I am fading to the end [Heroin v. Alcohol]

[Frater Perdurabo]

Confirmation bias.

[Username]

(...) "friend" so much as a guy I know.

Fixed.

But to claim knocking back a few beers occasionally is unequivocally on the same level as someone who does heroine and is addicted is absurdity.

That's not what I claimed. I compared the volume of alcohol related incidents and drug related incidents and hinted on why some of these substances should be deemed drugs and illegalized while booze (or cigarretes for that matter) is not.


On my own experience, you never know who does coke until shit hits the fan, and when it does it's just usually some rich kid looking for attention. As for heroin, I've known of one guy who's recuperated and one guy who hasn't. On both occasions they were marginalized pretty early on, not only by their groups of friends and families but by their own accord as well, apparently dissapearing off the grid, and into their own little world. You'd see the one who recuperated sometimes come bum a smoke off ya, but I can't say I or anyone I know that knew those guys ever felt threatened. I don't know of anyone on PCP.

As I understand it, PCP doesn't have the same sort of influence in little Yurop that it does in the States. Although I did find it amusing, while watching a documentary on the subject (this in Philladelphia IIRC), to see 3 burly american police officers (you know the type, 6 foot dudes, arms as wide as their heads) struggle to restrain a lanky 5'5 dude on a violent PCP-related fit. Guy went fucking nutter just like that, for no reason.


And c'mon Mac, how many times did you see chavs throwing cock fights for whatever reason outside clubs. That's not drink or drug related, that's just them being fucking twats.

You guys still didn't seem to have read or understood the BBC article.
I have a friend who currently is watching one of his friends go down the drain due to what he thinks is coke. Like you say, you never notice it, he didn't. But the person got ever more unpleasant and demanded more and more money for "fixing the house" (she was renting it and they were together paying for it). In the end a bunch of money is now missing from the collective treasury of these students including my friend.

Perhaps that is part of the problem, that as you say people are so easily marginalized and cast out if they do drugs that they keep it for themselves and it just gets worse and worse. But frankly I just think that some of these drugs are just to strong and potent for the majority of people.

You say you've met 2 people doing heroin. One is OK, one is fucked.
Now this is a very small scale but lets go by your example, how many people don't you know that take a "dose" of alcohol now and then and aren't fucked contra those that are?

[Stalagmite]

Also, lol at hijacking cakestar's thread.

He didn't mind, he was too busy fading

Don't be too quick to conclusions, unless that's some sort of mod humour about already "force fading" so to speak.

[Manoil]

Also, lol at hijacking cakestar's thread.

He didn't mind, he was too busy fading

Don't be too quick to conclusions, unless that's some sort of mod humour about already "force fading" so to speak.

You have far too whiny a demeanor lately.

[Tofu Man]

But that's what the article claimed, more or less, and I assumed you to be on the side of the article. Apologies for misunderstanding.

You and I are on the same page, for the most part.

Nah, mate, I hadn't actually read the article 'til just now. I wasn't siding with it so much as trying to show that (and again, to the best of my knowledge) alcohol probably has a more widespread effect than any other drug.

The studies that some bloke called David Nutt (that a fucking name or what) who was chief drugs advisor in the UK that prompted the article seem to point in that same direction.

Here's a link if anyone else is interested: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660210

I suppose the main thing to point out is this quote here "(...)Heroin, crack and crystal meth were deemed worst for individuals, with alcohol, heroin and crack cocaine worst for society, and alcohol worst overall.(...)" that seems to be what most of us are discussing.

To me it seems clear the guy isn't suggesting heroin is worse than booze for the user, just not as bad overall and that presumably taking into account how many "incidents" can be linked to alcohol in comparsion to how many can be linked to other drugs.

Here's the graphic:



I have to say I wasn't expecting the "harm to others" would be that high in heroin and crack's case.

The studies did seem to cause some beffudlement to the interviewers but they kinda seemed to be employing the Bill O'Reilly tactic of pinching for a controversial statement that they could quote out of context in the future, but Nutt seemed to put his point across pretty well.

Curiously enough, the drug "responsible" for the case Frater pointed out seems to be the tamest of the lot.

[Tofu Man]

You say you've met 2 people doing heroin. One is OK, one is fucked.
Now this is a very small scale but lets go by your example, how many people don't you know that take a "dose" of alcohol now and then and aren't fucked contra those that are?

That's just the thing, UN. The study doesn't point to "How many people suffer from alcohol related incidents VS how many people don't suffer any alcohol related incidents even though they consume/know someone who does" but rather "How many people suffer from alcohol related incidents VS how many people suffer from Heroin/Crack/Meth related incidents" and weigh the seriousness and sheer number of incidents to try and come up with some sort of index of how big an influence different drugs have on british society as a whole.

[Megatron]

that whole post was badass

[Stalagmite]

Sources.

[Frater Perdurabo]

This article does not mention the criteria taken into account when considering the standard of consumption.
I.e. this graph would apply to 95% of heroin users but only what, like 5% of consumers of alcohol? I drink, as do all of my friends. Some of my friends drink more than others (it's a cultural thing) and I would say that every single one of them is way more innocent than the average heroin user. I guess that graph is only really relevant when it comes to addicts and not recreational users. The vast majority of people can handle their drink and habits, the vast majority of heroin users cannot handle their addiction. Once it is out of control, that is where the issues arise.

[Manoil]

[Thread name changed accordingly]

[Tofu Man]

But that's the point of the studies, Frat, to tell the gov what they should be focusing on instead of coming up with a graphic based on lethality. That way you'd have cyanide and friends all over the top 100 spots. But nobody "does" them, right?

(...)I guess that graph is only really relevant when it comes to addicts and not recreational users. The vast majority of people can handle their drink and habits, the vast majority of heroin users cannot handle their addiction. Once it is out of control, that is where the issues arise.

Not necessarily and for the simple reason that you don't need to be a certified alcoholic to get drunk one night, grab your wheels and run over an innocent bystander. Sure that's not what most of us who drink do, but for every 5 that do, there's only one or two of other drug addicts that do some other shit because of their substance of choice.

The real issue here is (judging by what you wrote) should society deal with a DUI murderer any differently than it does with a heroin addict stabbing someone to get money for a fix? You said it yourself, drinking "irresponsibly" (unlike heroin) is sometimes excused as a cultural thing.

Hell, this thread keeps reminding me of how long it's been since I've gotten proper pissed. Stoli, baby, daddy's coming.



@ thread name change

[Frater Perdurabo]

That's why we have manslaugher and not murder charges. On a different topic, the epileptic are criminally insane!