6 ms·

It always amazes me how many people on HN trivialise extremely dangerous drugs saying that alcohol is more dangerous. I'd rather stay in a room with someone tha

It always amazes me how many people on HN trivialise extremely dangerous drugs saying that alcohol is more dangerous. I'd rather stay in a room with someone that drinks a glass of wine a day than with someone that assumes LSD every day.

ghshephard 10y ago
Some objective research is useful here. Lancet did an evaluation across multiple spectrums, harm to self, harm to environment, harm to society, harm to others, crime, etc... (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47635105_Nutt_DJ_King_LA_Phillips_LD_Drug_harms_in_the_UK_a_multicriteria_decision_analysis_Lancet_376_1558-1565 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47635105_Nutt_DJ_Ki...) - in particular, check out the graph down the page. Alcohol is unquestionably the more destructive of substances, LSD ranks far lower in this scale. Importantly, Alcohol results in a lot of harm to other people (violence, drunk driving, etc...).
- tigershark 10y ago
  Let's give anyone that wants a glass of wine a shot of heroin then, we'll save the world because we are giving them a chance to use a less dangerous drugs. I'll be quite curious to see how it goes, as you say only 25% of heroin users might become addicted. And of course more than 1/4 of the people that drinks a glass of wine is an addict, as you can see around you. :)
  - Nursie 10y ago
    Where did you read that heroin was less harmful than alcohol? The post you reply to compares alcohol and LSD. The abstract of the linked paper says that heroin is one of the most harmful drugs, more so than alcohol to the user, but grouped with alcohol in terms of harm to others.
    - kgwgk 10y ago
      > Where did you read that heroin was less harmful than alcohol? Maybe he read it in the message he was replying to? "Alcohol is unquestionably the more destructive of substances"
      - Nursie 10y ago
        Then his (and your) grasp of grammar is a little off. The conversation until then had been contrasting LSD and booze. Alcohol is most definitely the more destructive of those two.
        kgwgk 10y ago
        ghshephard changed the conversation talking about the position of alcohol in the ranking "of substances" by destructiveness. You might think that he meant "of substances that are either alcohol or LSD," but given that he can't think of any reason why a heroin addict would be harmful to others I think he had a wider interpretation in mind.
        Nursie 10y ago
        Looking at the sentence structure I'm afraid it's obvioua toe he was still talking about the comparison of the two, he mentions both in the post, and the context of talking about the comparison is there. Regardless, his/her interlocutor has hopefully had their eyes opened by the conversation, in which they said that even making the comparison was offensive.
        ghshephard 10y ago
        It's true - I was originally referring to Alcohol versus LSD (as that was what the parent was trying to compare, and couldn't believe that LSD wasn't terribly dangerous). But, I was prepared to also discuss the relevant merits of Alcoholic abusers and Heroin Abusers (and users) as well. I think, much like people get used to the death rate from Car Accidents, and don't think of Cars as dangerous, people have gotten used to Alcohol issues in society, and don't think of it as dangerous, when it very much is. (Front page of New York Times is discussing an Alcohol related sexual also case in Palo Alto that almost certainly wouldn't have happened if the two parties had been sober).
    - mcguire 10y ago
      The Lancet paper. The graph shows tobacco as less harmful than cocaine, metamphetamine, and heroin, as well as alcohol.
- kgwgk 10y ago
  > Alcohol is unquestionably the more destructive of substances Because it is the most popular one. The "harm to others" part of the score is not per user. At the margin, one typical heroin or crack consumer creates more costs to society than one typical alcohol consumer.
  - ghshephard 10y ago
    Is that really the case? I can't think of any reason why a heroin addict would be harmful to others, whereas people who drink alcohol tend to drive and kill/injure others. Indeed, if a heroin addict has clean needles, safe place to inject, and a safe supply of heroin, (close to zero mortality in Vancouver Safe Injection sites) then it's relatively benign substance, other than addictive component. I bet if you put one alcoholic against one heroin addict, more damage across almost every spectrum than the heroin addict.
    - kgwgk 10y ago
      In the very paper that you cited to support your position they claim that the "community", "economic" and "family" harm is about three to five times larger for alcohol than for heroin. Which, given that there are more than two orders of magnitude of difference in the prevalence of alcohol and heroin usage, suggest that somehow heroin users are not as harmless as you paint them. The score for "crime" ("beyond the use-of-drug act") is actually higher for heroin than for alcohol.
- mcguire 10y ago
  The methods on that paper are hilarious. It's scores provided by a committee.
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
First, it is pretty rare for folks to take LSD daily, outside of the current trend of microdosing for treating depression, etc. In this case, it seems generally no more faulty than a glass of wine a day. Besides, this is comparing apples to oranges - you'd need to compare an alcoholic, drinking vodka, to the daily user for that to be an apt comparison. And honestly, at that point I'm not too sure who I want to spend time with. In addition, the comparison would work better with pot. Would you rather spend time with someone drinking a bit or that smokes a bowl every night? That gets to be a much more fuzzy. In addition, there are questions like: Assiming folks are taking as many responsible precautions as would be expected, is it better to get wasted by alcohol once a month or two or to take some lsd once a month or two? What about once or twice a year? These sorts of questions are closer to mimicking most folks' use of lsd. But most folks use such things in a much more responsible manner. Occasionally. There will be outliers, just like alcohol. Most folks don't get addicted: 25% of heroin users might, and the rest is at 10% or less (Source: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/26/neil-woods-undercover-cop-who-abandoned-the-war-on-drugs https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/26/neil-woods-u...). As far as dangers are concerned: Part of the danger is not having honest sources and not having access to good information (think about how much more dangerous alcohol was during prohibition). Sure, there is a risk of addiction, but you have that with alcohol, prescription drugs, gambling, and a myriad of other things. Effects on society are heaviest on the illegal things because of the illegality. Current laws would cover a lot of the other 'dangers' much as they do with alcohol (don't be violent, take care of your kids, drive sober). We can regulate potency much like we do with alcohol. Sure, some things can be dangerous, but most folks aren't doing it in those ways. Just like alcohol. We just hear about the bad stuff more because of the political and moral stance on them.
- CoryG89 10y ago
  I'm not sure where they are getting their 25% figure for heroin in your linked article. They link to yet another article as a source, but I see no mention of the 25% there. The claim seems to be that only 25% of people who try the drug once will end up being addicts. While I doubt this claim in itself, I think this percentage would go way up if you looked only at people who had reasonable access/resources to acquire more of the drug. If you keep doing heroin (or any opiate) and have the access/resources to get more, you will get addicted. It may take a few successive uses within a given amount of time, but beyond that you will have physical withdrawal symptoms, 100% of the time. This is not the same as alcohol, pot, or LSD, all of which are not physically addictive in the same way.
leoedin 10y ago
And I'd much rather go to a music festival with someone on LSD than someone who's drank loads of alcohol. I'm curious though - have you ever been around people on LSD? There's a huge amount of misinformation about it.
Nursie 10y ago
The thing is that alcohol is objectively more dangerous and more harmful than many/most illegal drugs. It has both acute and chronic health effects, it's addictive and it causes (or at least facilitates) all sorts of social problems including a lot of violence. It kills its users and its users sometimes kill or hurt other people when under its influence. It always amazes me how willing people are to overlook the evils of alcohol while highlighting the evils of other drugs.
- tigershark 10y ago
  Absolutely no. It may be true to some extent for alcohol abuse. Saying that alcohol is objectively more harmful and dangerous than many/most illegal drugs is simply an outrageous lie. I never saw anyone die for a glass of wine a day, I guess that there is plenty of cases of death for regular drugs users. It's simply disconcerting that you encourage the use of illegal drugs saying that are not dangerous on a public website. I guess that in some countries it may be even a crime, but regardless I find it extremely offending.
  - Nursie 10y ago
    Sorry you disagree but the data really isn't on your side here. I'm not sure why you find it offending. The line between alcohol use and abuse is a very fine one, plenty of people cross it all the time. Many of them end up dead. If you look at all the people who try, say, cannabis, and count who gets addicted and who dies or gets sick from it, then compare those percentages to alcohol, alcohol comes out far, far worse. You don't get to say "it's ok, those people were abusers, users are all fine" because the addictive nature means some users become abusers, and many, many people are harmed by it. That's the whole point of measuring harm, to see what actually happens when humans use these substances in large numbers. Nowhere have I or will I say that drugs are not dangerous. But I'm afraid it's you that's absolutely wrong about the relative harms here. It's not a lie, I suggest you actually try reading about this sometime. My recommendation to get started would be "Drugs without the hot air" by Professor David Nutt.
    - CoryG89 10y ago
hasbroslasher 10y ago
The equivalent of drinking a glass of wine every day is microdosing LSD, which, interesting, is something that's increasingly popular in the tech community. You may be already be around people every day who are consuming LSD. To avoid a false dichotomy, you should say you'd rather spend your days with your friend who's drunk to the point of constantly hugging you and telling you "I love you bro, we're fucking bros, man, lets move to Mexico and become fucking PIRATES, man" Last, it sounds like you've never been around someone who's on LSD, because at low doses they're usually very tame and can at times provide great conversation.

ghshephard 10y ago

Some objective research is useful here. Lancet did an evaluation across multiple spectrums, harm to self, harm to environment, harm to society, harm to others, crime, etc... (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47635105_Nutt_DJ_King_LA_Phillips_LD_Drug_harms_in_the_UK_a_multicriteria_decision_analysis_Lancet_376_1558-1565 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47635105_Nutt_DJ_Ki...) - in particular, check out the graph down the page. Alcohol is unquestionably the more destructive of substances, LSD ranks far lower in this scale. Importantly, Alcohol results in a lot of harm to other people (violence, drunk driving, etc...).

tigershark 10y ago
Let's give anyone that wants a glass of wine a shot of heroin then, we'll save the world because we are giving them a chance to use a less dangerous drugs. I'll be quite curious to see how it goes, as you say only 25% of heroin users might become addicted. And of course more than 1/4 of the people that drinks a glass of wine is an addict, as you can see around you. :)
- Nursie 10y ago
  Where did you read that heroin was less harmful than alcohol? The post you reply to compares alcohol and LSD. The abstract of the linked paper says that heroin is one of the most harmful drugs, more so than alcohol to the user, but grouped with alcohol in terms of harm to others.
  - kgwgk 10y ago
    > Where did you read that heroin was less harmful than alcohol? Maybe he read it in the message he was replying to? "Alcohol is unquestionably the more destructive of substances"
    - Nursie 10y ago
      Then his (and your) grasp of grammar is a little off. The conversation until then had been contrasting LSD and booze. Alcohol is most definitely the more destructive of those two.
      - kgwgk 10y ago
        ghshephard changed the conversation talking about the position of alcohol in the ranking "of substances" by destructiveness. You might think that he meant "of substances that are either alcohol or LSD," but given that he can't think of any reason why a heroin addict would be harmful to others I think he had a wider interpretation in mind.
        Nursie 10y ago
        Looking at the sentence structure I'm afraid it's obvioua toe he was still talking about the comparison of the two, he mentions both in the post, and the context of talking about the comparison is there. Regardless, his/her interlocutor has hopefully had their eyes opened by the conversation, in which they said that even making the comparison was offensive.
        ghshephard 10y ago
        It's true - I was originally referring to Alcohol versus LSD (as that was what the parent was trying to compare, and couldn't believe that LSD wasn't terribly dangerous). But, I was prepared to also discuss the relevant merits of Alcoholic abusers and Heroin Abusers (and users) as well. I think, much like people get used to the death rate from Car Accidents, and don't think of Cars as dangerous, people have gotten used to Alcohol issues in society, and don't think of it as dangerous, when it very much is. (Front page of New York Times is discussing an Alcohol related sexual also case in Palo Alto that almost certainly wouldn't have happened if the two parties had been sober).
  - mcguire 10y ago
    The Lancet paper. The graph shows tobacco as less harmful than cocaine, metamphetamine, and heroin, as well as alcohol.
kgwgk 10y ago
> Alcohol is unquestionably the more destructive of substances Because it is the most popular one. The "harm to others" part of the score is not per user. At the margin, one typical heroin or crack consumer creates more costs to society than one typical alcohol consumer.
- ghshephard 10y ago
  Is that really the case? I can't think of any reason why a heroin addict would be harmful to others, whereas people who drink alcohol tend to drive and kill/injure others. Indeed, if a heroin addict has clean needles, safe place to inject, and a safe supply of heroin, (close to zero mortality in Vancouver Safe Injection sites) then it's relatively benign substance, other than addictive component. I bet if you put one alcoholic against one heroin addict, more damage across almost every spectrum than the heroin addict.
  - kgwgk 10y ago
    In the very paper that you cited to support your position they claim that the "community", "economic" and "family" harm is about three to five times larger for alcohol than for heroin. Which, given that there are more than two orders of magnitude of difference in the prevalence of alcohol and heroin usage, suggest that somehow heroin users are not as harmless as you paint them. The score for "crime" ("beyond the use-of-drug act") is actually higher for heroin than for alcohol.
mcguire 10y ago
The methods on that paper are hilarious. It's scores provided by a committee.

Broken_Hippo 10y ago

First, it is pretty rare for folks to take LSD daily, outside of the current trend of microdosing for treating depression, etc. In this case, it seems generally no more faulty than a glass of wine a day. Besides, this is comparing apples to oranges - you'd need to compare an alcoholic, drinking vodka, to the daily user for that to be an apt comparison. And honestly, at that point I'm not too sure who I want to spend time with. In addition, the comparison would work better with pot. Would you rather spend time with someone drinking a bit or that smokes a bowl every night? That gets to be a much more fuzzy. In addition, there are questions like: Assiming folks are taking as many responsible precautions as would be expected, is it better to get wasted by alcohol once a month or two or to take some lsd once a month or two? What about once or twice a year? These sorts of questions are closer to mimicking most folks' use of lsd. But most folks use such things in a much more responsible manner. Occasionally. There will be outliers, just like alcohol. Most folks don't get addicted: 25% of heroin users might, and the rest is at 10% or less (Source: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/26/neil-woods-undercover-cop-who-abandoned-the-war-on-drugs https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/26/neil-woods-u...). As far as dangers are concerned: Part of the danger is not having honest sources and not having access to good information (think about how much more dangerous alcohol was during prohibition). Sure, there is a risk of addiction, but you have that with alcohol, prescription drugs, gambling, and a myriad of other things. Effects on society are heaviest on the illegal things because of the illegality. Current laws would cover a lot of the other 'dangers' much as they do with alcohol (don't be violent, take care of your kids, drive sober). We can regulate potency much like we do with alcohol. Sure, some things can be dangerous, but most folks aren't doing it in those ways. Just like alcohol. We just hear about the bad stuff more because of the political and moral stance on them.

CoryG89 10y ago
I'm not sure where they are getting their 25% figure for heroin in your linked article. They link to yet another article as a source, but I see no mention of the 25% there. The claim seems to be that only 25% of people who try the drug once will end up being addicts. While I doubt this claim in itself, I think this percentage would go way up if you looked only at people who had reasonable access/resources to acquire more of the drug. If you keep doing heroin (or any opiate) and have the access/resources to get more, you will get addicted. It may take a few successive uses within a given amount of time, but beyond that you will have physical withdrawal symptoms, 100% of the time. This is not the same as alcohol, pot, or LSD, all of which are not physically addictive in the same way.

leoedin 10y ago

And I'd much rather go to a music festival with someone on LSD than someone who's drank loads of alcohol. I'm curious though - have you ever been around people on LSD? There's a huge amount of misinformation about it.

Nursie 10y ago

The thing is that alcohol is objectively more dangerous and more harmful than many/most illegal drugs. It has both acute and chronic health effects, it's addictive and it causes (or at least facilitates) all sorts of social problems including a lot of violence. It kills its users and its users sometimes kill or hurt other people when under its influence. It always amazes me how willing people are to overlook the evils of alcohol while highlighting the evils of other drugs.

tigershark 10y ago
Absolutely no. It may be true to some extent for alcohol abuse. Saying that alcohol is objectively more harmful and dangerous than many/most illegal drugs is simply an outrageous lie. I never saw anyone die for a glass of wine a day, I guess that there is plenty of cases of death for regular drugs users. It's simply disconcerting that you encourage the use of illegal drugs saying that are not dangerous on a public website. I guess that in some countries it may be even a crime, but regardless I find it extremely offending.
- Nursie 10y ago
  Sorry you disagree but the data really isn't on your side here. I'm not sure why you find it offending. The line between alcohol use and abuse is a very fine one, plenty of people cross it all the time. Many of them end up dead. If you look at all the people who try, say, cannabis, and count who gets addicted and who dies or gets sick from it, then compare those percentages to alcohol, alcohol comes out far, far worse. You don't get to say "it's ok, those people were abusers, users are all fine" because the addictive nature means some users become abusers, and many, many people are harmed by it. That's the whole point of measuring harm, to see what actually happens when humans use these substances in large numbers. Nowhere have I or will I say that drugs are not dangerous. But I'm afraid it's you that's absolutely wrong about the relative harms here. It's not a lie, I suggest you actually try reading about this sometime. My recommendation to get started would be "Drugs without the hot air" by Professor David Nutt.
  - CoryG89 10y ago

hasbroslasher 10y ago

The equivalent of drinking a glass of wine every day is microdosing LSD, which, interesting, is something that's increasingly popular in the tech community. You may be already be around people every day who are consuming LSD. To avoid a false dichotomy, you should say you'd rather spend your days with your friend who's drunk to the point of constantly hugging you and telling you "I love you bro, we're fucking bros, man, lets move to Mexico and become fucking PIRATES, man" Last, it sounds like you've never been around someone who's on LSD, because at low doses they're usually very tame and can at times provide great conversation.