Truth about drugs

[Michael]

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Third_Party_Photo/2009/12/11/drugs_chart__1260545046_6752.jpg

That little graph says it all.

... a list - a scientifically compiled ranking of drugs, assembled by specialists in chemistry, health, and enforcement, published in a prestigious medical journal two years earlier.

The list, printed as a chart with the unassuming title “Mean Harm Scores for 20 Substances,” ranked a set of common drugs, both legal and illegal, in order of their harmfulness - how addictive they were, how physically damaging, and how much they threatened society. Many drug specialists now consider it one of the most objective sources available on the actual harmfulness of different substances.
Source (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/12/13/you_cant_handle_the_truth/)

And a British advisor to the UK government on drug policy just got fired for acknowledging the facts fo the matter.

Apparently when it comes to state drug policy, speaking the truth is a really huge big problem and a fireable offense. Our elite rulers apparently don't like to have their bullshit exposed in such an obvious way.

I suppose the real 'no-no' is pointing out how massively harmful legal alcohol is (dwarfs that of many illegal drugs).

[The Drunk Guy]

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Third_Party_Photo/2009/12/11/drugs_chart__1260545046_6752.jpg

That little graph says it all.


Source (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/12/13/you_cant_handle_the_truth/)

And a British advisor to the UK government on drug policy just got fired for acknowledging the facts fo the matter.

Apparently when it comes to state drug policy, speaking the truth is a really huge big problem and a fireable offense. Our elite rulers apparently don't like to have their bullshit exposed in such an obvious way.

I suppose the real 'no-no' is pointing out how massively harmful legal alcohol is (dwarfs that of many illegal drugs).
Just curious....does 'social costs' mean psychological damages or is that in reference to incarceration/legal issues concerned with the drug?

Also, LSD is safer than weed? Seriously? Sign me up! :D

[Americano]

I know for a fact that in my area meth has far surpassed heroin as top of such a list. Alcohol would run a close race with meth.

[evanescence]

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Third_Party_Photo/2009/12/11/drugs_chart__1260545046_6752.jpg

That little graph says it all.


Source (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/12/13/you_cant_handle_the_truth/)

And a British advisor to the UK government on drug policy just got fired for acknowledging the facts fo the matter.

Apparently when it comes to state drug policy, speaking the truth is a really huge big problem and a fireable offense. Our elite rulers apparently don't like to have their bullshit exposed in such an obvious way.

I suppose the real 'no-no' is pointing out how massively harmful legal alcohol is (dwarfs that of many illegal drugs).

solvents, LSD, and Ecstasy is less harmful than Pot. :erm:

[Zarquon]

this is that British researchers' image, considering only dependence and physical harm:

[Lily]

I know for a fact that in my area meth has far surpassed heroin as top of such a list. Alcohol would run a close race with meth.

Bingo! My area, too. I can spot a meth user a mile away. Nasty. Picking at their skin. MRSA abscesses, rotted teeth, unwashed... Alcohol abuse? That's a daily occurance in ERs, and I'm not just talking about the patients.

And pot? Well, for the record, in all my years in the ER, I've never had EMS bring in two bloodied guys with a report that said, "Yeah, these two got stoned and beat the crap outta each other."

[Americano]

Bingo! My area, too. I can spot a meth user a mile away. Nasty. Picking at their skin. MRSA abscesses, rotted teeth, unwashed... Alcohol abuse? That's a daily occurance in ERs, and I'm not just talking about the patients.

As I mentioned in an earlier post we label tweakers as being on the Jenny Crank Diet.

Unfortunately, the US has approached the meth problem with its typical, unfeasible solution of deny users dope and they won't use it. Primary ingredients used to cook meth have been outlawed or put behind the counter in many US states. What did that do? Promoted smuggling of those ingredients from Mexico into the US, providing politicians and bigots with yet another rationalization for blaming US drug consumption on Mexico.

And pot? Well, for the record, in all my years in the ER, I've never had EMS bring in two bloodied guys with a report that said, "Yeah, these two got stoned and beat the crap outta each other."

I can't help but wonder if weed is high on that list due to law enforcement, justice system, incarceration and post-prison parole social costs.

[Michael]

solvents, LSD, and Ecstasy is less harmful than Pot. :erm:

That seems quite surprising to me as well. Solvents and LSD are quite capable of doing serious long term damage. Ecstasy is able to kill you if you stupid when taking it. Pot on the other hand doesn't seem to have the same kind of physical harm properties. :ummm:

I suppose it might be an aggregate number in which case it makes sense. Solvents are very harmful, but the numbers are fairly small so the overall aggregate amount of harm isn't very much. Pot may have some small harm, but it has numbers in the mega-millions so aggregate amount of harm might be rather large. I'm just speculating here. :shrug:

[Americano]

That seems quite surprising to me as well. Solvents and LSD are quite capable of doing serious long term damage. Ecstasy is able to kill you if you stupid when taking it. Pot on the other hand doesn't seem to have the same kind of physical harm properties. :ummm:

Solvents, LSD and ecstasy combined don't have the user base of weed. Social costs due to illegality must be heavily represented in the chart rating calculations.

[Zarquon]

That seems quite surprising to me as well. Solvents and LSD are quite capable of doing serious long term damage. Ecstasy is able to kill you if you stupid when taking it. Pot on the other hand doesn't seem to have the same kind of physical harm properties. :ummm:

I suppose it might be an aggregate number in which case it makes sense. Solvents are very harmful, but the numbers are fairly small so the overall aggregate amount of harm isn't very much. Pot may have some small harm, but it has numbers in the mega-millions so aggregate amount of harm might be rather large. I'm just speculating here. :shrug:
Going by the image I posted, tobacco, heroin and cocaine are the most harmful, whereas LSD and Ecstasy are more or less like Cannabis, considering only dependency and physical harm.

[drgoodtrips]

Solvents, LSD and ecstasy combined don't have the user base of weed. Social costs due to illegality must be heavily represented in the chart rating calculations.

Which, in my book, renders the ranking less useful. Evaluating the effects of drugs shouldn't be done in such a way that reinforces status quo perceptions. The premise is silly:

Drug x is very harmful to one's health because we kill everyone caught using it. Therefore, because it's so harmful, it makes sense to outlaw it!

[evanescence]

Going by the image I posted, tobacco, heroin and cocaine are the most harmful, whereas LSD and Ecstasy are more or less like Cannabis, considering only dependency and physical harm.

Cannabis is not harmful, nor does a person develop a physical dependency.

[Donkey]

I wish I had had this data in college when I was writing pro-legalization papers. Would have complimented my arguments nicely.

One thing that I think needs to be clarified, or at least noted about this study is the apparent lumping of all cocaine products, and the specificity of heroin. I don't see a delineation made between powder and crack cocaine. I would guess that crack and powder would find themselves in different places on the chart. Also, it does not account for other products that can be made from coca. It should not be viewed as a blanket indictment of coca products. Likewise, heroin should not be viewed as "all opiates."

[The Drunk Girl]

I can't help but wonder if weed is high on that list due to law enforcement, justice system, incarceration and post-prison parole social costs.

An estimated 1.5 million people are jailed a year on drug violations...40% are for marijuana possessions in small amounts. In 2008, 800,000 arrests were made for marijuana charges which equaled the same amount of arrests for heroin, cocaine, and meth combined.

In our state it costs about $52/day or $19,000 a year for someone to be put behind bars. What is sad is that only $9,000 is spent on elementary to secondary education students and $7,000 on college students.

On top of that our government spends an estimated 7.7 billion on drug prohibition (2.4 billion on the federal level and 5.3 billion at the state and local levels).




Going by the image I posted, tobacco, heroin and cocaine are the most harmful, whereas LSD and Ecstasy are more or less like Cannabis, considering only dependency and physical harm.

A person would have to smoke 40,000 times as much marijuana that it takes to get high in order to overdose. Besides there are no facts to prove that marijuana is harmful or becomes dependent. No one has ever gotten lung cancer from smoking marijuana, no one has overdosed, and as Lily stated no acts of violence (or profound changes in people's behavior) due to smoking have been proven either.

Marijuana is actually pretty beneficial in those that have severe health problems. In AIDS and cancer patients it is known to increase appetite and reduce nausea and vomiting. In patients with glaucoma, smoking can help reduce interlobular pressure and can help slow down or stop progression of the disease. Those with MS, marijuana can help limit muscle pain and spasms.

Since the 1970 legalization of marijuana in Holland, "hard drug" (meth, coke, heroin) use has steadily declined and continues to do so. It has also been proven that people that smoke are less likely to drink alcohol---this study was done in the US.

[Americano]

An estimated 1.5 million people are jailed a year on drug violations...40% are for marijuana possessions in small amounts. In 2008, 800,000 arrests were made for marijuana charges which equaled the same amount of arrests for heroin, cocaine, and meth combined.

In our state it costs about $52/day or $19,000 a year for someone to be put behind bars. What is sad is that only $9,000 is spent on elementary to secondary education students and $7,000 on college students.

On top of that our government spends an estimated 7.7 billion on drug prohibition (2.4 billion on the federal level and 5.3 billion at the state and local levels).

A person would have to smoke 40,000 times as much marijuana that it takes to get high in order to overdose. Besides there are no facts to prove that marijuana is harmful or becomes dependent. No one has ever gotten lung cancer from smoking marijuana, no one has overdosed, and as Lily stated no acts of violence (or profound changes in people's behavior) due to smoking have been proven either.

Marijuana is actually pretty beneficial in those that have severe health problems. In AIDS and cancer patients it is known to increase appetite and reduce nausea and vomiting. In patients with glaucoma, smoking can help reduce interlobular pressure and can help slow down or stop progression of the disease. Those with MS, marijuana can help limit muscle pain and spasms.

Since the 1970 legalization of marijuana in Holland, "hard drug" (meth, coke, heroin) use has steadily declined and continues to do so. It has also been proven that people that smoke are less likely to drink alcohol---this study was done in the US.

But...but...weed is illegal, considered a sin by many and according to Real Citizens any politician who supports legalization, even a well-qualified adviser to the UK Government, is toast. Just ask big pharma.

[Americano]

Which, in my book, renders the ranking less useful. Evaluating the effects of drugs shouldn't be done in such a way that reinforces status quo perceptions. The premise is silly:

Drug x is very harmful to one's health because we kill everyone caught using it. Therefore, because it's so harmful, it makes sense to outlaw it!

As long as it doesn't contain any immediate changes to the rice bowl, a majority of the general public accepts governance as presented by their representatives without question. Many serve in the military to maim and kill those who disagree with US special interest policy.

The subject chart could have a potential ramification of alcohol being barred from military consumption. Can you imagine US military and civilian law enforcement being subjected to random alcohol testing with dismissal and disgrace the penalty for testing positive? As it is with other government declared 'bad' drugs such as weed?

[The Drunk Girl]

But...but...weed is illegal, considered a sin by many and according to Real Citizens any politician who supports legalization, even a well-qualified adviser to the UK Government, is toast. Just ask big pharma.

Fuck 'em ;);)

Besides, who are you kidding? None of us here are "Real Citizens" anyways :lol:

[Americano]

Fuck 'em ;);)

Besides, who are you kidding? None of us here are "Real Citizens" anyways :lol:

I hope not, that requires a level of stupidity I consciously avoid.

[evanescence]

An estimated 1.5 million people are jailed a year on drug violations...40% are for marijuana possessions in small amounts. In 2008, 800,000 arrests were made for marijuana charges which equaled the same amount of arrests for heroin, cocaine, and meth combined.

In our state it costs about $52/day or $19,000 a year for someone to be put behind bars. What is sad is that only $9,000 is spent on elementary to secondary education students and $7,000 on college students.

On top of that our government spends an estimated 7.7 billion on drug prohibition (2.4 billion on the federal level and 5.3 billion at the state and local levels).






A person would have to smoke 40,000 times as much marijuana that it takes to get high in order to overdose. Besides there are no facts to prove that marijuana is harmful or becomes dependent. No one has ever gotten lung cancer from smoking marijuana, no one has overdosed, and as Lily stated no acts of violence (or profound changes in people's behavior) due to smoking have been proven either.

Marijuana is actually pretty beneficial in those that have severe health problems. In AIDS and cancer patients it is known to increase appetite and reduce nausea and vomiting. In patients with glaucoma, smoking can help reduce interlobular pressure and can help slow down or stop progression of the disease. Those with MS, marijuana can help limit muscle pain and spasms.

Since the 1970 legalization of marijuana in Holland, "hard drug" (meth, coke, heroin) use has steadily declined and continues to do so. It has also been proven that people that smoke are less likely to drink alcohol---this study was done in the US.

That is simply too much actual knowledge for some people to handle.

[drgoodtrips]

As long as it doesn't contain any immediate changes to the rice bowl, a majority of the general public accepts governance as presented by their representatives without question. Many serve in the military to maim and kill those who disagree with US special interest policy.

The subject chart could have a potential ramification of alcohol being barred from military consumption. Can you imagine US military and civilian law enforcement being subjected to random alcohol testing with dismissal and disgrace the penalty for testing positive? As it is with other government declared 'bad' drugs such as weed?

For some reason, this post reminds me of a guy I knew in college. He wasn't military, but he had a jock-ish mentality and was often rather bellicose in demeanor. His favorite thing to do was spend all day, every day getting hammered. He would then proceed to go on rants about how horrible and evil marijuana and other drugs were.

This, in my world, is the epitome of blindly accepting both convention and one's own hypocrisy. I'd imagine such a policy vis a vis the military (or most segments of society, for that matter) would loudly and proudly display that.

[Americano]

For some reason, this post reminds me of a guy I knew in college. He wasn't military, but he had a jock-ish mentality and was often rather bellicose in demeanor. His favorite thing to do was spend all day, every day getting hammered. He would then proceed to go on rants about how horrible and evil marijuana and other drugs were.

This, in my world, is the epitome of blindly accepting both convention and one's own hypocrisy. I'd imagine such a policy vis a vis the military (or most segments of society, for that matter) would loudly and proudly display that.

I always find it amusing when a shit-faced drunk rails on about the evils of drugs.

[SMadsen]

this is that British researchers' image, considering only dependence and physical harm:
That's a great visualization.

[SMadsen]

I always find it amusing when a shit-faced drunk rails on about the evils of drugs.
Besides that in debates about drugs there is no one else to rail about the evils of drugs than the drug user (the "you can't possibly know what I mean if you don't do what I do!" apologetics), it makes perfect sense if a shit-faced drunk rails about the evils of being a shit-faced drunk. That is not hypocrisy but a rather strong message of dependency.

There's a reason why people want out of drug abuse, and it neither goes by the name of law enforcement nor by the name of hypocrisy.

[Americano]

Besides that in debates about drugs there is no one else to rail about the evils of drugs than the drug user (the "you can't possibly know what I mean if you don't do what I do!" apologetics), it makes perfect sense if a shit-faced drunk rails about the evils of being a shit-faced drunk. That is not hypocrisy but a rather strong message of dependency.

There's a reason why people want out of drug abuse, and it neither goes by the name of law enforcement nor by the name of hypocrisy.

I've met few abusers of any drug including alcohol, heroin and prescription drugs who want to reform due to complete dependency. Those who successfully do so seldom associate with their past lives as that's one of the key factors in successful rehabilitation.