The largest ever study in to drug harms places alcohol in the top four (2 Viewers)

[soloooooo]

I was saying that some drugs are more acceptable than others and perceived better. I don't have a problem with marijuana. I haven't tried ecstasy before although would be more cautious, although it is fairly popular. Would I try heroin or ice though? Not a chance.

 

[townie]

Hahaha nice edit solo. But the study isn't about the social acceptability of drugs it's about their harm, the paradox being the less socially acceptable ones in some cases are less harmful

 

[eshay lad 69]

Why? As somebody who has used all these substances I would say it matches well to my experiences. I've only ever once called in sick because I smoked too much weed, but I've called in sick many times because of a hangover. Smoking and tobacco costs me infinitely more than the other three combined. I've never done something I've regretted on ecstasy (indeed I've had some of my best nights) I only wish I could say the same for alcohol.

how did u injest the ecstasy?

 

[RANK 1]

how did u injest the ecstasy?

insert it into your rectum

 

[eshay lad 69]

insert it into your rectum

i know i was just wondering if he did it the other (unorthodox) way.

 

[townie]

how did u injest the ecstasy?

Orally
Nasally
Anally (srs)

But I think this is going off topic now

 

[Graney]

All these studies rate heroin as oughtfully dangerous, but I really don't think it's dangerous at all.

Like, if someone came to me, put a gun to my head and said I had to choose between either taking a dose of pharmaceutical grade heroin daily for the next 12 months that is just sub-overdose, or a dose of alcohol daily for the next twelve months that is just sub-overdose, I would choose the heroin without hesitation.

I think at the end of 12 months on heroin, aside from being addicted and uncomfortably constipated, I would have basically no ill health effects. Whereas at the end of 12 months on alcohol, I would be dead, or wish I was dead.

Most of the reason these studies judge heroin so critically is due to illegality - contaminants, unreliable dosage causing overdose, unsafe injection techniques.

 

[iSplicer]

All these studies rate heroin as oughtfully dangerous, but I really don't think it's dangerous at all.

Like, if someone came to me, put a gun to my head and said I had to choose between either taking a dose of pharmaceutical grade heroin daily for the next 12 months that is just sub-overdose, or a dose of alcohol daily for the next twelve months that is just sub-overdose, I would choose the heroin without hesitation.

I don't think thinking of heroin as pharmaceutical grade is valid, although your point is spot on about the side-effects of a pure batch. It's a problem because 99.9% of users use the stuff on the street, cut with all sorts of chemicals and toxic substances, organic or otherwise. Then most likely shot up with a contaminated needle.

 

[Graney]

It's valid to think about pharmaceutical grade heroin, since such a thing is supplied cheaply and legally to addicts by prescription in a few countries. I think I acknowledged all the limitations you mentioned in my post.

 

[iSplicer]

It's valid to think about pharmaceutical grade heroin, since such a thing is supplied cheaply and legally to addicts by prescription in a few countries. I think I acknowledged all the limitations you mentioned in my post.

Wasn't aware of that, wow! Also, yes - sorry if I didn't make that clear.

PS. Save the image in your sig as a PNG - jpg is lossy and makes it obvious that it's an image. rookie mistake.

 

[SnowFox]

Wasn't aware of that, wow! Also, yes - sorry if I didn't make that clear.

PS. Save the image in your sig as a PNG - jpg is lossy and makes it obvious that it's an image. rookie mistake.

Oh god calling Graney a rookie...

 

[townie]

All these studies rate heroin as oughtfully dangerous, but I really don't think it's dangerous at all.

Like, if someone came to me, put a gun to my head and said I had to choose between either taking a dose of pharmaceutical grade heroin daily for the next 12 months that is just sub-overdose, or a dose of alcohol daily for the next twelve months that is just sub-overdose, I would choose the heroin without hesitation.

I think at the end of 12 months on heroin, aside from being addicted and uncomfortably constipated, I would have basically no ill health effects. Whereas at the end of 12 months on alcohol, I would be dead, or wish I was dead.

Most of the reason these studies judge heroin so critically is due to illegality - contaminants, unreliable dosage causing overdose, unsafe injection techniques.

Not having tried heroin I'm not sure of the mental impacts - but your reasoning certainly seems logical - but not to de-rail thread too much, do you think these studies (in general) should look at pure drugs or look at how they actually likely end up 'looking' on the street?

 

[Lolsmith]

All these studies rate heroin as oughtfully dangerous, but I really don't think it's dangerous at all.

Like, if someone came to me, put a gun to my head and said I had to choose between either taking a dose of pharmaceutical grade heroin daily for the next 12 months that is just sub-overdose, or a dose of alcohol daily for the next twelve months that is just sub-overdose, I would choose the heroin without hesitation.

I think at the end of 12 months on heroin, aside from being addicted and uncomfortably constipated, I would have basically no ill health effects. Whereas at the end of 12 months on alcohol, I would be dead, or wish I was dead.

Most of the reason these studies judge heroin so critically is due to illegality - contaminants, unreliable dosage causing overdose, unsafe injection techniques.

Would you say that heroin is a more potent drug than alcohol? Defining potent as having to consume lower amounts to reach overdose level

 

[loapowm]

Not having tried heroin I'm not sure of the mental impacts - but your reasoning certainly seems logical - but not to de-rail thread too much, do you think these studies (in general) should look at pure drugs or look at how they actually likely end up 'looking' on the street?

You like acid don't you?

 

[billy chan]

Not having tried heroin I'm not sure of the mental impacts - but your reasoning certainly seems logical - but not to de-rail thread too much, do you think these studies (in general) should look at pure drugs or look at how they actually likely end up 'looking' on the street?

I'd suggest it's absolutely necessary for both to be conducted in order to achieve any kind of useful outcome in the current social ~climate~.

 

[Graney]

Would you say that heroin is a more potent drug than alcohol? Defining potent as having to consume lower amounts to reach overdose level

That would be the 'therapeutic index'.The therapeutic index is the ratio of the drug's LD50 (lethal dose for 50% of subjects) to its effective dose, the dose necessary to produce the desired effects.

Heroin is possibly a 3, alcohol is possibly a 5, meaning 3 and 5 times the effective doses respectively are the LD50. This puts them both in the 'highly dangerous' spectrum of recreational drugs, true enough heroin requires relatively greater caution in that respect.

Not having tried heroin I'm not sure of the mental impacts - but your reasoning certainly seems logical - but not to de-rail thread too much, do you think these studies (in general) should look at pure drugs or look at how they actually likely end up 'looking' on the street?

Studies should be done on both drugs in society and in a clinical setting obviously, there are a million studies on the pharmacological properties of the drugs in this study. if by 'these studies' you mean something directed towards critiquing social policy, then I believe studies grounded in social reality are most useful.

If drug (or plant) legal classification was purely based on pharmacological studies, stuff like the datura and brugmansia genus would be legally prohibited, when that really isn't necessary when you look at social reality. A pervasive argument made against the legalisation of many illicit drugs, is that if they were legalised they would cause similar social dysfunction to alcohol or nicotine - I think datura and brugmansia put paid to that argument (or caffeine if you think about it), reality is nuanced, future uncertain.

 

[townie]

I personally would like to see a comparative study - if it's at all possible - one that attempts to answer the question what is the additional cost (or benefit) - if any (in terms of human life, social cost, w/e) by not having drugs issued as 'pure' from the government, I think it would be fascinating

/2c