Thoughts on Alcohol?

[Hyperqube]

Alcohol is so lowkey compared to heroin and meth lol.

It would seem that's like saying Malaria is lowkey compared to the Black Death.

In a sense, it kind of is.

But in a difference sense, it really isn't.

 

Drug Harmfulness

 

 

[Ixenzo]

that didn't go over too well with people

 

Who said I cared about other random people? I've already stated and reiterated my position on that. Live across the pond where I'll never meet you? Drink heroin solutions and snort alcohol, I couldn't honestly care less. Start affecting my life and I will retaliate in every legal way until you're gone from my picture.

 

I care about legalizing weed because it's set a precedent where "conventional" drugs have been made accessible and encouraged to use by general populace. It increases the chances of someone starting affecting my life in a bad way and/or starting affecting much worse than before.

 

I've made my point three times already and deem it unnecessary to participate in the topic from here onward.

[Lib3l]

It would seem that's like saying Malaria is lowkey compared to the Black Death.

In a sense, it kind of is.

But in a difference sense, it really isn't.

 

Drug Harmfulness

 

 

The reason it has caused so much "harm" is because more people take it because it is legal. Also what is this "harm" even measured in?

[The Oddball]

I have no problem w/ alcohol. People who know me well know I drink often.

[funkle]

It would seem that's like saying Malaria is lowkey compared to the Black Death.

In a sense, it kind of is.

But in a difference sense, it really isn't.

 

Drug Harmfulness

 

Find better sources. 

 

Taken from the Wiki sources:

>in contrast the spectrum of social harm tends to be rather less so which may hamper the objective rating of the social harms for drugs. Some of the social harms, which are applicable to one drug, may not necessarily be transferrable to another drug, which has different properties, for example, sedative versus stimulant.

>Dutch policy on hard drugs

The risks associated with hard drugs are greater than in the case of soft drugs, especially in terms of health hazards, addiction, and the impact on public order. Hard drugs include, for instance, heroin, cocaine, amphetamine, LSD and ecstasy. (Note: LSD and Ecstasy are in yellow in your chart, which categorizes them as soft, while Amphetamine is in orange, still not red.)

>A problem with this format of harm ratings is that it does not take account of availability of the substance in question, for example, that alcohol might be highly ranked due to its low cost and widespread availability.

>It is also recognised that caution must be taken in making comparisons between legal substances and illegal ones as substances such as alcohol, nicotine and volatile agents are far more widely available, arguably particularly affecting social harm

[Python.]

Who said I cared about other random people? I've already stated and reiterated my position on that. Live across the pond where I'll never meet you? Drink heroin solutions and snort alcohol, I couldn't honestly care less. Start affecting my life and I will retaliate in every legal way until you're gone from my picture.

 

I care about legalizing weed because it's set a precedent where "conventional" drugs have been made accessible and encouraged to use by general populace. It increases the chances of someone starting affecting my life in a bad way and/or starting affecting much worse than before.

 

I've made my point three times already and deem it unnecessary to participate in the topic from here onward.

 

Uh, you said you cared about random people when you mentioned "Alcohol is a drug and producing, storing, transporting and consuming it should be illegal", which does affect "random people"

All I said was that your take on the matter has been done before, and it fucking sucked.

I commented nothing on your weed statements, and your points are still fucking off somewhere in the hemp fields

You never once stated how you were affected by alcohol or other drugs, nor what legal retaliations you've attempted, so dunno where that came from

In conclusion, your points still aren't clear, your panties are in a bunch/dick is in a knot (whichever applies), and you've just stated you're gone from the thread without any clarification

[Python.]

On the actual topic because I never actually replied to it

 

No, fucking of course not. One beer will not "ruin your life"; stop taking things out of proportion

 

Addiction is a risk. If you're old enough to drink, you're old enough to know this, and you will be held responsible for your actions

 

This is a stupid argument to be having

[Hyperqube]

Find better sources.

... said the person who didn't have any sources, only his oppinion.

 

> > Alcohol is so lowkey compared to heroin and meth lol.

 

> It would seem that's like saying Malaria is lowkey compared to the Black Death.

 

The reason it has caused so much "harm" is because more people take it because it is legal.

Indeed. And the Black Death had a survival rate of 10%, while even the severe forms of Malaria "only" have a mortality rate 10-50%. Yet, with the Malaria outbreak, nobody was like "sure, there's Malaria, but you know ... that's low key compared to more leathal diseases out there. it only makes lots of victims because it's prevelent"

Which is why I said

 

In a sense, it kind of is.

But in a difference sense, it really isn't.

You can reason "alcohol isn't that bad, there are worse thing"

or you can reason "you know, when is the last time someone died of too much coffee"

[♠Derpeh♤]

Alcohol is a drug and producing, storing, transporting and consuming it should be illegal. It is disgusting and it makes people disgusting. Sadly it won't happen because alcohol has been known to the humanity long before laws and governments were established and as such is considered a part of the culture. Plus governments make a big and quick buck from alcohol. Same for tobacco and, can't believe I'm saying it, weed. Now let's legalize heroin, coke and meth so we'll have full party.

 

I don't give two shits about any of those drugs unless they or their consumers directly or indirectly affect me.

 

This is like textbook example of an extremist point of view. By that logic we should ban all pain killers...etc because it's a drug and some people are addicted to it ruining lives.

 

Not everyone who drinks goes nuts or get addicted most people drink for a bit of fun or to take the edge off, you can't label everyone as "disgusting" because they drink. Also you're comparing weed to coke and meth. That is literally going from 0 to 100 right there and it isnt a fair comparison at all, you can't just jump from the opposite spectrum and use that as an example of "what can happen"

 

Imo I dont think anyone should control what I put into my body, if you can't control yourself and end up actively destroying your life that's not the drug's fault that's Darwinism right there.

[Lib3l]

... said the person who didn't have any sources, only his oppinion.

 

Indeed. And the Black Death had a survival rate of 10%, while even the severe forms of Malaria "only" have a mortality rate 10-50%. Yet, with the Malaria outbreak, nobody was like "sure, there's Malaria, but you know ... that's low key compared to more leathal diseases out there. it only makes lots of victims because it's prevelent"

Which is why I said

 

In a sense, it kind of is.

But in a difference sense, it really isn't.

You can reason "alcohol isn't that bad, there are worse thing"

or you can reason "you know, when is the last time someone died of too much coffee"

 

we're talking about alcohol not diseases and i really don't understand anything you are saying. Also don't misquote people with the quote feature.

[funkle]

... said the person who didn't have any sources, only his oppinion.

 

You mean, says the person with real life experience who knows real life people who have actually done real life hard drugs? Yeah, youre right, I need a Wiki article to check my facts on the people Ive known for years now, my bad. 

 

Indeed. And the Black Death had a survival rate of 10%, while even the severe forms of Malaria "only" have a mortality rate 10-50%. Yet, with the Malaria outbreak, nobody was like "sure, there's Malaria, but you know ... that's low key compared to more leathal diseases out there. it only makes lots of victims because it's prevelent"

Which is why I said

 

In a sense, it kind of is.

But in a difference sense, it really isn't.

You can reason "alcohol isn't that bad, there are worse thing"

or you can reason "you know, when is the last time someone died of too much coffee"

Drugs and diseases are two totally different things. You cant get addicted to malaria. People dont go out some night and decide to get the black plague. They both affect the body in totally different ways. Saying that one is lowkey to the other isnt the same as saying alcohol is lowkey to heroin and meth, doesnt matter how you try to spin it.  

[Sniper Noob]

Indeed. And the Black Death had a survival rate of 10%, while even the severe forms of Malaria "only" have a mortality rate 10-50%. Yet, with the Malaria outbreak, nobody was like "sure, there's Malaria, but you know ... that's low key compared to more leathal diseases out there. it only makes lots of victims because it's prevelent"

Which is why I said

 

In a sense, it kind of is.

But in a difference sense, it really isn't.

You can reason "alcohol isn't that bad, there are worse thing"

or you can reason "you know, when is the last time someone died of too much coffee"

 

 

I'm sorry, but what the fuck does this have to do with being addicted to alcohol or drugs? 

[meme chan]

Drink responsibly and socially and there's nothing wrong with it.

For some it does wreck your lives, although once you let an addiction take over your life that is generally what happens regardless of what it is.

However for most it isn't quite the case so I wouldn't worry about it, no after a drink you don't suddenly invite the alcoholism beast in to wreck your shit.

[meme chan]

Drink responsibly and socially and there's nothing wrong with it.

For some it does wreck your lives, although once you let an addiction take over your life that is generally what happens regardless of what it is.

However for most it isn't quite the case so I wouldn't worry about it, no after a drink you don't suddenly invite the alcoholism beast in to wreck your shit.

http://i.imgur.com/Gc05Qqj.png 

pic related

[3.50]

will drinking just one can of the cheapest beer really destroy your life?

 

No, but it'll taste like ass. And not hot, sexy ass, either. Stale old man ass.

[Hyperqube]

You mean, says the person with real life experience who knows real life people who have actually done real life hard drugs?

Yeah, youre right, I need a Wiki article to check my facts on the people Ive known for years now, my bad.

Exactly. I'm glad we agree that that just because you know one person who does conventional hard drugs, that this doesn't make you some expert on alcoholism, or how alcholism compares to other conventional hard drugs.

 

 

we're talking about alcohol not diseases and i really don't understand anything you are saying.

indeed. We ARE talking about alcohol ... so why are we talking about conventional hard drugs? Does anyone here think the OP is gonna say "Oh dear, it seems I shouldn't drink alcohol. Crystal meth, here I come."

Or would perhaps cofee/soda/... be a more likely alternative?

 

 

My point was - it's silly to say something isn't bad because there's something worse out there. I hope that at least that's understandable.

[Lib3l]

 

 

indeed. We ARE talking about alcohol ... so why are we talking about conventional hard drugs? Does anyone here think the OP is gonna say "Oh dear, it seems I shouldn't drink alcohol. Crystal meth, here I come."

Or would perhaps cofee/soda/... be a more likely alternative?

 

 

My point was - it's silly to say something isn't bad because there's something worse out there. I hope that at least that's understandable.

But MY point was not talking about drugs at all, it was questioning the reliability of the graph you have shown and giving a suggestion as to why alcohol may appear more harmful than it really is. I hope at least you can post a relevant reply. 

[funkle]

Exactly. I'm glad we agree that that just because you know one person who does conventional hard drugs, that this doesn't make you some expert on alcoholism, or how alcholism compares to other conventional hard drugs.

 

 

indeed. We ARE talking about alcohol ... so why are we talking about conventional hard drugs? Does anyone here think the OP is gonna say "Oh dear, it seems I shouldn't drink alcohol. Crystal meth, here I come."

Or would perhaps cofee/soda/... be a more likely alternative?

 

 

My point was - it's silly to say something isn't bad because there's something worse out there. I hope that at least that's understandable.

I live in an area where I know/knew many more than just one person who have done hard drugs. Sure, Im no expert, but Ive seen first hand more than anything you could show me in an online article. 

P.S. Reading a Wiki article doesnt make you any sort of expert either. Step off your high horse for a bit, please. 

 

Something tells me you havent been following this thread very well, because there's a very obvious connection between the conversation topics of alcohol, addiction, and drugs. Though apparently from your logic from your past posts, yeah, maybe thats what you think OP is thinking.

 

Your point missed... Bad. 

[Gren]

Wow....quite a few misunderstandings in this thread.  I'll give you my take.  It's based on actual experience (I'm probably older than most people here): 

 

The topic of prohibition: 

 

It does not work.  We tried that.   People continued to drink and the government lost tax revenue because liquor distribution fell into the hands of organized crime which obviously also made crime numbers shoot up.  Sound familiar?  Yes?  That's because we still treat recreational drugs this same way.  If you think it's so outlandish to suggest that we should legalize all drugs, check this out:  

 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/kofi-annan-on-why-drug-bans-are-ineffective-a-1078402.html

 

That's Kofi....He used to be the general secretary of the UN.  Not exactly a lightweight.  

 

Here's the thing about alcohol:  some people can handle it and others can't.  Studies suggest it might be genetic: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=26119 Anyway, back to purely anecdotal evidence.  It seems to me that the large majority of the population can handle their liquor.  Sure, they'll get drunk, maybe say something stupid, maybe throw up if they've had too much, but generally, they do no harm to themselves and/or other people.  Then there's the minority that can't handle it.  In these people, you'll see an immediate personality change often after only one drink.  They will literally act like "not themselves".  Often, these types have unresolved issues which then come to the forefront when they're drunk because it makes you lose your inhibitions.  Behavior changes vary widely, they go from just having extremely irrational thought processes (e.g. unfounded feelings of jealousy or being betrayed) to becoming physically violent towards others or themselves.  People like that should not drink under any circumstances.  It never ends well.  Most of these people however do not give up on alcohol in my experience.  Again, though, this is the minority, the vast majority just turn into happy, talkative drunks.  

 

As for drugs:  please, please, please realize that you've been fed so much ill-informed BS about drugs by government for over 50 years.  For example, a large part of the reason why we think that most drugs are incredibly dangerous and will fuck you up beyond the point of recognition is Nancy and Ronald Reagan's "just say no" campaign from the 1980s.  These people would have you believe that if you smoked a joint, you'd be on the street a month later looking to suck a dick for 20 bucks.  Of course though, that isn't true....like, at all.  Drugs, yes, even hard drugs like cocaine, act much the same way that alcohol does.  Basically, most people can handle doing them only on special occasions and never develop an addiction (if the drug even has an addictive property - almost no psychedelics (e.g. LSD, mescaline, magic mushrooms, etc.) do), but then there's the minority who gets fucked up.  

 

And as a sidenote: please realize that humans have been getting high for a very, very long time.  Psychadelic use is linked back to 15,000 years in the past.  Throughout our history, it was usually shamans and ritual use where you'd see drug use.  But it wasn't negative.  It wasn't to get fucked up. it was to reach a higher state of consciousness.  People still do this today and even use psychedelics to cure addiction to alcohol or meth. 

 

It's just like anything in life:  there will always be a minority who has an adverse reaction to something.  Take violent video games for example.  So 10,000 kids can play GTA and they'll be just fine, but then there's the one kid who just can't tell a video game from reality and he'll start shooting up people (however, there's no way that it's just GTA, there were other issues there).  I've never met anyone who was solid as a rock, super down to earth when sober and then a raging maniac when they were drunk.  No, the people that cannot handle substances in my experiences were always those that also had issues sober.  It's just that those issues become worse once they are in a different state of consciousness.  For example, I have a friend who's been caught drunk driving twice.  He almost went to jail.  He's also bipolar and while he has it under control mostly when he's sober, alcohol (and really any kind of substance) affects him very negatively.  

 

As for regulation: What does the term "pro-choice" mean to you?  It's generally only used in reference to abortion, more specifically in support of the notion that a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body, i.e. she herself alone has the right to decide whether she wants an abortion or not.  Now apply this same principle to drugs.  They are going in my body, they are affecting me, and as long as I'm not causing harm to anyone else (e.g. through impaired driving, theft, etc.), why should you be able to tell me whether I can take them or not?  The state does not have that right.  This is what freedom means people.  As long as I'm not causing harm, the state should not be able to tell me what I can and cannot do.  Everything else is but a mild form of totalitarianism.  

[A-money]

It can if you let it, but you should be able to learn after a little while how much you can take before it becomes too much. Whether you do or not that is your decision because it is your body and you should be able to control what goes into it or not. I don't drink that much and I will probably wait until I am 21.

[Hyperqube]

But MY point was not talking about drugs at all, it was questioning the reliability of the graph you have shown and giving a suggestion as to why alcohol may appear more harmful than it really is. I hope at least you can post a relevant reply.

 

questioning the reliability of the graph ? How can you question the reliability, when by your own admission, you haven't even read the studie that produced the graph?

 

The reason it has caused so much "harm" is because more people take it because it is legal. Also what is this "harm" even measured in?

 

(btw, 0=no risk, 1= some, 2= moderate, 3=extreme risk)

 

If you actually read the studie - the problem isn't that they multiplied harm times users. The problem is that there might (not neccecairly - just might) be a global bias among the querried experts, becasue of the prevelence (just like many people feel planes are more dangerous then cars).

 

However - you can still compare it to other prevelent substances, like nicotine (a.k.a. smoking), who score lower.

 

 

 

The numbers seem to suggest that Gren is right.

 

P.S. Reading a Wiki article doesnt make you any sort of expert either. Step off your high horse for a bit, please.

Except, I never claimed I was an expert. I consult actual sources. But when you sarcasitcally write this

 

Yeah, youre right, I need a Wiki article to check my facts on the people Ive known for years now, my bad.

That's you. Claiming you don't need to check facts because you got anecdotical evidence.

 

Sorry mate, But you are the one who should step off the high horse here, not me.

[DrRocksoTheRockNRollClown]

I like beer,
 

[Lib3l]

 

 

 

(btw, 0=no risk, 1= some, 2= moderate, 3=extreme risk)

 

 

that's a numerical value not a measurement. 

[Budi]

The problem is with the immature or stupid people that use it recklessly, not with the alcohol itself. I'm not much of a spirits drinker anymore, but I'll still have a cognac on the rocks with a cigar occasionally to relax on my patio on a nice day outside. 

 

I also brew beer and have had many many types and variations of craft beers. Typically I'll have 2-3 at most, but even that's a stretch and I don't drink but maybe 1-2 times a week, if that. I drink beer for the taste and to try different brewers creations, that's it. 

 

In moderation if you are responsible, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. The problem begins when stupid fucking kids (and even younger adults) get out of control and try to get drunk to somehow prove they are cool (which they aren't) and then act like idiots, drive drunk, end up sexually assaulting someone, or god forbid worse. It's all in knowing your limits and staying within them, and a lot of people don't know how to. Getting drunk isn't fun at all, I've had nights before where I've had to puke my entire stomach out, had chills, headaches, whatever else and it's not worth it. Anybody who thinks they need to get crazy with drinking should have their parents get them absolutely shit faced once till they puke to see how the bad side feels. That will stop them in their tracks pretty quick. 

[Hyperqube]

that's a numerical value not a measurement.

 

Other then apparently your definition of measurement being different then mine - what's your point? Do you have a problem with their methodology? Because the terms were directly taken from the study.

 

And while it might be hard - if not impossible - to create a mathematical formula converting 'harm' into an integer or fraction - that doesn't mean an expert is unable to differentiate between something with virtualy no risk and something dangerous.

 

 

The problem is with the immature or stupid people that use it recklessly, not with the alcohol itself. I'm not much of a spirits drinker anymore, but I'll still have a cognac on the rocks with a cigar occasionally to relax on my patio on a nice day outside.

While I do agree with the sentiment - smart/mature people also get behind the wheel intoxicated & get into car crashes.

 

Lapses of judgement are human.