Metal Guitarist Forums banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Motherfucker.
Joined
·
3,459 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
NSLALP
Joined
·
13,286 Posts
Well then, can we stop bitching about how having a cigarette on a street corner or in a bar is going to give innocent bystanding toddlers cancer?

This seems very realistic to me. :yesway:
 

·
NICE BLACKMACHINE YO
Joined
·
7,276 Posts
To quote some nutty conservative I forget the name of "tobacco and drugs are still a very real problem. Alcohol is obviously too ingrained in our culture to do anything about, though."

Clearly opium was too ingrained in our culture back a century or two ago. But do you see any opium dens by the docks? :scratch:
 

·
Is Actually Recording
Joined
·
32,765 Posts
To quote some nutty conservative I forget the name of "tobacco and drugs are still a very real problem. Alcohol is obviously too ingrained in our culture to do anything about, though."

Clearly opium was too ingrained in our culture back a century or two ago. But do you see any opium dens by the docks? :scratch:
Stitch, you're from Scotland. If you start arguing to have booze banned in Scotland and interfere with my ability to buy scotch, I'll hop a plane to the UK just to punch you in the balls. :squint:
 

·
Pallin' around
Joined
·
9,532 Posts
This is interesting. From my personal experience I don't believe it. I had some friends that started to do cocaine, and then started to do heroin later. One ODed on heroine after trying to get clean, one killed himself because his life went to shit, and the other had to move to a monastery somewhere to get away from the drug culture.

I do have some friends that are alcoholics, and it is sad, but nothing like what my friends that got into drugs experienced.

EDIT: I read on to see that it isn't normalized per use of the drug. Alcohol is more dangerous because it is more widely used. This study should really be normalized to per use of the drug, because you could argue that caffeine is more dangerous than a lot of those because so many people use it and it can affect awareness over the course of a day.

This doesn't sound like the most apples to apples comparison to me.
 

·
Is Actually Recording
Joined
·
32,765 Posts
This is interesting. From my personal experience I don't believe it. I had some friends that started to do cocaine, and then started to do heroin later. One ODed on heroine after trying to get clean, one killed himself because his life went to shit, and the other had to move to a monastery somewhere to get away from the drug culture.

I do have some friends that are alcoholics, and it is sad, but nothing like what my friends that got into drugs experienced.

EDIT: I read on to see that it isn't normalized per use of the drug. Alcohol is more dangerous because it is more widely used. This study should really be normalized to per use of the drug, because you could argue that caffeine is more dangerous than a lot of those because so many people use it and it can affect awareness over the course of a day.

This doesn't sound like the most apples to apples comparison to me.
This study was posted elsewhere around here, but I'll reiterate - it really depends what you're trying to measure.

If you're trying to measure the impact on the user, then weighting it by either per use, or the effect on the average user regardless of # of uses, makes a lot of sense. The average person doing heroin is more likely to cause damage to himself and others than the average person using alcohol.

If you're trying to measure the impact on society, however, it makes more sense to weight it by total usage, rather than per use or per user. Part of the reason why alcohol does do more harm to society than heroin is the fact that it's much more tolerated and therefore more widely used, and weighting by user or by use obscures this (very important) fact.
 

·
I am Groot
Joined
·
32,450 Posts
Stitch, you're from Scotland. If you start arguing to have booze banned in Scotland and interfere with my ability to buy scotch, I'll hop a plane to the UK just to punch you in the balls. :squint:
Come on, Drew, be real. The only country less likely to ban booze is Ireland. :lol:
 

·
Pallin' around
Joined
·
9,532 Posts
This study was posted elsewhere around here, but I'll reiterate - it really depends what you're trying to measure.

If you're trying to measure the impact on the user, then weighting it by either per use, or the effect on the average user regardless of # of uses, makes a lot of sense. The average person doing heroin is more likely to cause damage to himself and others than the average person using alcohol.

If you're trying to measure the impact on society, however, it makes more sense to weight it by total usage, rather than per use or per user. Part of the reason why alcohol does do more harm to society than heroin is the fact that it's much more tolerated and therefore more widely used, and weighting by user or by use obscures this (very important) fact.
I understand that, but even the "criteria" are skewed.

The study involved 16 criteria, including a drug's affects on users' physical and mental health, social harms including crime, "family adversities" and environmental damage, economic costs and "international damage".
Economic costs probably is the detraction from economy that the drug is responsible for.

Since alcohol is the most widely used and legal drug on the list, I would imagine that alcohol's economy is pretty large, thus a positive for society due to profit. Taxes on alcohol are going towards schools, roads, etc. (and unfortunately wars), and what can you say about the profit from the other drugs? Schools? No, people drop out from school to sell these other drugs because they are 1) illegal, and 2) offer a more instant form of income.

It kinda irks me that the scientific journal that this was probably published in was not referenced, because I would have liked to see the equation that really factored in all of this.
 

·
NICE BLACKMACHINE YO
Joined
·
7,276 Posts
I understand that, but even the "criteria" are skewed.

Economic costs probably is the detraction from economy that the drug is responsible for.

Since alcohol is the most widely used and legal drug on the list, I would imagine that alcohol's economy is pretty large, thus a positive for society due to profit. Taxes on alcohol are going towards schools, roads, etc. (and unfortunately wars), and what can you say about the profit from the other drugs? Schools? No, people drop out from school to sell these other drugs because they are 1) illegal, and 2) offer a more instant form of income.

It kinda irks me that the scientific journal that this was probably published in was not referenced, because I would have liked to see the equation that really factored in all of this.
Actually, I would venture that income from alcohol duty is far outweighed by all the extra policemen that have to be out and about on a friday and saturday night for all the people getting drunk. Then there are the fights in the streets, the vandalism, destruction of property, and (at least in the UK, with our terribly liberal free healthcare) the costs of people going to hospital needing their stomach pumped from drinking too much, from slipping or fighting or falling when drunk...
 

·
I miss you Avalanche
Joined
·
3,519 Posts
I don't necessarily like the way they 'categorized' their harm to others. Putting things like 'crime' and that 'due to alcohol' isn't very imperical, IMO. Someone drinking alcohol, as long as they're only drinking it, and not driving or committing crimes while drunk, is how it should be measured. By that means, tobacco use is more harmful to others via 2nd hand smoke.
 

·
Pallin' around
Joined
·
9,532 Posts
Actually, I would venture that income from alcohol duty is far outweighed by all the extra policemen that have to be out and about on a friday and saturday night for all the people getting drunk. Then there are the fights in the streets, the vandalism, destruction of property, and (at least in the UK, with our terribly liberal free healthcare) the costs of people going to hospital needing their stomach pumped from drinking too much, from slipping or fighting or falling when drunk...
I'm just saying I would have liked to see the scientific journal that this article was based off of so I could see exactly how they calculated it, exactly what their sources were, and exactly where the information is deficient.

Also, do you think this takes in to account the alcohol that is used in industry? I know it is not used as a drug, but it is still alcohol and it contributes to society in that sense.
 

·
NICE BLACKMACHINE YO
Joined
·
7,276 Posts
I'm just saying I would have liked to see the scientific journal that this article was based off of so I could see exactly how they calculated it, exactly what their sources were, and exactly where the information is deficient.

Also, do you think this takes in to account the alcohol that is used in industry? I know it is not used as a drug, but it is still alcohol and it contributes to society in that sense.
"Used in industry"? What the hell are you on about, man? That's a completely different kettle of fish.

And Regor - if you take the crime and whatnot out of it, heroin and the like do absolutely no damage whatsoever to anyone except the user. It isn't very practical to eliminate the one thing that makes this study interesting - everyone knew that heroin turns your teeth to gummy bears and that coke makes your septum fall out - it's the bigger picture that matters, here.
 

·
Pallin' around
Joined
·
9,532 Posts
"Used in industry"? What the hell are you on about, man? That's a completely different kettle of fish.
Why? Its exactly the same chemical formula.

While I can see why alcohol can cause more damage to society because of its sheer volume, I still just want to see the numbers and methodology behind it. This article is absolutely lacking of any pertinent data, it essentially states a hypothesis and then shows a chart without explanation of any sources of data. If I read that on any topic, I would dismiss it because it really shows nothing. Now, if there is an article published in an economic journal, scientific journal, or whatever they classified this study as, I would like to see the derivation that lead to the final method of weighing these variables.

From my personal experience with alcohol, I've never been an accomplice to a death, never been part of a relationship that resulted in miscarriage, never been arrested, never been to detox, never missed work (with or without pay), never damaged property, etc., while I have spent thousands of dollars stimulating the economy.

I guess the question is, has anybody seen another article that references the journal that the full study was published in?
 

·
NICE BLACKMACHINE YO
Joined
·
7,276 Posts
Why? Its exactly the same chemical formula.
Because this study is about human consumption of various substances. Not "a handful of chemicals, some of which are used for drugs and others for industrial processes, and their effect on the human body and psychology". It'd make zero sense. You're trying to poke a hole in a part that doesn't even exist. :scratch:

How on earth did that even make sense in your head? :scratch:
 

·
Pallin' around
Joined
·
9,532 Posts
Because this study is about human consumption of various substances. Not "a handful of chemicals, some of which are used for drugs and others for industrial processes, and their effect on the human body and psychology". It'd make zero sense. You're trying to poke a hole in a part that doesn't even exist. :scratch:

How on earth did that even make sense in your head? :scratch:
Meh, I was just thinking economy. I realize that isn't really the greatest argument, so lets leave it at that. I guess I just said that because I use alcohol every day, and only about 2 times a week for drinking, and if they made it illegal, I could just drink the stuff I work with diluted in cola or something.

Anyway, I think that this probably has some merit, I am just trained, so to speak, in looking at derivations and assumptions because I do that almost daily with lit reviews at my job.

It really is a dichotomy though. Of all the people that use alcohol, the percentage of people who abuse it to the point of causing societal damage aren't going to stop if it is illegal. They have addictive personalities, there is a good possibility that they will get on the next easiest drug to find.

I just have a lot of questions and there are no answers in this article.

For example, how do they determine how many people use each drug? If it is just a survey, I would say people are much more likely to admit to using alcohol than they are to admitting to heroin use.

Once again, I am not trying to argue the figure shown, I am just trying to get my head around how they acquired the data, and what assumptions and simplifications they might be forced to use to round out the data set.
 

·
Canis lupis robertus
Joined
·
5,706 Posts
This study was posted elsewhere around here, but I'll reiterate - it really depends what you're trying to measure.

If you're trying to measure the impact on the user, then weighting it by either per use, or the effect on the average user regardless of # of uses, makes a lot of sense. The average person doing heroin is more likely to cause damage to himself and others than the average person using alcohol.

If you're trying to measure the impact on society, however, it makes more sense to weight it by total usage, rather than per use or per user. Part of the reason why alcohol does do more harm to society than heroin is the fact that it's much more tolerated and therefore more widely used, and weighting by user or by use obscures this (very important) fact.
This.

You people finding fault with the study need to re-read Drew's post. You're offering opinion - this study is based on empirical data, using both logical and consistent criteria to determine a meaning for the term 'harmful' as relates to chemical substances.

By these criteria, alcohol is clearly the winner. Or loser, as the case may be. Hey, I enjoy a drink. But alcohol is attributable to so much fucked up shit in our culture, this shouldn't even be a surprise. And ironically, it's the one legal and widely accepted substance.
 

·
Is Actually Recording
Joined
·
32,765 Posts
Sweet, so Weed is worse for me than do Steroids... :spock:
See, Jason, you're missing the point of this study. :lol:

Weed isn't worse for YOU to do than steroids. Or, maybe it is - the study doesn't take a stance one way or another. What it DOES state is the cumulative impact of weed on society is worse than the cumulative impact of steroids.

It's a question of weighting. Look at it this way, what is more dangerous, getting stung by a bee or bit by a shark? I think we'd all say the later, bit by a shark, and if we were given the choice, we'd take the bee sting, because a single bee sting really pretty whimpy compared to getting chewed up by a shark.

Yet, far more people die every year from bee stings than do from shark attacks by a fairly high margin - from 1959 to 2009, 25 people were killed by sharks in the United States, while we average about 40 deaths due to bee stings a year. The reason? Shark attacks are VERY rare, yet bee stings are pretty common and it's not uncommon to be stung by multiple bees at a time. Each shark that attacks does much more damage than each bee, but cumulatively bees kill a much greater share of the general population than sharks do.

That's why weighting matters, and why alcohol can be more damaging than heroin to the population as a whole.
 

·
Motherfucker.
Joined
·
3,459 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Drew = spot on.

To be honest, this study is bullshit anyway. None of that stuff is dangerous. Keith Richards is still alive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Seanbabs
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top