3 ms·

Heroin is roughly comparable to alcohol in terms of harmfulness. Some analyses find it worse, some find it less harmful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_harm

Heroin is roughly comparable to alcohol in terms of harmfulness. Some analyses find it worse, some find it less harmful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_harmfulness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_harmfulness Almost everyone agrees that despite the harms caused by alcohol, we were even worse off under prohibition. Why would the same not be true of Heroin?

vkou 8y ago
3 of the 4 charts in your source put heroin as much worse then alcohol, and the 1 that has them close together is completely unsourced. Overall harm between the two may be similar, but there are an order of magnitude more alcohol users, then heroin users. (I believe that legal access to heroin for addicts will save lives.)
jacobolus 8y ago
> Almost everyone agrees that despite the harms caused by alcohol, we were even worse off under prohibition. That is an exaggeration. In polls a sizable proportion (~20%) are still in favor of banning alcohol. Popular assessments that we were “worse off” during prohibition are based on decades of propaganda and mythology rather than careful analysis, and a confusion between the effects of prohibition and the effects of the great depression. e.g. from a quick web search (there are probably better resources) https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibit... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/ (Note: I am not personally in favor of prohibition.)
- kazinator 8y ago
  If 20% believe in a flat earth that doesn't mean we would be better off on an actual flat earth; the point stands. It seems that Prohibition brought about improvements in social problems rooted in self-harm, but a worsening in crime and random violence linked to the black market. People don't want to be the victims of random violence, and they don't care about self-harm that much. Someone drinking away their liver is that someone else's problem. But, speaking of self-harm, one thing not mentioned in the above references is that black market liquor is dangerous, due to the possibility of being contaminated with methanol. Prohibition doesn't eliminate self-harm. It may be that fewer engage in self-harm, but those who do are gambling with higher stakes. There is a bit of a parallel there with fentanyl-laced opioids.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - jacobolus 8y ago
    > If 20% believe in a flat earth that doesn't mean we would be better off on an actual flat earth; The claim was “almost everyone agrees that [..] we were even worse off under prohibition”, which is a clear exaggeration. Your response is a non sequitur. > People don't want to be the victims of random violence, People don’t want to be the victims of domestic violence either, which is very commonly caused/exacerbated by easy access to alcohol. It’s not clear that prohibition had a large impact on the overall level of random violence, pop culture mythology notwithstanding.

vkou 8y ago

3 of the 4 charts in your source put heroin as much worse then alcohol, and the 1 that has them close together is completely unsourced. Overall harm between the two may be similar, but there are an order of magnitude more alcohol users, then heroin users. (I believe that legal access to heroin for addicts will save lives.)

jacobolus 8y ago

> Almost everyone agrees that despite the harms caused by alcohol, we were even worse off under prohibition. That is an exaggeration. In polls a sizable proportion (~20%) are still in favor of banning alcohol. Popular assessments that we were “worse off” during prohibition are based on decades of propaganda and mythology rather than careful analysis, and a confusion between the effects of prohibition and the effects of the great depression. e.g. from a quick web search (there are probably better resources) https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibit... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/ (Note: I am not personally in favor of prohibition.)

kazinator 8y ago
If 20% believe in a flat earth that doesn't mean we would be better off on an actual flat earth; the point stands. It seems that Prohibition brought about improvements in social problems rooted in self-harm, but a worsening in crime and random violence linked to the black market. People don't want to be the victims of random violence, and they don't care about self-harm that much. Someone drinking away their liver is that someone else's problem. But, speaking of self-harm, one thing not mentioned in the above references is that black market liquor is dangerous, due to the possibility of being contaminated with methanol. Prohibition doesn't eliminate self-harm. It may be that fewer engage in self-harm, but those who do are gambling with higher stakes. There is a bit of a parallel there with fentanyl-laced opioids.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- jacobolus 8y ago
  > If 20% believe in a flat earth that doesn't mean we would be better off on an actual flat earth; The claim was “almost everyone agrees that [..] we were even worse off under prohibition”, which is a clear exaggeration. Your response is a non sequitur. > People don't want to be the victims of random violence, People don’t want to be the victims of domestic violence either, which is very commonly caused/exacerbated by easy access to alcohol. It’s not clear that prohibition had a large impact on the overall level of random violence, pop culture mythology notwithstanding.