General

Just because that table says that alcohol causes more harm than heroin and crack does not mean it is more dangerous than those drugs. You have to factor in the fact how widely abused alcohol is. How many people do you think do heroin or crack? You think that there are as many heroin and crack users as there are binge drinkers? One of my friends told me that her coworker tried heroin and said he felt the high in about 3 seconds. You know how much alcohol you would have to drink to get that euphoric feeling? A lot. And don't even get me started on meth. Meth will absolutely destroy you. And comparing meth users to binge drinkers would be like a ratio of 1:100. If meth were as common as alcohol, hell if it was [b]legalized[/b], the meth bar would be off the charts. And I have no idea why cannabis is so high on that list. It is easily the safest drug compared to the others on that list and so many people would agree with me. To induce a lethal response to weed, you would have to consume 1500 pounds of it in 15 minutes. So very dangerous.

OH and what about tabacco it kills more people then achocal

Because the government is finding a way to tax it efficiently.

I think you might be reading that chart incorrectly. Heroin and cocaine both scored higher than alcohol on harm to user, and harm to others takes into account the number of users. Comparing the harmfulness of certain drugs to alcohol misses the point; prohibition is more horrible than the effects of any drug.

[quote=WontPostMuch]Lol when LSD is cited for possible medical use, it doesn't really mean that a doctor will tell you to sit down and take a trip. [/quote]

Actually, it sometimes does. I watched a documentary (which I sadly forgot the name of) and there is a country in Europe (forgot the name as well =/) in which medical professionals provide guided LSD therapy for people with terminal illness so they can better cope with the end and come to a sort of peace with it.

[quote=acuppa]I think it was Portugal that decriminalized all drugs and actually saw a decline in hard drug use? Regardless of how that was accomplished, the key factor people seem to forget when we look at the societal issue of drugs is education. If we (the United States) were more honest and thorough in the information we taught regarding drugs, young people would be inclined to make wiser choices (i.e. not using). Personally, I received a public school education, and our formal education about drugs in high school (the most pivotal years) was a single chapter in a health class that you took every other day in 11th grade. Everything else was propaganda.[/quote]

I agree with our education not educating the children enough about the truth is the problem. I know so many people who look down on me just because I smoke weed everyday. I never moved onto hard drugs nor did I waste all my money into weed. MODERATION is the thing! All I smoke is just one doobie a day. Do I sound like a complete druggy?

Weed was actually illegal not for it's effects, but rather various event's that go as far back as prohibition of alcohol.

Weed was actually legal and taxed around 1930s.

[quote=LimusocoBobo]Making it legal doesn't mean anyone's forcing you to do it. Cigarettes are extremely legal and yet I've mustered the willpower to avoid buying one. Your argument is valid. As I've stated before, all drugs should be legal or none should be legal. It would be fair, logical, and would allow a "natural selection" of sorts to "reduce" the number of people who actually think it's a good idea to purchase and/or use those sorts of products (the ones that hurt you worse than alcohol, at least).[/quote]
I think it was Portugal that decriminalized all drugs and actually saw a decline in hard drug use? Regardless of how that was accomplished, the key factor people seem to forget when we look at the societal issue of drugs is education. If we (the United States) were more honest and thorough in the information we taught regarding drugs, young people would be inclined to make wiser choices (i.e. not using). Personally, I received a public school education, and our formal education about drugs in high school (the most pivotal years) was a single chapter in a health class that you took every other day in 11th grade. Everything else was propaganda.

Making it legal doesn't mean anyone's forcing you to do it. Cigarettes are extremely legal and yet I've mustered the willpower to avoid buying one. Your argument is valid. As I've stated before, all drugs should be legal or none should be legal. It would be fair, logical, and would allow a "natural selection" of sorts to "reduce" the number of people who actually think it's a good idea to purchase and/or use those sorts of products (the ones that hurt you worse than alcohol, at least).

[quote=davehester]http://www.cureyourowncancer.org/how-cannabis-oil-works.html

Honestly, I'm too stoned to type out why but read that if you want.[/quote]

sphingo WHAT?

[quote=yorkies88888]It's probably a bogus study like the one I posted.[/quote]

http://www.cureyourowncancer.org/how-cannabis-oil-works.html

Honestly, I'm too stoned to type out why but read that if you want.

Thanks @WontPostMuch and @acuppa. One can only hope they both get legalized. <3

@yorkies88888 MDMA got its start in a clinical setting (marriage counseling, I think) and LSD and psilocybin (the active ingredient in so-called magic mushrooms) show promise in the treatment of cluster headaches: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16801660

[quote=yorkies88888]OMG, why are you so smart? I doubt that LSD and MDMA will be made legal though because to my knowledge, it isn't prescribed for medical use like marijuana was before it started becoming legal. But yeah, I know some friends who deal and if they aren't sketch, they usually check what's in their stuff; almost all the time, it's not pure LSD or MDMA. I guess with marijuana, it's marijuana; you can't really fake it. Good point, good point![/quote]

Lol when LSD is cited for possible medical use, it doesn't really mean that a doctor will tell you to sit down and take a trip. It just means that research will be made into how legitimate a treatment LSD may be in treating certain mental health issues and then finding out in which ways and under what conditions LSD proves to be an effective treatment. It'll be like methamphetamine use in treating certain weight conditions; you aren't given a dose that will make you into a speedhead.

[quote=davehester]I'm not. If you make cannabis oil, it's been proven to cure cancer.[/quote]

It's probably a bogus study like the one I posted.

[quote=acuppa]@yorkies88888 LSD and MDMA may (sooner or later) see a return to legitimate clinical use, but it's hard to consider what's sold as "acid" or "molly" as being safe for consumption. Firstly, we have quality control issues that have led to contaminations and other mistakes in medicines produced by professional, regulated facilities. So if they're messing up sometimes, we can only imagine what kind of problems occur in clandestine laboratories. Secondly, "acid" and "molly" are street terms that hold no guarantee of what's actually being sold. Tablets and blotter paper can hold a myriad of psychoactive substances, and the difficulty of manufacturing LSD has undoubtedly inspired the use of more easily synthesized compounds. Take a look at this DEA bulletin as an example: http://www.justice.gov/dea/pr/micrograms/2009/mg1209.pdf[/quote]

OMG, why are you so smart? I doubt that LSD and MDMA will be made legal though because to my knowledge, it isn't prescribed for medical use like marijuana was before it started becoming legal. But yeah, I know some friends who deal and if they aren't sketch, they usually check what's in their stuff; almost all the time, it's not pure LSD or MDMA. I guess with marijuana, it's marijuana; you can't really fake it. Good point, good point!

[quote=yorkies88888]I hope you're being sarcastic when you say it cures cancer...[/quote]

I'm not. If you make cannabis oil, it's been proven to cure cancer.

@yorkies88888 LSD and MDMA may (sooner or later) see a return to legitimate clinical use, but it's hard to consider what's sold as "acid" or "molly" as being safe for consumption. Firstly, we have quality control issues that have led to contaminations and other mistakes in medicines produced by professional, regulated facilities. So if they're messing up sometimes, we can only imagine what kind of problems occur in clandestine laboratories. Secondly, "acid" and "molly" are street terms that hold no guarantee of what's actually being sold. Tablets and blotter paper can hold a myriad of psychoactive substances, and the difficulty of manufacturing LSD has undoubtedly inspired the use of more easily synthesized compounds. Take a look at this DEA bulletin as an example: http://www.justice.gov/dea/pr/micrograms/2009/mg1209.pdf

[quote=davehester]Don't forget how much medical benefits that cannabis has! It's a known cure for cancer that is easy to grow.[/quote]

I hope you're being sarcastic when you say it cures cancer...

Don't forget how much medical benefits that cannabis has! It's a known cure for cancer that is easy to grow.

[quote=BoredAF]Drunk drivers kill tons of people. High people, not so much, too busy laughing or munching out.[/quote]

That's a bad assumption. I've driven high before, and trust me when I say it's not safe; safer than drunk driving, but still not as safe as sober driving.

[quote=acuppa]If you're fishing for a real answer, it has to do with the widespread availability of marijuana, its growing social acceptance, and the perception that its accepted use will have a relatively benign effect on society. With public spending under more scrutiny than ever in the last few years, it's unsurprising that many people view the incarceration/prosecution of non-violent drug offenders and the general enforcement of marijuana prohibition to be a poor allocation of tax revenue.[/quote]

Wow, someone actually being helpful and intellectually answering my question? Thank you!

If you're fishing for a real answer, it has to do with the widespread availability of marijuana, its growing social acceptance, and the perception that its accepted use will have a relatively benign effect on society. With public spending under more scrutiny than ever in the last few years, it's unsurprising that many people view the incarceration/prosecution of non-violent drug offenders and the general enforcement of marijuana prohibition to be a poor allocation of tax revenue.

Not surprised really. Alcohol is more widely available than any other substance on that chart. That, plus drunk driving, alcohol poisoning, and the huge amount of people who become violent when they drink.

Okay, so the study is bogus, but acid and shrooms are just as safe as weed. I guess I can grow my own shrooms... But acid should be legalized! (I'll drop molly because stupid people be dying at EDC and UMF every year.)

[quote=WontPostMuch]It's really scary that such "studies" garner much attention. One of those things that really, really should not be littered with misinformation. Pretty horrifying to think of someone naively thinking that because they've abused alcohol before and been fine, they have science backing up experimenting with other drugs since they're "much less harmful."[/quote]

The problem starts with the scientific community, because some the the authors are pretty big fish in their area of expertise they, more often than not, get a free pass in terms of peer-reviewed publication. Just because they did amazing work in the past does not guarantee that their current work is on par. This kind of publications should be reserved for some newspaper column, and not a leading scientific journal. Not without a giant disclaimer stating that this data represents opinions and not empirical data.

[quote=dimo]The study is based on opinions, granted from experts, and not real life statistics. Similarly as stated in the limitations, drug availability greatly influenced the final ordering.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673610614626[/quote]

It's really scary that such "studies" garner much attention. One of those things that really, really should not be littered with misinformation. Pretty horrifying to think of someone naively thinking that because they've abused alcohol before and been fine, they have science backing up experimenting with other drugs since they're "much less harmful."

[quote=Icephoenix21]Seems like you're the retard around here. I'm done replying lol.[/quote]

Lol, my original post didn't mention meth and heroine. There's other drugs on the list; just sayin'.

The study is based on opinions, granted from experts, and not real life statistics. Similarly as stated in the limitations, drug availability greatly influenced the final ordering.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673610614626

[quote=Icephoenix21]@yorkies88888: How do you consider weed dangerous lol.[/quote]

I don't. I also don't think acid or shrooms is dangerous; molly is bordering dangerous, but only in the hands of retards who don't hydrate and take stupid amounts. Coke is only dangerous because it's so addicting. Meth and heroine ARE dangerous.

[quote=yorkies88888]And my question is why not legalize all the other drugs less dangerous than alcohol and weed? What logical barrier separates weed from all the other "less dangerous" drugs?[/quote]

Lol if you've ever tried smoking weed for a month straight vs. abusing oxycodone a month straight, you'd find out the logic behind it. Please don't pass assessment of drug risk if you have no experience on the matter LOL

@yorkies88888: How do you consider weed dangerous lol.

Yeah, I think that "study" was pretty retarded. It has more to do with prevalence, acceptance of use in public, etc. I can assure you that if society viewed methamphetamine use as normal and allowed it to become a dominant part of society, alcohol would quickly prove to show how tame it actually is. It's a bit worrisome naive people just read that some "study" had proved it and actually think there's less risk involved to other drugs and alcohol indeed is the most damaging.

Source: I've done many, many drugs and alcohol is not nearly as harmful or nearly as debilitating as constant abuse of other drugs.

[quote=Icephoenix21]Why not legalize it.[/quote]

And my question is why not legalize all the other drugs less dangerous than alcohol and weed? What logical barrier separates weed from all the other "less dangerous" drugs?

Why not legalize it.