Alcohol Is The Most Dangerous Drug

[alemsalem]

A little background
... and the two high profile deaths that had been in the papers (naturally of photogenic teenage girls) - one hadn't taken any drugs and had died of a water overdose..

what? water overdose!

 

[BobG]

Interesting statistics on drinking. (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_249.pdf - table 27)

62.9% of people just living together drink
52.6% of married people drink
50.6% of divorced/separated people drink
49.2% of people never married drink
38.2% of widowed people drink

It's as if a fear of having to face one's life alone drives a person to drink, until that person realizes there's worse things than facing life alone and starts drinking even more, until, finally, the person realizes that being alone means living one's life in peace and they no longer have to drink.

You don't know what you got til you've had to live without it for a while.

 

[lisab]

what? water overdose!

Absolutely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

"Everything is poison, there is poison in everything. Only the dose makes a thing not a poison." - Paracelsus

 

[NobodySpecial]

what? water overdose!

You drink too much water it dilutes the amount of sodium - your brain works on sodium driven ion-channels.

It happens (although is rare) in marathon runners, but it's also more common in nightclubs where people drink lots of water because they are dancing.

 

[Gokul43201]

I haven't read the original article (only the news), but I can't see the value in comparing the cost to society of illegal and legal substances (alcohol vs meth, for example). The simple fact of the difference in their legal status implies the means of distribution and consumption are likely to be so different that it is silly to draw comparisons from aggregates.

And adding the cost to self with the cost to society to produce a "total" cost is even more meaningless. I sure hope that same graphic wasn't in the published paper.

 

[NobodySpecial]

The simple fact of the difference in their legal status implies the means of distribution and consumption are likely to be so different that it is silly to draw comparisons from aggregates.

Indeed, have there been any large scale population studies to see if a prohibition on alcohol would have the same bad health and crime effects as drugs?

 

[sprudence]

It would be very naive to think people don't drink to get drunk. At least it would appear to be the case in the UK people DO drink to get drunk, not everyone, but more especially young people. In fact in urbanised areas it's a huge problem.

I'm 24, and I can say for a fact I don't drink alcohol, I'm proud of that, and feel much better for it.. but it bewilders me how some people can go out for numerous consecutive nights getting absolutely wasted!

 

[Jasongreat]

Indeed, have there been any large scale population studies to see if a prohibition on alcohol would have the same bad health and crime effects as drugs?

If I remember correctly, there was a study, with around 52 million people, and lasted for a good chunk of time. It was in the early part of the 20th century, here in the US. The result: People that wanted to drink kept drinking, large groups of organized crime took over the distribution, making them millions and the quality of drinks went down.

 

[NobodySpecial]

If I remember correctly, there was a study, with around 52 million people, and lasted for a good chunk of time. It was in the early part of the 20th century, here in the US.

Has it been well publicized?
It could have important implications for government policy on other drugs.

 

[Evo]

If I remember correctly, there was a study, with around 52 million people, and lasted for a good chunk of time. It was in the early part of the 20th century, here in the US. The result: People that wanted to drink kept drinking, large groups of organized crime took over the distribution, making them millions and the quality of drinks went down.

Prohibition?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

It could have important implications for government policy on other drugs.

You've said a mouthful.

 

[Evo]

You've said a mouthful.

It's called Prohibition. It was when something that was part of every day life was suddenly made illegel. Alcohol.

It has nothing to do with other drugs. Opium, hashish, and cocaine were once legal, making them illegal didn't cause the furor that making alcohol illegal did. It's used for cooking, used in religion, when used in moderation, it is not used to get drunk.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Opium, hashish, and cocaine were once legal, making them illegal didn't cause the furor that making alcohol illegal did.

Usage wasn't widespread like alcohol. So what makes you think that if it were legal, it would become widespread?

 

[Evo]

Usage wasn't widespread like alcohol. So what makes you think that if it were legal, it would become widespread?

Usage was very widespread in areas where it is was available.

Back when it was legal, it wasn't easy to transport. Just like spices were extremely rare and high priced. Only the wealthiest people could afford common black pepper. Black pepper was once used as currency in Europe.

Transportation of drugs is no longer the issue it once was.

 

[Gokul43201]

If I recall correctly, usage of marijuana is no more prevalent in The Netherlands than it is in the rest of Europe.

 

[Evo]

If I recall correctly, usage of marijuana is no more prevalent in The Netherlands than it is in the rest of Europe.

I wouldn't know, marijuana hasn't been discussed as it falls pretty far down the list.

 

[BobG]

If I remember correctly, there was a study, with around 52 million people, and lasted for a good chunk of time. It was in the early part of the 20th century, here in the US. The result: People that wanted to drink kept drinking, large groups of organized crime took over the distribution, making them millions and the quality of drinks went down.

Except that wasn't a true prohibition on alcohol. It was illegal to transport or sell alcohol, not to possesses it or drink it. It was legal to brew your own beer or wine in your own home.

In other words, it made alcohol more expensive - either in the time it took to brew your own or in higher prices paid to obtain illegal alcohol.

And it did decrease drinking to about 30% of pre-WWI levels initially, but drinking levels bounced back to around 60% of pre-prohibition levels. And post-prohibition, it took a decade for drinking levels to increase back to pre-WWI levels. (http://www.tomfeiling.com/archive/AlcoholConsumptionDuringProhibition.pdf

A prohibition would have to cut drinking levels more sharply than that, since the positive effects of a prohibition mainly come from eliminating problem users - the users that are also most resistant to prohibition efforts. Even today, 30 million (out of the 146 million total) are infrequent drinkers. Those would be the most likely to quit drinking because of prohibition, but also the people whose quitting would have the least impact.

 

[FlexGunship]

Your position surely isn't that all acohol drinkers would purchase alcohol illegally if it were prohibited, is it?

The prevalence of alcohol use is due to the pervasive desire to alter one's cognitive experience (in some fashion). If Alcohol were illegal, not all alcohol users would return to alcohol; instead, most would simply identify the most readily accessible drug and use that.

If it's not alcohol, it'll be marijuana, cocaine, heroin, or meth.

I would even argue that, among mind-altering drugs, alcohol is crude and almost unenjoyable compared to so many others.

Extend the analog to other areas. Imagine that only itchy sweaters were legal. I'm sure most people would wear itchy sweaters. But, if you made ALL SWEATERS illegal, then people who switch to which ever form of sweater was most readily available; probably preferring non-itchy sweaters.

Controlling people's behaviors has been the [failed] specialty of all dictators; often expressed as intended for the benefit of the controlled.

 

[JaredJames]

Out of curiosity, I've just skimmed this thread and would like to pose a simple question on the subject:

What do people here consider abuse (in regards to substances)?

I see a distinct difference between going out, having a few drinks and getting a bit 'merry' and going out and getting blind drunk to the point you are being sick and causing trouble (potentially breaking the law).

I don't know whether others make the same distinction (except Evo and Astronuc)?

As people have mentioned previously, when you do a drug (heroin, cocaine etc) it is to get the high. Although alcohol has a similar 'high' as you drink, there are different levels of being drunk. The more you drink, the worse you get (unless you drink yourself sober ).
Do other drugs have similar 'stages' or do you just get the same result regardless of how much you take?

 

[FlexGunship]

I'm 24, and I can say for a fact I don't drink alcohol, I'm proud of that, and feel much better for it.. [...]

This might be the elitist feeling that many people get from abstaining from anything. I'm not religious and I get the same feeling as you do. It doesn't necessarily speak to the merits of your position.

 

[FlexGunship]

Do other drugs have similar 'stages' or do you just get the same result regardless of how much you take?

Certainly. However, there is a tendency to associate "hard drug use" with "hard drug abuse."

Likewise, the impairment from one "hit" of marijuana doesn't compare to "a bowl" any more than one beer compares to seven shots.

In NH, synthetic cannabinoids are legal. I tried JWH-018 when it first came out here. I haven't purchased it since then because I'm not a habitual user (of anything, really, all I have is an unopened bottle of wine on the fridge right now). I've never favored the feeling of "losing control" but can appreciate the relaxing affects of "a hit" or "a beer."

 

[alemsalem]

If you have spent much time with people who use drugs other than alcohol (and as a musician, I have run into quite a few), you may have a view of the drug-users that is not really congruent with our media's perceptions, or our government's policies.

Not all drugs are as dangerous to the user as alcohol, and not all are as dangerous to people around the user as alcohol. Until our society comes to terms with this, we will have a very expensive and dangerous undercurrent of crime that we will ALL have to pay for...

I agree, I met many people who've tried most kinds of drugs specially psychedelics and cocaine ecstasy and Kitamine shrooms LSD hash and other things,, but they never got addicted because they were not stupid they knew what they were doing,, and they live normal successful lives now,, regardless of the harmful effects it might have on their brains in the long term you can't say that it ruined their lives, and it was their choice to have these experiences.

for other people (who i never met:) drugs might ruin lives and harm others close to them,, but that cannot justify ruining lives by criminalizing users who otherwise would be living normal lives.

 

[alt]

..
Controlling people's behaviors has been the [failed] specialty of all dictators; often expressed as intended for the benefit of the controlled.

Indeed. And even in non-dictatorships ..

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

In some European countries, Greece for instance, there are no liquor laws to speak of.

You can buy booze in a supermarket, along with the milk and bread. You can order it at a cafe, along with water or softdrink - no licencing required.

Interestingly, that country has a much lower incidence of alcohol abuse than does Australia, where booze is very heavily controlled and regulated.

I also disagree strongly with the suggestion in this thread (if such it is) that alcohol is bad for you. It's all a question of degrees. A couple of beers, or a couple of glasses of wine a day, are very good for you IMO.

 

[JaredJames]

I agree, I met many people who've tried most kinds of drugs specially psychedelics and cocaine ecstasy and Kitamine shrooms LSD hash and other things,, but they never got addicted because they were not stupid they knew what they were doing,, and they live normal successful lives now,, regardless of the harmful effects it might have on their brains in the long term you can't say that it ruined their lives, and it was their choice to have these experiences.

for other people (who i never met:) drugs might ruin lives and harm others close to them,, but that cannot justify ruining lives by criminalizing users who otherwise would be living normal lives.

What is the percentage of 'successful' drug users who you could say the drugs didn't ruin their lives, to drug users who have cleary had their lives ruined by drugs?

I have no doubt some people can live normal lives and still utilise the drugs, but unless there is a significant number (if not a high majority) that are like this then I don't think it makes a difference.
An extremely large number of people drink alcohol, but the number of people within this group whose lives are ruined by it is nowhere near that large. However, if you take heroin for example, how many people take it and how many people's lives are subsequently ruined? (The above paragraph refers mainly to regular useage).
I don't have numbers and would like to see some, but I think this may be one of the major points when it comes to drugs and why they are banned.

 

[alemsalem]

What is the percentage of 'successful' drug users who you could say the drugs didn't ruin their lives, to drug users who have cleary had their lives ruined by drugs?

I have no doubt some people can live normal lives and still utilise the drugs, but unless there is a significant number (if not a high majority) that are like this then I don't think it makes a difference.
An extremely large number of people drink alcohol, but the number of people within this group whose lives are ruined by it is nowhere near that large. However, if you take heroin for example, how many people take it and how many people's lives are subsequently ruined? (The above paragraph refers mainly to regular useage).
I don't have numbers and would like to see some, but I think this may be one of the major points when it comes to drugs and why they are banned.

I don't know any specific numbers not even a rough idea of the percentages, so i can't conclude from the small group of people i met or heard about how it should be regulated,, but that tells us that it shouldn't be black or white laws or "culture" might target the specific variables in the process.

for example we might have more control over what types of drugs are taken the culture and environment in which it is taken, the dosage etc.. so that we don't end up doing more harm than we set out to prevent

drugs are extremely diverse, people are extremely diverse, war on drugs has some goods and some harms because (as far as i can tell) it doesn't take into account the finer details of the problem (it's a war!),, i think in this situation we must be more flexible and creative about it.

 

[JaredJames]

I don't know any specific numbers not even a rough idea of the percentages, so i can't conclude from the small group of people i met or heard about how it should be regulated,, but that tells us that it shouldn't be black or white laws or "culture" might target the specific variables in the process.

for example we might have more control over what types of drugs are taken the culture and environment in which it is taken, the dosage etc.. so that we don't end up doing more harm than we set out to prevent

drugs are extremely diverse, people are extremely diverse, war on drugs has some goods and some harms because (as far as i can tell) it doesn't take into account the finer details of the problem (it's a war!),, i think in this situation we must be more flexible and creative about it.

Ever heard of "give them an inch and they take a mile"?

I do agree that there are situations where law can be an issue in that they aren't always black and white cases. However, it you start making allowances for *some* cases, you face creating a blurryness which can cause even more legal issues.

You have a large number of alcohol drinkers and then a minority within that group which cause problems (whether to the police, healthcare system or otherwise). You have a *smaller* number of drug users, but there is (based on what I have seen) a significant portion of this group causing problems (drug related crime etc).
Some drugs are so addictive people will do anything to get their next fix (alcohol included). I think weighing up the whole "how likely is a person to cause a problem" whilst requiring the effects of said drug should be brought into it.

 

[BobG]

The prevalence of alcohol use is due to the pervasive desire to alter one's cognitive experience (in some fashion). If Alcohol were illegal, not all alcohol users would return to alcohol; instead, most would simply identify the most readily accessible drug and use that.

If it's not alcohol, it'll be marijuana, cocaine, heroin, or meth.

What is the percentage of 'successful' drug users who you could say the drugs didn't ruin their lives, to drug users who have cleary had their lives ruined by drugs?

I have no doubt some people can live normal lives and still utilise the drugs, but unless there is a significant number (if not a high majority) that are like this then I don't think it makes a difference.
An extremely large number of people drink alcohol, but the number of people within this group whose lives are ruined by it is nowhere near that large. However, if you take heroin for example, how many people take it and how many people's lives are subsequently ruined? (The above paragraph refers mainly to regular useage).
I don't have numbers and would like to see some, but I think this may be one of the major points when it comes to drugs and why they are banned.

Both of these posts make some good points.

1) Is there a static market for intoxication (by some means or other) that's unaffected by drug laws? If there is, then making a drug such as marijuana illegal has no real effect. It's just directing consumers towards some specific drug.

The fact that there is still a market for marijuana, cocaine, etc shows that at least a small portion of the population is so picky about their means of intoxication that they'd choose an illegal drug over a legal drug...

... or it shows that a portion of the intoxication market doesn't care about laws. I think the latter is the case. The people using illegal drugs are more likely to abuse whatever drug they take, regardless of whether it's alcohol or some other drug. Their choice of an illegal drug shows they aren't nearly as concerned about the consequences of their actions as they are about intoxication.

That means a study would be flawed. Is it the drugs that are more likely to ruin a person's life or are people more likely to ruin their lives also more likely to choose illegal drugs.

Legalizing marijuana would bring in some extra tax revenue, but not some overwhelming tide of new tax revenue that would transform government budgets. At some point, a rise in marijuana usage would merely cut into alcohol usage.

2) There is no static intoxication market. Laws making all drugs, including alcohol, illegal would reduce intoxication among the populace. Likewise, legalizing marijuana or other drugs would increase intoxication among the populace.

I think the second model is more realistic. To cut alcohol consumption to 30%, or even 60% of previous levels (or whatever the actual reduction was during prohibition since making alcohol illegal had the side effect of making consumption very difficult to measure) means you're cutting the number of customers even more drastically. Cutting out the 30% of users that use alcohol infrequently doesn't cut alcohol consumption by 30%. Very frequent users consume more alcohol per person than infrequent users.

Cutting out a huge chunk of non-problem drinkers, the drinkers most likely to be influenced by an alcohol prohibition, would mean a higher percentage of those who still consumed alcohol would have their lives ruined by it.

Short term, cutting alcohol consumption by even drastic levels doesn't eliminate the problems caused by alcohol. Instead alcohol use just becomes limited to those most likely to ruin their lives and cause problems to the rest of society.

3) Regardless of short term effects, what effect does a multi-generational prohibition on alcohol (and all other drugs) have? If people were not inundated with beer commercials brainwashing them to see intoxication as the means to becoming the most popular person at the party, how prevalent would alcohol abuse be? In other words, why did it take a decade for alcohol consumption to rise back to previous levels once prohibition was repealed?

This is something that would cut across all lines, especially if the tendency to drink uncontrollably is chemically related - i.e. some people's chemical interaction makes it impossible to control their drinking once they've started. In other words, not just the people that use alcohol every day, but the binge drinker that may not drink often, but drinks badly almost every time they do drink.

There are many people that are competent socially, in that they do follow laws, pursue good careers, etc, but physically can't handle alcohol and wouldn't have become problem users if not exposed to it in the first place (and most absolutely refuse to admit they can't control their use through willpower since they're successful at most of the other things they do).

In this case, prohibition would actually reduce alcohol abuse and the cost to society of alcohol abuse, but not eliminate it. It doesn't eliminate abuse of illegal drugs even with a legal alternative available, so it would be naive to expect prohibition to eliminate alcohol abuse. That would create a scenario where one would have to evaluate whether the reduction was significant enough to make it worth it - something that would be hard to do in advance.

4) Or is alcohol a drug that would be better treated the same way society treats tobacco use? Put severe restrictions on advertising (no more TV beer commercials, for example), put severe restrictions on where it can be used, sue alcohol manufacturers for huge sums of money that theoretically go to the state to reduce alcohol abuse, etc, and hope it eventually has a long term effect on alcohol abuse.

 

[lisab]

Here's a graphic from The Economist:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm

 

[Upisoft]

Interesting. Heroin and Crack cocaine are very close to Alcohol, despite the fact they are much harder to obtain.

 

[chaoseverlasting]

If you have spent much time with people who use drugs other than alcohol (and as a musician, I have run into quite a few), you may have a view of the drug-users that is not really congruent with our media's perceptions, or our government's policies.

Funny that you should mention this. Just today I met a friend of mine who's a brilliant blues musician. We had a debate on drugs as he's a habitual marijuana user but doesn't drink alcohol. As far as everything else in his life is concerned, its almost enviable. He's at the top of his class in law, socially sound and generally stable. Also, he's far less violent (or at the very least has displayed less aggressive behaviour) than a lot of the other guys I know. In fact, most of the aggression that I've witnessed has been in some way related to alcohol. I can't recall a single instance of a stoner picking a fight.

 

[BobG]

Going by that chart, we should make alcohol illegal and legalize meth - based on the premise that what a person does to themselves is their own business; the harm they cause to others is everybody's business. (In fact, when meth was first introduced to legal markets, it was a treatment for chronic alcoholism.)

Of course, there's only http://www.drugaddictionnews.com/29/meth-addiction/ compared to 145 million alcohol users, so I guess you'd have to multiply the adverse effects of meth by about 100 if it were to replace alcohol.

 

[Gokul43201]

Interesting. Heroin and Crack cocaine are very close to Alcohol, despite the fact they are much harder to obtain.

Is it interesting? Are you going just by the figure in the post or have you read the paper itself? What exactly does the x-axis represent?

For instance, if the x-axis measure involved some kind of normalization of "total harm" with respect to the number of consumers (thereby making the "hard to obtain" factor essentially irrelevant), then the graph may be interesting for the completely opposite reason than if it were not.

It would be nice if someone who has read the paper could briefly explain the calculation.

 

[Upisoft]

Going by that chart, we should make alcohol illegal and legalize meth - based on the premise that what a person does to themselves is their own business; the harm they cause to others is everybody's business.

No 'shrooms are better option. Everybody will experience Santa first hand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbfKub6xSKY

 

[Upisoft]

Is it interesting? Are you going just by the figure in the post or have you read the paper itself? What exactly does the x-axis represent?

For instance, if the x-axis measure involved some kind of normalization of "total harm" with respect to the number of consumers (thereby making the "hard to obtain" factor essentially irrelevant), then the graph may be interesting for the completely opposite reason than if it were not.

It would be nice if someone who has read the paper could briefly explain the calculation.

It is explained in the linked article. No reference to any scientific paper is available. One can think it is a brainwashing propaganda.

 

[Evo]

Here is the graph from the Op's article about the study in the Lancet.

The actual study shows heroine as the most harmful, followed by cocaine, barbiturates, and street methadone.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/images?imageId=gr1&sectionType=green

[PLAIN]http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/5981/drugsu.jpg