Saw this on the demote page and I just can't resist a debate on drugs..... Personally, I think if any drug should be made illegal it's alcohol. I wrote a note trolling facebook a while back about C2H5OH and why it should be banned, too long to put here but some highlights... C2H5OH is highly addictive. Withdrawl can cause anxiety, depression, autonomic dysfunction, seizures and hallucinations. In 2007, 24% of adults in the UK were classified as hazardous users of this drug In 2007 the were over 6.500 deaths in the UK directly related to use of C2H5OH. That's 17.8 live PER DAY claimed by this drug Abuse of this drug costs the NHS an estimated £2.7 BILLION per year Source http://www.ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/publications/003_Health_Lifestyles/Alcohol_2011/NHSIC_Statistics_on_Alcohol_England_2011.pdf In reality though, I'm against banning any kinds of drugs, people should make and take responsibility for their own decisions, end of. This came up in the demote thread and I've gotta reply, but I'm not gonna debate on that thread! No disrespect dude, but you're wrong. Have you ever taken cocaine? Is the average alcohol user REALLY you or I? Or is it the ****ing idiots that make so many city & town centres in Britain absolute hellholes on a Friday & Saturday night? Personally, I find alcohol affects people way more than cocaine. I've never had to pick myself or any friends off the pavement/nightclub floor/hospital bed after taking cocaine. I can happily take cocaine before I go to work and perform the same (or better, depending on the job) as if I was stone cold sober. I will admit, it is pretty more-ish, but that's why I avoid taking it often, or even keeping it in the house. Alcohol on the other hand I've seen myself and friends end up in all kinds of sticky situations because they'd had one too many, and alcohol makes you reckless and impairs your judgement way more than coke does, so the more you drink, the more likely you are to have that one too many. As for the drugs such as ecstasy, LSD, etc. The stats speak for themselves. Look at the graph, there is NO drug specific OR Drug related for mortality in LSDs column, because no one has EVER died from taking LSD. It can permanently **** you up if you take too much in one sitting, and I've seen it happen, but to do that, you'd need to take A LOT. Here's one that is. Ecstasy deaths per million users = 7. Alcohol deaths per million users = 625 I can't actually remember where I got that particular statistic, but it seems to be around quite a lot. Could be plucked from thin air, but this article clearly shows a higher percentage of deaths per users when you compare alcohol to most drugs TL;DR version I'm not saying Drugs = good, Alcohol = bad. In the end, it's entirely down to the individual, personally, I'm a terrible drunk, but things like ecstasy, LSD, coke and Ketamine, I'm perfectly functional. If your gonna do drugs, know your limits, don't be stupid, and don't assume that legal = safer than illegal. This before I get into the other reasons why I think drugs should be legalised.... Now Discuss!
The problem is subjective experience. The good and bad experiences of the less documented drugs are what causes the problem in terms of allowing them to be proliferated. The other problem is a matter of how volatile it is. Truth be told I wouldn't mind having drugs legalized, but what makes it difficult is how to monitor brain function in relation to dosage amounts. As far as I can see, there isn't nearly as much evidence for the currently banned drugs in terms of mental effects which may not necessarily be apparent from the offset. Yes a society should have people who are accountable, but we run into a serious issue here. For the freedom of being able to imbibe in those drugs we run into a situation where the chance to imbibe is now severely limited. So you still have rather totalitarian laws about it. On the other hand I do see where you're coming from, most drugs are mostly harmless in small dosages but think of it this way. If we have people stupid enough to over-drink on alcohol, what makes you think they won't do the same on cocaine? Or heroin? (which is incredibly debilitating) The other problem is dealing with those who are addicted. You'll have to find a way to facilitate systems to cure addiction for the newly introduced drugs (unless you don't care, which in that case, I guess it works too given the whole evolutionary process) into society. What I'm saying is, after all the regulation, scrutiny, time and effort put into regulating these newly allowed drugs, the benefits will hardly be justifiable. Yes freedom and ideals and all, but there's much more to consider than just liberty, as allowing this liberty may impact the rest of society far more than banning it. Mind you it would be cool. Note, the statistics are overrepresented, there are far more drinkers (hence deaths) than there are ecstasy users.
Well if it's cheaper to do the above than fight the drug trade and enforce drug laws than it becomes justifiable. There is also an argument for removing the revenue stream from the criminal world and placing it in the open where it can be taxed.
They aren't the average user though. They're the a holes that abuse a substance to the Nth degree, they're the kind of idiot that should be allowed to deal with the consequences of their own actions with no help from the emergency services. They are perfect examples of twonks that should be found guilty of being an idiot by the local policing teams and locked in stocks in the town centre, laughed at and used as urinals by the average alcohol consumer who goes out for a good time with out having to get loaded up before popping out Oh....
I'm cool with this. Actually I would prefer this. Sadly, it isn't going to happen. That and tax collection agencies would lose monstrous amounts of sleep trying to catch all the tax evaders. That's the thing about most of these drugs. They're not too difficult to make. (especially the chemical ones). One could argue that you could outlaw the creation of drugs, but it would be fascinating to see government sanctioned narcotics and amphetamines.
So you say ecstasy deaths per million is 7, yet link to an article which places it @ 54 !! K.... Drugs appear to have addled your brain son. Booze @ 1000 per million Heroin @ 2,100 per million Of those booze deaths one would have to question the data, did the deaths occur as a direct result of alcohol or was it merely noted in the obit notes as a contributory cause or even worse blamed as it was found in the system of the deceased.
Problem with drugs debates in my experience is that they end up being riddled with "statistics", whereas I'd imagine the reality is somewhat different. I have had debates on this sort of thing before (from both sides of the fence), and they tend to end up the same way. Current drug users will advocate lenience, ex drug users will usually sit on the fence regarding legality, focussing more on how to help those already affected, and those who have never used drugs will advocate the continued illegality of dangerous substances. Alcohol is used so much more widely than any of the other drugs on that graph, in greater quantity and usually for much more prolonged periods of time. So it is bound to have the greatest statistical impact. If 24% of all adults were classed as hazardous users of Ketamine, for example, the bar on that graph would be infinitely higher. Alcohol is also much more widely used in public places than most other drugs, meaning that the users are far more exposed to environmental dangers - as anyone who has ever been run over can attest to (not looking at you specifically Mankz ). Just to muddy the water further very few users of Class A drugs use only their chosen substance - they mix it with others, especially alcohol and tobacco.
This might interest you then. I agree. My view is whatever the substance (cocaine, alcohol, bid-tv, etc.) you can count on a selection of people getting hopelessly addicted either because they're collosal morons or they're just suceptible to it. What we need to look at is: does that drawback outweigh the benefit to everyone else using the substance and to what extendt does illegalising or legalising that substance have on those two factors.
To be fair, I think while statistics have a certain value, I think it's more important to focus on the larger question posed here (to me): What should we do about currently illegal substances and how should we deal with legal substances? Given that the current system doesn't seem to be very logical in it's dealings (as the OP has pointed out to an extent) what is a good medium for it? I know that nitpicking the OPs post is necessary given the issue of statistics and representation, but stats inconsistencies aside, I do believe that the OP is at least given a token thought as to why we should reconsider drug laws.
Exactly. Statistics are fiddled to make the average person believe that so many people die of alcohol and therefore should be afraid of it. There is no doubt that alcohol can contribute and/or speed up the inevitable however, controlled drugs are much more dangerous and carry a much higher chance of killing you. When was the last time you heard of someone trying a beer for the first time and ending up in the freezer? People try Ecstasy, heroin, amphetamine, etc and kill themselves because they don't know how to use it. This is the issue.
Basically my point. If you locked 20 people into padded rooms with just enough of each of the substances listed above to kill them and no prior knowledge then clearly (excluding cannabis and tobacco) alcohol would likely cause one of the fatalities. But the reality is that most alcohol users are experienced enough to moderate themselves - something that isn't necessarily possible when popping a pill from an unknown source.
Well in that same vein we could argue that we know the dosages for alcohol purely because we've been around it longer. With this in mind, would not this logic also apply to other drugs? We have experience because we've been around alcohol so much. If we could afford real and actual education on banned drugs then perhaps we'd get somewhere with safety. But if we demonize it, it does nothing good for our society. An even hand in education probably would exacerbate much of the drug issue. Still banning them allows for a huge market for illicit materials. Demand does go down if there's a supply that is legal...
Agree. Generally when people have a glass of wine, pint of beer, shot of vodka etc, they know exactly what they are putting inside themselves and, with moderation, are risk free. Controlled drugs on the other hand are risky from the get go.
Risky being an understatement. I've seen cocaine padded out with washing powder, heroin laced with ketamine (you don't want it in your blood stream) and so on. I've seen hardened drug users die from smoking a joint, because at the end of the day this stuff isn't created in some H&S approved sterile environment. You'd have to be a moron to think it was. If drugs were legalised then safer creation and distribution would be implemented and the risks surrounding it will go down. The flip side to that is that more people would use the drugs and cause a much more wide spread issue because of their behaviour.
There is nothing wrong with the current system, apart from a lack of will or means of enforcing it. Crack down on those town centre twats, drink drivers and under-age drink sales and the alcohol stats will plummet, and I mean crack down hard. But then the same can be said of illegal substances, crack down on them and their death stats would be zero. Presently there are no real deterrents to prevent the abuse of illegal or legal drugs, mores the pity. Who's nitpicking?? The argument is flawed and quoting stats which are misleading, as the OP is supportive of legalising drugs as a drug user it points to a certain white pachyderm in the room.
Head, nail, hit. H presently has a death rate of 2kish per million. Much of this may be down to bad drugs, unknown dosages etc, which would be lowered if regulated. However bear in mind that currently it's use is a tiny tiny proportion of the population, make it legal that percentage might well shoot up to high levels. More people using it, greater risk they'll use it inappropriately = death rates sore, Nothing to do with dosage either, your average junkie doesn't have to worry about caring for others, driving to work, operating heavy machinery etc etc or those other little inconveniences of being a functional member of society.
Opium is an excellent example actually as the wide spread use of it during a period in which it was legal is pretty well documented. The image of opium dens is probably enough to ensure that heroin is never legalised even in a heavily regulated manner.
Have you seen where junkies live? I just the other day for the first time passed a needle cap on my road - I'd rather that was in a government regulated building than on the streets, or in tenement buildings.
Apologies if I'm completely misreading you, but do you mean you'd rather see it legalised so that drugs paraphernalia isn't present in the streets?
Yup, I had a flat in Leith for a while and yes I know where junkies live. But most people don't want to know about that a regulated building on a street is a very obvious symbol much like a strip bar or "sauna". I not saying it shouldn't be regulated merely it wouldn't be.
