5 ms·

Your entire response is belied by the fact that alcohol is legal-- in fact, celebrated-- in western societies. It's even a religious sacrament (communion wine,

by lawpoop 10y ago

Your entire response is belied by the fact that alcohol is legal-- in fact, celebrated-- in western societies. It's even a religious sacrament (communion wine, seder wine). Nutt found that alcohol _the most harmful drug_ -- even more harmful than meth, crack and heroin-- far more harmful than ecstasy, marijuana, magic musrooms, LSD, etc. http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_caus...

DanHulton 10y ago
Indeed, the "harm" from most illegal drugs tends not to come from the drug itself, but from the circumstances surrounding its illegality. The crime, the self-neglect, the diseases from filthy needles/etc all stem from the fact that you can't partake in polite society. Compare the homeless wino to the homeless heroin user and contrast the affluent scotch drinkers and tokers (in countries and states where it's legal). The illegality of it makes a world of difference.
- seanp2k2 10y ago
  Plenty of e.g. Affluent coke addicts and many more casual users as well. It being illegal adds to the allure for some.
  - querulous 10y ago
    this isn't limited to coke. most people would be shocked b how many functional heroin, meth and crack users there are in general, using drugs isn't illegal. using drugs and not being wealthy enough to insulate yourself from the consequences of that choice is what is illegal
    - __jal 10y ago
      Yes. I know two functional junkies. One was born into a lot of wealth, the other isn't insanely rich, but is comfortable and no longer has to work. Your last sentence is exactly right. Neither of them will ever face legal action. But this is no different than most other things in the US (and elsewhere, usually to a lesser extent): law-enforcement-related outcomes react strongly to the presence of wealth.
jlos 10y ago
I agree and to the point I upvoted your comment :) I think that a key part of this discussion is making the distinction between saying which drugs are illegal and whether drugs should be illegal at all. Alcohol is particuarly interesting. It was a crucial part of pre-modern society in creating clean drinking water and even for nutrition in the case of beer. Not only that but alcohol, as opposed to LSD for example, can be taken in doses that range from completely benign to powerfully intoxicating. Defining what drugs should be illegal, how to punish the crime, and all the other details around it are more difficult to navigate.
- lawpoop 10y ago
  There is some debate nowadays about the use of alcohol as a substitute for bad water(1). I think the reason you find alcohol so interesting because of the Iron Law of Prohibition(2): 'The iron law of prohibition is a term coined by Richard Cowan in 1986 which posits that as law enforcement becomes more intense, the potency of prohibited substances increases. Cowan put it this way: "the harder the enforcement, the harder the drugs."' I'm reading the Kalevala (The National Epic of the Finns), and there is a lot of talk about brewing "table beer". I didn't know the term, so I had to look it up: beer of 1-2% alcohol, suitable for drinking during meals. I think the reason you find such a range of "responses" to alcohol is not the drug itself, but because of the fact that it's legal, and therefore not subject to the Iron Law of Prohibition, you can buy it in a variety of strengths-- from beer to wine to liquor. It's not the drug per se, but its manufacture. But, if you're going to go through the trouble of breaking the law to sell or buy and use illegal drugs, you might as well make it "worthwhile". That's why you could not find beer or wine during Prohibition, but you could get hold of high-content whiskey and vodka, even white lighting, moonshine, etc. Likewise, contraband drugs have from from morphine to heroin to even more powerful manufactured opioids. If you're going to risk buying a sheet of LSD, get a dose of 70 micrograms, instead of 20. Meanwhile, in silicon valley and other places, there is a new trend of microdosing(3): taking sub-threshold doses of "hallucinogens" to the point that _you're not even hallucinating-- but you do experience the "side effects" of increased alertness, awareness, creativity, memory, and problem solving. So there are doses of LSD, mushrooms, etc you can take that are not very powerful at all. It all depends on how they are manufactured and sold, just like alcohol. Even now in South American countries, the most popular form of "cocaine" is coca leaves-- which, by contrast, are actually very healthy, and the first response to potentially deadly altitude sickness when pills aren't available. I would suspect that if drugs were legalized, you would find a lot more forms with a lot less power. 1. http://leslefts.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-great-medieval-water-myth.html http://leslefts.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-great-medieval-wate... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_prohibition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_prohibition 3. http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertglatter/2015/11/27/lsd-microdosing-the-new-job-enhancer-in-silicon-valley-and-beyond/#78ffd8a4114d http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertglatter/2015/11/27/lsd-mic...
tigershark 10y ago
Your entire response is plainly untrue and it is just a demonisation of alcohol and a promotion of meth, crack and heroine. I really wished that certain comments that tend to minimise the effect of the most dangerous drugs were prohibited here. But apparently it is full of people that enjoy that shit and absurdly try to convince other people that a glass of wine is worse than a spade.
- matt4077 10y ago
  His response comes with a citation. So I'd say there are plenty of people here who enjoy science and the Economist's reporting. Without data, any opinion of this subject is bound to be based entirely on society's collective opinion or individual anecdotes. Within those limits, I'd argue that "people that enjoy that shit" are actually more reliable. I believe the partition made by the the post you're replying to gets pretty close to my anecdotal reality. I'm somewhat convinced that heroin/crack/meth are addictive and that alone will always scare me off. Whereas LSD/mushrooms/ecstasy have almost no potential for addiction. And, yes, having experienced them tends to make you run around telling people that it's part of the human experience – much like I'd tell people that they'd miss something essential if they never got slightly drunk on white wine watching the sunset on a beach.
  - pharrington 10y ago
    But the citation doesn't support his post. Overall it cites the researchers as listing alcohol causing less mean physical harm than heroin and cocaine, less acute physical harm than both, and almost as much chronic physical harm as heroin (both rated higher than cocaine). The only category it rates alcohol the highest in is social harm caused by intoxication. edit: I may be looking at a different study (I can't read that economist link). I'm referring to "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs," though I do see another study "Drug harms in the UK: a multi-criteria decision analysis" that corroborates his post.
    - asdfasdfa11112 10y ago
      It's tricky to separate the negative effects of the drug itself from the negative effects of the legal / cultural / class-based context.
maverick_iceman 10y ago
Similarly, tobacco is another extremely harmful drug which is legal. I think tobacco is even more problematic than most other recreational drugs because of second hand smoking.
- collyw 10y ago
  Not really a problem according to this large scale study. http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-finds-no-link-between-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/#3830c0cc623f http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-fi...
  - ionised 10y ago
    Interesing. I'd wager people would dismiss this study though if it didn't fit their agenda/preconceptions.

by lawpoop 10y ago

DanHulton 10y ago

Indeed, the "harm" from most illegal drugs tends not to come from the drug itself, but from the circumstances surrounding its illegality. The crime, the self-neglect, the diseases from filthy needles/etc all stem from the fact that you can't partake in polite society. Compare the homeless wino to the homeless heroin user and contrast the affluent scotch drinkers and tokers (in countries and states where it's legal). The illegality of it makes a world of difference.

seanp2k2 10y ago
Plenty of e.g. Affluent coke addicts and many more casual users as well. It being illegal adds to the allure for some.
- querulous 10y ago
  this isn't limited to coke. most people would be shocked b how many functional heroin, meth and crack users there are in general, using drugs isn't illegal. using drugs and not being wealthy enough to insulate yourself from the consequences of that choice is what is illegal
  - __jal 10y ago
    Yes. I know two functional junkies. One was born into a lot of wealth, the other isn't insanely rich, but is comfortable and no longer has to work. Your last sentence is exactly right. Neither of them will ever face legal action. But this is no different than most other things in the US (and elsewhere, usually to a lesser extent): law-enforcement-related outcomes react strongly to the presence of wealth.

jlos 10y ago

I agree and to the point I upvoted your comment :) I think that a key part of this discussion is making the distinction between saying which drugs are illegal and whether drugs should be illegal at all. Alcohol is particuarly interesting. It was a crucial part of pre-modern society in creating clean drinking water and even for nutrition in the case of beer. Not only that but alcohol, as opposed to LSD for example, can be taken in doses that range from completely benign to powerfully intoxicating. Defining what drugs should be illegal, how to punish the crime, and all the other details around it are more difficult to navigate.

lawpoop 10y ago
There is some debate nowadays about the use of alcohol as a substitute for bad water(1). I think the reason you find alcohol so interesting because of the Iron Law of Prohibition(2): 'The iron law of prohibition is a term coined by Richard Cowan in 1986 which posits that as law enforcement becomes more intense, the potency of prohibited substances increases. Cowan put it this way: "the harder the enforcement, the harder the drugs."' I'm reading the Kalevala (The National Epic of the Finns), and there is a lot of talk about brewing "table beer". I didn't know the term, so I had to look it up: beer of 1-2% alcohol, suitable for drinking during meals. I think the reason you find such a range of "responses" to alcohol is not the drug itself, but because of the fact that it's legal, and therefore not subject to the Iron Law of Prohibition, you can buy it in a variety of strengths-- from beer to wine to liquor. It's not the drug per se, but its manufacture. But, if you're going to go through the trouble of breaking the law to sell or buy and use illegal drugs, you might as well make it "worthwhile". That's why you could not find beer or wine during Prohibition, but you could get hold of high-content whiskey and vodka, even white lighting, moonshine, etc. Likewise, contraband drugs have from from morphine to heroin to even more powerful manufactured opioids. If you're going to risk buying a sheet of LSD, get a dose of 70 micrograms, instead of 20. Meanwhile, in silicon valley and other places, there is a new trend of microdosing(3): taking sub-threshold doses of "hallucinogens" to the point that _you're not even hallucinating-- but you do experience the "side effects" of increased alertness, awareness, creativity, memory, and problem solving. So there are doses of LSD, mushrooms, etc you can take that are not very powerful at all. It all depends on how they are manufactured and sold, just like alcohol. Even now in South American countries, the most popular form of "cocaine" is coca leaves-- which, by contrast, are actually very healthy, and the first response to potentially deadly altitude sickness when pills aren't available. I would suspect that if drugs were legalized, you would find a lot more forms with a lot less power. 1. http://leslefts.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-great-medieval-water-myth.html http://leslefts.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-great-medieval-wate... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_prohibition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_prohibition 3. http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertglatter/2015/11/27/lsd-microdosing-the-new-job-enhancer-in-silicon-valley-and-beyond/#78ffd8a4114d http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertglatter/2015/11/27/lsd-mic...

tigershark 10y ago

Your entire response is plainly untrue and it is just a demonisation of alcohol and a promotion of meth, crack and heroine. I really wished that certain comments that tend to minimise the effect of the most dangerous drugs were prohibited here. But apparently it is full of people that enjoy that shit and absurdly try to convince other people that a glass of wine is worse than a spade.

matt4077 10y ago
His response comes with a citation. So I'd say there are plenty of people here who enjoy science and the Economist's reporting. Without data, any opinion of this subject is bound to be based entirely on society's collective opinion or individual anecdotes. Within those limits, I'd argue that "people that enjoy that shit" are actually more reliable. I believe the partition made by the the post you're replying to gets pretty close to my anecdotal reality. I'm somewhat convinced that heroin/crack/meth are addictive and that alone will always scare me off. Whereas LSD/mushrooms/ecstasy have almost no potential for addiction. And, yes, having experienced them tends to make you run around telling people that it's part of the human experience – much like I'd tell people that they'd miss something essential if they never got slightly drunk on white wine watching the sunset on a beach.
- pharrington 10y ago
  But the citation doesn't support his post. Overall it cites the researchers as listing alcohol causing less mean physical harm than heroin and cocaine, less acute physical harm than both, and almost as much chronic physical harm as heroin (both rated higher than cocaine). The only category it rates alcohol the highest in is social harm caused by intoxication. edit: I may be looking at a different study (I can't read that economist link). I'm referring to "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs," though I do see another study "Drug harms in the UK: a multi-criteria decision analysis" that corroborates his post.
  - asdfasdfa11112 10y ago
    It's tricky to separate the negative effects of the drug itself from the negative effects of the legal / cultural / class-based context.

maverick_iceman 10y ago

Similarly, tobacco is another extremely harmful drug which is legal. I think tobacco is even more problematic than most other recreational drugs because of second hand smoking.

collyw 10y ago
Not really a problem according to this large scale study. http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-finds-no-link-between-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/#3830c0cc623f http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-fi...
- ionised 10y ago
  Interesing. I'd wager people would dismiss this study though if it didn't fit their agenda/preconceptions.