Study: Alcohol has worse affect on society than Crack or Heroine(Prop 19?)

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

First let me preface this by saying that I have never used marijuana, never even seen it in person, and I have no intention of ever using it.

Now, in light of Prop 19, I just wanted to throw out this study released in the UK regarding drugs and which drugs were the most harmful to society at large.

Apparently its not crack, or heroine, or marijuana.

Its alcohol, which is perfectly legal.

Alcohol Is The Most Dangerous Drug, Worse Than Heroine And Nearly 4 Times Worse Than Pot

I think you meant "effects" and "heroin". A heroine is a female hero.

[Fontucky]

See? If he smoked a bowl once in awhile, his grammar would improve.

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

I think you meant "effects" and "heroin". A heroine is a female hero.

Haven't you ever heard of heroine chic?

[llowllevellowll]

I'm tough to classify politically because I'm socially liberal in some ways, but I'm also extremely responsible and demand personal responsibility from others.

One thing I find odd is that Conservatives in our country used to demand personal responsibility as well as government and Big Brother to allow us to make personal choices for ourselves. Essentially, don't tell me what is right or wrong and I'll accept responsibility for what I accomplish or don't accomplish.

Now it seems that that example of Classical Conservative has been hijacked by people who want to behave like the Moral Police and I think our society lacks a great deal of personal responsibility, in part, because they're so busy trying to tell others how to live their lives.

My Example for Legality:

1. If Product A is safe to use in moderation and is legal:
2. Product B should similarly be made legal if it is also safe to use and in moderation.

Right? Why does Product A (in this case, alcohol) get to corner the market if it's essentially the same product? What's at odds here is that the many same Conservatives that want an free, capitalist market unencumbered by outside forces ALSO seem to be the same people attempting to act as an outside force in this market.

As a note, I don't drink or smoke.

One could argue the health and societal risks for both, but essentially, I don't think there is a clear-cut favorite or a clear-cut loser. If you mis-use either alcohol or marijuana, you will likely pay a price.

Logically, people are going to use both of them regardless. I'd rather stop paying to make bigger prisons because they're overfilled with people with countless minor drug offenses.

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

I am a conservative and find it interesting that anyone would want to tell me what I can and can't do. True conservatives would realize that the Constitution is silent on these issues and are better left for individuals to decide. Why is it that we think the Government should be telling us what to eat, drink, smoke, what kind of car we should drive, what kind of light bulb we should use, or any other consumer product that is on the market? To tell someone that a product can offer effects that may not be wanted is plenty for me to see on a label. We all know what smoking can do to the body. Let people now make a choice if they want to smoke. Liberals want to keep you bound while Conservatives should know better.

[no1brownsfan]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

I am a conservative and find it interesting that anyone would want to tell me what I can and can't do. True conservatives would realize that the Constitution is silent on these issues and are better left for individuals to decide. Why is it that we think the Government should be telling us what to eat, drink, smoke, what kind of car we should drive, what kind of light bulb we should use, or any other consumer product that is on the market? To tell someone that a product can offer effects that may not be wanted is plenty for me to see on a label. We all know what smoking can do to the body. Let people now make a choice if they want to smoke. Liberals want to keep you bound while Conservatives should know better.

What???? You mean, actually GIVE people freedom of choice??? We can't have that now, can we?

All kidding aside, great post. I couldn't agree more.

[Bunjee]

The co-author of the British study cited by the OP was on KPCC (Pasadena's NPR station) today with Pat Morrison. His name is David Nutt. There was also a physician, an addiction specialist, on hand to discuss the issue.

Nutt is arguing not so much in favor of marijuana but against alcohol use. In fact, he lauds the United States for raising the drinking age from 18 to 21. He notes the many physical and social ills that come with alcohol abuse. The addiction specialist noted there is an addictive element to marijuana use that's often downplayed. Nutt agreed that this is more an issue of addiction, not policy. I'm not sure that Prop 19 can ultimately claim this study to its favor.

One of Nutt's points, in response to a caller, I did find a little fatuous. He said drivers who drink don't think they're impaired, while drivers who smoke know they're impaired. I don't see where that argument leads or if it's even valid. It also begs the question of whether there would be more impaired drivers if marijuana is legalized for recreational use. That's not a leading question against Prop 19. It just needs an answer, and how one comes by a conclusion. There are also no measurements for THC intoxication.

Disclaimer: I do drink and have smoked pot. I lean liberal on social issues. I have worked with a segment of the beverage industry and am aware of how very strict controls are, in labeling, distribution, taxation, and the like.

I also voted against Prop 19 because I don't think the issues have been thoroughly thought-through.