Y Do U Think Alcohol , Tobacco ...
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» nothingnopenope replied on Tue Apr 11, 2006 @ 6:12pm |
 Coolness: 201170 | Since when has cannabis been a hard drug? Alchohol fucks you up more than weed does.
Drink enough alchohol and you will die, smoke too much weed and the worst thing that will happen is you will fall asleep |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» trashandsuicide replied on Tue Apr 11, 2006 @ 6:52pm |
 Coolness: 75215 | Originally posted by YKNOT...
I love the fact that if you are catholic it is against your religion to drink and yet they hold the AA meetings in church basements . Actually... it isn`t against any Christian religion to drink, Jesus turned water in wine.. and then drank it... drunkeness is against the rules, not drinking. It says God hates drunkards... some of them take it to extremes, and certain clergymen don`t drink, but its not against the religion. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» PoiSoNeD_CaNdY replied on Tue Apr 11, 2006 @ 9:16pm |
 Coolness: 91635 | Originally posted by MDC...
ugh... think about what you're going to write before writing it please. im tired of reading ridiculous posts to reiterate my last post for those french-deficient readers: it's because they are legal that alcohol and cigarettes have probelms associated to them. if pot or e were legal, their consumption would be much greater and teh problems associated to them would be just as great (if not greater) than those associated with alcohol and cigs. everyone has access to alcohol and cigs and gambling, if everyone had access to hard drugs, there would certainly be more problems associated with these. You're making two huge assumptions here, which may very well be false. Assumption #1 - Making pot or E legal would increase their consumption This isn't neccesarily true. People have many other reasons why they choose to use or not use a substance other than its legality. In fact, making something illegal might cause its use to rise since people could do it as a form of rebellion or do make a badass image for themselves. Nowdays, more young people are trying pot than cigarretes, DESPITE the fact that pot is illegal and more expensive. Furthermore, studies have shown that kids binge drink more often at the ages of 16-17 when alcohol is less available to them, than they do at ages 18+ when its legal to drink. Finally, even though pot is quasi-legal and widely available in Amserdam, the prevalance of use is not greater there than in a culturally similar American city. So your assumption that legalization = increased use just doesn't hold up. Assumption #2: Cigarettes and alchohol are safer than illegal drugs, its only b/c they are more widely used that their are more problems Despite the overwhelming proportion of all substance-related deaths that are a result of drinking and smoking, you do have a point that obviously you have to adjust for the number of people that drink or smoke vs. the number that use other drugs. Even adjusting for this number, however, you'll likely find that of all the drugs that one can possibly use, legal or illegal, alcohol and tobacco are among the worst: - tobacco is the most addictive substance known to man, more so than heroin, crystal meth, or cocaine - alcohol is about as addictive than cocaine, and four times more addictive than LSD, ecstasy, or pot - trying to stop heavy drinking can result in withdrawal symptoms leading to death, one of the few drugs for which this is true So, your second assumption is false as well - the reason why alcohol and tobacco cause so many deaths is not only because they are widely used, but because they are all also two of the very worst drugs available, both legal or otherwise. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Tue Apr 11, 2006 @ 11:28pm |
 Coolness: 145145 | Originally posted by YKNOT...
I love the fact that if you are catholic it is against your religion to drink and yet they hold the AA meetings in church basements . dude they serve wine at mass |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Wed Apr 12, 2006 @ 12:50am |
 Coolness: 148760 | Originally posted by POISONED CANDY...
Originally posted by mdc...
ugh... think about what you're going to write before writing it please. im tired of reading ridiculous posts to reiterate my last post for those french-deficient readers: it's because they are legal that alcohol and cigarettes have probelms associated to them. if pot or e were legal, their consumption would be much greater and teh problems associated to them would be just as great (if not greater) than those associated with alcohol and cigs. everyone has access to alcohol and cigs and gambling, if everyone had access to hard drugs, there would certainly be more problems associated with these. You're making two huge assumptions here, which may very well be false. Assumption #1 - Making pot or E legal would increase their consumption This isn't neccesarily true. People have many other reasons why they choose to use or not use a substance other than its legality. In fact, making something illegal might cause its use to rise since people could do it as a form of rebellion or do make a badass image for themselves. Nowdays, more young people are trying pot than cigarretes, DESPITE the fact that pot is illegal and more expensive. Furthermore, studies have shown that kids binge drink more often at the ages of 16-17 when alcohol is less available to them, than they do at ages 18+ when its legal to drink. Finally, even though pot is quasi-legal and widely available in Amserdam, the prevalance of use is not greater there than in a culturally similar American city. So your assumption that legalization = increased use just doesn't hold up. Assumption #2: Cigarettes and alchohol are safer than illegal drugs, its only b/c they are more widely used that their are more problems Despite the overwhelming proportion of all substance-related deaths that are a result of drinking and smoking, you do have a point that obviously you have to adjust for the number of people that drink or smoke vs. the number that use other drugs. Even adjusting for this number, however, you'll likely find that of all the drugs that one can possibly use, legal or illegal, alcohol and tobacco are among the worst: - tobacco is the most addictive substance known to man, more so than heroin, crystal meth, or cocaine - alcohol is about as addictive than cocaine, and four times more addictive than LSD, ecstasy, or pot - trying to stop heavy drinking can result in withdrawal symptoms leading to death, one of the few drugs for which this is true So, your second assumption is false as well - the reason why alcohol and tobacco cause so many deaths is not only because they are widely used, but because they are all also two of the very worst drugs available, both legal or otherwise. a few quick points. Tobacco... not addictive. Nicotine is. But that was probably a quick-typing error. Next, the binge drinking when you're younger thing. Yeah, that holds when you do, indeed, gain access to alcohol at a younger age. I have plenty of friends who refused to drink until they were well over 18 and it is only once they began to drink that the binge drinking would commence. The age isn't the factor, but the time elapsed from the beginning of your drinking life. As for weed being tried more than tobacco. You have to look at the cultural and evironmental reasons behind this. Tobacco, a widely used drug, has been getting a bad rep. lately (rightfully). And therefore, there are thousands of ad campaigns against their use. (as much as you would like to refute that ads have an effect on you they do if youre bombarded with them from a young age) So kids are quickly turned away from tobacco. Even at a young age. Weed, on the other hand, has been given a positive spin as of late due to people wanting its legalisation. And it is also very prevalent in contemporary (deemed) cool things. Such as music, videogames, movies, television. More songs now refer to smoking weed now than ever before. My 8 year old cousin sings songs about being high and he doesn't even know what that means yet (or does he?). So the cultural influences play a HUGE part in that. Moving along. You're claiming that even if an adjustment was made for the (much) more widespread use of drugs, the negative effects of these would still pale in comparison to cigs or alcohol? I highly doubt that. Assuming all other things equal, if you were to assume that the same number of people smoked as took e (and as often, the amount consumed has to be taken into consideration too, cigarettes are a SLOW killer), I am fairly certain there would many more deaths from so called "hard" drugs as alcohol and cigs. People driving drunk is bad. Imagine driving on e?? anyway. these are all just my speculations. in no way are these things fact. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Touz replied on Wed Apr 12, 2006 @ 1:37am |
 Coolness: 46290 | I think the only reason drinking, gambling and smoking tobacco are legal is because of the impacts it would have if they were illegal..
when they banned alcool in the USA, people were dying from the poor quality of the alcool on the black market, so they decided to legalize it back to have a control on the substances. the united states also made a lot of money with tobacco and sugar, but they just realised the bad effets it has on the health, so they're doing a lot of repression of it. and i don't think having a bunch of illegal casinos every corner of the country would be a great idea neither.. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Wed Apr 12, 2006 @ 8:59am |
| Coolness: 145145 | I 'heart' sin products |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» kwickStah replied on Wed Apr 12, 2006 @ 10:17pm |
 Coolness: 65490 | c'est pas plus compliqué qu'il faut... les drogues qui sont légales sont ceux qui sont acceptés socialement, les autres ne le sont pas vraiment, donc elles restent illégales.. On fait partie d'une démocratie et on a un pouvoir décisionnel quoi que vous en croyez. Peut-être pas autant qu'on l'espère, mais petit à petit c'est le reflet de la société qu'on voit dans nos lois. Il ne faut pas oublier que nous faisons partis d'une population de plus en plus vieillissante et que les personnes agées sont souvent intolérentes et méfiantes envers l'inconu. Bien sur, le pot devrait être légal d'ici quelques années puisque la majorité de la population en fume. Par contre tout ne se fait pas en un jour.. on commence par décriminalisé et ensuite qui sait?.. C'est comme la cigarette qui devient de plus en plus réprimé. On a commencé par des sanctions non-écrite tel que le rejet et le "chialage".. Maintenant on commence à ne plus avoir le droit de fumer dans certains endroits.. La vérité c'est que les gens fumes de moins en moins et la société ne l'accepte plus comme avant.. c'est tout simple.. Si les drogues légales le sont c'est parce qu'on les accepte encore.. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» wisp replied on Thu Apr 13, 2006 @ 3:02am |
| Coolness: 97265 | Originally posted by MARIE POPPINS...
More often there is accidents and problem caused by alcool but I don't hear accident cause by someone on speed, E, or Weed!!!! Love what? as if you just said that. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» PoiSoNeD_CaNdY replied on Thu Apr 13, 2006 @ 3:06am |
| Coolness: 91635 | Originally posted by MDC...
Originally posted by PoiSoNeD CaNdY...
Originally posted by MDC...
ugh... think about what you're going to write before writing it please. im tired of reading ridiculous posts to reiterate my last post for those french-deficient readers: it's because they are legal that alcohol and cigarettes have probelms associated to them. if pot or e were legal, their consumption would be much greater and teh problems associated to them would be just as great (if not greater) than those associated with alcohol and cigs. everyone has access to alcohol and cigs and gambling, if everyone had access to hard drugs, there would certainly be more problems associated with these. You're making two huge assumptions here, which may very well be false. Assumption #1 - Making pot or E legal would increase their consumption This isn't neccesarily true. People have many other reasons why they choose to use or not use a substance other than its legality. In fact, making something illegal might cause its use to rise since people could do it as a form of rebellion or do make a badass image for themselves. Nowdays, more young people are trying pot than cigarretes, DESPITE the fact that pot is illegal and more expensive. Furthermore, studies have shown that kids binge drink more often at the ages of 16-17 when alcohol is less available to them, than they do at ages 18+ when its legal to drink. Finally, even though pot is quasi-legal and widely available in Amserdam, the prevalance of use is not greater there than in a culturally similar American city. So your assumption that legalization = increased use just doesn't hold up. Assumption #2: Cigarettes and alchohol are safer than illegal drugs, its only b/c they are more widely used that their are more problems Despite the overwhelming proportion of all substance-related deaths that are a result of drinking and smoking, you do have a point that obviously you have to adjust for the number of people that drink or smoke vs. the number that use other drugs. Even adjusting for this number, however, you'll likely find that of all the drugs that one can possibly use, legal or illegal, alcohol and tobacco are among the worst: - tobacco is the most addictive substance known to man, more so than heroin, crystal meth, or cocaine - alcohol is about as addictive than cocaine, and four times more addictive than LSD, ecstasy, or pot - trying to stop heavy drinking can result in withdrawal symptoms leading to death, one of the few drugs for which this is true So, your second assumption is false as well - the reason why alcohol and tobacco cause so many deaths is not only because they are widely used, but because they are all also two of the very worst drugs available, both legal or otherwise. a few quick points. Tobacco... not addictive. Nicotine is. But that was probably a quick-typing error. Next, the binge drinking when you're younger thing. Yeah, that holds when you do, indeed, gain access to alcohol at a younger age. I have plenty of friends who refused to drink until they were well over 18 and it is only once they began to drink that the binge drinking would commence. The age isn't the factor, but the time elapsed from the beginning of your drinking life. As for weed being tried more than tobacco. You have to look at the cultural and evironmental reasons behind this. Tobacco, a widely used drug, has been getting a bad rep. lately (rightfully). And therefore, there are thousands of ad campaigns against their use. (as much as you would like to refute that ads have an effect on you they do if youre bombarded with them from a young age) So kids are quickly turned away from tobacco. Even at a young age. Weed, on the other hand, has been given a positive spin as of late due to people wanting its legalisation. And it is also very prevalent in contemporary (deemed) cool things. Such as music, videogames, movies, television. More songs now refer to smoking weed now than ever before. My 8 year old cousin sings songs about being high and he doesn't even know what that means yet (or does he?). So the cultural influences play a HUGE part in that. Moving along. You're claiming that even if an adjustment was made for the (much) more widespread use of drugs, the negative effects of these would still pale in comparison to cigs or alcohol? I highly doubt that. Assuming all other things equal, if you were to assume that the same number of people smoked as took e (and as often, the amount consumed has to be taken into consideration too, cigarettes are a SLOW killer), I am fairly certain there would many more deaths from so called "hard" drugs as alcohol and cigs. People driving drunk is bad. Imagine driving on e?? anyway. these are all just my speculations. in no way are these things fact. At least you acknowledge that what you're claiming are only speculations. More to the point, have you considered that perhaps the reason why you think illegal drugs are worse than legal ones has nothing to do with the reality of the situation, and everything to do with the fact the Canadian and American governments spend BILLIONS of dollars in trying to convince people of the harm of illegal drugs - through scientifically dubious studies, one-sided messages, and so-called "education" campaigns. The fact is that even in places where ecstasy use is rampant, such as the U.K. where its not uncommon to down a couple of E's with your pint at any pub, the number of ecstasy-related deaths pale in comparison with those caused by nicotine and alcohol. And the fact that you suggest that someone driving on E is worse than someone driving drunk just shows your lack of information regarding drugs. Anyone who's tried both knows that its far, far safer to drive on ecstasy (which increases alertness and sensitivity) than alcohol (which induces confusion, slows reaction times, and increases agressiveness). |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» AYkiN0XiA replied on Thu Apr 13, 2006 @ 11:33am |
 Coolness: 166520 | people smoking pot are less likely to become violent than those drinking.
so that makes pot less socially dangerous. but then people who smoke pot become more passive and maybe even artistic. so that makes pot a more socially dangerous drug, for the established order. used wisely, pot helps to open the third eye. / the government does not like this. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Mr_Frog replied on Thu Apr 13, 2006 @ 12:28pm |
 Coolness: 97045 | conspiracy!! |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Marie_Poppins replied on Tue May 9, 2006 @ 9:25am |
 Coolness: 39115 | Alcohol is deadlier than ecstasy, says Government's drugs adviser
By Sophie Goodchild, Chief Reporter Published: 07 May 2006 Alcohol is more harmful and causes more deaths than the drug ecstasy, a leading scientist who advises the Government on drug safety is warning. Professor David Nutt, a senior member of the drugs panel which recommended the downgrading of cannabis, is calling for the current system of drugs classification to be widened, to reflect the dangers posed by excessive drinking. The addiction expert says only 10 premature deaths a year in the UK can be blamed on ecstasy, compared with at least 22,000 attributable to drinking. He highlights the fact that alcohol is exempt from an official system of harm rating despite being the cause of 10,000 assaults a year, unlike ecstasy, which is not linked with violence. Professor Nutt says in the latest edition of the journal Psychopharmacology that the Tory leader, David Cameron, is "correct in his logic" in suggesting that E, currently a class A drug, should be in a lower category than drugs such as heroin and cocaine. The scientist, who chairs the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) technical committee, writes: "Why is ecstasy illegal when alcohol, a considerably more harmful drug, is not? When we consider that the possession of a drug that is much less dangerous than alcohol can lead to a seven-year prison sentence, whereas alcohol use is actively promoted, perhaps David Cameron did not go far enough." But Professor Nutt's comments have enraged drugs prevention charities, who say he is wrong to compare the harm caused by drugs such as ecstasy with the effect on health from excessive drinking. "Ecstasy kills at random and there is a lot of cumulative harm," said David Raynes from the National Drugs Prevention Alliance. "Although there is a lot of harm from alcohol, very few people just die from drinking alcohol, but they do die from taking E. If the Government does downgrade E, then it sends a signal that it's less harmful than it was before." ~ |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Dj_Psychokitty replied on Tue May 9, 2006 @ 9:37am |
| Coolness: 48825 | Je crois simplement que dans le contexte ou le gouvernement realise que dans notre type de société extremement stressante, nous avons besoin de soupapes pour faire baisser la vapeur, justement comme l'alcool, la cigarette, le jeu, bref de quoi nous divertir l'esprit afin de mieux fonctionner. Et que ces trois éléments (alcool, jeu, cigarettes) sont de plus economiquement profitables car l'argent va directement au gouvernement au lieu de passer par les echelons du crime organisée. Je crois d'ailleurs que bientôt le pot sera surement legal et ce qui foutra la claque aux groupes criminels, c'est qu'il sera probablement moins cher lorsqu'il sera mis en vente directement aux consommateurs.
Au Japon, un pays qui est extremement axé sur le travail, on encourage fortemnt la population a se divertir, depenser son argent de facon extremiste et de jouir de ses temps libres avec ce qui nous fait plaisir. Il existe des endroits ou pour l'équivalent de cent dollars US, on peut avec un bat de baseball demolir tout ce qu'il y a dans une piece. Un pdg sur 3 au Japon fréquente les donjons de sado-masochisme. Bref, oui le gouvernement prend conscience qui nous faut du "lousse" pour être plus fonctionnel et productif, mais je ne crois pas que c'est une question de contrôle cependant, nous sommes tous libre de nos choix personnels à la base quand même. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Da_Hand replied on Tue May 9, 2006 @ 10:22am |
 Coolness: 41985 | Originally posted by YKNOT...
I love the fact that if you are catholic it is against your religion to drink . This is not true. If you just follow a typical mass then you will see the priest drinking wine. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer replied on Tue May 9, 2006 @ 10:26am |
 Coolness: 92210 | bahahahaha seriously. Haven't you ever heard of Ireland? Besides in any sect of christianity the wine is used in church to represent jesus's blood. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Da_Hand replied on Tue May 9, 2006 @ 10:27am |
| Coolness: 41985 | Originally posted by MOONDANCER...
Haven't you ever heard of Ireland? . LOL, Poland too ;) |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» nothingnopenope replied on Tue May 9, 2006 @ 4:14pm |
| Coolness: 201170 | I think I will give up drinking now cause apparently if you want to enjoy a cold beer on a hot day outside you either have to do in in your own boring house or pay up the ass at a bar, cause parks are only for stupid old people who give bread to pigeons, unless you want some cop making you pay a enough money tro buy several 24's |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Morphine replied on Wed May 10, 2006 @ 10:51am |
| Coolness: 50915 | i dont understand what the big deal about drinking outdoors is all of a sudden...its always been illegal hasnt it? you just have to watch your ass thats all. bag it, or put it in a thermos or travel mug or any such thing... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Da_Hand replied on Wed May 10, 2006 @ 11:25am |
| Coolness: 41985 | Originally posted by MORPHINE...
i dont understand what the big deal about drinking outdoors is all of a sudden...its always been illegal hasnt it? you just have to watch your ass thats all. bag it, or put it in a thermos or travel mug or any such thing... That is true, but it doesn't make it less stupid. It is pretty ridiculous that you cannot walk out of a supermarket / SAQ with an unbagged 6-pack (or wine, liquor, etc) because you can get a ticket for carrying alcohol in public. WTF!!! It is ok to pay the government a heafty tax for the alcohool, but not ok to show that you bought it? |
Y Do U Think Alcohol , Tobacco ...
[ Top Of Page ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Top Of Page ] |
