Alcohol

NAR

miss_independent wrote: »

Lol just saw this. I like that you are so supportive of my being teetotal. Are you also ok with me being celibate? Cos I've kind of sworn off men for a while. Well, as of yesterday...

:eek: Gulp! What a loss to men I suppose I will have to grin and bear it. (Yet another cross to bare )

However I am totally supportive of you being teetotal (= cheap date. Grabs coat and runs fast!)

Almo

bitemebankers wrote: »

On cannabis vs alcohol. It should be pretty clear by now that no recreational drug is 100% safe. Well, not yet anyway (a small army of organic chemists are working on it though, I can assure you). However, it is possible to scientifically measure the relative harm of different drugs and cannabis is much less harmful than alcohol. This is undisputed fact.

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

When you choose to get high, whether it's with alcohol, cannabis or something else, you take your chances. What we do know for sure is that illegality makes any drug, including alcohol, much more dangerous for users and the general public alike.

That's interesting, thanks for posting the link. I must admit I wouldn't have expected the difference to be so significant although I still think one has to remember that the fact that alcohol is so easily accessible vs cannabis (and other drugs) will skew the results somewhat.

I don't know what the stats are and this is just idle comment, so I can't be bothered to go off looking, but I don't know any cannabis users who don't also drink alcohol. I'm sure there are plenty of them, I just don't know any. I wonder how easy it is to attribute negatives (health or otherwise) when someone is a user of more than one drug ('drug' to include alcohol).

I know that all sounds very negative towards cannabis use and it isn't intended to be, I couldn't care less if someone's preference is for a joint or a glass of wine on a Friday night.

pukkamum

Almo wrote: »

That's interesting, thanks for posting the link. I must admit I wouldn't have expected the difference to be so significant although I still think one has to remember that the fact that alcohol is so easily accessible vs cannabis (and other drugs) will skew the results somewhat.

I don't know what the stats are and this is just idle comment, so I can't be bothered to go off looking, but I don't know any cannabis users who don't also drink alcohol. I'm sure there are plenty of them, I just don't know any. I wonder how easy it is to attribute negatives (health or otherwise) when someone is a user of more than one drug ('drug' to include alcohol).

I know that all sounds very negative towards cannabis use and it isn't intended to be, I couldn't care less if someone's preference is for a joint or a glass of wine on a Friday night.

I don't drink alcohol I just use cannabis as do many of my friends we have all discovered that alchohol and children do not mix, dealing with a hangover and 3 kids is for me unbearable, I think you can look at the fact that many cannabis users also drinking as one of the factors in mental health issues after all alcohol is well known to be a depressive.
I find it laughable when heroin addicts are said to have moved on from cannabis to harder drugs making out that cannabis is the first drug they used when in actual fact alchohol is the first drug they used.
Cannabis was only ever made illegal to prevent the use of hemp in textiles etc killing the profits of the huge cotton growers in america.
Many states in america have already decriminalised it and it is time for it to happen here, think of the boost to the economy if the farmers in britain making a pittance on dairy farms could use part of their land for growing.
My dad lives in humbodlt a town in california brought to it's knees by the loss of the logging industry, it is now one of the biggest towns growing medical weed and it is prospering like never before.

bitemebankers

Almo wrote: »

although I still think one has to remember that the fact that alcohol is so easily accessible vs cannabis (and other drugs) will skew the results somewhat.

That's not how it works. It's based on the actual harm cause by the individuals who use each drug. The overall total use of any particular drug is irrelevant in this context.

I don't know what the stats are and this is just idle comment, so I can't be bothered to go off looking, but I don't know any cannabis users who don't also drink alcohol.

Multiple drug use is actually the norm - not the exception. The study used regression analysis and other techniques to isolate the issues associated with particular drugs.

I wonder how easy it is to attribute negatives (health or otherwise) when someone is a user of more than one drug ('drug' to include alcohol).

When considering an individual or small group, it's near impossible. That's why the study considered a whole population, on which you can perform statistical analysis to deduce the effects of individual drugs.

Perhaps the biggest surprises of the research are that the drugs people are most comfortable with are some of the most harmful, and conversely, some of the drugs people are most frightened of (MDMA, magic mushrooms etc) are amongst the safest. Cannabis is moderately risky, yet is often claimed to be extremely dangerous or completely safe in these kind of debates.

bitemebankers

pukkamum wrote: »

Cannabis was only ever made illegal to prevent the use of hemp in textiles etc killing the profits of the huge cotton growers in america.

I agree with most of what you say, but I don't think this the reason for cannabis prohibition. You can't ignore the social factors in this. The perceived threat of cannabis was due, in no small part, to people's unfamiliarity with the drug. People greatly minimise the perceived harm of drugs they're familiar with (notably alcohol and tobacco) whilst doing the opposite with those they're least familiar with.

Cannabis was prohibited principally because people were irrationally scared of it, not because it's dangerous or because it's a threat to vested economic interests.

Almo

bitemebankers wrote: »

That's not how it works. It's based on the actual harm cause by the individuals who use each drug. The overall total use of any particular drug is irrelevant in this context.



Multiple drug use is actually the norm - not the exception. The study used regression analysis and other techniques to isolate the issues associated with particular drugs.



When considering an individual or small group, it's near impossible. That's why the study considered a whole population, on which you can perform statistical analysis to deduce the effects of individual drugs.

Perhaps the biggest surprises of the research are that the drugs people are most comfortable with are some of the most harmful, and conversely, some of the drugs people are most frightened of (MDMA, magic mushrooms etc) are amongst the safest. Cannabis is moderately risky, yet is often claimed to be extremely dangerous or completely safe in these kind of debates.

Thanks for the detailed response, it was really interesting. I don't know a great deal about these kinds of studies and exactly how they're structured.

What I meant about the implications of a drug being illegal affecting the outcomes of such a study is more that perhaps were the substance to be made legal people would use more of it, and more frequently. Presumably in the case of cannabis it is something which people would consume in public, as they currently do with tobacco, whereas many people will now only consume it at home/at a friend's house. Perhaps increased usage and frequency wouldn't change the results, I'm well aware my comments might be naive in terms of the science behind those results.

Thanks again!

bitemebankers

Almo wrote: »

Thanks for the detailed response, it was really interesting. I don't know a great deal about these kinds of studies and exactly how they're structured.

You're welcome

were the substance to be made legal people would use more of it, and more frequently.

This is a risk that a lot of people worry about. However, there's an implicit assumption here that people's choices of drugs are influenced by their legal status. In practice there's very little evidence for this assumption. On the contrary, the single biggest factor is actually social acceptance - people tend to use the same drugs as their peer group and avoid those that are socially taboo, regardless of legal status (although the laws often reflect social attitudes).

The acid test, though, is to look at what happens when drugs are legalised, as has occurred in various countries recently. Portugal was one of the first and they legalised possession of ALL drugs. Others, like the Dutch, have taken a more conservative approach. In both cases, consumption of the previously illegal drugs has actually fallen.

The reasons for this welcome fall are not yet well understood but it is widely hypothesised that it's a combination of better access to treatment services and the removal of any "coolness" that drugs had as a result of their legal status. Quite simply, when drugs like cannabis are legally available, they cease to be hip.

miss_independent

NAR wrote: »

:eek: Gulp! What a loss to men I suppose I will have to grin and bear it. (Yet another cross to bare )

However I am totally supportive of you being teetotal (= cheap date. Grabs coat and runs fast!)

They'll live!

Clearly not THAT cheap a date

pukkamum

Very interesting article about why cannabis is illegal, much to do with racism
http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/

Joons

Don't see the harm myself as long as one parent is not drunk. Even though I'm now middle aged I still like the occasional party and will drink to excess - the hangover is usually worth it as I make sure it's a damn good night, there's always a pay back to a brilliant time. I also, am partial to the odd dubey lol.