Drugs Should Have Harm Index? Alcohol Ranked 5th?

[Renegade_Turner]

On the indirect advice of Uberbeard, I decided to make this its own thread to not derail Chainsaw Man's thread.

My words were as follows:

It's interesting to have a look at the opinions of the (former) chief drugs adviser for the UK David Nutt's opinions on the dangers of alcohol, tobacco and cannabis.

He said that all drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, should be ranked by a "harm" index, with alcohol coming 5th behind cocaine, heroin, barbiturates, and methadone, and tobacco should rank 9th, ahead of cannabis, LSD and ecstasy.

This is essentially saying that alcohol should be ranked more harmful than tobacco and cannabis. If you take into account the amount of accidents and health problems which are directly related to alcohol then you can see where he's coming from.

I think the fact he was sacked was scandalous and various scientists and scholars from universities such as Oxford and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs have criticised the government for his sacking, saying that it is a clear disregard for scientific findings, and that the disregard is based on political interests. Some members of the Advisory Council have resigned in protest.

Sorry for the random tangent, I just felt it was an interesting point.

In fairness, I don't think he was saying tobacco and ecstasy should be legalised. I rather think he was arguing that if they are illegal then so to should tobacco and alcohol be illegal.

In more succinct form, DRUGS ARE BAD (and yes that includes alcohol).

Thoughts?

[Uberbeard]

I totally agree with the protesters, it was out of place to sack him. It just seems like a gag reflex at the mention that, you know, maybe the laws put in place aren't quite appropriate.

[Renegade_Turner]

Yeah, that's how it seemed to me, pretty much an ultra-conservative reaction. The Home Secretary must've thought "Oh if I don't sack him it'll seem like I'm soliciting illegal drugs." What a childish reaction. It's all politics and no common sense. Just about staying in government, not about actually doing what's right.

The problem is, alcohol and tobacco are societal norms and therefore any criticism of them will be taken with a pinch of salt, i.e. people will see it as bullshit no matter who says it's so, no amount of qualifications and expertise will persuade anyone of anything other than the current laws in place. This is a problem because when people start resigning to a belief that a law or custom is absolute, then the questioning of authority stops. Authority, or in this case the current laws, must always be analysed and criticised or society stops progressing. And, following inspection, should it be seen that the current laws are not consistent with current scientific findings and modern trends in society, the laws should be amended.

However, there really was no need for the acrimonious reaction that was witnessed in relation to his claims about the dangers of ecstasy and LSD. Former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith even said that David Nutt should "apologise to the families of the victims of ecstasy". Tripe! He never said there was no danger in using ecstasy or LSD, he simply said tobacco and alcohol cause more harm.

Cannabis is somewhat of a societal norm among the late teen/young adult age groups, so there's some sense of understanding that he'd rank that lower than alcohol in terms of harm.

Seriously though, this shows you how much the law makes an ass of itself, the law needs to accept scientific findings. If the politicians start deciding what the scientists say is right or wrong, then the need for scientists dissipates and the politicians become the scientists. The day I see a politician fill the boots of a scientist will be the day pigs fly.

[Fournine]

Hear, hear.

On a similar note of long-established substances retaining accepted use, Aspirin - if I recall correctly - wouldn't make it through the FDA approval process were it submitted for review today. For quite some years now, low-dose aspirin has been accepted as a cardiac-disease prevention measure, but recently has been recommended against in patients without previous cardiac problems. [1]

On the other side, recreational Cannabis might become legalized in California if a measure is approved and passed in the upcoming 2010 general election. [2] It would certainly gather more funds for the State through taxes, but I doubt it'll pass.

[Lotus Wolf]

IMHO, alcohol should be 3rd behind methamphetamine, and heroine. I am, however, glad to see that someone is starting to realize how harmful alcohol is, and ranked it pretty high.

[kehaar]

IMHO, alcohol should be 3rd behind methamphetamine, and heroine. I am, however, glad to see that someone is starting to realize how harmful alcohol is, and ranked it pretty high.

Absolutely. And by wreckage compared to population, it would have to rank number one in the world. That's really saying something compared to meth and heroin, 'cause those tear you up pretty bad.

good to see pot way down the list for danger.

[Uberbeard]

I've never seen Pot culture piss on my front wall and throw a bottle at my window. Really.

[Renegade_Turner]

Haha well said. I must say I've pissed on streets before...everyone who has consumed alcohol has, sometimes you just need to go. There's one street in Waterford city named "Piss Alley". Well named. But yeah, that's "alcohol culture".

And the other day I picked up my girlfriend while drunk and was walking to her house while carrying her (it's easy, she's 7 and a half stone) and she said "Can't you go any faster?" and I started running and I fell and she cut and bruised her knee and I cut my elbow. That was quite the run-on sentence. That accident was caused by (A) Human Stupidity and (B) Alcohol. You can enact laws against the latter, but the former is a bit more tricky.

Pot culture would rather just find a traffic cone and consider its significance in relation to the o-zone layer...and dragonflies.

*** Disclaimer: This post was written under the influence of Cannabis (slightly, one joint, not sure how much my friend put in it) and Alcohol (slightly, 2 cans of Foster's over a couple hours - 4.5%). Therefore, all comments and assertions should be taken with a pinch of salt and a dash of skepticism. Bias may affect findings.

*** Further Unofficial Disclaimer: Wolfire does not solicit the illegal use of intravenous drugs under any circumstances, regardless of scientific findings as to the harm of such drugs compared to legal drugs.

[Renegade_Turner]

I really was interested to hear people's responses, despite the silliness of my last post. It's a shame that no one really had any interest in the topic.

[Uberbeard]

Haha screw you man, they're all too interested in video games.

To make a point, I have never done anything particularly offensive or shocking that I wouldn't do sober when I have been drunk, apart from pass out in random places (which happens more than anything else, as drinking makes me tired). I also don't tend to enjoy myself all that much, so perhaps it's just the approach I have.

[Zhukov]

I really was interested to hear people's responses, despite the silliness of my last post. It's a shame that no one really had any interest in the topic.

I find the topic interesting, but I don't have much to say beyond "I agree".

Umm...

So how about a question instead?

Given your support of this Harm Index, as well as the relatively high ranking of alcohol therein, how do you think the law should change?

[Fournine]

I only drink when I play Left4Dead these days, because Francis becomes significantly more hilarious; and because it's a strange tradition in my group of gamers. We've each got our own trademark drink - rum for one, scotch for another, beer, then sake for me.

I've no interest in all other drugs, unless they're medically relevant.

[Renegade_Turner]

Before you resign yourself to a case of TL,DR, I'd advise you to read this as I'd say it's something which every single person in the world has at least some form of constructive opinion on. Also, the tsunami of games-related topics are pretty much the reason why I've been so absent on these forums of late. There's only so much discussion I can have about games without becoming numb towards such things, not to mention incredibly bored by them. It's like being bashed very slowly but surely over the head with a sledgehammer, and the sledgehammer is entitled "Gaming".

Given your support of this Harm Index, as well as the relatively high ranking of alcohol therein, how do you think the law should change?

That's an interesting question. I don't think that the laws which are in place already are enforced properly, i.e. I don't think that the consumption of drugs such as alcohol is regulated well enough.

There are, of course, seemingly obvious solutions to cutting down the amount of harm done by such drugs. For example, countries could place a larger tax on alcohol and tobacco, and use the government revenue obtained from such negative taxes to fund more health services or indeed increase the policing staff to regulate the consumption of such things to a larger extent. However, if it were that simple I'm sure such actions would be taken by some governments to somewhat waylay the problem. I'm sure there's some aspect of it which I haven't considered. It can't be that simple.

Or maybe it's a situation of governments not actually being interested in taking actions which benefit the people directly, and rather just taking actions which affirm they're own political superiority over other parties in government so that they'll be voted in again at the next general election. I'm sure "Political Superiority" ranks above "Societal Welfare" in terms of priorities on the majority of governments' lists.

I don't think that alcohol in particular is as much of a problem in America as it is in the UK and Ireland. Britain and Ireland in particular are bad in terms of the regulation of such things. Considering the legal drinking age in the UK and Ireland is 18, it's even more shocking that there are people as young as 16 who are allowed into night clubs. The first time I entered a night club was 16 and 8 months, and this was without a legitimate ID. Things which are considered an acceptable form of identification in Ireland are a passport, a Garda-issued Age Card, or a full driving licence. I'm not even sure if the full driving licence is considered legitimate anymore. What I had when I was 16 was my brother's University card, which had his picture and date of birth on it. My brother looks surprisingly like me, especially since his card was then 3 years old.

My point is I could never see the drinking age in America coming down from 21, but I could definitely see the drinking age in Ireland and England raising to 21. I think it's a far better system than the current system in place. People who are 16 can easily pass for 18, but at least people who are 16 can't easily pass for 21, so that would cut out some of the ridiculously underage drinking. Having said that, the current society in the UK and Ireland is of such a measure that alcohol is almost a social rite of passage, although there are pioneers who abstain from it completely. These people are generally viewed as not much fun, and generally grow out of it once they reach college. I used to abstain from alcohol, but when I was in my last year of second level education I succumbed to the temptation.

I don't regret my decision to drink alcohol, because I see myself as fairly rational in terms of my consumption, i.e. I don't get shitfaced. However, not every 16 or 17-year-old has the sense to know when to stop (some adults don't even know when to stop). I just think that the alcohol laws and the regulation of such laws in Ireland is a particular disgrace, much like our driving laws. In Ireland you can drive on a provisional driving permit without a fully licenced driver in the car with you and the gardaí will let you off provided you're insured! Technically it's illegal but it only recently became illegal considering the amount of road deaths. I know this first-hand because I drive on a provisional licence (driving test coming in about 3 months, let's hope I pass) and nothing happens to me, I can just drive around the place happy as larry and no one will know the difference.

Having said all that, my brother was in the US two Summer's ago. It was some state over on the West coast. I think it may have been San Diego. Anyway, he was saying that in America it's almost the responsibility of the bar owner to ensure that you do not consume too much alcohol, and if you get shitfaced in a bar and then go cause trouble then the bar owner could get in trouble for it. Can anyone confirm that the system is like this in the States? I'm aware there is different federal jurisdictions and each State has its own set of laws, but I'm sure there's some kind of normal practice which most States adhere to. He may have been embellishing the story somewhat, but it sounds like a fairly sound enough system of operation. You would never with a chance in hell find such a practice in Ireland. The idea of a pub owner being held responsible for the actions of its patrons in Ireland is as foreign a concept to us as women having to wear headscarves.

I only drink when I play Left4Dead these days, because Francis becomes significantly more hilarious; and because it's a strange tradition in my group of gamers. We've each got our own trademark drink - rum for one, scotch for another, beer, then sake for me.

That's interesting, I've only ever tried sake once. My friends went to Vietnam this Summer just past, and when they came home they had a bottle of sake. I'm not sure where they attained it, but they also ventured into Thailand and China, so they may have bought it in any one of those places.

I've tried scotch and rum. My general opinion on most liquors is that they are only nice once combined with a mixer which will dilute the overpowering alcohol-induced taste of Oh-God-This-Tastes-Like-Feet. Some liquors taste better mixed than others. I generally use Coke as a mixer because it just seems to mix very nicely with most liquors. For example, a rum and coke is quite taste, as is a whiskey and coke or a vodka and coke. Also, a bit of ginger ale goes very nicely with some spiced rum.

I generally drink lager. My lager of choice would be Foster's, it's the one pint I can get and truthfully go "Ahhh, refreshing." A nice cold pint of Foster's is very refreshing, especially the first pint. All pints get a bit bland after the 2nd or 3rd, I find. If there's no Foster's on tap (which there usually isn't, it's not too common in pubs), then I'll get Carlsberg, but I'm getting sick of Carlsberg lately because I'm always drinking it and it's overpriced. Stupid Danish companies, European beers are supposed to be cool. Like Pratsky, an awesome Czech beer.

[Fournine]

Regarding the San Diego bars -
I'm not much of a bar-goer, but the idea of the bartender cutting someone off is familiar. It's usually a device in storytelling to show how completely foregone a character is, as usually the character wishes to continue drinking despite outside intervention.

I just did some research, and yes, under tort law, the bar owner can be held responsible for damages/injury/death caused by or incurred upon the patron. [1]
This article cites Canadian law, though I think it plausible that a parallel exists in US law.

As for sake, I find plum sake to be the best. Standard fare rice sake can have a medicinal taste I mislike, so I tend to mix it with cranberry juice if I haven't any other options.
I also drink from a beaker, and limit myself to 200 mL of sake (15% alcohol by volume, so 30 mL). I bought the beaker legitimately online from VWR, and did not swipe it from the lab. It matches well with my periodic table of the elements shower curtain.
Did I mention that I'm a chemist? [Chemist in the "mixes chemicals in a lab" sense, not the "chemist down the corner, get some pharmaceuticals" sense.]

[kehaar]

...yeah, bars have lost a few lawsuits here in the states for not cutting drunks off, or for letting them drive. I remember getting shit from bartenders in the '80's if I ordered a soft drink-- even if I told them I was driving they'd sneer at me. Nowadays they don't bat an eye, and I've seen them cut people off and even demand they take cabs. History crawls along, I suppose...