live without it. The fact it it so dangerous is that it is not controlled by government, it is easily accessible and for those unfortunate victims who try it, it does not have taste or smell. It can be consumed in gaseous, liquid and solid state. People get hooked on it, partially due to its evil wide use in just about everything, due to its abundance.

I, myself, try to avoid it. My doctor and my plumber told me that its presence is extremely conducive for forming rust and in some cases, mold, rot and decomposition.

Knowing that when I was a child my irresponsible parents exposed me to its horrors and knowing that no matter what I do now, I will die, I only try to minimize the damage by replacing it with copius amount of alcohol and coffee. Alas, even those have not survived the evil presence of the most dangerous drug of them all: WATER!

 

[talloola]

Is this sort of confusion that helps keep the punitive measures that support organized crime and corruption alive and well when it comes to drugs.

Drugs and alcohol aren't harmful. The abuse of some of it is. There is a distinction, it should be recognized and understood. Far more people have been helped by drugs and alcohol than have been harmed. So we should really get things straight rather than generalizing and lumping the good in with the bad.

that's fine if you have the opinion that there is a good side, other than for medicinal purposes, which
would be minimal, there is no good side, and if you are talking about those who use the substances without
any harm, and don't abuse the substance, I mentioned that.

 

[Praxius]

that's fine if you have the opinion that there is a good side, other than for medicinal purposes, which
would be minimal,

Tell that to cancer patients, people with terminal illnesses and those with serious injuries...... "Minimal?"

Cripes.... Yeah relief from debilitating pain, being able to have a steady night's sleep so your body can have more energy in fighting said illness, being able to control and maintain regulation of your mind from something like bipolar or depression without the multitude of side effects that come from prescription drugs which never really solve your problems, but rather give you more problems to deal with..... being able to maintain an appetite in order to continue eating and maintaining your strength due to the side effects of other medicinal drugs you're under for whatever treatments you're dealing with that cause you to basically stop eating or get sick when you eat.... and being able to spend your possible remaining last days with some dignity and reduced suffering are all minimal things.

Make sure that if you come down with a serious illness or suffer severe injuries from an accident that you tell your doctors you don't want anything for the pain, that you don't want any morphine or similar pain killers..... and that you'd rather just deal with you pain and suffering all on your own.

I would love to see you do that..... and while you're curled up in your hospital bed screaming in agony and suffering horribly, I'd be right there to shove my finger in your face and laugh through your whole ordeal until you finally realize that perhaps those benefits aren't so "Minimal" after all.

there is no good side, and if you are talking about those who use the substances without
any harm, and don't abuse the substance, I mentioned that.

Well since you don't seem to be one of those people who use these substances to know what you're talking about, you have no position to tell me or anybody else who does, what good or bad comes from using any substance, since what's good and bad and the reasons why someone does what they do is directly subjective to the individual in question and doesn't affect everybody equally, or affect everybody at all.

I know what's bad in my life and I know what's good in my life..... you don't.

I know what positive affects something has on me when I use it..... you don't.

I know what side-effects something has on me when I use it..... you don't.

What occurs to me in my life and my body may not be the same thing as what would occur to your body or your life, thus I can not tell you what's good or bad for you..... only you can.

You claimed the following:
"they both are a black stain on society, and the ruination of lives and families"

^ That is a baseless assumption and not absolute for all circumstances and situations..... "Black Stain on Society" is vague and an emotional argument based on personal bias..... "Ruination of Lives and Families" almost sounds like a claim that trying any form of substance will ruin one's life, ruin the lives of those around them and destroy families automatically.

There are plenty of happy families where people drink alcohol or smoke tobacco.......there are families that have people in it who use other substances who are in no way affected by their usage..... many users of substances are fully capable of owning their own homes, working jobs, paying their bills, socializing with others, holding relationships and raising families.

To say otherwise is a baseless and empty generalization based on emotional arguments because there are many just in these forums alone who are living examples and proof to counter such a claim.

There are those who have problems with substance "abuse"..... and there are those who don't.