Radical Edward Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 fafalone said in post # :So you think alcohol and tobacco should also be illegal? Because cause health problems as severe or worse than drugs? no, because I was being facetious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 15, 2004 Author Share Posted January 15, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 15, 2004 Author Share Posted January 15, 2004 Radical Edward said in post # : no, because I was being facetious. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 numbers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 fafalone said in post # :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. those are all health risks. are there any others you can think of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 15, 2004 Author Share Posted January 15, 2004 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 15, 2004 Author Share Posted January 15, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 does that really matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 15, 2004 Author Share Posted January 15, 2004 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 oh raw numbers are ace but meaningless unless organised into a proper framework. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 15, 2004 Author Share Posted January 15, 2004 I told you the framework and you asked for the numbers!! Radical Edward said in post # :numbers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 they are a bit raw though. It is not like it is easy to make any sort of real analysis from them though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 15, 2004 Author Share Posted January 15, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 that is a rather oversimplistic analysis don't you think? not that it matters, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 15, 2004 Author Share Posted January 15, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 no it isn't the entire point though, and it is not possible to assess the validity of the approximations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 15, 2004 Author Share Posted January 15, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 because I don't care about the health aspects though, that would not be helped by legalization and education? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 15, 2004 Author Share Posted January 15, 2004 So what non-health aspects make drugs so much worse than alcohol/tobacco? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 I am not comparing them to alcohol and tobacco. However the way I see it is this. Anything that people are willing to do despite risking the symptom of "prisoners arse*" should be illegal. People take drugs, despite them being illegal. This risks the occurence of prisoners arse, and hence taking these drugs should be illegal. The only way for it to be legalased is if people are not willing to do it on account of not wishing to suffer that symptom. *that's ass for americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 15, 2004 Author Share Posted January 15, 2004 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 It doesn't matter. the very fact that they are willing to risk prisoners arse to do it means that it should be illegal. ok, time for bed now. g'night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 15, 2004 Author Share Posted January 15, 2004 That's the weakest pro-drug law argument I've ever heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 well would you risk doing something that is illegal, which could result in prisoners arse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now