Alcohol Is The Most Dangerous Drug

[Ivan Seeking]

Worse Than Heroine And Nearly 4 Times Worse Than Pot

The study by former government drug czar David Nutt rated drugs based on harm caused to users and harm caused to others.

These findings back up claims that got Nutt fired about the hypocrisy of certain drug laws...

http://www.businessinsider.com/alcohol-more-dangerous-than-pot-2010-11

...Today's paper, published by the respected Lancet medical journal, will be seen as a challenge to the government to take on the fraught issue of the relative harms of legal and illegal drugs, which proved politically damaging to Labour...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/01/alcohol-more-harmful-than-heroin-crack

I couldn't agree more. Given my choice of sharing the highway with a drunk or a crack user, I'll take the crack addict any time. Also, I have never seen anyone get as wasted on any drug, as on alcohol. It is also the only form of poisoning I know of that people find humorous.

 

[Evo]

You're forgetting that the majority of people that drink do not drink to get drunk.

The person that does crack, meth, heroine etc... do it *only* to get high.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The economic cost to society from alcohol and drug abuse was an estimated $246 billion in 1992. Alcohol abuse and alcoholism cost an estimated $148 billion, while drug abuse and dependence cost an estimated $98 billion.

According to the http://archives.drugabuse.gov/economiccosts/Chapter1.html#1.1" .

 

[Evo]

According to the http://archives.drugabuse.gov/economiccosts/Chapter1.html#1.1" .

Which is a very good reason not to make drugs legal. Alcohol is abused more because it's legal and readily accessable.

 

[chaoseverlasting]

You're forgetting that the majority of people that drink do not drink to get drunk.

I'm in college. I respectfully disagree.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Which is a very good reason not to make drugs legal. Alcohol is abused more because it's legal and readily accessable.

If I didn't live in a free country, I might agree with you.

 

[Evo]

I'm in college. I respectfully disagree.

College isn't representative of society, if it was, we'd already have all gone to hell in a handbasket by now.

 

[Astronuc]

If I didn't live in a free country, I might agree with you.

But one is not free to harm others, which is what those who abuse alcohol and drugs do. I agree with Evo.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I'm in college. I respectfully disagree.

I disagree too. There is no reason to drink alcohol other than to get at least a buzz or "relaxed". There is a reason non alcoholic beer is never on tap.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

But one is not free to harm others, which is what those who abuse alcohol and drugs do. I agree with Evo.

If I harm someone, charge me with harming. If I don't harm someone, don't charge me at all.

 

[Evo]

I disagree too. There is no reason to drink alcohol other than to get at least a buzz or "relaxed".

Then you've never nursed a glass of cognac for an hour or two, with just one or two fingers poured in. Or had a glass of sherry just to enjoy the taste.

 

[FlexGunship]

To pose a counterpoint to this discussion:

If people abuse a substance for the purpose of altering their cognitive state (a safe assumption since that seems to be the only reason to abuse a substance), then there could be a (previously undeveloped) market in safe drugs.

A great example is the synthetic cannabanoid JWH-018. This is legal in my state and is a great alternative to marijuana. Although I'm not a "user" myself, I have friends that are and they swear by it. Since it's legal, they don't have to consort with a "shady" crowd, and they don't have to break any laws to get it, and since its synthetic, it is actually spread over a much safer smokable material. Granted, inhaling smoke is never good, but we can all agree that certain things are better to inhale than other things.

This is a great precedent and it should really be emulated where possible.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Then you've never nursed a glass of cognac for an hour or two, with just one or two fingers poured in. Or had a glass of sherry just to enjoy the taste.

I would guess the vast majority of the US haven't either and certainly not on a weekly basis. To pull it all full circle, I would make the claim that the majority of Americans that drink on a weekly basis do so to get a buzz.

 

[FlexGunship]

But one is not free to harm others, which is what those who abuse alcohol and drugs do. I agree with Evo.

Hmm, that's an awfully scary precedent to set. (EDIT: not the agreeing with Evo part.)

"But one is not free to crash their car, which is what Subaru drivers and Honda drivers do."

"But one is not free to shoot innocent people, which is what H&K owners and S&W owners do."

It is best to make the crime illegal, not the possible contributors. This is a distinction that is often missed by lawmakers, and is what leads to so many expensive and (sometimes) nonsensical laws being passed.

Is it only illegal to cause harm to others if you are drunk? Or is it always illegal to cause harm to others? The crime is not being drunk, but rather "causing harm."

 

[BobG]

The actual study requires registration at the The Lancet to view, but this article at least provides slightly better insight into why alcohol would be the most dangerous: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20021311-10391704.html.

Alcohol is legal and is cheaper, hence its abuse more often, increasing its effect on society.

It would tend to imply that legalizing a drug such as marijuana would increase its negative effects on society, since its use would become more widespread.

It would also imply that repealing the 21st Amendment ("The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.") would decrease the negative effects of alcohol, possibly below the negative effects of heroin, crack, and crystal meth.

An analysis detailing the effects of a drug on society per user might be more valuable in deciding which drug (if any) should be legal. And perhaps the analysis should be done by age group, since I have a feeling that making alcohol illegal for those under 26-years-old would go a long way towards reducing the negative effects of alcohol.

 

[russ_watters]

http://www.businessinsider.com/alcohol-more-dangerous-than-pot-2010-11


http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/01/alcohol-more-harmful-than-heroin-crack

I couldn't agree more. Given my choice of sharing the highway with a drunk or a crack user, I'll take the crack addict any time. Also, I have never seen anyone get as wasted on any drug, as on alcohol. It is also the only form of poisoning I know of that people find humorous.

You missed a big part of the point of the study (the poor article diddnt help). You are much worse off sharing the road with a crack or heroin user: alcohol is only worse in total societal damage and by that calculus, we should also be attempting to rid the world of sober drivers as the societal harm caused by sober drivers is yet higher still.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

If you are charged with possession of a controlled substance, it is not necessary for the govt to prove that you had taken any of it, let alone prove that you had become intoxicated by it. On account of my issues with kidney stones, I possesses a controlled substance. Would you say that I don't harm society simply because of a slip of paper giving me permission to do so.

 

[turbo]

I would guess the vast majority of the US haven't either and certainly not on a weekly basis. To pull it all full circle, I would make the claim that the majority of Americans that drink on a weekly basis do so to get a buzz.

That's pretty much nailing it, IMO.

In regard to relative harm, a very close friend of mine (and my cousin's husband) was the chief of police in the county seat. He had to enforce the laws as written, but he was personally tolerant of pot. He used to say that he never had a pot-head come after him with a knife, and that the most dangerous calls his officers ever had to face were domestic-violence calls involving alcohol. The presumed most dangerous people in such incidents were the abusers (usually men) but the person who was the object of the abuse could turn on the responding officer like a snake and were potentially far more dangerous, if the officer was not paying attention.

 

[FlexGunship]

It would tend to imply that legalizing a drug such as marijuana would increase its negative effects on society, since its use would become more widespread.

It would also imply that repealing the 21st Amendment ("The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.") would decrease the negative effects of alcohol, possibly below the negative effects of heroin, crack, and crystal meth.

An analysis detailing the effects of a drug on society per user might be more valuable in deciding which drug (if any) should be legal. And perhaps the analysis should be done by age group, since I have a feeling that making alcohol illegal for those under 26-years-old would go a long way towards reducing the negative effects of alcohol.

I think you would discover the opposite to be true. Crime during prohibition didn't decrease, it increased.

There is a market for mind-altering substances; this is a fact. The push should be to provide these in the safest manner possible. I agree that alcohol seems to be one of the worst and it seems to be the most available.

The proper response is to carefully consider how a replacement could be made available so as to prevent the criminal backlash of prohibiting it.

 

[BobG]

People actually sniff butane?

That sounds so stupid that one would think butane abuse could only have positive effects. It weeds out the lower end of the gene pool.

 

[Evo]

The actual study shows heroine as the most harmful, followed by cocaine, barbiturates, and street methadone.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/images?imageId=gr1&sectionType=green

 

[Evo]

I would guess the vast majority of the US haven't either and certainly not on a weekly basis. To pull it all full circle, I would make the claim that the majority of Americans that drink on a weekly basis do so to get a buzz.

Definitely, it's also cheap and easy to get, which makes it's abuse widespread.

 

[Evo]

If you are charged with possession of a controlled substance, it is not necessary for the govt to prove that you had taken any of it, let alone prove that you had become intoxicated by it. On account of my issues with kidney stones, I possesses a controlled substance. Would you say that I don't harm society simply because of a slip of paper giving me permission to do so.

I have several prescriptions for controlled substances, taking them as prescribed is legal, so I don't get your point.

 

[BobG]

I think you would discover the opposite to be true. Crime during prohibition didn't decrease, it increased.

There is a market for mind-altering substances; this is a fact. The push should be to provide these in the safest manner possible. I agree that alcohol seems to be one of the worst and it seems to be the most available.

The proper response is to carefully consider how a replacement could be made available so as to prevent the criminal backlash of prohibiting it.

Was there some particular reason illegal alcohol resulted in more crime than illegal drug smuggling? Or was it just the most popular illegal drug of its time?

The criminal backlash of prohibiting any drug is real. The backlash is severe enough that entire insurgencies can be bankrolled for years.

And one thing that will always be unknown is how much fatalities due to drunk driving changed since they didn't keep those kinds of statistics back in those days. It's entirely possible that a prohibition could raise crime rates, but still reduce overall negative effects.

 

[FlexGunship]

Was there some particular reason illegal alcohol resulted in more crime than illegal drug smuggling? Or was it just the most popular illegal drug of its time?

The criminal backlash of prohibiting any drug is real. The backlash is severe enough that entire insurgencies can be bankrolled for years.

And one thing that will always be unknown is how much fatalities due to drunk driving changed since they didn't keep those kinds of statistics back in those days. It's entirely possible that a prohibition could raise crime rates, but still reduce overall negative effects.

I was making a more general statement: moving any market into the black has more negative societal impact than the market itself had.

It works with other things as well, if there is a market for it and you simply make it illegal, you have done nothing to make that substance safer, you've simply created two new classes of criminal: user and dealer.

Making alcohol illegal doesn't make it go away, it just makes users and dealers of it. Same is true of pot, meth, crack, etc.

I'm not saying they should be legal, but before making anything illegal, some thought needs to be given to how to replace it.

 

[Chi Meson]

I would guess the vast majority of the US haven't either and certainly not on a weekly basis. To pull it all full circle, I would make the claim that the majority of Americans that drink on a weekly basis do so to get a buzz.

Speaking for myself, I truly like the taste of some beers (ales, lagers, stouts) in exactly the same manner that I enjoy drinking coffee.

I do not drink to get drunk anymore and I do not drink coffee to get anxious and wired; I do enjoy the "more relaxed" sensation of a beer or two, especially at gatherings (meaning poker), and the "more awake" sensation of 2 mugs of coffee in the morning.

But here's the point:

I would not have ever developed the "taste" for either beer or coffee if they did not come with their respective drug-effect. "Enjoying" the flavor of the drink is not and never was the primary reason for drinking it. It is an enjoyable secondary justification to the original reason: the drug.

I don't know about cognac, so no comment there, but I agree with Greg's assertion.

 

[Dembadon]

But one is not free to harm others, which is what those who abuse alcohol and drugs do. I agree with Evo.

Hmm, that's an awfully scary precedent to set. (EDIT: not the agreeing with Evo part.)

"But one is not free to crash their car, which is what Subaru drivers and Honda drivers do."

"But one is not free to shoot innocent people, which is what H&K owners and S&W owners do."

It is best to make the crime illegal, not the possible contributors. This is a distinction that is often missed by lawmakers, and is what leads to so many expensive and (sometimes) nonsensical laws being passed.

Is it only illegal to cause harm to others if you are drunk? Or is it always illegal to cause harm to others? The crime is not being drunk, but rather "causing harm."

I don't think your analogies are comparable to Atro's statement. Astro didn't say the alcohol users harm people, he said abusers do.

In other words, he isn't claiming that those who use guns hurt people, but that those who use guns irresponsibly, or abuse their use, hurt people. I don't think saying that is much of a stretch at all.

 

[Chi Meson]

People actually sniff butane?

That sounds so stupid that one would think butane abuse could only have positive effects. It weeds out the lower end of the gene pool.

Evidently, the thing some kids do in some "dry" indian reservations is to spray an entire can of http://www.wellbriety-nci.org/Publications/ocean.htm" into a cup of water, then drink it. YIKES!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I have several prescriptions for controlled substances, taking them as prescribed is legal, so I don't get your point.

My point is that you can't say that one person harms people just by possessing the drug, while another person doesn't harm anyone by taking the drug. That somehow the prescription prevents the harm. I was recently asked to pass judgement on a person who had purchased, not ingested, a single oxycodone pill. I need two of them to just kill the pain of a kidney stone.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Evidently, the thing some kids do in some "dry" indian reservations is to spray an entire can of http://www.wellbriety-nci.org/Publications/ocean.htm" into a cup of water, then drink it. YIKES!

my eyes are watering just thinking about it :yuck:

 

[alemsalem]

The most annoying thing to me is we can transport a heart to someone but we can't make a drug that doesn't harm you..
I think there should be at least one legal drug so that people have something to do when they need a break,, i guess...

 

[jackmell]

I could never approve of alcohol: it is horribly destructive to many families. Yeah, it's good for a buzz and I guess in historical times when food was tight, lots of calories too. Still though in modern times, it's harmful personal effects on human relationships, family, and child-raising, is not worth taking the risk that only casual drinking, even the cognac, could develop further into full-blown addiction and alcoholism.

I say if you're gonna' drink, don't drink while you're raising children and if you already got an alcohol problem when you get one, then you got a problem other than alcohol and personally I think that one is worst than alcohol.

 

[BobG]

I was making a more general statement: moving any market into the black has more negative societal impact than the market itself had.

It works with other things as well, if there is a market for it and you simply make it illegal, you have done nothing to make that substance safer, you've simply created two new classes of criminal: user and dealer.

Making alcohol illegal doesn't make it go away, it just makes users and dealers of it. Same is true of pot, meth, crack, etc.

I'm not saying they should be legal, but before making anything illegal, some thought needs to be given to how to replace it.

Your position surely isn't that all acohol drinkers would purchase alcohol illegally if it were prohibited, is it?

Of the 116 million people that use alcohol regularly, how many do you think would use it if it were illegal? Of the 30 million infrequent alcohol users, how many do you think would use it if it were illegal? (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_249.pdf you have to scroll all the way down to tables 26 & 27)

More than the 3.4 million marijuana users? Or the 2.4 million cocaine users? (http://www.acep.org/pressroom.aspx?id=26004)

If prohibition cut alcohol use to similar levels as marijuana and cocaine, do you think it might be possible that the resulting rise in crime would be dwarfed by the effects of a massive reduction in alcohol use?

Or would prohibition not reduce alcohol levels down to levels similar to other illegal drugs? This could be a valid position as an estimated 31 million people have driven under the influence of alcohol despite that being illegal. (http://www.drugabuse.gov/infofacts/nationtrends.html)

If you're factoring in the number of users, it's easy to see how the negative effects of alcohol would outweigh the negative effects of illegal drugs simply because it totally dwarfs illegal drug usage.

 

[dlgoff]

I disagree too. There is no reason to drink alcohol other than to get at least a buzz or "relaxed". There is a reason non alcoholic beer is never on tap.

I'll drink to that.

One has to know his limits. Driving and drinking is always a no no even with one beer. For me anyway.

 

[NobodySpecial]

A little background
Dr Nutt was the chief scientific advisor to the UK government on drugs.

He was fired after writing a report that said that Ecstacy (MDMA) wasn't that dangerous and the two high profile deaths that had been in the papers (naturally of photogenic teenage girls) - one hadn't taken any drugs and had died of a water overdose the other had an undiagnosed heart defect.
The government instead upgraded MDMA to a class A drug - saying that although the scientific evidence was clear there were wider implications (ie they wanted to be re-elected)

As a protest he wrote a famous article "Equasy — An overlooked addiction with implications for the current debate on drug harm" comparing the number of children that died while horse riding as compared to taking drugs.