Alcohol as or worse then other substances

**Toker** · 11-02-10, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by Arreo

Exactly. Alcohol is the most damaging drug in this study simply because it is the most widely used.

So, if alcohol was illegal, you think it wouldn't be as damaging or abused?

**Arreo** · 11-02-10, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by Toker

So, if alcohol was illegal, you think it wouldn't be as damaging or abused?

Oh no, but if there were less users it would be less damaging to society.

The methodology of this study is kind of whacked, let me make up some numbers for illustration purposes

Alcohol is used by 25 million people a year and has caused say... 100,000 deaths a year and caused $5 million in harm to society
Meth is used by 50,000 people a year and causes 5000 deaths and $100k of damages.

Therefore, by their logic Alcohol is more damaging to society because it causes more harm in total.

And that's kind of silly. Of course alcohol is the most damaging if you add all of it's effects up, the vast majority of adults use it, it is legal and easy to acquire. It causes a large amount of damage both property and medical.

**triggerhappy2005** · 11-02-10, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by Toker

So, if alcohol was illegal, you think it wouldn't be as damaging or abused?

I think we can look back at the era of prohibition to see what would happen. It's the same thing that is happeneing with drugs now.

I have easy access to drugs yet have no interest in using them. The same goes for alcohol. I drink a six pack in a year. The rationalization that if it's available you'll abuse it is absurd. And all the while we've created a giant criminal enterprise.

**deathgodusmc** · 11-02-10, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

I think we can look back at the era of prohibition to see what would happen. It's the same thing that is happeneing with drugs now.

I have easy access to drugs yet have no interest in using them. The same goes for alcohol. I drink a six pack in a year. The rationalization that if it's available you'll abuse it is absurd. And all the while we've created a giant criminal enterprise.

Not every one is like you and i. Many will try it just for the hell of it and there is no telling what the results of that exsperimentation are going to be. Who would be the one to sign off on that bill in congress? No one because none of them want their name attached to multiple deaths any more then you do.

**triggerhappy2005** · 11-02-10, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

No one because none of them want their name attached to multiple deaths any more then you do.

I love it when my SU-35 lights the screen after I bomb an APC full of orphans.

**(2)manno** · 11-02-10, 12:55 PM

forget about alchol, the scary part about these stats is the relative the damage caused by cocaine, crack cocaine and herione to alcohol. all of which are illegal/restricted substances with significantly less distribution than alcohol.

i'd like to see a pound for pound measurement. we need a ratio of consumption to damage so we can compare apples to apples. without it this doesn't say much, and it's ommission is sort of telling don't you think?

trigger, i think it's easy to confuse the affects of legalization of those drugs with end of prohibition results on alchohol and society.

but a much better yard-stick and predictor are probably cigarettes and coffee. very addictive substances with massive distribution networks. imagine something 10x more addictive than alcohol or caffeine with 10x more the problems than cigarettes? can you imagine a cracked out society with people doing lord knows what for their next legal high? good grief... that's a plug i wouldn't want to pull.

on a side note - cannibis ranks pretty low in total damage. i bet our consumption to damage ratio would be pretty low there given, what i percieve to be, widespread use.