Jump to content

Thoughts on Alcohol?


Tako

Recommended Posts

 

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.

 

I'm wondering WHAT IS the formula for calculating harm, this is the first thing I asked you which still hasn't been answered. If the investigation is not showing it then is not a very good source. Mental harm? Social harm? Physical harm? Still ain't got an answer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

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.

 

I read over the study and replied but you never seemed to come up with a response to it. Your study is inaccurate and youre basing your whole argument solely off of that graph that doesnt mean anything in reality. 

I have real life insight based off of what real life people tell me about taking real life drugs. Im not sure how you can discredit my information when it's coming straight from real people who have taken real drugs. It's hard to have this argument when some of these people seem to be living in some sort of fantasy realm where they need Wiki articles to try to get a clue. My area has a serious heroin problem. There are towns around me who have overdose rates above national averages. I hear about it every time I go out, its unavoidable. What makes you think you're biased, inaccurate graph trumps real world experiences and information?

I know this might be really difficult for you to comprehend, so I even found articles on it. 

 

http://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/index.ssf/2016/01/meet_the_town_leading_the_fight_against_gloucester.html

> "In Gloucester County, the heroin death rate was 17.3 deaths per 100,000 people in 2014 — nearly seven times the national average, according to the New Jersey Department of Health."

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/12/herointown_nj_the_states_heroin_crisis_in_10_graph.html

http://nj1015.com/heroin-in-new-jersey-by-the-terrifying-numbers/?trackback=tsmclip

> "It’s a troubling number that just keeps on rising. In 2014, there were 781 heroin-related overdose deaths in New Jersey, according to data by the state Department of Criminal Justice. That’s more than twice as many as in 2010."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this might be really difficult for you to comprehend,

 

Actually, I think you've got this turned around. I mean, DFQ. You litterly say

 

My area has a serious heroin problem. There are towns around me who have overdose rates above national averages. I hear about it every time I go out, its unavoidable.

 

Just like someone who hears/reads about car crashes every day, will think cars are more dangerous then they really are - or just like people think planes are more dangerous then they really are - you are actually making the argument here that your oppinion is NOT representative.

 

 

Im not sure how you can discredit my information when it's coming straight from real people who have taken real drugs.

 

Quite simple, actually: You see, *I* am not discrediting anything. I'm simply holding *you* to a nonhypocritical standard.

 

Even if your experience from them differ, a study over multiple experts still has more value then a single persons perspective.

 

So

- You can put the bar low, and validate both your oppinion & the study

- You can put the bar as high then the study, which validates only the study

- You can put the bar higher then the study, which invalidates both

 

Where that bar lies - how critical you are - varies form person to person I suppose. But there simply is no senario where you get to twist it so it includes your oppinion, but not the study.

 

 

 

 

Or, in a nutshell: You complain about bias? Look in the mirror.

 

 

I'm wondering WHAT IS the formula for calculating harm, this is the first thing I asked you which still hasn't been answered. If the investigation is not showing it then is not a very good source. Mental harm? Social harm? Physical harm? Still ain't got an answer.

I'm supposing that you've actaully read the study now, and are in fact malconent about their methodology?

 

Then allow me to ask then, what /is/ a good source?

 

As pointed out to Finkle - there's nothing wrong with being extremely critical. But then one has to be fair and uphold the same level across the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 - useless text - 

you literally have done nothing to defend your study, you have made no points, all youre trying to do is discredit me while you still havent tried to validate your source, and youre just all around not on topic at all. Cars? Is that really what youre trying to reply with? I expected more, honestly. Im done discussing this topic with you when you obviously know nothing on it. Stick to politics, bud. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Where that bar lies - how critical you are - varies form person to person I suppose. But there simply is no senario where you get to twist it so it includes your oppinion, but not the study.

 

 

 

But the thing is you're holding your study as if it's final and you seem to be unable to comprehend anything outside of it. Atm you're quite literally writing an essay and constantly trying to back up your claims whilst "discrediting" others opinions without stopping for a moment to understand why.

 

Your "study" shows that alcohol is harmful which is true, dont think anyone is arguing with that but it is fairly biased and it ignores so many things which makes drugs much more harmful than on paper. Taking your example of heroin, it is much much more addictive than alcohol can ever be. Once you try heroin that feeling of high can only every be met by taking similar drugs making the "ill try it just once and never again" doesn't really apply to drugs.which is how many people eventually go down the road of addiction because they can't ever reach that feeling again. 

 

As you love sources here is a chart from a 2 sec google search:

Drug_danger_and_dependence.png

 

Needless to say the "illegal drugs" are much more addictive than alcohol with alcohol being roughly the same as caffeine. The reason why many drugs are illegal isnt because it "causes harm" but because they are highly addictive which in turn ruins lives/causes harm. You can't simply say alcohol is on the same level as meth/heroin just because one small aspect of them share similarities and then endlessly repeat what your "study" shows and ignore everyone else.

 

If you weren't so fixated on just your study you would have realised this since it was quite literally pointed out a few pages back (I assume you ignored it because it wasn't "backed up") and this pointless argument would have been avoided :l

 

EDIT: Not to mention your linked study is being disputed for having unreliable sources...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you literally have done nothing to defend your study, you have made no points, all youre trying to do is discredit me while you still havent tried to validate your source, and youre just all around not on topic at all.

No. Again, YOU are the one who complained the study was biased.

That means YOU put the bar higher then bias.

That means YOU discredited YOUR OWN oppinion as wel.

 

If YOU HADN'T complained - HADN'T put the bar so high - and for instance argued that nobody can know, because nobody can objectively gauge harm - as Lib3l seems to do - then there wouldn't be an issue.

 

Cars? Is that really what youre trying to reply with? I expected more, honestly.

Yes - because it's understandable.

Everyone with a shred of common sense understands that someone who sees carchashes every day will have the tendency to think cars are more dangerous then they really are.

 

The fact you compain about the analogy, instead of actually responding to it - proves to me you're beyond reasoning with. Either you can't see your own bias, or you won't.

 

 

But the thing is you're holding your study as if it's final

Oh, I'm not. It's why I point out that where that bar lies - how critical you are - varies form person to person

 

Look, at it's most synical - right or wrong - one could argue that the study is a collection of biased oppinions of a group of experts.

... but even if it is, that still doesn't put it below any of the oppinions of anyone here.

 

If there is something in the study that I "hold final", as you put it, it's perhaps that these experts have as much - if not more - right then us to voice their oppinion.

 

 

As you love sources here is a chart from a 2 sec google search:

*graph*

 

Needless to say the "illegal drugs" are much more addictive than alcohol with alcohol being roughly the same as caffeine.

two points,

 

1. is it me, or does coke seem pretty close to alcohol? in fact, to you your words for a '1 interval on Y-axis' difference, alcohol & coke seem to have roughly the same addictiveness, no?

and you realise that MDMA is XTC, right? (dunno where you live, but that's probbably an illegal drug as well)

 

1.5 in fact - many if not most of these studies (incl. both the one you refer to and I refer to) come to the conclusion that legality of drugs is not scientifically supported.

 

 

2. to point out the ridicoulesness of what's happening here ...

you can see the source that made your graph chose to use the dependance potiential of a substance. This might be an objective standard, but that means they also chose to ignore all the people people who drink, not because they are (biologically) dependant, but because of social pressure.

So, do you feel this desevers a snarky "Derpeh, Find better sources." comment? Or do you feel that - while there might be a margin of error - it still has value?

 

 

 

On the MDMA/extacy point I made at point 1 ... it makes me wonder though ... despite XTC scoring better on both axis, if the OP came here asking if he should do XTC ... I wonder if people would have reacted the same way?

 

Are peoples reactions based on the actual safety of acohol, or on the socially/legal acceptability of alcohol?

 

 

 

 

You can't simply say alcohol is on the same level as meth/heroin just because one small aspect of them share similarities

Oh, that's true. But can I say

 

In a sense, it kind of is {different}.

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

because that's what I said.

 

(in fact - did you know, that the study of your graph notes, that there are differnt ways to measure addiciton, and if one does so by "the onset of withdrawal symptoms when the drug is not available", then alcohol, heroin & barbiturates fill the top 3.

 

(Oh, and sidenote: the only thing measured are accute lethality (dying of alcohol intoxication). One could argue the numbers are skewed as it doesn't include death by drunk driving and such)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alcohol is fun. people should be allowed to have fun. it's not that bad for you and really you only harm yourself. Sure people overdose on it occasionally but 99% of the time you just wake up smelling like vomit and with a terrible headache. No real harm done

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why am I even posting in the PRS subforum..

 

I'm turning 23 this year and I only started drinking last year, I would've drank earlier if it wasn't for a relationship I was in.

Anyway, ever since I started drinking I saw the positives and negatives of it, but I still drink on a regular basis. I use it as a stress reliever quite often, as I don't or never will smoke or do drugs

Sometimes I can tell when I drink a lot, and I regret it, but I'll never go back to not drinking.

It's kind of sad but I prefer myself after a few drinks and I'm sure my friends do too

 

In my opinion it has the least amount of damage in our culture compared to other recreational drugs, and I live in Australia where there's drunks everywhere.

 

 

Disagree and argue with me all you like, my opinion won't change so I wouldn't bother

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where I live we are taught that basically drinking any alcohol will turn your life into rubble.

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

 

I just want to hear your guys thoughts on if you think alcohol is bad or not.

 

Also I couldn't find any post related to alcohol so I made my own. Lock/merge this one if there is already one up.

As someone who has drank alcohol many times (even though I'm 16), honestly, who cares? It's not bad at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who has drank alcohol many times (even though I'm 16), honestly, who cares? It's not bad at all.

 

What? I agree, nothing wrong with a drink or two. But saying that there is nothing wrong with alcohol at all is nonsense. If you've ever had a hangover you'd know this isn't the case. And many, many people have way worse problems than that. There's a lot of people with serious alcohol problems. I don't believe that prohibition is the answer but denying that alcohol can be problematic is just bullshit

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? I agree, nothing wrong with a drink or two. But saying that there is nothing wrong with alcohol at all is nonsense. If you've ever had a hangover you'd know this isn't the case. And many, many people have way worse problems than that. There's a lot of people with serious alcohol problems. I don't believe that prohibition is the answer but denying that alcohol can be problematic is just bullshit

I've got really drunk before, but never hung over. But for me, I honestly don't see how people have problems with alcohol. Sure it makes you relaxed and is nice on a stressful day (which is every school day for me), but I don't see how it can be addicting. It can be easily helped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got really drunk before, but never hung over. But for me, I honestly don't see how people have problems with alcohol. Sure it makes you relaxed and is nice on a stressful day (which is every school day for me), but I don't see how it can be addicting. It can be easily helped.

 

Please do some actual research before you post next time.  As appears common in this forum, you have no facts other than your own opinion which holds no weight unless it's backed up by evidence.  You can't see how alcohol can be addictive and it can be easily helped?  Awesome, so now present us with some actual facts that would suggest alcohol isn't actually addictive, and no, the one time you got really drunk and then didn't get addicted doesn't count. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please do some actual research before you post next time.  As appears common in this forum, you have no facts other than your own opinion which holds no weight unless it's backed up by evidence.  You can't see how alcohol can be addictive and it can be easily helped?  Awesome, so now present us with some actual facts that would suggest alcohol isn't actually addictive, and no, the one time you got really drunk and then didn't get addicted doesn't count. 

I'm talking from a first hand experience. In this year alone, I've done alcohol roughly 20 times. I'm just saying I don't see how you can have problems with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm talking from a first hand experience. In this year alone, I've done alcohol roughly 20 times. I'm just saying I don't see how you can have problems with it. 

 

Again, facts vs anecdotal evidence.  Where are the facts?  Where is the study that says alcohol isn't addictive?  

 

As for your argument:  I've ridden a motorcycle without a helmet on.  I got home fine.  Does that mean riding motorcycles without helmets is a good thing to do?  Of course not, just because I got away with it once or even 20 times doesn't mean that someone else will not scrape off half their scalp on the pavement.  

 

I know I probably sound like a dick, but you need to learn this (if it sounds patronizing, trust me, I am 100% positive I'm quite a few years older than you).  Arguments are pretty simple really.  You present a hypothesis (in this case, alcohol is not addictive) and then you back it up with facts.  As you will learn, most anyone who's been in a serious argument before will immediately dismiss anecdotal evidence (you're story about drinking 20 times falls into that category) for a whole variety of good reasons (just google anecdotal evidence).  So you need more facts to back up your position and anticipate counter arguments.  

 

So why am I picking on you?  Because the statement "alcohol is not addictive" is plain and simply dangerous.  There are obviously people here who have no first hand experience with alcohol, and they don't need to be fed falsehoods.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...