Conquer Club

Interesting piece in the BMJ about the history to the current prohibition on cannabis and governments' refusal to license medicinal cannabis.

The demise of cannabis as a medicine began rather surprisingly when in 1933 the US Senate voted to rescind the law on alcohol prohibition. This left the threat that 35 000 officers of alcohol prohibition enforcement (now the Drug Enforcement Administration) would lose their jobs, along with their director, Harry Anslinger. So Anslinger created a new drug scare in alcohol’s place: cannabis.

He used its Mexican name, marijuana, to associate its use with unofficial immigrants. Then, working with the less scrupulous media, he created scare stories about the damage wrought by cannabis: that its use would destroy Americans’ lives and result in white women being raped by drug crazed foreigners, and so on. Though fanciful and dishonest, these stories created the intended public moral panic.

Cannabis became public enemy number one among drug threats, and the DEA was saved.

https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l1903.full

The author (David Nutt) used to be the UK government's chief adviser on drugs and drug policy, until he was sacked for stating that alcohol was more harmful than ecstasy or LSD.

He subsequently authored a report examining which drugs are most harmful to society and to the individuals taking them.

Alcohol is more harmful than heroin or crack when the overall dangers to the individual and society are considered, according to a study in the Lancet.

It ranked 20 drugs on 16 measures of harm to users and to wider society.

Heroin, crack and crystal meth were deemed worst for individuals, with alcohol, heroin and crack cocaine worst for society, and alcohol worst overall.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660210

Old news, but still true.

It’d be interesting to see what metrics he uses to determine these harms... especially ‘harm to others’.

I’m not disagreeing with the results necessarily, but depending on how you weigh various factors you will get different results.

I would guess the ‘harm to others’ from alcohol is greatly impacted by drunk-driving. This wasn’t an issue in pre-automobile days... a horse isn’t going to ram another horse at 65mph because it’s rider is drunk. This also may not be an issue in 20 years if we (as a society) move quickly to automated cars. So if you redo this same analysis in 20years (assuming most cars are automated/self-driving) then I’m guessing the ‘harm to others’ for alcohol will drop significantly. (... and yes I know ‘harm to others’ is not ONLY caused by drunk driving, I’m just guessing that’s the major factor.)

I also think you need to take addictiveness (is that a word) into account. It’s long been known that Nicotine is likely as addictive as smoked heroin... though I believe injected heroin is likely more addictive.

Another factor is potency and how processing is related to potency. Cocaine in concentrated form will kill you and is highly addictive. Native South Americans chewed coca leaves for energy and appetite suppression, and though they most likely had teeth and gum problems they didn’t experience the drug the same way people snorting it do today.

I think making cannabis illegal for the reasons they told people, kinda shows the government is not working for the people and nor can it be trusted.

"Only dopes smoke dope".
People here might be too young to remember that but that used to be advertised regularly.

Anyone remember the U.S. government spraying pot crops with paraquat?

They poisoned american people, no problem.

jimboston wrote:It’d be interesting to see what metrics he uses to determine these harms... especially ‘harm to others’.

I’m not disagreeing with the results necessarily, but depending on how you weigh various factors you will get different results.

I would guess the ‘harm to others’ from alcohol is greatly impacted by drunk-driving. This wasn’t an issue in pre-automobile days... a horse isn’t going to ram another horse at 65mph because it’s rider is drunk. This also may not be an issue in 20 years if we (as a society) move quickly to automated cars. So if you redo this same analysis in 20years (assuming most cars are automated/self-driving) then I’m guessing the ‘harm to others’ for alcohol will drop significantly. (... and yes I know ‘harm to others’ is not ONLY caused by drunk driving, I’m just guessing that’s the major factor.)

I also think you need to take addictiveness (is that a word) into account. It’s long been known that Nicotine is likely as addictive as smoked heroin... though I believe injected heroin is likely more addictive.

Another factor is potency and how processing is related to potency. Cocaine in concentrated form will kill you and is highly addictive. Native South Americans chewed coca leaves for energy and appetite suppression, and though they most likely had teeth and gum problems they didn’t experience the drug the same way people snorting it do today.

Frankly Alcohol brings out worse behavior (socially) than most other drugs. Alcohol leads to alot more fights,wife beatings, punching wall than Marijuana, nicotine or heroin(at least while on heroin, it's really when your off it that people are assholes)

The one thing that blows my mind in this chart is how low the 'harm to others' is for Meth!!?

Don't ever get on a crowded plane with someone wearing a diaper who just ate a bunch of shrooms. Especially not if it's the pilot.

mookiemcgee wrote:

jimboston wrote:It’d be interesting to see what metrics he uses to determine these harms... especially ‘harm to others’.

I’m not disagreeing with the results necessarily, but depending on how you weigh various factors you will get different results.

I would guess the ‘harm to others’ from alcohol is greatly impacted by drunk-driving. This wasn’t an issue in pre-automobile days... a horse isn’t going to ram another horse at 65mph because it’s rider is drunk. This also may not be an issue in 20 years if we (as a society) move quickly to automated cars. So if you redo this same analysis in 20years (assuming most cars are automated/self-driving) then I’m guessing the ‘harm to others’ for alcohol will drop significantly. (... and yes I know ‘harm to others’ is not ONLY caused by drunk driving, I’m just guessing that’s the major factor.)

I also think you need to take addictiveness (is that a word) into account. It’s long been known that Nicotine is likely as addictive as smoked heroin... though I believe injected heroin is likely more addictive.

Another factor is potency and how processing is related to potency. Cocaine in concentrated form will kill you and is highly addictive. Native South Americans chewed coca leaves for energy and appetite suppression, and though they most likely had teeth and gum problems they didn’t experience the drug the same way people snorting it do today.

Frankly Alcohol brings out worse behavior (socially) than most other drugs. Alcohol leads to alot more fights,wife beatings, punching wall than Marijuana, nicotine or heroin(at least while on heroin, it's really when your off it that people are assholes)

The one thing that blows my mind in this chart is how low the 'harm to others' is for Meth!!?

I’m not saying alcohol is ‘good for you/society’ and I acknowledged that ‘harm to others’ is “not ONLY caused by drunk driving”.

That said, I disagree that it’s worse than most of the drugs listed.

I’d agree marijuana and nicotine and magic mushrooms don’t make people get violent.

I’d disagree that alcohol is as bad as meth or cocaine or heroin.

I’d also say that most violence “caused” by alcohol is not really caused by alcohol. It’s cause by the idiot abusing alcohol. For every bozo that gets violently drunk there are 1000 or more that drink in moderation and/or just get happy/stupid drunk.

I would suggest that much of that violence would occur with or without alcohol... much of it is caused by people in bad situations who use (abuse) alcohol as a crutch and would find some other ‘excuse’ to react to their bad situations violently.

... please note, I’m not saying “all” I’m saying “much”.

I double this study looked at root causes and only instead looked at situations where alcohol was present or involved.

jimboston wrote:

mookiemcgee wrote:

jimboston wrote:It’d be interesting to see what metrics he uses to determine these harms... especially ‘harm to others’.

I’m not disagreeing with the results necessarily, but depending on how you weigh various factors you will get different results.

I would guess the ‘harm to others’ from alcohol is greatly impacted by drunk-driving. This wasn’t an issue in pre-automobile days... a horse isn’t going to ram another horse at 65mph because it’s rider is drunk. This also may not be an issue in 20 years if we (as a society) move quickly to automated cars. So if you redo this same analysis in 20years (assuming most cars are automated/self-driving) then I’m guessing the ‘harm to others’ for alcohol will drop significantly. (... and yes I know ‘harm to others’ is not ONLY caused by drunk driving, I’m just guessing that’s the major factor.)

I also think you need to take addictiveness (is that a word) into account. It’s long been known that Nicotine is likely as addictive as smoked heroin... though I believe injected heroin is likely more addictive.

Another factor is potency and how processing is related to potency. Cocaine in concentrated form will kill you and is highly addictive. Native South Americans chewed coca leaves for energy and appetite suppression, and though they most likely had teeth and gum problems they didn’t experience the drug the same way people snorting it do today.

Frankly Alcohol brings out worse behavior (socially) than most other drugs. Alcohol leads to alot more fights,wife beatings, punching wall than Marijuana, nicotine or heroin(at least while on heroin, it's really when your off it that people are assholes)

The one thing that blows my mind in this chart is how low the 'harm to others' is for Meth!!?

I’m not saying alcohol is ‘good for you/society’ and I acknowledged that ‘harm to others’ is “not ONLY caused by drunk driving”.

That said, I disagree that it’s worse than most of the drugs listed.

I’d agree marijuana and nicotine and magic mushrooms don’t make people get violent.

I’d disagree that alcohol is as bad as meth or cocaine or heroin.

I’d also say that most violence “caused” by alcohol is not really caused by alcohol. It’s cause by the idiot abusing alcohol. For every bozo that gets violently drunk there are 1000 or more that drink in moderation and/or just get happy/stupid drunk.

I would suggest that much of that violence would occur with or without alcohol... much of it is caused by people in bad situations who use (abuse) alcohol as a crutch and would find some other ‘excuse’ to react to their bad situations violently.

... please note, I’m not saying “all” I’m saying “much”.

I double this study looked at root causes and only instead looked at situations where alcohol was present or involved.

I'm gonna stick to disagreeing with you. No one while high on heroin has the energy or wherewithal to be violent. Your lucky if you can stand on your own two feet, it's a heavy sedative. Again, doing heroin for a month straight and then taking three days off, your gonna be one violent asshole for sure if you can't get more... but that is only when you specifically aren'ton heroin. But that truly is a separate issue from the one this chart is in reference to. And according to this chart, though it doesn't jive with my personal life experience, people apparently don't cause harm to others when on meth. Cocaine is the one exception where it may be worse than alcohol, as noted in my previous post.

As far as your argument that it's only people "abusing alcohol"... You could make the same argument for virtually any other drug. If people took safe doses they wouldn't cause the same harm. I know/have know many users of Cocaine, marijuana, and opiates who never overdose, and never take more than enough. There are also plenty of users of each of these (expect Marijuana) who have no self control in dosing (just like your assholes on alochol) Most all drugs (except marijuana and nicotine) suffer a similar flaw where people have a hard time self dosing correctly over the medium/long term. I except Marijuana because it's still virtually impossible to overdose on unless you are ingesting it via food... even then you just hurl alot.

If the actions of people withdrawing from heroin “don’t count” as negative effects of the drug then that’s just dumb and a bad study.

That’s like saying liver cancer from alcohol or lung cancer from smoking isn’t a ‘negative effect’ of the substance because it’s not actually happening while you’re abusing the substance, it comes much later.

Marijuana I think we agree is one of the least negative. It does have problems... especially for developing brains... but the problems it causes form non-abusing adults is low compared to many other substances listed.

I think alcohol is being unfairly targeted...

What percentage of people can manage heroin use and be active contributing tax-paying members of society?
It’s not zero, but it’s pretty low.

Ditto for meth.

Cocaine has a higher percentage than heroin... but it’s still got strong potential for abuse.
I’m not sure if legality and lower costs would make this better or worse.

Alcohol... yeah it can be abused and is abused. That said, the percentage of the population that partakes socially with no negative impact to others is HUGE compared to those other two drugs.

The rest of the list we could debate.

jimboston wrote:
That’s like saying liver cancer from alcohol or lung cancer from smoking isn’t a ‘negative effect’ of the substance because it’s not actually happening while you’re abusing the substance, it comes much later.

No it's not like that at all... but to that point, opiates are not known to cause any forms of cancer, nor is the drug type itself linked to virtually any conditions like cancer. look it up if you don't believe me, ALL the negatives associated with opiates are due to withdrawal symptoms. It is a huge list, but it's a very important distinction from other drugs like Cocaine, Meth, etc that it is generally categorized with.

It more like saying anytime you were a dick because you were hungover from the night before, that should be weighted the same as being a dick because you can't get your heroine fix.

jimboston wrote:What percentage of people can manage heroin use and be active contributing tax-paying members of society?
It’s not zero, but it’s pretty low.

Ditto for meth.

If you limited yourself to only talking about people injecting heroin this is mostly true, but if you consider heroin no different from any other opiate doctors prescribe all the time, then I would say a very high number of people/users are tax paying and functional.

Again, I think 'street' Meth is about the worst drug out there. But some forms of its sister 'amphetamine' are legally sold at your local 7-11 as weight loss drugs. De-linking different forms of the same drug, where some are legal and accessible with a sister drug that is illegal and largerly used by homeless folks on the street because they often bartered for is always going to lead you to a view that Heroin is bad, because it's only being offered/used by folks that are already at the lowest rung of our social hierarchy

jimboston wrote:Cocaine has a higher percentage than heroin... but it’s still got strong potential for abuse.
I’m not sure if legality and lower costs would make this better or worse.

Alcohol... yeah it can be abused and is abused. That said, the percentage of the population that partakes socially with no negative impact to others is HUGE compared to those other two drugs.

Basically my first answer in this post applies. Hungover people are total dicks, and drunk people are also dicks. I have covered for a ton of people at work because they were so hungover they couldn't do their job. Alcohol and Cocaine/Meth are the only two catagories of drugs that suffer (in my view) from this double edged sword of dickness. People on opiates generally aren't dicks, because they don't move or say much. People who are high on Mary Jane aren't generally dicks, they just act like canadians. People who smoke cigarettes are only dicks because everyone hates them from smoking near their precious clean air, and they are naturally defensive. Yet Cocaine users are dicks both during and after being high, and the same is true for a great great many alcohol users.

I understand everything you say but feel you’re overweighting certain things based on you’re experienced... which is essentially what I am doing.

Perhaps we’ve had very different life experiences.

I understand the difference between heroin and prescription opioids.
I know people who have dealt with / are dealing with prescription opioids.
These people are functioning only because they have support systems that ‘cover’ for them... which is untrue of typical street heroin ‘junkies’. If/when these people abuse their support systems to the point of failure they often lose their ability to ‘function’ in normal society.

I agree many many alcohol users are dicks... because many more drunk. I’m talking about the percentage of alcohol users that are violent dicks. I find (in my social circles) this number is low.... thinking back to college, it was always the same 2-3 people who became drunk assholes... but hundreds of us were drinking (heavily). In my extended college peer group (i.e. not close friends, but the group I’d generally see out at parties or bars... let’s estimate it was 200 -250 people... maybe 5 were regularly dicks. That’s less than 2%. Whereas I would find a higher percentage of people being dicks when cocaine was around. Now part of that may be due to cost, and part may be my memory.... but I think the trend is significant... shows a significant delta.

This is an above average thread. Nice to see a thread that has thought and people reading.

jimboston wrote:I understand everything you say but feel you’re overweighting certain things based on you’re experienced... which is essentially what I am doing.

Perhaps we’ve had very different life experiences.

I understand the difference between heroin and prescription opioids.
I know people who have dealt with / are dealing with prescription opioids.
These people are functioning only because they have support systems that ‘cover’ for them... which is untrue of typical street heroin ‘junkies’. If/when these people abuse their support systems to the point of failure they often lose their ability to ‘function’ in normal society.

I agree many many alcohol users are dicks... because many more drunk. I’m talking about the percentage of alcohol users that are violent dicks. I find (in my social circles) this number is low.... thinking back to college, it was always the same 2-3 people who became drunk assholes... but hundreds of us were drinking (heavily). In my extended college peer group (i.e. not close friends, but the group I’d generally see out at parties or bars... let’s estimate it was 200 -250 people... maybe 5 were regularly dicks. That’s less than 2%. Whereas I would find a higher percentage of people being dicks when cocaine was around. Now part of that may be due to cost, and part may be my memory.... but I think the trend is significant... shows a significant delta.

Good post... maybe it's just because my career is a selling alcohol and that's why I'm a little jaded on it. I've known a TON of really rich wine drinkers/drunks that are just total dicks/douchbags. Very few of them appear to be violent.

If you want to argue about what the study actually considered/said rather than just what it might have considered/said then the study is published here:

http://www.ias.org.uk/uploads/pdf/News% ... 011110.pdf

pg.1560 sets out all the different types of 'harm' used in the study and how each was defined

HitRed wrote:This is an above average thread. Nice to see a thread that has thought and people reading.

F**k you, you’re absolutely wrong!

mookiemcgee wrote:
Good post... maybe it's just because my career is a selling alcohol and that's why I'm a little jaded on it. I've known a TON of really rich wine drinkers/drunks that are just total dicks/douchbags. Very few of them appear to be violent.

They sound like just rich douchbags.

mrswdk wrote:If you want to argue about what the study actually considered/said rather than just what it might have considered/said then the study is published here:

http://www.ias.org.uk/uploads/pdf/News% ... 011110.pdf

pg.1560 sets out all the different types of 'harm' used in the study and how each was defined

I’m not arguing... i’m talking.

I’m 100% sure that drunk driving is a major cause of the ‘harm to others’ for alcohol.
Does the study break down the % that THAT specific factor causes... compared to say other harm like physical violence?

My man point was... if we removed drunk driving from the equation, how would the study change?

That said, I will look at the link provided later when I have a moment. thanks!

Why would you remove drink driving? In the report the level of harm each drug causes to society and to the user is calculated on a per user basis.

mrswdk wrote:If you want to argue about what the study actually considered/said rather than just what it might have considered/said then the study is published here:

http://www.ias.org.uk/uploads/pdf/News% ... 011110.pdf

pg.1560 sets out all the different types of 'harm' used in the study and how each was defined

No I'm good your study can suck my ass. Especially since you called the study about china polluting garbage

We should all just adopt Singapore's laws when it comes to drugs. The Death Penalty.

mrswdk wrote:Why would you remove drink driving? In the report the level of harm each drug causes to society and to the user is calculated on a per user basis.

I guess you didn’t read my posts.

... but you expect other to read the complete report.

Interesting.

jimboston wrote:

mrswdk wrote:If you want to argue about what the study actually considered/said rather than just what it might have considered/said then the study is published here:

http://www.ias.org.uk/uploads/pdf/News% ... 011110.pdf

pg.1560 sets out all the different types of 'harm' used in the study and how each was defined

I’m not arguing... i’m talking.

I’m 100% sure that drunk driving is a major cause of the ‘harm to others’ for alcohol.
Does the study break down the % that THAT specific factor causes... compared to say other harm like physical violence?

My man point was... if we removed drunk driving from the equation, how would the study change?

That said, I will look at the link provided later when I have a moment. thanks!

I very much doubt if drunk driving is the sole, or even the largest, part of the 'harm to others' equation.

If I had to guess, I would say wife-beating is the biggest component. Like you, however, I haven't read the study. Unlike you, I'm willing to keep an open mind.

As a former cab driver, I've seen a staggering number of crimes committed by drunks, everything from aggravated assaults down to common vandalism. I don't see much of what happens after they reach their destination and the door closes, but the stories that have reached my ears are pretty alarming. And quite often, two hours after I drop a guy off, I'll happen to be driving down the same street and see the same guy on his front lawn with three cops sitting on his back. I'm not privy to the details of why, but I'm sure it's not because they're collecting unpaid parking tickets at four in the morning.

jimboston wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Why would you remove drink driving? In the report the level of harm each drug causes to society and to the user is calculated on a per user basis.

I guess you didn’t read my posts.

... but you expect other to read the complete report.

Interesting.

Most of your points about drink driving appear to be written on the assumption that the 'damage to society' score was calculated as gross total damage done by all alcohol users, rather than on a damage per user basis. But I might be wrong.

I posted the report because at least one of you guys was interested to see how damage was being defined and the report lists the definitions.