Alcohol Is The Most Dangerous Drug

[1MileCrash]

1MileCrash. You do realize what drugs actually do to people? Do you know what addiction is?

Legal or not, the effects they have aren't good at all. It is the addiction that drives people to commit crimes. If you legalised heroin, would that make it less addictive? No. People who take heroin still risk becoming addicted to it and once the addiction kicks in it will start to destroy your life (as with any drug). Your ability to work is impaired and you can potentially lose your job. Once that happens, you're still addicted and you still need your fix. So what do you do? You turn to crime.

Oh, I agree. But what people do to mess up their lives is no concern of mine or the goverment's. When they decide to turn to crime, throw them in jail.

Just because something is legalised, it doesn't mean the crime ascoiated with it disappears. It simply means you go from having illegal dealers to legal ones.

Legal dealers? You mean like legal skittles dealers or legal doritoes dealers?

Pardon the terrible analogy there, but who in their right mind would take the risk of buying a legal, abused substance (lets say cough syrup for example) from a guy off the street rather than going to a licensed drug store to buy it?

 

[JaredJames]

Oh, I agree. But what people do to mess up their lives is no concern of mine or the goverment's. When they decide to turn to crime, throw them in jail.

Who pays for jail? Who sentences people to prison? Who polices those 'laws'? Who pays for the emergency medical treatment of drug users?

Drugs, once they become addictive and tear someones life apart (losing jobs etc) is when crime becomes an issue.

It's always the concern of the government.

Alcohol in moderation is not a problem for the government. Certain drugs however, regardless of quantity, cause major problems, whether through addiction or simply 'after effects'.

Legal dealers? You mean like legal skittles dealers or legal doritoes dealers?

Pardon the terrible analogy there, but who in their right mind would take the risk of buying a legal, abused substance (lets say cough syrup for example) from a guy off the street rather than going to a licensed drug store to buy it?

Legal dealer, aka a chemist/pharmacist. That's all they are, legal drug dealers.

 

[1MileCrash]

Who pays for jail? Who sentences people to prison? Who polices those 'laws'? Who pays for the emergency medical treatment of drug users?

Care to elaborate here?

Legal dealer, aka a chemist/pharmacist. That's all they are, legal drug dealers.

Okay, and does the "legal drug dealer" at your corner drugstore commonly enter gun fights?

I feel we might be discussing something different - I am talking about violence associated with the distribution of illegal drugs. This is virtually non-existent for abused substances that are legalized.

 

[JaredJames]

Care to elaborate here?

Government, and as such, taxpayer money. Therefore it is always ours and the governments responsibility. After all, that's what we put them there for.

Okay, and does the "legal drug dealer" at your corner drugstore commonly enter gun fights?

I feel we might be discussing something different - I am talking about violence associated with the distribution of illegal drugs. This is virtually non-existent for abused substances that are legalized.

People addicted will still commit crime to get their fix. Whether violent or otherwise. I don't know how legalisation would affect dealers. Not sure if it would help their cause or work against them.

An addicted person will get their fix however they can, if it means an armed robbery on a drug store, so be it. All you do is get those people to carry guns to defend themselves (or employ armed guards).

 

[Upisoft]

C'mon, have a drink and stop arguing. Let be all friends and talk about the lady that ...oops, I'm married... sorry.

 

[turbo]

I feel we might be discussing something different - I am talking about violence associated with the distribution of illegal drugs. This is virtually non-existent for abused substances that are legalized.

You would be VERY far off the mark here in Maine. There are home-invasions, armed robberies, and petty thefts involved in satisfying addicts' need for legal opiates. It might be a good idea to consider limited, controlled distribution of opiates instead of maintaining a condition that drives the price of a single Oxycodone pill to over $50. Our state can't afford the legal costs (investigation, policing, prosecution, and incarceration) associated with drug abuse. We need solutions, not slogans.

 

[Jasongreat]

You would be VERY far off the mark here in Maine. There are home-invasions, armed robberies, and petty thefts involved in satisfying addicts' need for legal opiates. It might be a good idea to consider limited, controlled distribution of opiates instead of maintaining a condition that drives the price of a single Oxycodone pill to over $50. Our state can't afford the legal costs (investigation, policing, prosecution, and incarceration) associated with drug abuse. We need solutions, not slogans.

You make a very good point, is it the legality, or the abuse that causes the problem? Are the legal drugs exempt from abuse? Does it really matter if it is opium, or a substitute? Methamphetamine or a substitute like ridillan?

I say use the more natural version, opium instead of oxycontin, or vicadin, or loratab or percocet, or demoral, or morphine and on and on. That would give plenty of third world countries a good export, instead of us spending millions to burn said crop, costing both societies.

 

[Jasongreat]

=jarednjames;2967217]1MileCrash. You do realize what drugs actually do to people? Do you know what addiction is?

I do, do you, or just what youve heard or been taught? I will agree with you that drug abuse, legal or illegal, is a bad thing. Drug use isnt, unless you feel that the government is trying to hurt us, since they are the the biggest supporter of drug dealers(pharmacuetical companies).

Addiction is just a word that has been made up, recently, to make those who don't want to quit feel like it isn't their fault that they can't quit.
Although opium, coca plants, marijuana and others have been around since the beginning of recorded time, addiction is a word that has been around a very short amount of time. Dependance, like what happens when heroin replaces chemicals your body usually makes for itself, or habitual, like what happens when one gets used to doing certain things at certain times, are very real. Addiction is just an excuse, that doesn't exist, except in ones imagination. And is used as a justification to intrude into others' lives, for their own good.

 

[mugaliens]

Addiction is just a word that has been made up...

You really ought to spend some time volunteering in an addiction recovery ward. You'll learn first-hand that while the words may be new, the physical and psychological affects of drugs have remained much the same for milennia.

 

[JaredJames]

You really ought to spend some time volunteering in an addiction recovery ward. You'll learn first-hand that while the words may be new, the physical and psychological affects of drugs have remained much the same for milennia.

Seconded. Addiction is very real. A lack of will power may be a large driving factor but the effects that the body experiences when it doesn't receive what it wants can be horrific.

 

[ThomasT]

Or is alcohol a drug that would be better treated the same way society treats tobacco use?

Yes, this makes sense to me. Maybe we're currently sending the wrong message about regular alcohol consumption to impressionable minds. Take away the positive ads, and replace them with negative ads. Increasingly tax its sale. Maybe increase penalties for drunk driving, public drunkeness, etc. Open more government-funded alcohol rehabilitation centers. Etc. And see what happens.

I think it makes sense to do this with any and all intoxicants. Not just alcohol. We all know that all of the previously mentioned intoxicants are harmful and unnecessary (except wrt the reduction of physical pain). The current situation mostly victimizes people who really aren't criminals and puts great wealth and power into the hands of people who really are criminals. (Hmm, that has a familiar ring to it.) I doubt that legalization would result in a significant increase in consumption of anything. And, I think that the positive effects of legalization would outweigh the negative effects. Also, I just don't like the idea of some semi-intoxicated legislator voting for various restrictions on my freedom to get buzzed while recovering from his four-cocktail, lunchtime schmoozfest. Anyway, we should try legalization and see.

 

[Jasongreat]

the effects that the body experiences when it doesn't receive what it wants can be horrific.

It sounds like you are describing chemical dependency to a tee, not 'addiction'.

 

[Siv]

Actually, nicotine is probably worse.

But here's something interesting ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2707143.stm

 

[Dembadon]

It sounds like you are describing chemical dependency to a tee, not 'addiction'.

It is acceptable to use chemical dependence and addiction synonymously when discussing substance abuse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence

Addiction is just a word that has been made up, recently, to make those who don't want to quit feel like it isn't their fault that they can't quit. Although opium, coca plants, marijuana and others have been around since the beginning of recorded time, addiction is a word that has been around a very short amount of time. Dependance, like what happens when heroin replaces chemicals your body usually makes for itself, or habitual, like what happens when one gets used to doing certain things at certain times, are very real. Addiction is just an excuse, that doesn't exist, except in ones imagination. And is used as a justification to intrude into others' lives, for their own good.

The Oxford American Dictionary:
-------------------------------------
addiction |əˈdik sh ən|
noun

the fact or condition of being addicted to a particular substance, thing, or activity : he committed the theft to finance his drug addiction | an addiction to gambling.

ORIGIN late 16th cent. (denoting a person's inclination or proclivity): from Latin addictio(n-), from addicere ‘assign’ (see addict).
-------------------------------------
Redefining words that have been established for hundreds of years isn't going to convince an informed individual that your argument is factual. Just because substance Y has been around for X years, doesn't mean that it has been abused for X years.
Edit: Another form:

The New Oxford American Dictionary:
-------------------------------------------
addicted |əˈdiktid|
adjective

physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects : she became addicted to alcohol and diet pills.
• enthusiastically devoted to a particular thing or activity : he's addicted to computers.

ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: from the obsolete adjective addict [bound or devoted (to someone),] from Latin addict- ‘assigned,’ from the verb addicere, from ad- ‘to’ + dicere ‘say.’
-------------------------------------------

 

[Jasongreat]

Just because substance Y has been around for X years, doesn't mean that it has been abused for X years.

That is the point I was trying to make, although I admit not very well. The word addiction has been around, according to the oxford dictionary definition that you posted, the 16th century, which implies that before that time there was not a need to describe the abuse of drugs even though they were all(poppy, coca, marijuana) here and being used, granted not in the superduper forms chemistry has given us, excepting marijuana. Today the argument against illicit drugs, is that those drugs can't be used without becoming a drug abuser or as it is described today 'addicted'.

Imo though, mentally dependent means, cognitive(learnt) dependence, which would categorize it as habitual. But if it is a learned dependence, it can be unlearnt. People who are not wanting to unlearn, say they are 'addicted' to excuse themselves of actually doing so and society accepts that, since it reinforces their preconceived notion they have about drugs use. Physical dependence is a very real and dangerous side effect of all drugs, both legal or illegal.

Every drug abuser I have ever met, which is quite a large number, used drugs to try and fix other problems in their life, or atleast forget about them. The drug is not the problem, it is how they try to cope. Until the underlying problem is addressed, not the superficial problem(drug abuse), they still have those problems, and throwing them in jail, or making them a social outcast only exacerbates the problem.

 

[JaredJames]

Jason, if the word was invented then, it was done so for a reason. Could it be that up until that point they had a bunch of people dependent on the substance, who couldn't go without it and so decided to create a label for them? "Addicted".

Just because it wasn't described doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Did gravity just spring into existence when Newton 'discovered' it? No. He just realized the effects of it, described them and labelled them. (A bit simplistic, but you get the point.)

 

[Dembadon]

That is the point I was trying to make, although I admit not very well. The word addiction has been around, according to the oxford dictionary definition that you posted, the 16th century, which implies that before that time there was not a need to describe the abuse of drugs ...

That doesn't follow. You can't infer anything about chemical dependency before the existence of the word "addiction," as JnJ has pointed out, so my statement does nothing for your point.

... Today the argument against illicit drugs, is that those drugs can't be used without becoming a drug abuser or as it is described today 'addicted'.

Addictive substances can cause addiction, which satisfies the description of substance/chemical dependency. I don't think that needs explication.

Imo though, mentally dependent means, cognitive(learnt) dependence, which would categorize it as habitual. But if it is a learned dependence, it can be unlearnt. People who are not wanting to unlearn, say they are 'addicted' to excuse themselves of actually doing so and society accepts that, since it reinforces their preconceived notion they have about drugs use. ...

People who are wanting to unlearn also say they are addicted. Addiction doesn't only apply to complacent addicts.

 

[Dembadon]

... You can't infer anything about chemical dependency before the existence of the word "addiction," ...

My statement above is too extreme; it should read, "You can't infer that chemical dependency didn't exist before the existence of the word 'addiction.'"

 

[mugaliens]

Just because it wasn't described doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Jason, if the word was invented then, it was done so for a reason. Could it be that up until that point they had a bunch of people dependent on the substance, who couldn't go without it and so decided to create a label for them? "Addicted".

Just because it wasn't described doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Did gravity just spring into existence when Newton 'discovered' it? No. He just realized the effects of it, described them and labelled them. (A bit simplistic, but you get the point ."quote".)

 

[JaredJames]

Excellent point. Physics has been around for about 13.75 bilion years. Our understanding of physics began approximately 1/22,91,666 of that time. Addictive behavior has been induced in life forms as simple as planera and bacteria.

That's my statement you quoted there, how is it showing as dembadons?

 

[Dembadon]

Edited: JnJ beat me to it.

 

[Galteeth]

Well... Alcohol, in so far as it's likelihood to lead to dangerous actions, like driving under the influence, is probably the most totally dangerous drug. As other have pointed out though, it's also the most commonly used, and this is probably not simply a matter of its legality, but a very long term historical trend.

That said, there is such a thing as responsible alcohol use, and the vast majority of alcohol users (nearly everybody being a user) do not present a danger to themselves or the public (although probably most of them have gotten sick or done something embarassing at some point.)

While you are potentially better off driving under the influence of meth or heroin, there is no such thing as "safe" or "responsible" use of these drugs, or crack. This is especially true for heroin. You will get addicted, and you will destroy your life.. Even meth or crack are "safer" to try once. I did do meth once in high school, and it's not an experience I would want to repeat.

For my money, the absolute most dangerous drug, in so far as you being a danger to others, in something known as jimson weed. You can get the same effect from taking high doses of dramamine, a motion sickness pill. This causes extremely vivid hallucinations, often of horrifying things like zombies, that last for about three days. Don't do this.

 

[Upisoft]

For my money, the absolute most dangerous drug, in so far as you being a danger to others, in something known as jimson weed. You can get the same effect from taking high doses of dramamine, a motion sickness pill. This causes extremely vivid hallucinations, often of horrifying things like zombies, that last for about three days. Don't do this.

OK, I wiped out the zombie level, "Doom" was harder. What is the drug to open the next level?