Alcohol Vs. Hard Drugs

[Longhauler]

Well, that article clearly states that alcohol is way less addictive than heroin or crystal methamphetamines, which are considered to be hardcore drugs.

I'll explain it simply for you EW... People who ''abuse'' opiates but never bang street dope, don't eat shit and work out moderately (there ARE a few of them, including myself) will be FAR healthier than your average alcoholic. Get your facts straight: this is common medical knowledge, do a little research of your own if you don't take my word for it. I've been ''abusing'' opiates off and on for more than 30 years, and I'm not fucked up, poor and sick... After 30 years of daily drinking, your average alcoholic will most likely look, smell and feel like shit..

One more little thing, alcohol abuse will affect your IQ big time after a while, but even a lifetime of extreme opiate abuse won't. Booze kills neurons. Indeed, the heavy intoxication of alcohol is much ''harder'' and dirty than a relatively subtle opiate buzz lol.

For these reasons, among others, alcohol is imo just as hard and dangerous as meth, and harder than opiates in many respects. It's a culture thing, dude. If our culture had been exposed earlier to the poppy, opiates would be as ubiquitous as alcohol today, and would be considered ''softer'' than ethanol for sure. The risk of OD would be much lower because everybody would be equipped with a naloxone kit, opiates would be integrated to our culture and thus used more safely, etc.

 

[weekend addiction]

^Most daily marijuana smokers are a little slow. Hang out with your stoner buddies while they get ripped and just drink coffee instead. You'll see. And I'm a daily smoker.

 

[endlessnameless]

^Most daily marijuana smokers are a little slow. Hang out with your stoner buddies while they get ripped and just drink coffee instead. You'll see. And I'm a daily smoker.

Concurred, though throughout the 4-5 years of my daily habit of smoking hash I'd have argued the utter contrary. It took about 8-10 months of abstinance for that previously unseen cognitive fog to lift in order to see just how much of an impact it was having on my intellectual uptake.

 

[ensta]

^ You are comparing a 'best case' opiate abuser with the average alcoholic. If you compared a drinker who lived a healthy lifestyle to the average daily opiate abuser, you would be hard pressed to argue that the opiate abuser was likely to be in a better place.

I am a daily drinker and have been for the better part of a decade. I am not messed up, poor or sick. I am not saying alcohol isn't dangerous but just with every other drug, being informed as well as respecting it and yourself will go a long way. I am sick of people singling out instances as proof that alcohol is as dangerous as 'harder drugs'. The truth is, overall, it is less addictive and more likely to be able to be enjoyed in moderation.

Stupid people are going to do stupid things regardless. Someone drinking themselves stupid and then doing something stupid does not prove anything. For every example of that kind of behaviour there is another example where someone took a 'harder drug' and did something stupid to match it.

 

[RobotRipping]

yeah kind of agree too, cannabis does tend to make my mind slow down and cause a cognitive fog, not to mention anxiety. Still though, it's outweighed by increased creativity, increased happiness and a greater appreciation of life (for those who don't get anxiety from it). I also hate the smell of really skunky weed and i get bothered by other cannabis smokers around me because i don't want to make them paranoid that i see them smoking but can't exactly say, i'm cool with it without being awkward lol.

I wouldn't replace alcohol with cannabis because cannabis may as well be legal anyway, at least here. City of over 360,000 and last year there were 42 possession charges and about 70 trafficking charges. That's a pretty small percentage considering trafficking and possession can be 2 charges on 1 person. And even so, those people usually just have to do community service and get it removed from their record or if they are mass growers, they get a few months of house arrest.

opiates do not cause brain damage whatsoever. They are about as benign as cannabis (except yes you can OD on them if you really try), have just as many medical applications and a much better high (to some at least).

If you consider harm to society, then opiates should be legalized before cannabis.

anyway, i still keep my vote for d-methamp. d-amp, but opiates and benzos/GHB are just behind. They may as well be legal anyway, they (Drs inadvertently) flood the streets with them and are all pharmaceuticals anyway. I'd probably put any other drug before cannabis if i were to replace alcohol, not that alcohol should be illegal anyway.

 

[Seyer]

These threads are extremely similar so I have merged them.

 

[electrodevo]

I am sick of people singling out instances as proof that alcohol is as dangerous as 'harder drugs'. The truth is, overall, it is less addictive and more likely to be able to be enjoyed in moderation.

I would take issue with the "less addictive" part. Cannabis, most tryptamines, the dissociatives (probably) and probably even some of the entactogenic amphetamines ala MDMA are quite a bit less addictive.

When alcohol was *illegal*, beer and wine consumption dropped to near nothing; in public, distilled liquor was the only kind commonly available. The speakeasy culture was centered around, flat out, getting shitfaced -- people did not bother with the ritual of speakeasies just to have a beer or wine or two. Overall alcohol consumption declined considerably, but public drunkenness arrests made during Prohibition were roughly about the same as before.

I have no idea whether the other compounds could be "moderated" in some way, but it does make direct "which is worse" comparisons a bit tricky, as in any illegal market there is no incentive to make a product that appeals to moderate consumption. Even with cannabis, I do think that when it is legalized, there will probably be a push for more modest cannabis, one not driven by super-THC% (as is the current market) and one that is more driven by factors like flavor quality.

 

[Elven Warriorr]

I would take issue with the "less addictive" part. Cannabis, most tryptamines, the dissociatives (probably) and probably even some of the entactogenic amphetamines ala MDMA are quite a bit less addictive.

When alcohol was *illegal*, beer and wine consumption dropped to near nothing; in public, distilled liquor was the only kind commonly available. The speakeasy culture was centered around, flat out, getting shitfaced -- people did not bother with the ritual of speakeasies just to have a beer or wine or two. Overall alcohol consumption declined considerably, but public drunkenness arrests made during Prohibition were roughly about the same as before.

I have no idea whether the other compounds could be "moderated" in some way, but it does make direct "which is worse" comparisons a bit tricky, as in any illegal market there is no incentive to make a product that appeals to moderate consumption. Even with cannabis, I do think that when it is legalized, there will probably be a push for more modest cannabis, one not driven by super-THC% (as is the current market) and one that is more driven by factors like flavor quality.

Well, what exactly do you mean by "modern cannabis"? Wait, do you mean by that, that some people actually smoke or drink, as well as eat, cannabis for its flavor alone, and not for the desired psychoactive effects of this drug (similarly to how some people will have some glass of beer or wine just because it tastes good)?

Also, theres absolutely no question that alcohol is much less addictive than stuff such as heroin or cocaine, or crystal meth.

 

[Elven Warriorr]

yeah kind of agree too, cannabis does tend to make my mind slow down and cause a cognitive fog, not to mention anxiety. Still though, it's outweighed by increased creativity, increased happiness and a greater appreciation of life (for those who don't get anxiety from it). I also hate the smell of really skunky weed and i get bothered by other cannabis smokers around me because i don't want to make them paranoid that i see them smoking but can't exactly say, i'm cool with it without being awkward lol.

I wouldn't replace alcohol with cannabis because cannabis may as well be legal anyway, at least here. City of over 360,000 and last year there were 42 possession charges and about 70 trafficking charges. That's a pretty small percentage considering trafficking and possession can be 2 charges on 1 person. And even so, those people usually just have to do community service and get it removed from their record or if they are mass growers, they get a few months of house arrest.

opiates do not cause brain damage whatsoever. They are about as benign as cannabis (except yes you can OD on them if you really try), have just as many medical applications and a much better high (to some at least).

If you consider harm to society, then opiates should be legalized before cannabis.

anyway, i still keep my vote for d-methamp. d-amp, but opiates and benzos/GHB are just behind. They may as well be legal anyway, they (Drs inadvertently) flood the streets with them and are all pharmaceuticals anyway. I'd probably put any other drug before cannabis if i were to replace alcohol, not that alcohol should be illegal anyway.

Well, here's two things that I want to state. I strongly support at least the decriminalization of cannabis; but also, heroin usage does cause some brain damage in it's users. Here's two articles that prove these claims to be most certainly true.

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=7759

http://www.europad.org/journal/2007/Polunina 9(2)2007.pdf

 

[Thorns Have Roses]

If our culture had been exposed earlier to the poppy, opiates would be as ubiquitous as alcohol today, and would be considered ''softer'' than ethanol for sure.

I don't think so. The simple fact remains that you can use alcohol daily without developing dependency, try that with morphine or any other opiate our culture could have been exposed to.

When alcohol was *illegal*, beer and wine consumption dropped to near nothing; in public, distilled liquor was the only kind commonly available.

Maybe that has something to do with transporation costs/risk? A standard drink of beer is 12oz, a standard drink of hard liquor (80 proof) is 1.5oz. So, if an average customer consumes 3 drinks (arbitrary number), that's going to be 36oz of beer vs 4.5oz liquor, an 8 times larger volume of liquid. You do the math on the risks/profit of bootlegging that. Additionally, home brewing beer/wine is pretty simple, even in an environment of prohibition, while distilling requires a lot more investment and expertise.

 

[neversickanymore]

didn't realize there was anything harder than BOOZE???????????????? no really.

 

[RobotRipping]

Well, here's two things that I want to state. I strongly support at least the decriminalization of cannabis; but also, heroin usage does cause some brain damage in it's users. Here's two articles that prove these claims to be most certainly true.

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=7759

http://www.europad.org/journal/2007/Polunina 9(2)2007.pdf

well the first article doesn't show the actual study, the second link, the study doesn't actually say it causes brain damage, and most of the issues caused by heroin use are related to prohibition and purity issues. I don't think those studies provide enough evidence, especially since they are looking at just heroin, and have nothing bad to say about opioid maintenance or pharm opiates.

just to quote your own link here

At least 4 neuropsychological studies failed to find any significant association
between methadone dosage regimen and cognitive performance [10, 21, 37, 40]. Moreover,
Gruber and colleagues [22] demonstrated an improvement in cognitive functions as little
as two months after the beginning of methadone treatment in opioid addicts

The only other thing is that opioid users sometimes nod out causing a slight lack of oxygen to the brain, that's only an issue for opiate addicts who love to nod out, but yeah that can cause some damage in some form.


It doesn't matter anyway, opiates may/may not/can cause brain damage but should still be legalized. It's not about harm to the user but individual freedom to do whatever i want with my own body.

 

[electrodevo]

Well, what exactly do you mean by "modern cannabis"? Wait, do you mean by that, that some people actually smoke or drink, as well as eat, cannabis for its flavor alone, and not for the desired psychoactive effects of this drug (similarly to how some people will have some glass of beer or wine just because it tastes good)?

I don't think there's *as* much of that now but it's definitely a possibility in a legal market in my opinion.

Take a look at cigars. The flavor is absolutely the point with cigars. Most cigar smokers don't inhale so they don't have to deal *as* much with the huge addictiveness of nicotine (some nicotine is absorbed in the mouth, so there still is an effect, but it is possible to only occasionally have a cigar and not have it instantly develop into a pack+ a day habit...).

Mind you, with wine / beer and cigars, the psychoactive effect is still a point. However you just only want *some* of it and you want the additional flavor benefit with it. Legal cannabis will be a new world. So I can absolutely see some possibilities opening up with the right headspace. (Anyone want to try fermenting cannabis leaves ala how cigars are processed? Heck there's even some very traditional drinks that a legal market would open up. Punjab India apparently has a cannabis preparation called bhang, and some Indian drinks made with bhang, such as bhang lassi, actually sound... tasty...)

Maybe that has something to do with transporation costs/risk?

For the bootlegger, that absolutely was the reason why hard liquor became the preferred drink to serve.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

I merely stated how alcohol is nowhere near as dangerous, or as hard to quit, as crystal meth is.

wat

 

[tentram]

wat

in the butt.

 

[dopemaster]

Well Ive been to detox for alcholism 3 times. I was 19 the first time. Im not sure how a 19 year old managed to drink 4 forties a day but it happened. I was doing alot of coke than too. It had alot to do with this crucial codependent relationship with a woman who was about 25 back then. I still have sex with her ten years later. lol.

But I digress I dont care for a drink much these days, but its mainly cuz Im an opiate addict.

Plus I used to drink a 12 pack of bud ice, two fifths of liquor, or 4 forties a day depending on my budget and mood.

 

[treezy z]

to the dude saying meth is more dangerous to quit than alcohol, meth is dangerous to stay on not quit. alcohol is dangerous as fuck to quit, i know a bunch of people who have had grand mal seizures doing it cold turkey.

 

[Mr.Scagnattie]

Yeah, saying that stopping meth is in anywhere near the same league as trying to quit booze once psychically dependent is ridiculous.

 

[Elven Warriorr]

Yeah, saying that stopping meth is in anywhere near the same league as trying to quit booze once psychically dependent is ridiculous.

Nope, it's totally ridicilous when you state that alcohol is way more dangerous than crystal meth is. Here's why. You're simply comparing those worst-case scenarios with alcohol, with those average crystal meth users. Now, there's no question that alcohol abuse is a very horrible thing to these societies, and I've heard of and I've seen countless lives having been ruined by alcohol abuse. However, that's absolutely ridiculous to state that alcohol is way more dangerous than crystal meth is. Also, for one thing, crystal meth has a much higher relapse rate than alcohol does. It's way more addictive than alcohol is.

This article pretty much explains what I'm trying to state.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...tt-come-clean-admit-wants-legalise-drugs.html

No one disputes, of course, that alcohol taken in excessive quantities is potentially dangerous both to the person who drinks it and to others. On any Friday or Saturday night, the centres of our large towns and cities are disfigured by mostly young people who have drunk far too much, and sometimes end up fighting one another or the police, and causing damage to property.
The intake of too much alcohol can fuel domestic violence, lead to traffic accidents and, if repeated regularly on a gargantuan scale, damage health.

All the same, the majority of people who drink do so in moderate quantities. They do not attack their wives or husbands as a result, or smash in shop windows, or drive their cars dangerously when under the influence, or assault police officers.
For millions of people, drinking is a sociable, convivial habit that induces a degree of relaxation and makes them and their companions feel slightly happier. It has been part of our culture for thousands of years.
Then along comes Professor Nutt and his mates to tell us that alcohol is, in fact, a lot more dangerous than heroin.
This is such a barmy assertion that one scarcely knows where to begin. Does the lady next door who enjoys a glass or two of wine constitute a threat to herself and to others?
Of course not. The point about drinking is that it can be, and usually is, done in moderation and need not involve a powerful and irresistible addiction.
Show me a moderate heroin addict. Perhaps you know some. I don’t. I see the desperate, ravaged young people queuing up for their heroin substitute methadone in a chemist in the city where I live. I see, and sometimes talk to, the countless drug addicts begging in our streets.
It is true there are a few alcoholics, too, but they are vastly outnumbered by those whose lives have been ruined by heroin or crack cocaine which, Professor Nutt maintains, are less dangerous than alcohol.

 

[treezy z]

^you're missing the point, there is no danger in stopping crystal meth other than mental anguish. you can die from stopping alcohol.

i agree meth is much more addictive however.