Things that piss you off that shouldn't

[Eames]

Be interesting to know which drugs contribute to the most deaths per year?

Im guessing that alcohol & tobacco are responsible for more deaths per year than cocaine & ecstacy.

In terms of basic numbers undoubtably. But in terms of proportionality I would imagine the numbers are a lot closer.

You would need to clarify what "alchohol related" deaths actually mean. For example, for the speeding death figures, they count up to 30 days after a road accident death for it to be speed related.....

[LondonLax]

Not sure as I entirely agree.

Some drugs can be very nasty indeed. Maybe it's just because we've all developed a bit of a tolerance to alcohol (and not other drugs), but I think a distinction needs to be made between the 2, for our own safety if nothing else.

Let the average group of 18 year olds go wild on cocaine and ecstacy and there'd be trouble untill 9 o clock the next morning.

Let the average group of 25 year olds go wild on beer & shots and there'd be trouble untill 9 o clock the next morning.

No difference is there really?

Not sure as I agree, not sure as I disagree.

I think you're far more likely to hospitalise yourself on drugs than you are on alcohol.

With alcohol, your body usually has a way of stopping you from drinking anymore before it becomes critically harmfull. i.e. you can't hold a pint, never mind drink one.

But you could easily 'drop' 5 pills and find yourself in a fair bit of trouble very easily.

This is true but a lot of the reason for this is that alcohol is packaged with a strength percentage written on the side of every bottle but illegal pills can have anything in them.

Drinking 5 pints of beer in pretty quick succession will have a manageable affect, drinking 5 pints of vodka will put you in hospital. It seems crazy to think about drinking pints of Vodka but a lot of that is because we are so used to alcohol and how to deal with it.

If people had access to safe dosages of drugs with some sort or strength ranking on them you would see a lot less people getting sick from them.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

Alcohol is the most dangerous drug out there.

The party drugs are basically harmless (Weed / XTC / Coke) etc. Its the same rules as alcohol, be responsible and know the score. I have seen people have 10 pills in a night and be right as rain in the morning.

The people who are against drugs are pretty likely to have either no clue at all / never touched them / don't understand at all but are media led.

Think about it, how many jobs are created / how much tax wasted / how many prison places taken up / Police employed to ban stuff that that keeps them all in a job ?

[wiggyrichard]

Be interesting to know which drugs contribute to the most deaths per year?

Im guessing that alcohol & tobacco are responsible for more deaths per year than cocaine & ecstacy.

Bit of a skewed argument though isn't it? Because so many more people take alcohol and/or tobacco.

That's like saying there are more deaths per year from dogs than there are from Lions and deducing that dogs are more dangerous.

Yeah true mate, but i think alot of people would be surprised by how many people you know and dont suspect actually dabble.

[Shillzz]

Not sure as I entirely agree.

Some drugs can be very nasty indeed. Maybe it's just because we've all developed a bit of a tolerance to alcohol (and not other drugs), but I think a distinction needs to be made between the 2, for our own safety if nothing else.

Let the average group of 18 year olds go wild on cocaine and ecstacy and there'd be trouble untill 9 o clock the next morning.

Let the average group of 25 year olds go wild on beer & shots and there'd be trouble untill 9 o clock the next morning.

No difference is there really?

Not sure as I agree, not sure as I disagree.

I think you're far more likely to hospitalise yourself on drugs than you are on alcohol.

With alcohol, your body usually has a way of stopping you from drinking anymore before it becomes critically harmfull. i.e. you can't hold a pint, never mind drink one.

But you could easily 'drop' 5 pills and find yourself in a fair bit of trouble very easily.

This is true but a lot of the reason for this is that alcohol is packaged with a strength percentage written on the side of every bottle but illegal pills can have anything in them.

Drinking 5 pints of beer in pretty quick succession will have a manageable affect, drinking 5 pints of vodka will put you in hospital. It seems crazy to think about drinking pints of Vodka but a lot of that is because we are so used to alcohol and how to deal with it.

If people had access to safe dosages of drugs with some sort or strength ranking on them you would see a lot less people getting sick from them.

Perhaps if Ecstacy was packed into a vomit-inducing cake form?

You could fill 'yer boots on the stuff and you'd feel physically sick before you took an unhealthy dose.

In all seriousness though, I do agree with what you're saying. Though what I would say is that drinking 5 pints of Vodka is a heroic effort, regardless of what it says on the side of the bottle, where as 'dropping' 5 pills is about as difficult as making your way through a pack of m&ms.

There's also the problem that something like ecstacy can leave you under the influence for 48hours +, which can be a bit of a problem when it comes to getting back to work on a monday morning.

The only time I gave it a bash was on the Friday before Villa played United in the Carling cup final. I was still noticeably 'wired' on the trip down to London for the game. Wasn't a nice experience at all.

[BOF]

Alcohol is the most dangerous drug out there.

You see ... because I'm not a druggy, I'm ill-equipped to argue this but let's just say I find it very difficult to believe that something like alcohol, where 1 drink does you zero damage, is 'the most dangerous drug out there' when people have taken the likes of E or acid and literally dropped dead from it.

Now if you're talking about the wider discussion of alcohol abuse where it takes years of over-indulgence ending up with liver damage then you're not comparing apples and apples. Per unit, I don't accept that alcohol is as dangerous as any of them. I include cigarettes in that. Every single cigarette does you a degree of damage. That's not true of alcohol which itself only becomes dangerous through consistent abuse.

[wiggyrichard]

Alcohol is the most dangerous drug out there.

You see ... because I'm not a druggy, I'm ill-equipped to argue this but let's just say I find it very difficult to believe that something like alcohol, where 1 drink does you zero damage, is 'the most dangerous drug out there' when people have taken the likes of E or acid and literally dropped dead from it.

Now if you're talking about the wider discussion of alcohol abuse where it takes years of over-indulgence ending up with liver damage then you're not comparing apples and apples. Per unit, I don't accept that alcohol is as dangerous as any of them. I include cigarettes in that. Every single cigarette does you a degree of damage. That's not true of alcohol which itself only becomes dangerous through consistent abuse.

Spoken like a true pisshead!!

[legov]

Alcohol is the most dangerous drug out there.

The party drugs are basically harmless (Weed / XTC / Coke) etc. Its the same rules as alcohol, be responsible and know the score. I have seen people have 10 pills in a night and be right as rain in the morning.

The people who are against drugs are pretty likely to have either no clue at all / never touched them / don't understand at all but are media led.

Think about it, how many jobs are created / how much tax wasted / how many prison places taken up / Police employed to ban stuff that that keeps them all in a job ?

A side-note: nevermind chewing gum, if any of you ever gets the chance to visit Singapore, never, ever, ever ever, bring in drugs. You can get the death penalty for it.

Yes, you read right, execution for drugs.

[BOF]

Yeah well I'm currently trying to prove the 'consistent abuse' theory myself. Dedication to the cause innit.

[AVFCforever1991]

My number 1 rule for Life, Whether it be alcohol/Drug/Food etc.. Induglance.. The Key is:

See the Irony of this Post

[Zhan_Zhuang]

Alcohol is the most dangerous drug out there.

You see ... because I'm not a druggy, I'm ill-equipped to argue this but let's just say I find it very difficult to believe that something like alcohol, where 1 drink does you zero damage, is 'the most dangerous drug out there' when people have taken the likes of E or acid and literally dropped dead from it.

Now if you're talking about the wider discussion of alcohol abuse where it takes years of over-indulgence ending up with liver damage then you're not comparing apples and apples. Per unit, I don't accept that alcohol is as dangerous as any of them. I include cigarettes in that. Every single cigarette does you a degree of damage. That's not true of alcohol which itself only becomes dangerous through consistent abuse.

I'd be inclined to disagree on the grounds of a very simple argument: when too much alcohol is consumed the result is sickness and vomiting. This indicates that alcohol is a poison and the body's natural reaction is to try and rid this from the system.

The permutations of alcohol abuse can be a extremely dangerous to a first time user when they do not understand its effects and side-effects. Therefore it is not only "dangerous through consistent abuse" because we all know from a mental perspective alcohol can inhibit clear thinking which can cause loss of life.

[Shillzz]

I used to have the saying, "it only snows at christmas" but due to the global warming and unforseen weather patterns it would end up snowing more and more regularly.

Best just to knock it on the head, because once you realise something like cocaine isn't half as bad as people make out then you're inhibitions about doing it start to disappear and over time you do it more and more often.

A blanket "no thanks" was the only way forward for me.

[irreverentad]

The people who are against drugs are pretty likely to have either no clue at all / never touched them / don't understand at all but are media led.

Sorry but that is horse shit.

I have never touched drugs, out of personal choice. I am against them but I am not media led.

I have read (not in newspapers etc) about the effects and risks both physical and social. I also have seen the effects on friends who choose to take them. 2 especially who were affected very badly.

Drugs are a personal choice. But to say the people who are against them are just media led is silly.

[Shillzz]

The people who are against drugs are pretty likely to have either no clue at all / never touched them / don't understand at all but are media led.

Sorry but that is horse shit.

I have never touched drugs, out of personal choice. I am against them but I am not media led.

I have read about the effects and risks both physical and social. I also have seen the effects on friends who choose to take them. 2 especially who were affected very badly.

Drugs are a personal choice. But to say the people who are against them are just media led is silly.

Seconded.

I've more than enough experience to form an anti-drug stance.

[RunRickyRun]

According to Prof Nutt, ecstacy causes acute harm to the user in about 1 in 10000 cases which compares favourably (statistically) to horse riding.

I think Psilocybin (magic mushrooms) and cannabis (but not skunk) should be legalised. Both are far less dangerous than alcohol to both the user and society.

[BOF]

I'd be inclined to disagree on the grounds of a very simple argument: when too much alcohol is consumed the result is sickness and vomiting. This indicates that alcohol is a poison and the body's natural reaction is to try and rid this from the system.

Unfortunately that argument is too simple because you could actually replace the word 'alcohol' in it with pretty much anything else. For example I find that if I was to eat or drink too much of anything, my body will eventually try to vomit it out. That doesn't make it a poison, it makes me a pig that doesn't know when to stop.

The permutations of alcohol abuse can be a extremely dangerous to a first time user when they do not understand its effects and side-effects. Therefore it is not only "dangerous through consistent abuse" because we all know from a mental perspective alcohol can inhibit clear thinking which can cause loss of life.

Again, you're talking about someone who can't control it or doesn't know how to i.e. first time users. The point here is that if alcohol is controlled, it is safe. Alcohol isn't the problem in and of itself, the user is the problem in your situation. The same can not be said about something like heroine where it IS the substance that is dangerous and the user is a passenger very quickly. There is no 'safe' way to use heroine. There IS a safe way to use alcohol. Now a discussion about protecting people from themselves because they're not capable of controlling alcohol is another thing. It doesn't mean alcohol has become any more dangerous than it is. It just means we've given up on trusting people to control themselves. They tried that in America once. It didn't work

[simpsons]Well at first it did. People were drinking more and having loads of fun. But prohibition without drink just doesn't work! [/simpsons]

[wiggyrichard]

I used to have the saying, "it only snows at christmas" but due to the global warming and unforseen weather patterns it would end up snowing more and more regularly.

Best just to knock it on the head, because once you realise something like cocaine isn't half as bad as people make out then you're inhibitions about doing it start to disappear and over time you do it more and more often.

A blanket "no thanks" was the only way forward for me.

Pretty much bang on with how it was for me mate.

[LondonLax]

Alcohol is the most dangerous drug out there.

You see ... because I'm not a druggy, I'm ill-equipped to argue this but let's just say I find it very difficult to believe that something like alcohol, where 1 drink does you zero damage, is 'the most dangerous drug out there' when people have taken the likes of E or acid and literally dropped dead from it.

Now if you're talking about the wider discussion of alcohol abuse where it takes years of over-indulgence ending up with liver damage then you're not comparing apples and apples. Per unit, I don't accept that alcohol is as dangerous as any of them. I include cigarettes in that. Every single cigarette does you a degree of damage. That's not true of alcohol which itself only becomes dangerous through consistent abuse.

And what do you consider to be a unit when you are talking about this?

People have dropped dead from taking a pill which they had no idea what was actually in it. You can't really compare that to a government regulated drug like alcohol though can you. Perhaps if you were comparing a pill with 5% MDMA to a beer with 5% alcohol the reults would be different? It needs a more scientific approach to analysis.

Professor David Nutt did a pretty extensive review on behalf of the government back in 2009 of the clasification system in the UK and this is the order her ranked different drugs based on the harm they cause:

1. Heroin

2. Cocaine

3. Barbituates

4. Street methadone

5. Alcohol

6. Ketamine

7. Benzodiazepines

8. Amphetamine

9. Tobacco

10. Buprenorphine

11. Cannabis

12. Solvents

13. 4-MTA

14. LSD

15. Methylphenidate

16. Anabolic steroids

17. GHB

18. Ecstasy

19. Alykl nitrites

20. Khat

Some more details in the Guardian

[wiggyrichard]

In the 60's & 70's, was everything pretty much fair game when it came to drugs?

[Shillzz]

Alcohol is the most dangerous drug out there.

You see ... because I'm not a druggy, I'm ill-equipped to argue this but let's just say I find it very difficult to believe that something like alcohol, where 1 drink does you zero damage, is 'the most dangerous drug out there' when people have taken the likes of E or acid and literally dropped dead from it.

Now if you're talking about the wider discussion of alcohol abuse where it takes years of over-indulgence ending up with liver damage then you're not comparing apples and apples. Per unit, I don't accept that alcohol is as dangerous as any of them. I include cigarettes in that. Every single cigarette does you a degree of damage. That's not true of alcohol which itself only becomes dangerous through consistent abuse.

And what do you consider to be a unit when you are talking about this?

People have dropped dead from taking a pill which they had no idea what was actually in it. You can't really compare that to a government regulated drug like alcohol though can you. Perhaps if you were comparing a pill with 5% MDMA to a beer with 5% alcohol the reults would be different? It needs a more scientific approach to analysis.

Professor David Nutt did a pretty extensive review on behalf of the government back in 2009 of the clasification system in the UK and this is the order her ranked different drugs based on the harm they cause:

1. Heroin

2. Cocaine

3. Barbituates

4. Street methadone

5. Alcohol

6. Ketamine

7. Benzodiazepines

8. Amphetamine

9. Tobacco

10. Buprenorphine

11. Cannabis

12. Solvents

13. 4-MTA

14. LSD

15. Methylphenidate

16. Anabolic steroids

17. GHB

18. Ecstasy

19. Alykl nitrites

20. Khat

Some more details in the Guardian

It's difficult to define 'harm' though.

I'd say if you incorporated the potential mental side effects of the drugs then the list may look a little different.

Cocaine for example wears off after 20 minutes without any major side effects, you'd dance it off in a nightclub full of other people acting silly, but you could take ecstacy and end up putting yourself in danger for the next 48 hours due to its lasting effects.