Take Crack with a meal instead of a glass of red - the country will be better off....
Shoot up some gear after a nightride chaps, it's not as bad for you as a pint of Spitfire....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/01/alcohol-more-harmful-than-heroin-crack
Bear poo more annoying than pointy hats.
http://www.flatearthnews.net/media-falsehoods-and-propaganda/heroin
Presumably it's the most dangerous because it's the most wide spread in use rather than because of any specific qualities unique to alcohol.
I.e. If crystal meth was used as much as booze by society, the results would be far more catastrophic.
Presumably it's the most dangerous because it's the most wide spread in use rather than because of any specific qualities unique to alcohol.
Exactly.
The most dangerous drugs to their individual users were ranked as heroin, crack and then crystal meth. The most harmful to others were alcohol, heroin and crack in that ordersounds about right to me
he also adds
"We do need a classification system – we do need to regulate the ones that are very harmful to individuals like heroin and crack cocaine."so he's not suggesting shooting up after a ride.
EDIT
but I do disagree with this bit
government should now urgently ensure alcohol is made less affordablecos I don't wanna pay through the nose for the few drinks I imbibe
1. Education as to the effects of alcohol.
2. More responsible advertising.
3. Look at the reasons why people have such shitty existences that they feel the need to get off their faces.
Oh, and get some of these so-called "experts" and talking heads proper jobs rather than just spouting the results of random research as gospel. Taken responsibly alcohol is not more harmful than crack.
Actually it is also intrinsicly more dangerous as well to the user - alcohol that is. Far more toxic than heroin. Most of the problems around heroin use are as a result of prohibition rather than intrinsic to it. A junkie with a good supply of clean smack that they can afford is not even noticed by society.
No one gets off their face on smack and goes fighting down town - they just sit on their sofa being dull.
However the considered peer reviewed findings of experts in the field must be dismissed in favour of hysterical knee jerking
the way i see it, is that the damage from getting wasted on alcohol is potentially more damaging than getting wasted on cocaine. so you wouldn't do a line after a ride to compensate a single pint; it'd be more like an eight of a line - but who'd do that anyway? like drinking redbull before bed... and anyway, it calls for alcohol to be in the same class as heroin and crack, not for a downgrading of the drugs. 
Oh, and get some of these so-called "experts" and talking heads proper jobs rather than just spouting the results of random research as gospel. Taken responsibly alcohol is not more harmful than crack.
The experts are just that. The journalists reporting on the report, however...
TJs talking sense ( 
)
One thing I would point out is that this isn't really news.
Scientific evidence as consistently pointed towards alcohol as being one of the most (if not the most) damaging drugs, both physically and societally, for many years.
However the considered peer reviewed findings of experts in the field must be dismissed in favour of hysterical knee jerking
You heard the interview on the Today programme then? Professor Nutt and a Daily Mail columnist. Utterly shocking.
However the considered peer reviewed findings of experts in the field must be dismissed in favour of hysterical knee jerking
gonfishing - no I didn't. I have just heard this debate repeated so many times its utterly predictable.
This place is like the daily mail sometimes with it's misquotes and information taken out of context.
Actually it is also intrinsicly more dangerous as well to the user - alcohol that is. Far more toxic than heroin. Most of the problems around heroin use are as a result of prohibition rather than intrinsic to it. A junkie with a good supply of clean smack that they can afford is not even noticed by society.
OK. Let's take a responsible drinker and a heroin user. Now let's say that neither can indulge for a month. Which becomes more visible to society?
If prohibition was stopped though, Shirley use of drugs would become greater and addiction & associated problems (to individuals) with it?
Tj a smacked out heroin user loafing on the sofa is a burden to society not s useful member of society. It was the socially debilitating effects of addiction that caused heroin to be made illegal in the first place back in the early part of the last century IIRC.
oh course, none of those people who spend much of the weekend in the pub are addicts are they?
It's very easy to be addicted to the drug that is alcohol and blend in with the norms of western society
Must agree with TJ 100% If heroin is a harmful drug, it is mostly down to what addicts have to do to get it - rob, mug, theive, steal, wh0re themselves out, etc, etc.
I'd rather an addict was sitting on his / her sofa, being a small burden to the state (and my tax) than out on the streets, desperately looking for an opportunity to make £20 for the next hit.
Oh and Coyote, if you'd ever seen anyone 'rattling' (going through withdrawl) you'd know that they're extremely unlikely to be anywhere in the public eye - more likely they'll be moaning under a filthy blanket, hiding from everyone!
Anyone got a link to the report?
back in the early part of the last century IIRC.
how old are you exactly?
legalise and tax the lot of them
and stop pretending alcohol is good for you, contributing factor in obesity, cancer, heart disease etc etc
and stop pretending alcohol is good for you, contributing factor in obesity, cancer, heart disease etc etc
So's sitting in front of a PC all day.
Trying to micro-categorise whether things are good and bad and then project individual experience onto society as a whole, or vice versa is an exercise in futility.
The term 'good for you' is quite tenuous.
What is this 'goodness'?
The effects of a recreational drug could well enhance someones life - just as medical drugs can do. The fact that it may be better if they had no need for the drug is neither here nor there....
If it's only the user who feels the benefit is it any less beneficial? Or do their views not count?
cynic al - thats not the experience in countries where a harm reduction / decriminalise approach has been tried.
Geetee - you don't die of heroin withdrawal - you do of alcohol withdrawal.
The non chaotic heroin users are forgotten about because thy don't come to public attention.
Queen Victoria took morphine as did much of society then. You could buy heroin injecting kits to send to the soldiers at teh front in WW1
Don't get me wrong - I believe heroin is nasty and dangerous and needs to be controlled. i simply believe it is better dealt with as a harm reduction approach rather than a criminal justice one. Teh Netherlands has done this very satisfactorily -and used the police time saved from harassing junkies to go after the big dealers big time.
I'd rather an addict was sitting on his / her sofa, being a small burden to the state (and my tax) than out on the streets, desperately looking for an opportunity to make £20 for the next hit.
So how do we decide who gets the priviledge of spending their days at the tax payers expense, smacked out of their head on their sofa then?
Tell you what, I'll agree to just spend my days doing whatever I want at the tax payers expense and i'll just forgo the heroin, which will actually save money. How does that sound?
Just to clarify, I do agree that there is a problem with alcohol I just don't think that the many of the recent reports offer any useful solutions. Whack up the price? The alco's will just make sure that they afford it by either letting their families go without or resorting to "other" methods of income. Evidence for this comes from at least one practicing alcoholic in the family, possibly two, and a friend who is a recovering alcoholic. I am more than aware of the problem. However the resonsible drinker will just be hit with higher prices. Don't see that punishing the majority for the sins of the few is fair or useful.
The most visible effects are down to people feeling the need to get completely off their heads in order to have a good time. Witness any town centre on a Saturday night or the pile of blue plastic White Lightning next to the trails on a Sunday morning. This is the part of the problem that needs to be addressed. A culture change if you will. However this is a little harder to approach than pleasing soundbites about minimum pricing etc.
#Edit: Also agree that a review of our approach to drug legislation is more than overdue.
Queen Victoria took morphine as did much of society then. You could buy heroin injecting kits to send to the soldiers at teh front in WW1
Exactly, its use was widespread and prevalent in the early part of the last century, which when combined with the powerful effects of addition is what caused it to be banned.
What is interesting though is that chemically speaking, it's quite hard to become addicted to heroin. Most longitudinal studies conducted in the mid 80s actually found users were 'socially' addicted long before they were chemical dependent. Social addiction referrs to their use of the drug in conjunction with friends, social circles etc.
Similarly, coming off is not quite as hard as staying off for the same reasons. It's a similar story with alcohol in so much as it's wide spread use makes it very hard to be tee total.
I think the headline from this story shouldn't be 'Heroin less damaging to society than alcohol' it's actually 'alcohol more damaging to society than Heorin'.
This place is like the daily mail sometimes with it's misquotes and information taken out of context.
+1
OP in willfull misreading of news report shocker.
coyote - minimum pricing would not affect you or me 50 p a unit I pay far more than that for my drink anyway. But it would stop the aivailability of cheap industrial "ciders"
it does seem that most of these arguments are comparing "responsible drinkers" with stereotyped "smackheads". I'm not going to get involved in the argument as I have nothing to gain by it, but find an alcoholic who hasn't drank for 18 hours, you'll usually find them fitting, vomiting blood, severe abdo pain, confused, sweaty and not entirely different from heroin withdrawal.
Also concider the "responsible" drug users, saturday night in, smoke some opium, chill out. listen to dire straites and go to work on monday as a normal people. If you're going to compare class A drugs with alcohol, at least compare the users at the same level of use.
Good point TJ.
OK. Let's take a responsible drinker and a heroin user. Now let's say that neither can indulge for a month. Which becomes more visible to society
geetee1972 - MemberSo how do we decide who gets the priviledge of spending their days at the tax payers expense, smacked out of their head on their sofa then?
Tell you what, I'll agree to just spend my days doing whatever I want at the tax payers expense and i'll just forgo the heroin, which will actually save money. How does that sound?
The current system involves addicts making themselves known to their GPs who then put them into pointless, unworkable and humiliating methadone programmes which have minimal success rates.
My mate (a high-functioning addict with a successful business and three well looked after kids) went through all this but dropped out. There was a three month wait to get onto the prog - some wait much longer than that - and that's after they've admitted they have a problem and asked for help. Sadly, that help simply does not exist.
Tell you what, I'll agree to just spend my days doing whatever I want at the tax payers expense and i'll just forgo the heroin, which will actually save money. How does that sound?
Geetee - you don't die of heroin withdrawal - you do of alcohol withdrawal.
You dont die of alcohol withdrawal either do you ???
Im sure most of us have taken alcohol and are sitting here quite happily feeling no withdrawal effects and more important we not additivity craving it.
The only people who die of alchohol withdrawal are those who have been drinking alcohol every day of their lives probably since childhood.
Im sure if someone had been taking heroin everyday of there lives since they were 12 would also die if you took it away suddenly. However people like this are probably dead already.
The fact that people can drink alcohol everyday of their lives every lives and become addicted to what is essentially a non addictive substance and still live 50-60 in someways shows it isnt that harmful a substance.
In 50 years time we may have people who are 50 and have taken heroin everyday of their lives since they were 12 but I doubt it because I think they'll all be dead.
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
