fafalone

Yes, because I believe it should be a freedom.

That's the weakest pro-drug law argument I've ever heard.

It costs the taxpayers 450,000 to imprison someone for a 5 year drug sentence, and 450,000 could be used to treat 200 addicts and fund lots of education; not to mention the fact that drug convictions ruin lives and destroy families more frequently than drug use alone. This is the best way to go why?

So what non-health aspects make drugs so much worse than alcohol/tobacco?

Sources: Social Trends, pub. Office of National Statistics, based on research from the Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence. These figures cover 1994-6, and are reproduced as released by the ONS. 1999 1999, Social Trends 23 by the Office for National Statistics Those seem like pretty reliable sources of statistics to me.

Considering we're comparing drug death rates with alcohol/tobacco death rates, approximations are good enough, and it does matter because its the entire point.

Take the estimated number of users, divide with the number of reported deaths... and theres your death rate... compare to the death rate of alcohol users and smokers.

I told you the framework and you asked for the numbers!!

Smoking is responsible for nearly 1 in 5 deaths in the United States. Between 1990 and 1997, approximately 430,700 people died each year due to smoking. About 10 million people in the United States have died from smoking-related illnesses since the first Surgeon General's report on smoking and health in 1964. Each year, more Americans die from smoking-related diseases than from alcohol, AIDS, drug abuse, car accidents, fire, suicide and murder — combined. Generally, smokers die 10 to 12 years younger than nonsmokers. Smokers between the ages of 35 and 70 have death rates 3 times higher than nonsmokers from the same age group. Here are drug deaths in the UK: http://www.urban75.com/Drugs/drugdeath.html Here are drug usage numbers in the UK for around the same year: http://www.drugsalcohol.info/drugs/default.asp?s=B&d=B90

That would mean the death rate among lifelong LSD and DMT users is zero, which is much less than the death rate among smokers and binge drinkers.

Like I said, no one has ever died from LSD or DMT (myths circulate about people jumping off roofs and such, but theres no real evidence for it)

Then some explanation is order, because the premature fatality rate of lifetime smokers is higher than the fatality rate for users of many (not all) illegal drugs.

There are no severe health consequences for occaisional recreational use of even heroin. Psychological problems from hallucinogens are rare and not caused by the drug, but rather brought out by the drug. And there's simply no evidence to suggest these problems wouldn't arise eventually anyway.

Because there is very low risk if you know what you're doing.

So you think alcohol and tobacco should also be illegal? Because cause health problems as severe or worse than drugs?

If you think it's hard to drink yourself to death with alcohol, imagine how much water you have to drink to kill yourself lol. One bottle of some alcohols bought from a store will kill you if you drink the whole thing. What about alternative forms of alcohol consumption? Take jello shooters... you get 15 of those made from 190 proof everclear, you'll wind up dead... and eating 15 jello shots is not at all hard to do.

Where does the article say the purity of the pill was determined? She drank herself to death, this is easily preventable. Water intoxication leading to death is not due at all to a direct interation between water and MDMA. If she was EDUCATED about water intoxication from MDMA use, she'd still be alive.

You're still not differentiating from alcohol/tobacco... people know thats a bad idea too. It's a bad idea to try the more addictive drugs if you know you have the potential to get addicted to things (previous problems, other substances, family history)... I know alot more people who have tried drugs without becoming addicted than people who get addicted from the first try.

One pill of ecstasy? Did they know the composition? I'll bet it wasn't pure MDMA, which is among the dangers of black market distro networks.

Why do people smoke? Why do people drink to excess? We're all well aware of the consquences of long-term use, yet people still do it. Why? I'm not saying it's a good idea for most people to try drugs, my argument is that it's THEIR choice, not the governments. I for one use alternatives to alcohol because it's more fun than urinating and vomitting all over the place and feeling like crap the next morning. Not to mention the risk of drinking and driving (differentiation here should be made, some drugs its safe to drive on and others its not (stimulants vs. depressants)).

Neither of those articles mention the dose taken, merely that an overdose occured. A heroin overdose is typically 120mg to be fatal, which is quite alot. The argument is that all drugs should be classed the same as alcohol an nicotine, then the same arguments should be applied for the legal status of them all. How many people take 120mg of heroin in one go? And last time I checked, virtually all of the cases of heroin overdose occured either of free will (suicide) or more commonly, the lack of safety of street heroin, which would be reduced drastically if it was legal.

People die all the time of drinking too much alcohol on ONE occaison. No one has ever died of an LSD overdose. No one has ever died from a THC overdose.

Lethal at any time from any dose? I don't suppose you have any numbers for this one either. Let's look at legal DRUGS alcohol and nicotine. Alcoholics have the same amount of choice over their habit as heroin addicts, as well as smokers (I'd be happy cite government studies proving nicotine is more addictive than heroin). Are you aware that 60mg of nicotine is lethal?

Same reason people get drunk.

How many heroin addicts WANT to be heroin addicts? How many people want to become heroin addicts? Why would this number increase if it were legal?