Drink 'more Harmful Than Drugs'
- Thread starter The Pro
- Start date
G
Griffin
Guest
When you look at it in that context then I agree, alcohol is very damaging indeed.
I'm not claiming to be whiter than white just because I barely touch a drop, but alcohol abuse isn't taken as seriously as it should be and if a few people reflect upon their drinking habits and change them because of this report then the research can only be a good thing.
As with most research, there's always a flaw - I would like to know what importance they placed on the long-term side-effects of using any of these substances when young has at a later date
To explain further, if a group of people aged, say, 16 used alcohol heavily for ten years but did not became alcoholics, was there any impact on their long-term physical and psychological health?
Similarly, if another group of the same age were heavy users of Ecstacy or LSD for the same period and then stopped using, are there any studies to see if, as a group, they then suffered any health problems in common? Especially psychological ones?
Personally, it's a matter of common sense to know that moderation in most things is a pretty good idea if you want to stay alive and healthy. But hey, why let common sense stand in the way of a good research budget!
Incidentally, I disagree with the simplistic view of a drug's tendency to cause addiction. Surely it is as much to do with the genetic tendency of an individual to be prone to be a dependant user, rather than the other way around - ie, not every heavy drinker is necessarily an alcoholic (and any Vodka-related jokes that you lot were about to make at SL's expense, consider them made..
). Many people can drink what would appear to be a considerable amount of alcohol but they can also choose not to - ie, they aren't dependant. Also not every user who smokes a spliff is going to be a druggie and progress to being a hard drug addict. Some do, some don't and that has to be less to do with the drug itself but rather the chemical reaction that drug has within the user's body.
To explain further, if a group of people aged, say, 16 used alcohol heavily for ten years but did not became alcoholics, was there any impact on their long-term physical and psychological health?
Similarly, if another group of the same age were heavy users of Ecstacy or LSD for the same period and then stopped using, are there any studies to see if, as a group, they then suffered any health problems in common? Especially psychological ones?
Personally, it's a matter of common sense to know that moderation in most things is a pretty good idea if you want to stay alive and healthy. But hey, why let common sense stand in the way of a good research budget!
Incidentally, I disagree with the simplistic view of a drug's tendency to cause addiction. Surely it is as much to do with the genetic tendency of an individual to be prone to be a dependant user, rather than the other way around - ie, not every heavy drinker is necessarily an alcoholic (and any Vodka-related jokes that you lot were about to make at SL's expense, consider them made..
). Many people can drink what would appear to be a considerable amount of alcohol but they can also choose not to - ie, they aren't dependant. Also not every user who smokes a spliff is going to be a druggie and progress to being a hard drug addict. Some do, some don't and that has to be less to do with the drug itself but rather the chemical reaction that drug has within the user's body.
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
Cheers Jules - love you too!! :laughing:
Merlin the Magician
At the Start
When in Kairdiff go for BRAINS S.A. IE. (S=SKULL and A = ATTACK) after one session you feel senseless and not in full control of ALL your faculties and that lasts for over a week 
...............so one can imagine if you drank it daily your in limbo most of the time....... and just to allievate any knockers from casting remarks!!No I don't drink it, but I did many moons ago, ONLY on very special occasions and if needing to go on a trip....... :suspect:
So in summary, yes I would agree with this result, in the short term........
...............so one can imagine if you drank it daily your in limbo most of the time....... and just to allievate any knockers from casting remarks!!No I don't drink it, but I did many moons ago, ONLY on very special occasions and if needing to go on a trip....... :suspect: So in summary, yes I would agree with this result, in the short term........
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
It will do a lot more good than leaving people in not-so-blissful ignorance, yes! How can empowering people - or indeed the government - to make informed decisions be a bad thing? Or would you rather have the UK's drug policies continue to be defined by the panic that the likes of the Daily Mail and The Sun stir up at any given opportunity?
BrianH
At the Start
I think that that was answered earlier this week in an answer to a Liberal Democrat's parliamentary question: the number of cases of alcohol related cirrhosis of the liver has more than doubled amongst young people aged 25-34 over the last decade.
Brian/Gareth
I am not defending the use of alcohol, so please don't try and turn the debate into trying to infer that I am.
Nor do I read the Daily Mail or The Sun so again, don't presume you know my political persuasion - believe me, you don't.
Gareth - if you are trying to debate (and I'm sorry if I've missed your point) that this research is justified because by reading it, 'young people' will modify their behaviour, I'm simply not convinced. I readily admit I am opposed to any reduction in the law with regard to making certain classes of drugs acceptable on the basis that because alcohol is freely available, it makes it OK for drugs to be too. It simply doesn't stack up.
The type of research (which I do know exists, sadly, unlike Brian I don't have the luxury of enough time to retrieve it ad lib) to which I do subscribe is that which is looking into the long term effects of both casual and heavy use of all these drugs on the ageing population - ie, those users who are now both in middle age and approaching old age who were at the forefront of using certain types of prohibited drugs that simply weren't in existence previously. I would be interested to know if they are experiencing a more frequent occurrence of diseases which a control group of 'clean' non-users appear not to exhibit.
And one of the biggest dangers of the list quoted is that there is no way of knowing if popping an Ecstacy pill will result in a toxic reaction that causes death if you happen to be one of the unlucky kids whose body cannot cope with the chemical reaction.
Brian, the research you refer to does not really answer the point I posed earlier. It relales to an increase in a disease closely correlated to alcoholism in a young age group. My point was how do results compare with having been a heavy drinker, then becoming either a social drinker or even tee total many years later with a casual/heavy drug user who then becomes 'clean' in a corresponding time frame.
I totally agree that there is an excessive use of alcohol amongst people under 30 these days - it seems to have become socially acceptable to get totally bladdered at every opportunity and in my own opinion, shouldn't be. The only way of stopping it is for the government to make it economically unsustainable but that's never going to happen. We live in an age of instant gratification, whether via drugs or alcohol and it is really starting to show. Or I'm becoming an intolerant old fart - like I give a xxxx!
I am not defending the use of alcohol, so please don't try and turn the debate into trying to infer that I am.
Nor do I read the Daily Mail or The Sun so again, don't presume you know my political persuasion - believe me, you don't.
Gareth - if you are trying to debate (and I'm sorry if I've missed your point) that this research is justified because by reading it, 'young people' will modify their behaviour, I'm simply not convinced. I readily admit I am opposed to any reduction in the law with regard to making certain classes of drugs acceptable on the basis that because alcohol is freely available, it makes it OK for drugs to be too. It simply doesn't stack up.
The type of research (which I do know exists, sadly, unlike Brian I don't have the luxury of enough time to retrieve it ad lib) to which I do subscribe is that which is looking into the long term effects of both casual and heavy use of all these drugs on the ageing population - ie, those users who are now both in middle age and approaching old age who were at the forefront of using certain types of prohibited drugs that simply weren't in existence previously. I would be interested to know if they are experiencing a more frequent occurrence of diseases which a control group of 'clean' non-users appear not to exhibit.
And one of the biggest dangers of the list quoted is that there is no way of knowing if popping an Ecstacy pill will result in a toxic reaction that causes death if you happen to be one of the unlucky kids whose body cannot cope with the chemical reaction.
Brian, the research you refer to does not really answer the point I posed earlier. It relales to an increase in a disease closely correlated to alcoholism in a young age group. My point was how do results compare with having been a heavy drinker, then becoming either a social drinker or even tee total many years later with a casual/heavy drug user who then becomes 'clean' in a corresponding time frame.
I totally agree that there is an excessive use of alcohol amongst people under 30 these days - it seems to have become socially acceptable to get totally bladdered at every opportunity and in my own opinion, shouldn't be. The only way of stopping it is for the government to make it economically unsustainable but that's never going to happen. We live in an age of instant gratification, whether via drugs or alcohol and it is really starting to show. Or I'm becoming an intolerant old fart - like I give a xxxx!
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
If you read my post again you'll notice I never implied that you did read those papers. I was pointing out what you get when you don't do scientific research into matters such as this - you get tabloid newspapers whipping up public panic through half-truths and distortion that prevent the possibility of any meaningful progress in tackling the core issue.
It's not about getting people to modify their behaviour. It's about getting some actual facts out there, educating people about what they're doing, challenging the traditional perceptions of what the difference between "hard" and "soft" drugs really are, and exposing the deep logical flaws that have existed in the drug policies of successive governments.
This is exactly what this report shows up, though - that the current classification system of drugs is a nonsense.
I personally believe that legalisation of all drugs is the only logical course of action, because as long as demand exists (and it always will), supply will exist, so why put it in the hands of criminals? But I don't expect that to happen overnight; it needs to be a gradual process.
If future government policy is to be based on research such as this, rather than on the traditional, prejudiced and ill-informed opinions ('drugs are bad, mmmkay?') that previous policy was based on, it's a good start.
Absolutely agree - perhaps that comes in under "The physical harm to the individual user caused by the drug" mentioned above but we'd have to get our hands on the full report to find out.
I remember reading 10 years ago about how half a million Ecstacy pills were taken in the UK every weekend. God knows what that number is now. The mortality rate is, however, tiny. A study published in the British Medical Journal found that between 1997 and mid-2000 (during which time, by that 500,000 per weekend estimate, you could expect over 50 million ecstacy tables to have been consumed), there were 81 related deaths. In the majority of these cases, the deceased were known drug addicts who took it in addition to heroin.
What best shows up the dangers of the tabloid-led drug agenda was when Leah Betts died in 1995 and the front page of virtually every paper was telling us about how just one Ecstacy tablet killed her. In fact, not only was it not the first time she had taken the drug, but it wasn't a reaction to the drug that killed her - she died from water intoxication after drinking 7 litres of water in 90 minutes whilst under the impression that this would help guard against any ill-effects (the advice to re-hydrate was meant for ravers and clubbers who were dancing for hours on end).
Yet rather than help educate the country about what (not) to do to avoid doing yourself harm, much of the media were only interested in grossly mis-representing the case so as to reinforce their hard-line conservative (small-c!) agenda towards drug use.
Bar the Bull
At the Start
I would guess it is a bit less.
Ecstasy isn't as popular as it once was. Back in my day it was endemic. Not so, now. Although it is ridiculously easy to get your hands on a pill.
Songsheet, if you want a test case on the effects on middle aged people, come back to me in about 20 years. I will probably be gnawing on the side of a table in an institution once the delayed effects kick in.
Why I didn't heed the well-informed advice of the government is a mistake I will surely rue.
A
Ardross
Guest
Moreover , those sort of fanciful newpapers calcualtions need to be treated with a pinch of salt . The worry about Ecstasy is that there is some evidence of long term users developing cognitive impairments. Maybe we won't see this for a while - for example much of the strengthening of the evidence of the dangers of cannabis leading to psychosis is quite recent.
Nastiest of all was a group in the US where due to some error in manufacture , the ecstasy had changed chemically and induced Parkinsons in a group of teenagers.
Nastiest of all was a group in the US where due to some error in manufacture , the ecstasy had changed chemically and induced Parkinsons in a group of teenagers.
I don't know why all drugs aren't licensed for manufacture legally and obtainable at reasonable prices. Your last sentence, Ardross, points ever more to the need for that. The drugs would then be made from the proper ingredients (just as licensed distilleries produce proper liquor and not second-run moonshine which will indeed cause fairly rapid and serious harm), sold through known retail outlets or provided on prescription, there'd be revenue from them in the same way as there is from tobacco and alcohol, and just as it is the case with those, the people who wanted to use them would use them as they wanted to, and the people who didn't want to use them wouldn't.
I can't see the Ecstasy or other 'reactive' deaths as any worse than those caused by anaphylactic shock through eating nuts. The death stats from driving accidents, where people have been tested thoroughly before being licensed, must be pretty horrendous, but we aren't for one moment thinking of going back to a horse and cart because of them.
I do know of four heroin users (relatives or friends of friends) who damaged their lives - and particularly the lives of their loving families and friends by stealing rotten off them for the funds - one died of a too-big a dose after being clean for a very long time; one died in a fire (not connected to the drug), and the other two are alive. One has been clean for a long time, has a job and a boyfriend. The fourth is possibly re-connecting with his estranged wife in order to see his 9 y.o. daughter more, and is trying to come off the stuff, but has openly admitted he adores its effect, and may never succeed in quitting. So, a mixed bag of outcomes for four people and heroin, but probably no worse than the same for four alcoholics.
The really interesting stuff isn't stopping drugs, smoking, or alcohol over-use. It's finding the 'addictive' gene in the system and possibly being able to modify that in people who want to stop being obsessed with whatever it is they're overdoing. Or maybe we should just accept that addiction to something - work, money, sex, ciggies, drugs, drink, driving fast, adrenalin-rush sports, collecting antiques or line dancing - is a normal part of human existence.
I can't see the Ecstasy or other 'reactive' deaths as any worse than those caused by anaphylactic shock through eating nuts. The death stats from driving accidents, where people have been tested thoroughly before being licensed, must be pretty horrendous, but we aren't for one moment thinking of going back to a horse and cart because of them.
I do know of four heroin users (relatives or friends of friends) who damaged their lives - and particularly the lives of their loving families and friends by stealing rotten off them for the funds - one died of a too-big a dose after being clean for a very long time; one died in a fire (not connected to the drug), and the other two are alive. One has been clean for a long time, has a job and a boyfriend. The fourth is possibly re-connecting with his estranged wife in order to see his 9 y.o. daughter more, and is trying to come off the stuff, but has openly admitted he adores its effect, and may never succeed in quitting. So, a mixed bag of outcomes for four people and heroin, but probably no worse than the same for four alcoholics.
The really interesting stuff isn't stopping drugs, smoking, or alcohol over-use. It's finding the 'addictive' gene in the system and possibly being able to modify that in people who want to stop being obsessed with whatever it is they're overdoing. Or maybe we should just accept that addiction to something - work, money, sex, ciggies, drugs, drink, driving fast, adrenalin-rush sports, collecting antiques or line dancing - is a normal part of human existence.
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
The only real difference between alcohol users and people who take drugs or smoke is that the majority of the adult population like a drink. It`s very hard to persecute a majority.
So we have a situation from july where people won`t be able to smoke in public. But Wayne Dickbrain and Sharron Slag can still get shitfaced on a friday/saturday night and it`s no bother.
So we have a situation from july where people won`t be able to smoke in public. But Wayne Dickbrain and Sharron Slag can still get shitfaced on a friday/saturday night and it`s no bother.
cricketfan
At the Start
This Government seem quite happy to get at a few other majorities or large minorities: Those who drive (especially in London), like to fly, smoke, indeed those who choose earn a living in anything other than the public sector rather than take a cushy civil service job (and who don't have a nice guaranteed public sector pension rather than an over-taxed private one).
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
I don`t see how drivers are being persecuted. It`s a dear do right enough but persecution? No. And if one is silly enough to live in London tough, it`s overpriced and overrated.
Flyers - I doubt that`s a majority, and it`s relatively cheap anyway.
How are private sector workers persecuted?
Flyers - I doubt that`s a majority, and it`s relatively cheap anyway.
How are private sector workers persecuted?
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,457
Smoking was very much a majority activity until relatively recently. It's been the discovery of links to cancer and heart disease and the impact of subsequent health campaigns that have reduced smokers to a minority.
Alcohol can cause diseases but can be beneficial in moderation. You couldn't really make the same argument about tobacco or other drugs.
I wasn't aware smoking in public was to be banned from July. Is this true?
It's banned from enclosed public places up here but that's an entirely different matter.
Things could be a lot worse for Wayne and Sharron. They could be getting shitfaced every night.
I typed my exceedinly logical and witty response to Gareth's very informative post, realised I was late for a webex con call, switched without thinking and lost it...
Jon has reinforced one of the points I was making - ie, the research that would be most informative would be which are the genes that predisposes an individual to an addiction to any form of chemical. The one that addicts me to chocolate would be particularly worth knowing about!
I see the logic of licensing drugs and making them legal from the point of view of being able to control their quality but honestly, what drug companies in their right mnds (although if they're using, I suppose their reasoning may be hallucinatory) are going to release drugs for the leisure market that results in an altered mind state? Their legal liability insurance would be prohibitive.
Before you argue that what is the difference with regard to alcohol, the difference is that we have always had alcohol available with certain very basic legal restrictions as to our use of it in place, laws that have been challenged and developed over many hundreds of years. We have developed a set of social mores with correspondent peer pressure which also enhances the legal parameters. What we're seeing now is a breakdown in some of those social pressures and also a building reaction against excessive binge drinking and alcohol abuse in the young.
Just think of the problems of introducing laws to cover the deregulation of Class A drugs! The time that would be taken up in the bureaucratic administration would be tremendous. OK, maybe we'd be spending less money on policing drug dealers - but would we? There has always been and always will be a criminal element in society and we just don't know what would be the replacement activity.
The real problem is what causes drug/alcohol abuse - well, surely genetic predisposition and a society that creates the need to find a way to blank out present day problems ? Solve those two small problems (
) and maybe we get a society that has no need to resort to excessive use of either.
Jon has reinforced one of the points I was making - ie, the research that would be most informative would be which are the genes that predisposes an individual to an addiction to any form of chemical. The one that addicts me to chocolate would be particularly worth knowing about!
I see the logic of licensing drugs and making them legal from the point of view of being able to control their quality but honestly, what drug companies in their right mnds (although if they're using, I suppose their reasoning may be hallucinatory) are going to release drugs for the leisure market that results in an altered mind state? Their legal liability insurance would be prohibitive.
Before you argue that what is the difference with regard to alcohol, the difference is that we have always had alcohol available with certain very basic legal restrictions as to our use of it in place, laws that have been challenged and developed over many hundreds of years. We have developed a set of social mores with correspondent peer pressure which also enhances the legal parameters. What we're seeing now is a breakdown in some of those social pressures and also a building reaction against excessive binge drinking and alcohol abuse in the young.
Just think of the problems of introducing laws to cover the deregulation of Class A drugs! The time that would be taken up in the bureaucratic administration would be tremendous. OK, maybe we'd be spending less money on policing drug dealers - but would we? There has always been and always will be a criminal element in society and we just don't know what would be the replacement activity.
The real problem is what causes drug/alcohol abuse - well, surely genetic predisposition and a society that creates the need to find a way to blank out present day problems ? Solve those two small problems (
) and maybe we get a society that has no need to resort to excessive use of either.cricketfan
At the Start
Hmm.... I'd had a few when I posted. Maybe those I mentioned aren't persecuted. However this Government hasn't been afraid to upset large sections of society with it's taxation policies. But then I guess the Tories did that with the poll tax.
Julie, there are already hundreds of mood/mind-altering drugs which are legal - everything from affecting the onset of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's to Lithium, Rohypnol, a huge variety of anti-depressants, mood elevators, and so on. Many of these are very dangerous drugs indeed, with a variety of nasty side-effects and the possibility of eventually causing other medical problems which can even lead to the patient's death. I would propose that the heavy duty, currently illegal drugs were put into the same categories, and available through prescription and paid for in the same way. Once they were legalized, they'd be marketed in the same way as, say, Seroxat and similar drugs, with the same caveats as to taking them responsibly.
This would cut down, if not out, the illegal factories where the drugs can be cut with a variety of toxic and damaging 'fillers', which have often resulted in permanent damage to organs, or even death.
I'd be inclined to think that once the big drugs companies - who have the science and the facilities to manufacture the illegal drugs in a safe manner - took over from the Cali cartels, the Mafia, the yardies and all the rest of the scum involved in what is a horrific trade, the desire for something forbidden might drop dramatically. Now, if governments would just outlaw line dancing and aerobics classes, we'd see a huge uptake in illicit dance halls and gyms, and an according rise in fitness!
This would cut down, if not out, the illegal factories where the drugs can be cut with a variety of toxic and damaging 'fillers', which have often resulted in permanent damage to organs, or even death.
I'd be inclined to think that once the big drugs companies - who have the science and the facilities to manufacture the illegal drugs in a safe manner - took over from the Cali cartels, the Mafia, the yardies and all the rest of the scum involved in what is a horrific trade, the desire for something forbidden might drop dramatically. Now, if governments would just outlaw line dancing and aerobics classes, we'd see a huge uptake in illicit dance halls and gyms, and an according rise in fitness!
K
Kathy
Guest
On top of the obvious health and addiction concerns the financial drain on the NHS is also massive. It would be a great coup for any government to lower the percentage of alcoholics and binge drinkers as in the UK the cost in looking after the drunks and those with problems caused by drinking etc must be absolutely mindblowing.
I wonder what the percentage of ambulance call outs in the evening for instance are the result of people getting into fights, stabbings and worse or just falling over due to too much alcohol.
You only have to watch programmes such as Booze Britain to see why so many sensible people refuse to go into many town and city centres after 9pm.
Many youngsters won't see themselves as alcoholics, although when they work out (if they dare) how many units they drink during one night, or one week they should soon be able to work out why so many of them will be paying (physically) for these regular binge sessions later in life or may just turn to alcohol as a long term crutch to keep their unhappy lives sometimes bearable.
I wonder what the percentage of ambulance call outs in the evening for instance are the result of people getting into fights, stabbings and worse or just falling over due to too much alcohol.
You only have to watch programmes such as Booze Britain to see why so many sensible people refuse to go into many town and city centres after 9pm.
Many youngsters won't see themselves as alcoholics, although when they work out (if they dare) how many units they drink during one night, or one week they should soon be able to work out why so many of them will be paying (physically) for these regular binge sessions later in life or may just turn to alcohol as a long term crutch to keep their unhappy lives sometimes bearable.
Kathy, I don't think that they're by any means unhappy! Getting wrecked on a Friday night is a social NECESSITY, thoroughly enjoyed by thousands of clubbers and pubbers every Friday night. A lot of the teen drinkers and under-30s don't give a stuff about their future health, any more than many of us used to do about burning ourselves to a frazzle in the sun, or smoking. In fact, years ago, devotees of both habits were told how GOOD they were for them! All that wonderful Vit.K from sunshine - and only years later did people wonder why they got skin cancers. At one point, smoking was supposed to be a harmless habit, a relaxation, even 'grown-up' or sophisticated, and absolutely de rigeur after dinner or at parties. Only since its long-term effects have been demonstrated thoroughly have some people decided it's probably not a good idea.
No-one can claim that they've been told that binge-drinking is sensible, of course, but the message received by a lot of younger people has been that wine is 'good' for you (all those anti-oxidants!) and failed to realise that knocking back a bottle a night isn't what was meant, let alone laying waste to their liver and kidneys with hard liquor by the gallon.
No-one can claim that they've been told that binge-drinking is sensible, of course, but the message received by a lot of younger people has been that wine is 'good' for you (all those anti-oxidants!) and failed to realise that knocking back a bottle a night isn't what was meant, let alone laying waste to their liver and kidneys with hard liquor by the gallon.
Sorry but I can't agree Jon - the drugs you refer to are for treatment and preventitive purposes - ie, most of them, while having side effects, are used in the vast majority of cases to treat a recognised illness or disorder. In general, they aren't addictive and, also in general, their target audience is one that understands why they are taking these drugs, the risks of the side effects of the drugs and are also tightly managed by proper medical care. They take these drugs because they have a physical illness or a mental illness and they understand and hope that their medicine will effect a cure. I don't believe someone starting to use heroin or any other similar drugs takes it because they believe it will cure an illness - they take it because of peer pressure or because they want to escape reality and because they like the high it gives them! A very different set of reasons altogether!
If you make recreational drugs freely available - even under prescription - you would indeed probably remove one layer of the criminal population (although I really do doubt that) but you would probably also overload an already overburdened NHS. As evidenced on this forum, people are already baulking at paying £7 for a prescription. How do you propose covering the charge for all the drugs you would permit to be released onto a restricted, controlled market?
The logic is flawed. Drugs, whether illegal or legal, cost to produce, package and market ! Someone, somewhere has to pay for that. You just ain't, imo, gonna get the tax paying population agreeing to foot the bill for a generation's desire to get wasted - if you follow that logic, then alcohol needs to be on prescription too. OK, some users will easily be able to afford the price - maybe all users will be able to afford the price initially but - and this is the biggest but - what happens when they become addicted!!?? When their need for drugs would prevent any doctor or other offical being able to responsibly supply them? And if they're on the minimum wage and can't even afford a prescription charge - if any medic would actually prescribe/promote excessive use in the first place... then it's pretty likely that somewhere, they'll be able to get the drugs cheaper for doing something in return..
Yeah, that's right - the undercover criminal world will still be there supplying! And don't forget too, one of the biggest financial returns on criminal 'investment' in drugs is illegal prostitution and sex trafficking. It doesn't matter whether someone gets addicted via the NHS or on the street, their need to use will mean they are not responsible for their actions and so, sadly, become dragged into criminal activities.
And incidentally, only the this morning on the Beeb News, a new report has been pubished which apprently concludes that even very moderate but continuous use of cannabis has long-term side effects, so it's no less harmful than smoking or alcoholism. !
I know this has digressed somewhat from the original title of this thread but I would like to know what is the likelihood of getting addicted to certain drugs, as opposed to becoming an alcoholic?
It's all down to nature and nurture !!
If you make recreational drugs freely available - even under prescription - you would indeed probably remove one layer of the criminal population (although I really do doubt that) but you would probably also overload an already overburdened NHS. As evidenced on this forum, people are already baulking at paying £7 for a prescription. How do you propose covering the charge for all the drugs you would permit to be released onto a restricted, controlled market?
The logic is flawed. Drugs, whether illegal or legal, cost to produce, package and market ! Someone, somewhere has to pay for that. You just ain't, imo, gonna get the tax paying population agreeing to foot the bill for a generation's desire to get wasted - if you follow that logic, then alcohol needs to be on prescription too. OK, some users will easily be able to afford the price - maybe all users will be able to afford the price initially but - and this is the biggest but - what happens when they become addicted!!?? When their need for drugs would prevent any doctor or other offical being able to responsibly supply them? And if they're on the minimum wage and can't even afford a prescription charge - if any medic would actually prescribe/promote excessive use in the first place... then it's pretty likely that somewhere, they'll be able to get the drugs cheaper for doing something in return..
Yeah, that's right - the undercover criminal world will still be there supplying! And don't forget too, one of the biggest financial returns on criminal 'investment' in drugs is illegal prostitution and sex trafficking. It doesn't matter whether someone gets addicted via the NHS or on the street, their need to use will mean they are not responsible for their actions and so, sadly, become dragged into criminal activities.
And incidentally, only the this morning on the Beeb News, a new report has been pubished which apprently concludes that even very moderate but continuous use of cannabis has long-term side effects, so it's no less harmful than smoking or alcoholism. !
I know this has digressed somewhat from the original title of this thread but I would like to know what is the likelihood of getting addicted to certain drugs, as opposed to becoming an alcoholic?
It's all down to nature and nurture !!