P or Alcohol and Smoking worse?

From stuff today there is an article around the whole "we should be drug testing our kids in schools".

I can see a valid arguement around the P war being a big issue cause it does some crazy things to people.

But, surely alcohol and smoking still kills more people. Society has just accepted it.

Here is the article: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4563539a11.html

So should we really be focussing on P cause it is current and growing, or should we be focussing on what kills many more people day in day out?

It's to do with "per user damage" though - the "alcohol and smoking kills lot more people than drug X so drug X should be legal too" is an awful argument as it doesn't think about relative harm (which current drug policy doesn't seem to do either).

It's about which drug is most dangerous for a given population of users - you need to keep the worst seriously in check to stop usage becoming wide spread and therefore the damage to the population as a whole growing with it.

stuff drug testing - expensive and flawed on so many many levels

they should ban all pseudoephedrine products

course the legal drug companies would not have that for a second

the war on drugs is a farce

I think the American system mentioned in the article in today's Herald will prove to be the best long-run way of curbing serious drug use. It's working for sure in the US and other places.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10513121

I am just not sold on the let them use dope arguments. I have dozens of friends who take/took dope and they are also exclusively the ones who've got into serious drug use and become involved in crime - people who would likely never have gotten involved with the people they did were it not for the drug use. You can't prove it but it seems so obvious not to be the case generally.

I know there is lots of argument for harm mitigation through allowing the use of BZP etc but who can honestly say they can't also see that they're the most obvious gateway to seeking bigger buzzes?

If we decide that heroin and P are bad then it makes sense to me to clamp down on the things which start the road to their use.

R

those interested in some actual intellignet debate - ignore the herald and get over to public address (deflats much of that US scheme Rob, natural decline in use is not sucess - but check PA for more facts and opinions)

I had forgot it is election year - drug paranoia on

If you believe that people get into serious drugs because they start with something like dope then surely some blame has to also be placed on alcohol and smoking?

I should have said at the top of my post: if we decide that P etc are bad and the country needs saving from it then....

The thing about usage and that US example is you can see the success in places like Thailand, Singapore, Japan etc against the high-end of rug use - where the real damage is done. People do respond to threats of serious punishment, but in NZ we have a very long history of average threats and flimsy follow-through - which gives people the argument that harsh laws don't work when they actually do if you actually deliver on them, which we don't. This leads to more and more taking the piss and acting with impunity. I bet if we had a serious rack-down on Class A drugs: mandatory 5 years minimum (with no home detention) the supply would drop.. prices would rise.. and you'd be working your way towards having only those who dug their heels in hanging on.

Not knocking this on its head quickly is a really bad oversight which ignores the examples of cities where meth use had gotten badly out of hand (and seen associated crime rise). There is no way easing access to other, 'lighter', forms of escapism drugs or whatever will help prevent the increase in use of meth. Getting hard wont get rid of the desire to take stuff ever - but it can curb the use of the most dangerous ones - mitigating the knock-on effects they have on individuals and communities.

R

There is an established link of some people having addictive traits - like people who gamble are far more likely to be smokers or heavy drinkers... so I agree you can't hold them as being completely separate.

But, when you look at the knock-on effects of smoking for example the effects are just not there - the crime, desperation which almost spurs on poor behavior, a drop in self maintenance (eating, sleep etc), the supply chain being almost exclusively via human filth.. etc .. Ciggies may be extremely unhealthy but they have little knock-on effects otherwise - especially psychotic/dangerous behavior which comes with meth, heroin etc.

Alcohol, granted.. cause of man problems in the world/family etc. Simply because of its long history it could not be pried from people's grasp. It is heavily regulated though so, from the supply end at least, is a relatively safe product when taken in normal 'doses' (what normal is differs). You can't say the same about meth. One dose is enough to ruin a career, job, relationship, family or life far more effectively and quickly than alcohol.

R

you'd be surprised at how big a black market there is for ciggies Rob - be it for those brought in by aircrew or those stolen domestically

Your hardline concept would only work if we were to happily give up many of our current freedoms

of course the logical course is always legalise, harm reducation and the like... but that never fits into the law and order agenda or the culture of fear that drug talk is so often beset by

is it so wrong to want to indulge?

Seems to me much of the harm done to society is down to the fact that 'drugs' are illegal... individuals will always fuck themselves up

Rob - Well put....I was having a discussion with my almost step father about it and his arguement was that we should ban smoking and drinking (especially drinking) cause it is possible to go crazy on a night of heavy drinking (like that ad!) and ruin one's career/family/life.

But I definitely agree with the notion that one can completely ruin yourself with one dose of meth...and then get addicted to more and more and the downward spiral continues....

No, it isn't - I'd never argue it isn't. But indulging with something like alcohol where feasibly the dose is more calculable is far safe than with herion or meth.

But, claiming the harm done by drugs is somehow because of their legal status is bollocks imo. Allowing the use of something would lead most people to assume it is therefore safe to try - removing the single biggest barrier to sampling meth etc which should be kept in place. You cannot reduce use of something by doing everything you can to simplify access to it. I know advocates for this sort of theory say "oh, but you educate people..." bla bla - yeah, that's worked in how many examples? Smoking? Alcohol? Gambling? Easing/growing access to these has only resulted in a rise in sad cases of overuse.

For sure in situations where something is illegal the supply chain follows the path of least resistance - often to the detriment of the product quality or who you have to deal with to get it.

R

I don't want to get invloved in a long discourse on drugs... as the subject is dull but..

I want to live MY life not that which other people deem I should

I want freedom of choice

a selfish outlook perhaps but to deny me the right to choose is selfish to

I don't ever think that's the issue though - the issue is when broader society (be it a family, community or national infrastructure such as mental health, hospitals, crime etc) is called upon to pick up the pieces because of the harm you've done by being able to choose to indulge.
A fresh, clean-slate look at real societal harm of the various "drugs" is well overdue to get a true look at that of course.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all about personal choice. But there is a scale from white to black.. at some shade of grey activities need to be collectively agreed upon by the country. Murder, for example is a no-brainer. Assault also... So when do things which result in the people less capable of making an informed/realistic choice about things - even self-inflicted things - become of an importance that the personal choice aspect is taken away from them?

The point with drugs, like other things, is it's not the special cases which make the point, it's the average case. In meth's case for example, the national average says: it's endemic in criminal circles, it is associated with others crimes and lots of human misery. It is a factor in over 50% of all district court cases nowdays.. So when is it good enough to say: if we stomp on it now, perhaps prematurely, we will save X number of lives and mitigate the flow-on crimes and economic effects or, do we just wait until it finds a natural, unregulated level.. by which time it would possibly too hard to ever recover from or solve?

Stamping down really hard on dealers/importers would work and have less social cost than attempting to educate people who have already proven in many cases they're beyond educating. Moreso because once addicted people do things they rarely, if ever, would if they'd been prevented from trying (or made difficult to source) it in the first place.

You are right tho - people will never stop wanting to get wasted - but sometimes the method of getting wasted makes a big wake of bad effects behind it and those are the times it needs serious addressing.

R

I agree about the harm on scoiety and all that, just today I can't be arsed with that, I just wanna get high man

well not really (well not til after work) but am a little weary of the protect/protect/protect/defend concept with regards to our "society" - a society that values a certain way of life and standard of life that is a myth to more than a few, our world doesn't work for many so some opt out, look for escapes and then get dumped on because they don't fit in....

our whole way of life and values systems need serious looking at not just our attitudes towards recreational drugs

save a life but kill the planet

Erm....everyone has a choice...if you want something I'm sure someone can get it for you.

The problem is that we don't want people killed because of it....it's not about what you do to yourself but what you may do to others...

oh the we don't want anyone killed line - sure I can accept that

there are no deaths attributed to my drug of choice, yet it is still illegal

our recreational drugs polices make no sense, our fear of recreational drugs make no sense... our desire for a safe society makes a lot of sense

major overhaul to attitudes and laws needed

Stop it, you're making me horny

unless you subscribe to the view that it induces schizophrenia/psychosis and that such affected people have been known to kill themselves or others and to be using the drug heavily prior to doing so

I can imagine (but won't)

thing is though Vads and the tough law advocates, all every country that their are seriosuly harsh anti drug laws - YOU CAN GET DRUGS

prohibition has never worked and yet is still promoted as the only solution it seems

perhaps it is time to try the other options - mind you those are not aimed at eradication

there are proven links to mental illness and also lying on the couch watching inane telly...

like many of the products on our supermarket shelves

harm reducation, education and state control sales/distribution etc. is a much healthier way for us as a society to address the negatives than the current one

If we were to focus on making everyone in this countires lives richer, healthier and more fulfilling I would wager we could vastly reduce much of the consequences experienced by some users and also take away the need some have for the emotional crutch that some drugs become

forlorn hope there bob_d

maybe NR but I'd rather that glimmer of hope than none in Vad's police state

im going for a cigarette right now =)

just came back

it was great

induces, NO.


Is extremely bad for those who are or have predisposition towards, totally.

But to say that it is totally causal is a fallacy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6606931.stm



http://www.ukcia.org/library/hit_zerrin_atakan.php