| Archive for The Motor Forum talking cars since 2006 |
| garry |
Horse riding vs drug takingIt seems that riding a horse is a higher risk activity that taking ecstasy according to Professor David Nutt. Alan Johnson doesn't agree, and Prof Nutt is sacked.Call me old fashioned, but when I want fact-based reports about drugs I'd trust an eminent expert in the field writing a peer reviewed paper rather than an ex postman who thinks we revolve around the sun (or the mirror). Galileo must be spinning in his grave. |
||||||||
| DradusContact |
They cant be seen to be letting up on drugs though. If they turn round and say that actually, exstasy isnt that bad for you consumption will likely jump right up. | ||||||||
| franki68 |
Re: Horse riding vs drug taking
I seem to remember a few years bck,one of the /truly nasty papers (the mAil ) making a big fuss about the effect of 'weed' on drivers .Then the government started making lots of noise about it. It was then pointed out that the figures used (marijuana showing up in dead bodies after crashes) mad e no mention that virtually all of the samples had other drugs in their body,nor the fact that marijuana stays in your body a long time so you can be perfectly sober but blood tests will show marijuana in your system) . Then a report appeared on an experiment conducted on behalf of the government about the effect s of marijuana on your driving.To the governments dismay the experiment showed that after 1 spliff people actually drove better,never was a report hushed up so quickly,nor a subject dropped so quickly . |
||||||||
| Apex clipper |
A war 'they', and everyother country lost from the year..dot.  Now taxable drugs...That's deemed as being ok....UMMM?
This government doesn't know it's arse from it's elbow in terms of the classification on drugs..and why should it when it fires the very guys that study the very subject. |
||||||||
| "him" |
Re: Horse riding vs drug taking
Is that because people open their eyes wider? 
|
||||||||
| Apex clipper |
Re: Horse riding vs drug taking
No. It's that they drive at 20mph..everywhere. And they don't crash..but gracefully nudge..you. |
||||||||
| PG |
Drugs are clearly dangerous, in that studies have shown that cannabis can cause mental issues and so forth, and heroin addicts are hardly pillars of health. I might get killed riding a horse, but simply sitting on a horse won't give me long term health issues.
But as usual the argument gets side-tracked. We have alcohol and tobacco that are legal, taxed and freely available drugs, both of which have health and societal issues, but all the talk about other drugs is just about banning / punishment / though on drugs and so on. Unless we address that issue and move onto legalisation, education and legislation about drugs, we will never solve this hypocritical issue. |
||||||||
| Twelfth Monkey |
Regardless of the rights and wrongs, why bother asking eminent scientists to sit on advisory boards if you've already made up your minds, as so often seems to be the case? | ||||||||
| Nice Guy Eddie |
On a medical position Canabbis should be made legal. I have known people who have smoked for years and have never suffered any mental issues. Those that do I would guess will have always suffered anyway. It turns normal law abiding people into criminals unnecessarily. Having it sat as class C was about right if no intention was there to legalise. | ||||||||
| Mark |
This is hardly scientific, but people who I know or who I’ve met that admit to having spent meaningful time smoking weed always seem to be a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic. | ||||||||
| garry |
I'm convinced that if you lie to kids about drugs you make the problem bigger.
Kids try drugs. If they're told cannabis is really really dangerous, they'll still try it ('cos they're kids and they do things like that). When they work out that they've been lied to (i.e. cannabis is very safe) they'll disregard all goverment drug advice. |
||||||||
| TimR |
I saw a bit of this at the weekend.
I presume the scientist is implying that more people die from horse riding incidents than from the particular drug/drugs he was on about? If so it might be fair enough but surely there's more implications to the wider consequences of drug use. For example you don't hear about many people driving a car while being involved in horse riding at the same time and I've never heard of any horse riding types taking to a life of crime to feed their habit. It seems to me that drug taking in general has a much greater negative impact to other people than horse riding. |
||||||||
| Humphrey The Pug |
Agree, my daughter's boyfriend is always out there on another planet and he has ADHD too so smoking weed isn't exactly going to help that. We also went on holiday afew years ago with another couple and the husband had a massive weed habit and without his regular joints he was a complete arse hole of a miserable bastard, then again he did smoke a lot of it. It's a tough one as if alcohol and tobacco were to be discovered now or 30 odd years back they would both be illegal too, I suppose if you make all recreational drugs legal then the supply can be much better managed and monitored by the state, costs could come down and there would be far less criminal involvement, but then again you are now saying it's ok to get high on potentially life changing substances. |
||||||||
| "him" |
I agree, the same can be said for lots of other things too...
I don't agree with that at all, some kids have never tried them, nor smoking... (My wife and I have never done either), and I can list a dozen friends who say the same. I do however think it is hypocritical to "demonise" cannabis whilst allowing cigarettes to remain on sale. /resists ranting about alcohol... |
||||||||
| Mike Amos |
I suppose it's a little too late to say the problem is those who cannot scratch without drawing blood. Not having tried any of these things (well, alcohol obviously enough, like most of us), I see the problem being too much consumption rather than ANY consumption.
I was often labelled as an alcoholic because I might have a beer of an evening, even if Sally (my then wife) was not going to have a tipple. She was from a very strict church upbringing tho'. Fags and booze will not be on the agenda as far as I can see because a, too many mp's enjoy these things and b, they bring in far too much by way of taxation. Unlike Ireland, the church does not have enough clout to make any meaningful impact either way. |
||||||||
| woof woof |
"This is hardly scientific, but people who I know or who I’ve met that admit to having spent meaningful time smoking weed always seem to be a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic."
Yup. It's amazing how many people who insist that cannabis has never done them any harm can't complete a sentence never mind string a few together. |
||||||||
| garry |
And you've heard of people turning to crime to feed a cannabis or ecstacy habit? Not even in the daily mail I'm afraid. Remember, the prof hasn't said "all drugs are good". He's simply pointed to facts that show certain types of drugs pose very little danger. |
||||||||
| woof woof |
If these drugs pose little danger is it just a co-incidence that so many useless wastes of space and so many of the bad lads around who are committing crimes do? Maybe drugs just attract the lazy, dim, anti social and violent bastards that are no use to society? | ||||||||
| GonnaBreakABuggy |
Last time I checked, so does alcohol + tobbaco. | ||||||||
| TimR |
S'pose you're right. I was getting carried away 
|
||||||||
| Skyhook |
How many turn to weed because they have mental issues already though? |
||||||||
| Mark |
I don't know. |
||||||||
| Twelfth Monkey |
Equally anecdotally, long-term cannabis use did seem to change the personalities of a couple of people I knew. | ||||||||
| Boxer6 |
A lot - you may be surprised.... |
||||||||
| Mark |
I'm sure you're right - but turning to weed when one has a mental illness doesn't make any sense to me, though? |
||||||||
| Skyhook |
Neither do I
I just find it odd that no-one researches this. |
||||||||
| Skyhook |
With out being glib, those with mental illness don't always do things that make sense... |
||||||||
| Mark |
Of course. I just get a bit irked by the attitude of "oh, it's ok, it's just a bit of weed". I've seen people off their face on the stuff and jump into a car, hurt themselves and do many, many other things. Obviously, the same can be said for alcohol and I'm not sure how its use should be contolled at all. But, smoking the shit isn't just ok, in my opinion. (don't get me wrong, I don't have a holier than thou attitude towards the issue - I've been off my trolley on the stuff (and tried other things) in the past.) |
||||||||
| ALF |
Don't you lot start - my wife has been moaning about the comparison with horse riding all day! | ||||||||
| Scouse |
Yup me too, as a youngster when half the thrill was that it was illegal. But having seen the shambles that several friends have become due to cannabis use, seen the mess that others made of their lives with harder drugs and seen people end up in intensive care due to 1 ecstasy tablet, I'm glad these things are illegal and don't think the current laws go far enough. |
||||||||
| woof woof |
Well...a woman I knew years ago fell off a horse and broke her neck but being a hard northern lass (and the owner of one of the best arses I've ever seen...) she just got up and walked home.
Horse riding can give a woman wonderful thighs and a great arse, things that taking drugs never does. I think I've won the argument. Horse riding is good, drugs are bad. |
||||||||
| garry |
I feel like I've logged onto a Daily Mail forum! Good to know no-ones letting the facts get in the way... | ||||||||
| Apex clipper |
Wasn't that the very point of the discussion? Is your gripe the mentioning of horse riding in the same melting pot as cannabis use..or the fact you disagree with the use of said substance? I'm sure that they only used the horse riding analogy as a benchmark. Daily mail??????? 
|
||||||||
| "him" |
Some perspective...
|
||||||||
| Apex clipper |
Or..!!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFHU1X1PED4 |
||||||||
| Giant |
Regardless of our own anecdotes, how can the government employ experts on subjects such as drugs then sack them if their scientific research doesn't give the results to match the governments less than informed opinions? I think it is utterly scandalous, but completly unsurprising. | ||||||||
| Frank Bullitt |
It is quite curious how an open discussion on drugs seems to still be utterly taboo - even hint that all people who take drugs aren't crazed criminals with depraved lives destroyed by the very evil of society (TM Daily Fascist) marks you out as fair game for some serious examination by the press.
It seems facts are indeed unwelcome. |
||||||||
| DarthBalls |
In a previous job I met a university lecturer who, along with his was supervisor, was subjected to sanctions from a national funding body and pilloried in the press for publishing the results of a study showing that some people can actually use heroin and hold down a jobs and that there are people who can use it recreationally. | ||||||||
| PG |
We need to think laterally. I don't know what the annual revenue of the drug trade is in the UK, but imagine 17.5% VAT and some form of duty on that lot. The NHS already treats those for whom taking drugs has gone wrong, so it's a win-win. | ||||||||
| garry |
Agreed. It's what you expect to see in tinpot fascist dictatorships, or the dark ages. What most irks me is that I think Johnson has called it right from a political standpoint - the general public have been brainwashed enough to think 'drugs =bad' to the point that no expert and no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise. |
||||||||
| woof woof |
The question I keep coming back to is why take drugs?
We've probably all known people who've been adversely affected by recreational drugs and we've all read and heard horror stories like those on radio 2 today. Just as with smoking tobacco and links to disease there may not ever be any true irrefutable and absolute facts that aren't questioned and argued but despite there being no clear agreement I don't believe that anyone can really if they're being honest with themselves think anything other than taking recreational drugs is at best a huge game of Russian roulette. I haven't got an addictive personality but I think that I can see how rebellion, inner doubts, troubles or peer pressure might push a person towards recreational drugs, I find the actions of superficially more successful and balanced people who take drugs harder to understand. As with tobacco despite the arguments we must all by now know that it's highly likely that there are risks so why take drugs? "Just say no" seems pretty good to me. |
||||||||
| garry |
So Alan, I guess if you were offered 10 laps of the nurburgring in the car of your choice you'd decline? Statistically moe dangerous than ecstasy....
Point is, risk is part of life. I'm sure you're not advocating a life with no risk - that would be terribly dull. You say taking recreational drugs is at best a huge game of russian roulette. That's really the whole point - the evidence (note; not anecdotes or scare stories on radio 2) says it's not risky. So, why take drugs? For me it would be the same reasons that i drink alcohol, drive too fast, climb mountains, sail boats. All have risk, I enjoy them all and I'm willing to take the risks involved. |
||||||||
| SpecB |
The whole point of taking risk - or at least the way I look at it - is the reward.
To take the thread title literally, I love riding and it is a calculated risk every time I get on horse but with an element of unknown. If I do a competition then the adrenaline rush at the end is great and that is the best free, legal drug in the world. I also like booze - in a different way - I find it relaxing but I can quite happily go out and not drink and if I don't have a drink in a while then that's fine. The problem with illegal drugs is that some people seem to need them more and more and become dependent in a far more serious manner than they do to alcohol for example. I am not saying this is totally correct but I think that some people have dependent tendencies more than other people and that the effects of any drug is different for everyone. Not everyone is an alcoholic. Some people may be able to smoke weed quite happily without it causing an adverse affect but that doesn't mean it isn't dangerous. The same goes for alcohol, cigarettes etc. Some people I know have smoked for years with no problem and the cause of their death hasn't been cigarettes so they may say they aren't dangerous. What it boils down to is that nobody knows what sort of long term effect there is as it hasn't been studied long enough and not enough people admit to being regular users. Comparing smoking weed to getting on a not entirely predictable semi domesticated animal is nonsense - it can be dangerous while your'e engaged in it but once you stop the danger is over and the risk has stopped. |
||||||||
| woof woof |
garry "(note; not anecdotes or scare stories on radio 2)"
I don't think for one minute that the parents interviewed on R2 today were lying, I'm convinced of their honesty and that their children's lives were badly affected by drugs. I don't believe that drugs are safe as drugs being safe doesn't fit at all with what I've seen for myself. What I've seen for myself is people not functioning how I'd expect them too, not being able to concentrate, not being able to hold a conversation, basically functioning less well than the ESN I used to help out with, others like my ex's son, paranoid and tormented by voices I can't hear. I just can't see it as a risk worth taking. |
||||||||
| Skyhook |
Alan, you do realise this forum doesn't actually exist, don't you? Apart from in your head - even now as you read this and reach for the keyboard you are actually staring at your computers desktop picture. Just think about it... me, some of the others, the ones you agree with, the ones you sometimes don't see eye-to-eye with... we aren't real, we are just avatars to the sections of your mind that control your emotions... love, anger, happiness, fear, self-doubt, pride... that's why we hit nerves sometimes. You try to leave... but you can't... think why now... Think on... if this really was real... would you really post pictures of your shoes? And there'd be a conversation about them? We are just a construct of your mind Alan. |
||||||||
| Frank Bullitt |
I don't think the last bit represents the facts though - Alcohol, as a an adictive and legal drug is just as capable of destroying lives and indeed it does up and down the country day-in day-out. Now, that may not be the case for you but it's perfectly possible that relaxing drink you enjoy could be replaced by a nice spliff. I knew people in my teens who took drugs and it wrecked their lives - I also knew plenty who took drugs and it didn't; the difference with the former is that they were always on a spiral of destruction and drugs were merely their tool; it could have been alcohol or any other addictive buzz. That's the point, their personalities were addictive, not the drugs. |
||||||||
| DB |
I tend to think that the government policy on this is correct. The risks for certain illegal drugs maybe no greater than a range of legal activities. However given the issues that exist with abuse of legal substances such as alcohol, would it be a good idea to increase the range of substances available.
Remember alcohol it is not just damaging the full blown alcoholics, but there are many more who binge, or just drink more than they should that we suffer long term health problems as a result. The governement know that it is far easier to keep something illegal, than to outlaw something. So in this regard I can see the logic. |
||||||||
| garry |
I don't think they're lying either. My point is that you can take any topic and fill an hour on r2 with enough scare stories to fill you with fear. It would be crap radio if the show represented reality "..and now we have Bob from London, who smoked cannabis a few times without problem" |
||||||||
| garry |
So I take it from this that you avoid modern medicine, foods and technology for the same reasons? |
||||||||
| "him" |
Modern medicines are a "known" compound, illegal drugs are often cut with other less expensive drugs or who knows what... 
It is much more difficult to know the risks of something so variable. 
|
||||||||
| DradusContact |
Lol that would make good radio. They arrested some lad on Road Wars on sunday night and he was sniffing 'coke' but it actually turned out to be chalk, it could be anything though. |
||||||||
| SpecB |
I don't see how that is a relevant question but the answer is obviously not. Most modern medicine is trialled before being released on the public is it not? |
||||||||
| SpecB |
I suppose you are right but I imagine it would be different for different people. |
||||||||
| woof woof |
Garry - "My point is that you can take any topic and fill an hour on r2 with enough scare stories to fill you with fear. It would be crap radio if the show represented reality "..and now we have Bob from London, who smoked cannabis a few times without problem""
I think that the reality is there for anyone able to see it and that those who think that recreational drugs are "safe" are either idiots or in denial (obviously this is IMHO) based upon what I've seen first hand. Anyone who doesn't accept that there are real risks associated with drug taking is either an idiot or in denial (IMHO) and I can't say that I'm happy to let live and let live with something as disruptive as drugs. Although it's a tragedy for the family when a druggie suffers effects chances are that it doesn't affect me directly too much but a druggie let loose on society is a quality of life threatening thing, even a life threatening thing, and for selfish reasons I do wish that more people would simply either say no or take drugs and rot and die on their own time and expense with no inconvenience, cost or danger to me. If they can do that I'm truly happy for them. Anyone who thinks that drugs are not disruptive, quality of life spoiling and even dangerous to others in society should think about drug associated organised and individual crime, the health and safety implications of drug residue and waste, the health and safety implications of performance degradation at work and on the roads and the drain on resources including the police, prisons, housing, welfare costs and healthcare. As I'm usually all for choice and freedom with responsibility I have no real objection to drugs if people get into them through true personal and informed choice and if it doesn't affect me, my taxation or the facilities and services I use. Perhaps like track drivers druggies could take themselves off to some druggie centre in Europe, do their drugs and either die or come down again and then return home (only let back into the country if not suffering from mental or physical problems) until next time. Effect on me = nil. 
|
||||||||
| garry |
Modern medicine goes through clinical trials. Cannabis has been through many clinical trials. The short term impact of both are well understood. The point I was making is that lots of modern stuff has unknown long term implications - the mobile phone, the microwave, gm foods, sweeteners, statins, etc. Doesn't stop us using them though. |
||||||||
| Skyhook |
Thalidomide anyone? | ||||||||
| garry |
It really goes back to my initial post - Do I believe an eminent professor in the field or an ex postie. You're suggesting that your anecdote-based view is more valid than a professor in the field. I respectfully disagree. |
||||||||
| PG |
Drugs are variable because they are illegal. Like hooch in the prohibition days. There is no quality control, no legal requirements as to production and testing and so on. The growth of the mafia and organised crime in the US was driven by the prohibition era. We've just done the same with illegal drugs. Whatever we may think the drug genie is out of the bottle. Therefore some from of decriminalisation, education, taxation and control of availability and strength are the only solution. And I say all that as a non-user. |
||||||||
| Dr. Hfuhruhurr |
No thanks, I'll stick with the booze if that's OK. Seriously, some interesting points in this thread, but the parallel that always springs to mind is what happened when the US tried to make alcohol illegal. Firstly, it didn't stop people drinking. Secondly, it transferred distribution and production of alcoholic drink to organised crime. Thirdly, this meant the product itself wasn't subject to any standards. Finally, after a decade or so, the government gave up Prohibition as a bad idea. |
||||||||
| SpecB |
I see what you are getting at - true. |
||||||||
| TimR |
Can I divert this slightly to my favourite 'risky' pastime of driving.
We've established that 'drugs are bad' and that booze is bad as well. Since I never indulge in the former and rarely touch the latter why am I, as a road user, being targeted as some kind of international terrorist due to speeding on (usually empty) main roads while it seems that less plod = less likelihood of drunks being stopped and there appears to be little in place to identify those driving under the influence of drugs? |
||||||||
| garry |
The link is obvious. If drugs policies can be based on gut feel and anecdote then so can speeding policies. Radio 2 can just as easily get a whole host of people to appear and recount very sad tales of loss relating to motoring, mainly because the majority experience doesn't make for good radio "lets hear Bob from London telling us how he drove without any incident yet again!". We let the government do stuff without reason because we're too stupid en masse to hold them to account. Look at the latest regulation around child protection. Because we've been brainwashed into believing that it's a much more dangerous world for our kids than it was for us (in spite of evidence that says the opposite) we're about to see a whole host of regulation that means driving your mates kids to school on a regular basis will require government clearance. |
||||||||
| TimR |
What I mean is, if drug taking is such an issue surely there should be more plod on the road to find it.
A camera is only good for 1 offence out of millions of possibles. |
||||||||
| Dr. Hfuhruhurr |
Despite smoking spliff a few times |
||||||||
| Mrs Skyhook |
Must admit I've done a bit of weed in my time (and my sentences are perfectly strung together thankyouverymuch, I even get my apostrophes in the right place, usually) and it's never done me any harm. And I won't show up on any of the research as someone who doesn't have mental health issues despite using cannabis in the past because I've never come under the scrutiny of a doctor or the police. Most people who use or have used cannabis are more like me than the psychotic brain-dead Daily Mail readers like to think of when they hear the word 'cannabis'. I have also ridden horses. And riding (or rather, falling off) a horse did do me some harm. Broken ankle. I never broke anything on cannabis, not even a glass. I have long thought cannabis should be legalised. In fact, I think all drugs should be legalised, including heroin. Get it off the streets and make it easily and freely available in specialised clinics and wipe out a large proportion of drug gangs and drug crime in one hit. But this government would never grasp the nettle like that. |
||||||||
| woof woof |
If your experience is that "most" people who smoke it are performing to their true potential then there's probably an explanation somewhere, I'd guess strength of the stuff or length or frequency of use related. Moderation is the key to everything I suppose and I've never heard of anyone dying or suffering severe consequences from smoking one joint (but we should all know and accept that smoking is a stupid thing to do) but that can't be said for all drugs and we should all know by now that one ecstasy pill or one shot of heroin can put you in accident and emergency or kill you.
So, despite people who tell me that cannabis and other drugs are safe I think taking recreational drugs in general is sad and stupid and a needless stupid gamble and something that a well balanced individual should turn away from. If others disagree...fine, fill your boots... but please do it responsibly and don't commit crimes, drive, vomit in the street or leave your needles and crap where it can harm others. |
||||||||
| Boxer6 |
Can, yes, but so rarely does it is statistically insignificant.
Does that include you abstaining from your chosen alcoholic beverages for the rest of your life then? |
||||||||
| woof woof |
I drink now and again but I do so responsibly, see my earlier post about responsible freedom and not fooking up other peoples lives.
I don't believe that the instances of one ecstasy pill or shot of heroin causing problems are statistically insignificant but if you can show me a reliable source stating otherwise I'll gladly read it. Even so, if one shot can be deadly or life changing it's statistically significant to the statistically insignificant person and family it affects. As no one can be absolutely sure how many people take these drugs any figures could be questioned but from what I've heard and read statistically insignificant patients arriving at casualty at the weekend are common enough. If common enough is statistically insignificant or statistically significant I can't say. |
||||||||
| Blarno |
Horseriding vs drugs:
Horses worry me. They're nice to look at, but I'd never want to ride one. I'd rather be stoned than vegetablised after falling off a horse. I agree with Mrs S regarding legalisation. Legalise them all, tax the bollocks off them and make them 'safe'. I've done my fair share of chemicals in the past, and suffered no lasting damage. Sure, I've had hallucinations here and there and driven a car when I shouldn't have done, but I've learnt from all of it. A life without risks is a very dull life. I don't touch anything stronger than vodka nowadays. My main bugbear at the moment is the media hype about 'date rape drug' GBL. GBL is not a drug, it is an industrial solvent, used for the cleaning of PCBs and paintstripping. Anyone who is willingly putting this shit into their body deserves everything that is coming to them. Using GBL as a drug is like having a pint of Methanol just because it's alcoholic. As a result of all this crap, GBL is all but banned in this country, meaning we can no longer process it at work, potentially losing us a contract. Luckily, there's a similar solvent available (Ethyl Di Glycol, by the way, for all you 'mad for it clubbers' who want a new high.) Unfortunately, as long as there are stupid people around, they will continue to pump illicit, illegal or downright barmy substances into their bodies. |
||||||||
| Boxer6 |
Yes, but your point was people should stop using recreational drugs - alcohol is a recreational drug, as is tobacco. The only difference between those and Cannabis et al is that they're legal! Someone has already said, as has been said for many years now, that if alcohol and tobacco were discovered today, they would be banned - and rightly so. Oh, and re the "insignificant" deaths from Ecstasy etc - no death is insignificant to the families involved, and I would never suggest otherwise. What I am saying is, compared to, say, the number of road deaths every years, the number of deaths attributed to Ecstasy, Heroin or a number of other substances is negligible. |
||||||||
| DaveGibson |
If alcohol had not been discovered, way back when, most of us would probably not be around, because our ancestors would have died of some waterborne disease. Instead, they drank alcoholic beverages, which, by the method of their production, killed off the bugs. | ||||||||
| woof woof |
"Yes, but your point was people should stop using recreational drugs..."
No it wasn't babe. What I said was ... "If others disagree...fine, fill your boots... but please do it responsibly and don't commit crimes, drive, vomit in the street or leave your needles and crap where it can harm others." I don't do drugs, I think taking drugs is sad and stupid but each to his own and if people know the risks and keep out of my way and don't hurt others (as so many of them seem to do) why should I care if they waste their life? I don't think it's the same as alcohol because in moderation alcohol does (arguably) little damage, if any, and some argue that a glass of wine now and again actually does you good. However, cannabis and ecstasy are variable and certainly not prescribed by a doctor knowing your medical history if you buy them from Dave in bogs and whereas one glass of wine wont kill you one dose of cannabis or ecstasy might and being arguably (and we wont agree here as I think that the number of deaths and serious consequences are significant) statistically irrelevant would be little comfort to the surviving family. BTW, smoking tobacco is stupid too. All IMVHO of course. seems apt.
|
||||||||
| garry |
You'll be pleased to know that such a study exists. It was featured on Horizon a while back and it listed the top substances based on harm, dependency and social problems. The list looks like this:- 1 Heroin 2 Cocaine 3 Barbiturates 4 Street methadone 5 Alcohol 6 Ketamine 7 Benzodiazepine 8 Amphetamines 9 Tobacco 10 Buprenorphine 11 Cannabis 12 Solvents 13 4-MTA 14 LSD 15 Methylphenidate 16 Anabolic steroids 17 GHB 18 Ecstasy 19 Alkyl nitrates 20 Khat http://www.timesonline.co.uk/mult...8/Professor_Nutt_pape_638397a.pdf |
||||||||
| "him" |
I expected to see Methamphetamine ("crystal meth") on there somewhere, or is that not such a problem over here yet?
Or is it on the list under another name? 
|
||||||||
| DradusContact |
Is it
"15 Methylphenidate" ? Not being 'with it' i wouldnt know. |