3 ms·

> It's not nearly as addictive. Strangely I know more ex-heroin addicts than ex-alcoholics, and there are way more alcoholics out there, but that's just anecdo

> It's not nearly as addictive. Strangely I know more ex-heroin addicts than ex-alcoholics, and there are way more alcoholics out there, but that's just anecdotal data I guess :) > It's not nearly as deadly. Maybe if you leave out all of the DUI and accidents where alcohol played a role, you'd be right, but overall alcohol causes way more damage than heroin. While David Nutt ranked heroin as more addictive than alcohol, overall he found alcohol more harmful.[0] Precisely because even though it doesn't harm one as much as heroin, it's way more likely that you harm others with alcohol. > It's much easier to control dosage. Actually no. Lots of things affect gastrointestinal absorption of alcohol. Just compare a few shots on empty stomach vs after a meal. Also don't get me started with the absurdly long and not always obvious list of drug interactions that alcohol has. Heroin, assuming known purity, will work roughly the same, either snorted, smoked or injected. If you make a point about its purity, that's a consequence of its legal status. Most, if not all of the interactions are self-evident (other CNS depressants). > It has modes of consumption that are non-pathological. I guess you have preconceptions about what heroin use implies. How is unwinding after work a pathological use of heroin vs whiskey? > Honestly, this says more about you than about booze. Ah, ad hominem to finish, a classic. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-11660210 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-11660210

omginternets 6y ago
>Strangely I know more ex-heroin addicts than ex-alcoholics, and there are way more alcoholics out there, but that's just anecdotal data I guess :) Indeed it is! You conveniently ignore all alcohol consumers except the ones with dependency problems. >Actually no. Actually, yes! You're arguing that there is variance in absorbtion, and you are right. That is different, however, from e.g. the LD50 or the ability of people to measure dosage accurately. >I guess you have preconceptions about what heroin use implies. You're conveniently ignoring that non-pathological use of heroin is extremely small. It's a rounding error when compared to alcohol usage. You are cherry-picking. > Strangely I know more ex-heroin addicts than ex-alcoholics, and there are way more alcoholics out there, but that's just anecdotal data I guess :) Good thing this has been formally studied >Maybe if you leave out all of the DUI and accidents where alcohol played a role, you'd be right [...] Yes, and people with pools in their back-yards experience more drowning. Color me surprised. You're also leaving out all the incidental damage from heroin use in your analysis. Shall we factor in drug-related murders? How about secondary complications like pneumonia? Again, cherry-picking. >Ah, ad hominem to finish, a classic. An observation, actually. I've rarely seen this level of bad-faith argumentation.
- Uberphallus 6y ago
  > Indeed it is! You conveniently ignore all alcohol consumers except the ones with dependency problems. Actually a significant part of alcohol users have dependency problems, roughly 10% as someone already mentioned. > Actually, yes! You're arguing that there is variance in absorbtion, and you are right. That is different, however, from e.g. the LD50 or the ability of people to measure dosage accurately. So... no? Unless you ignore all that I said, that is. Active to LD50 ratio for alcohol it's 0.1, for heroin it's 0.17, in the same ballpark. When you factor in the variability of oral administration, alcohol is way more dangerous. Most overdoses in heroin are due to fentanyl or changes in purity; in case of alcohol it's due to wanting to get drunk fast, and doing it too fast (plus interactions). > You're also leaving out all the incidental damage from heroin use in your analysis. There is a lot of it, it's just that alcohol is bigger. People on heroin don't usually go driving or picking up fights, they're usually just lying on the couch. > Shall we factor in drug-related murders? I wouldn't factor anything external to the use/abuse of the substance, like its legal status. It'd be interesting to compare them with roughly 25% of vehicle deaths that can be attributed to alcohol. > How about secondary complications like pneumonia? Which was already accounted for in Nutt's analysis. > An observation, actually. I've rarely seen this level of bad-faith argumentation. I could say the same, it feels like you have a horse in this race, pun intended.

omginternets 6y ago

>Strangely I know more ex-heroin addicts than ex-alcoholics, and there are way more alcoholics out there, but that's just anecdotal data I guess :) Indeed it is! You conveniently ignore all alcohol consumers except the ones with dependency problems. >Actually no. Actually, yes! You're arguing that there is variance in absorbtion, and you are right. That is different, however, from e.g. the LD50 or the ability of people to measure dosage accurately. >I guess you have preconceptions about what heroin use implies. You're conveniently ignoring that non-pathological use of heroin is extremely small. It's a rounding error when compared to alcohol usage. You are cherry-picking. > Strangely I know more ex-heroin addicts than ex-alcoholics, and there are way more alcoholics out there, but that's just anecdotal data I guess :) Good thing this has been formally studied >Maybe if you leave out all of the DUI and accidents where alcohol played a role, you'd be right [...] Yes, and people with pools in their back-yards experience more drowning. Color me surprised. You're also leaving out all the incidental damage from heroin use in your analysis. Shall we factor in drug-related murders? How about secondary complications like pneumonia? Again, cherry-picking. >Ah, ad hominem to finish, a classic. An observation, actually. I've rarely seen this level of bad-faith argumentation.

Uberphallus 6y ago
> Indeed it is! You conveniently ignore all alcohol consumers except the ones with dependency problems. Actually a significant part of alcohol users have dependency problems, roughly 10% as someone already mentioned. > Actually, yes! You're arguing that there is variance in absorbtion, and you are right. That is different, however, from e.g. the LD50 or the ability of people to measure dosage accurately. So... no? Unless you ignore all that I said, that is. Active to LD50 ratio for alcohol it's 0.1, for heroin it's 0.17, in the same ballpark. When you factor in the variability of oral administration, alcohol is way more dangerous. Most overdoses in heroin are due to fentanyl or changes in purity; in case of alcohol it's due to wanting to get drunk fast, and doing it too fast (plus interactions). > You're also leaving out all the incidental damage from heroin use in your analysis. There is a lot of it, it's just that alcohol is bigger. People on heroin don't usually go driving or picking up fights, they're usually just lying on the couch. > Shall we factor in drug-related murders? I wouldn't factor anything external to the use/abuse of the substance, like its legal status. It'd be interesting to compare them with roughly 25% of vehicle deaths that can be attributed to alcohol. > How about secondary complications like pneumonia? Which was already accounted for in Nutt's analysis. > An observation, actually. I've rarely seen this level of bad-faith argumentation. I could say the same, it feels like you have a horse in this race, pun intended.