Anything worse than this isn't fun
November 1, 2010 3:53 AM Subscribe
This post was deleted for the following reason: Daily Mail is kind of a famously bad source unless you've got a specifically good reason to link to it, in which case saying why is probably a good idea. More generally, you do indeed have control over the framing of your post and putting this in a more explanatory context and skipping the crappy-hed stuff would make the post a lot more workable. -- cortex
I don't care. Drinking is a life-affirming joy and I'd rather lose ten or fifteen years from a happy, drink-laden life than have those extra years without it. To hell with the neo-puritans. To hell with them, I say.
posted by Decani at 4:07 AM on November 1, 2010 [9 favorites]
posted by Decani at 4:07 AM on November 1, 2010 [9 favorites]
Alcohol is more harmful than heroin or crack
Depends on how you're defining harm, as well as who is being harmed. Not a great way to frame the post :|
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:08 AM on November 1, 2010
Depends on how you're defining harm, as well as who is being harmed. Not a great way to frame the post :|
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:08 AM on November 1, 2010
Smoke: This is very misleading framing.....you are doing a three dimensional argument no favours by framing it in such a one-dimensional fashion.
Can you expand on this? The news articles both refer to a Lancet article by David Nutt, who is pretty much the UK expert on this stuff (former head of the Expert Advisory Council on Drugs, sacked for arguing, against the government's wishes, for an evidence-based approach to drug harm). Unfortunately the article isn't on the Lancet's website yet.
BP: the BBC (first) link discusses the harm to both others and to self; though it does appear that Nutt etc considered the widespread use of alcohol as part of their criteria - so it doesn't seem to be necessarily saying 'alcohol is worse for an individual than crack', but 'the way we collectively use alcohol is worse for us than the way we collectively use crack'.
posted by Infinite Jest at 4:15 AM on November 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
Can you expand on this? The news articles both refer to a Lancet article by David Nutt, who is pretty much the UK expert on this stuff (former head of the Expert Advisory Council on Drugs, sacked for arguing, against the government's wishes, for an evidence-based approach to drug harm). Unfortunately the article isn't on the Lancet's website yet.
BP: the BBC (first) link discusses the harm to both others and to self; though it does appear that Nutt etc considered the widespread use of alcohol as part of their criteria - so it doesn't seem to be necessarily saying 'alcohol is worse for an individual than crack', but 'the way we collectively use alcohol is worse for us than the way we collectively use crack'.
posted by Infinite Jest at 4:15 AM on November 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
Not a great way to frame the post
You know, it kind of pisses me off when people assume I have some kind of framing control over these posts. Hey, you run with this... Alcohol 'more harmful than heroin'. That's a link. How would you present that?
posted by twoleftfeet at 4:20 AM on November 1, 2010
You know, it kind of pisses me off when people assume I have some kind of framing control over these posts. Hey, you run with this... Alcohol 'more harmful than heroin'. That's a link. How would you present that?
posted by twoleftfeet at 4:20 AM on November 1, 2010
I am reminded of the best description of Meth I ever heard:
"Finally -- a drug as bad as your parents said."
posted by effugas at 4:20 AM on November 1, 2010 [13 favorites]
"Finally -- a drug as bad as your parents said."
posted by effugas at 4:20 AM on November 1, 2010 [13 favorites]
My MIL is an addictions specialist, and she always said that from a purely biological standpoint if you were going to become addicted to something with no serious long-term effects on the body that heroin would be the way to go. However, that is only under the assumption that one can find a nice clean source of heroin at all times, and also be a functional junkie (possible oxymoron).
This leads me to my second point which is how much I would love to see the results of this study if all of these drugs were equally available to the sampled demographic.
posted by empatterson at 4:21 AM on November 1, 2010
This leads me to my second point which is how much I would love to see the results of this study if all of these drugs were equally available to the sampled demographic.
posted by empatterson at 4:21 AM on November 1, 2010
You know, it kind of pisses me off when people assume I have some kind of framing control over these posts.
It's your post, you have complete control over it! If you can't find sources to give it some form of meaningful balance, or with some perspective other than outragefilter (the Daily Mail FFS!) then don't post it until you have. Take responsbility.
posted by biffa at 4:24 AM on November 1, 2010 [14 favorites]
It's your post, you have complete control over it! If you can't find sources to give it some form of meaningful balance, or with some perspective other than outragefilter (the Daily Mail FFS!) then don't post it until you have. Take responsbility.
posted by biffa at 4:24 AM on November 1, 2010 [14 favorites]
I liked (by which I mean rolled my eyes at) Peter Hitchens' take on this on the radio this morning. Paraphrasing: "You see? You see how dangerous something can be when you make it legal??"
posted by Drexen at 4:26 AM on November 1, 2010
posted by Drexen at 4:26 AM on November 1, 2010
you are doing a three dimensional argument no favours by framing it in such a one-dimensional fashion
Indeed, but. How do you get attention for a three-dimensional argument in a one-dimensional press?
posted by Vetinari at 4:27 AM on November 1, 2010
Indeed, but. How do you get attention for a three-dimensional argument in a one-dimensional press?
posted by Vetinari at 4:27 AM on November 1, 2010
'the way we collectively use alcohol is worse for us than the way we collectively use crack'.
Alcohol does most certainly cause a greater total cumulative damage to society than crack, but 'worse' would to most people imply a greater impact on a per-case basis. In other news: "Cars are more harmful than crack or nuclear weapons"
posted by Cironian at 4:30 AM on November 1, 2010
Alcohol does most certainly cause a greater total cumulative damage to society than crack, but 'worse' would to most people imply a greater impact on a per-case basis. In other news: "Cars are more harmful than crack or nuclear weapons"
posted by Cironian at 4:30 AM on November 1, 2010
The Daily Mail is a fine paper full of unbiased and rigorously tested information. Thanks to them we know alcohol also both prevents and causes cancer.
posted by stelas at 4:30 AM on November 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by stelas at 4:30 AM on November 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
Yay mushrooms!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:31 AM on November 1, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:31 AM on November 1, 2010 [2 favorites]
It's your post, you have complete control over it!
That's completely wrong. I'm linking to something else, doing my best not to obscure the message of the thing I'm linking to. How dare you assume that I agree with my link, or even understand it.
posted by twoleftfeet at 4:36 AM on November 1, 2010
That's completely wrong. I'm linking to something else, doing my best not to obscure the message of the thing I'm linking to. How dare you assume that I agree with my link, or even understand it.
posted by twoleftfeet at 4:36 AM on November 1, 2010
You know, it kind of pisses me off when people assume I have some kind of framing control over these posts. Hey, you run with this... Alcohol 'more harmful than heroin'. That's a link. How would you present that?
I think a complaint is valid because what you did smacks of sensationalism and there's no meta-analysis of it. You could have said, "Alcohol more harmful than drugs based on x,y,z and this challenges this traditional perception in such and such way."
It just seems like you raced to post this. And you linked to two articles that are pretty much identical in substance.
A Department of Health spokesperson said: ‘In England, most people drink once a week or less. If you’re a women and stick to two to three units a day or a man and drink up to three or four units, you are unlikely to damage your health.
Once a week? I don't know which England they're talking about, but from what I saw, once a week wasn't what "most people" seemed to think was normal.
posted by anniecat at 4:37 AM on November 1, 2010
I think a complaint is valid because what you did smacks of sensationalism and there's no meta-analysis of it. You could have said, "Alcohol more harmful than drugs based on x,y,z and this challenges this traditional perception in such and such way."
It just seems like you raced to post this. And you linked to two articles that are pretty much identical in substance.
A Department of Health spokesperson said: ‘In England, most people drink once a week or less. If you’re a women and stick to two to three units a day or a man and drink up to three or four units, you are unlikely to damage your health.
Once a week? I don't know which England they're talking about, but from what I saw, once a week wasn't what "most people" seemed to think was normal.
posted by anniecat at 4:37 AM on November 1, 2010
Daily Mash: Chairman Of Tia Maria Gunned Down By Rival Liqueur Baron.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 4:40 AM on November 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by TheophileEscargot at 4:40 AM on November 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
but 'worse' would to most people imply a greater impact on a per-case basis
Agreed; that was certainly my first impression until I read the whole article. Bear in mind that Nutt is working from a public health perspective - discussing where the UK should focus its harm reduction efforts.
twoleftfeet: I liked the post, but more context might have been helpful (something like "...according to a new study by David Nutt and colleagues, published in the Lancet" [and maybe given an overview of Nutt's history - he's been arguing this point for several years, and was sacked for doing so]. I'd also suggest not linking to the Daily Mail, it's not a quality news resource: the Guardian, Independent, Times, Telegraph, Financial Times and BBC are probably the best mainstream UK sources]. I'm trying to offer constructive suggestions here so I hope you're not offended.
posted by Infinite Jest at 4:41 AM on November 1, 2010
Agreed; that was certainly my first impression until I read the whole article. Bear in mind that Nutt is working from a public health perspective - discussing where the UK should focus its harm reduction efforts.
twoleftfeet: I liked the post, but more context might have been helpful (something like "...according to a new study by David Nutt and colleagues, published in the Lancet" [and maybe given an overview of Nutt's history - he's been arguing this point for several years, and was sacked for doing so]. I'd also suggest not linking to the Daily Mail, it's not a quality news resource: the Guardian, Independent, Times, Telegraph, Financial Times and BBC are probably the best mainstream UK sources]. I'm trying to offer constructive suggestions here so I hope you're not offended.
posted by Infinite Jest at 4:41 AM on November 1, 2010
You probably want to lay off all these drugs and encounter the world on a straight, brain-cell to reality basis. It's like Photoshop. You're kind of dissatisfied with your shot and so you go down the list of filters and effects and you brighten and sharpen and are just amazed at how much you can alter the picture, and when you've piled up all your effects, you accidentally come across the original shot and it looks so pure and clean and innocent and you realize -- oh, this was a thousand times better before I tried any effects. So you keep the original, and send the Photoshopped mess spinning off into hell where it belongs.
posted by Faze at 4:43 AM on November 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Faze at 4:43 AM on November 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
How would you present that?
Categorical statements necessarily leave out a lot of detail, I think. When writing science posts I try to relay information with more nuance than is provided in articles from the mainstream press, as there is always much, much more to a study than can be fit into a short headline or sentence.
In this instance, I would have put the relevant part of the lede in quotes to denote the conclusion coming from the researcher, added a link to the Lancet article and criticisms of the research from the medical community, and perhaps described some of the back story about Dr. Nutt's relationship with the UK government and how that relates to his latest findings. This would take a bit more time, but would result in a richer narrative that you're sharing with us.
It's not a personal thing, honest, it's just a stylistic process that I'm relating here because I think it results in better posts (and because you asked).
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:44 AM on November 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
Categorical statements necessarily leave out a lot of detail, I think. When writing science posts I try to relay information with more nuance than is provided in articles from the mainstream press, as there is always much, much more to a study than can be fit into a short headline or sentence.
In this instance, I would have put the relevant part of the lede in quotes to denote the conclusion coming from the researcher, added a link to the Lancet article and criticisms of the research from the medical community, and perhaps described some of the back story about Dr. Nutt's relationship with the UK government and how that relates to his latest findings. This would take a bit more time, but would result in a richer narrative that you're sharing with us.
It's not a personal thing, honest, it's just a stylistic process that I'm relating here because I think it results in better posts (and because you asked).
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:44 AM on November 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
Oh, I beg your pardon: the original paper has been posted - I couldn't see it on the Lancet's website or find it by searching, but it's available here; via the Lancet's facebook page.
posted by Infinite Jest at 4:44 AM on November 1, 2010
posted by Infinite Jest at 4:44 AM on November 1, 2010
I'd be really interested to see a similar study on the relative social/personal costs of substance abuse in the US. I would imagine that, at least in some parts of the country, meth's social costs would be much higher here than they are on Nutt's chart.
posted by Saxon Kane at 4:46 AM on November 1, 2010
posted by Saxon Kane at 4:46 AM on November 1, 2010
Say what you will about the Daily Fail, but this breathless news item has a certain amount of synergy with the subject at hand.
posted by Halloween Jack at 4:47 AM on November 1, 2010
posted by Halloween Jack at 4:47 AM on November 1, 2010
So this is a per overall volume argument, rather than a per capita one? The total cost of alcoholism might be greater to society, but crack is some fucked up shit. Stand one heavy drinker up next to one daily crack user and see who harms themselves more over a six-month span. This is purely and simply a distortion of data due to the ubiquitousness of alcohol. If 80% of adults smoked crack weekly or daily, we'd crash and burn in six months, and the rats would take over.
Not that I wouldn't love to see the overall societal costs of heavy drinking brought down a bit, but this is a pretty sketchy way of trying to advance the debate.
posted by Devils Rancher at 4:48 AM on November 1, 2010 [3 favorites]
Not that I wouldn't love to see the overall societal costs of heavy drinking brought down a bit, but this is a pretty sketchy way of trying to advance the debate.
posted by Devils Rancher at 4:48 AM on November 1, 2010 [3 favorites]
Members of the group, joined by two other experts, scored each drug for harms including mental and physical damage, addiction, crime and costs to the economy and communities.
Why does cannabis score higher on a percentage basis on "harm to others" than meth? And much higher than butane?
I am not an expert, but it would seem to me that if you're huffing butane you are more likely to be a danger to other people than anyone smoking weed.
posted by three blind mice at 4:48 AM on November 1, 2010
Why does cannabis score higher on a percentage basis on "harm to others" than meth? And much higher than butane?
I am not an expert, but it would seem to me that if you're huffing butane you are more likely to be a danger to other people than anyone smoking weed.
posted by three blind mice at 4:48 AM on November 1, 2010
Here's a previously for David Nutt, which has many links near the end that go through the events surrounding his sacking in the wake of the government taking issue with his proclamations.
I don't know which England they're talking about, but from what I saw, once a week wasn't what "most people" seemed to think was normal.
This could be true; it's much, much worse in cities than it is out and about in the country, and I'd be prepared to suggest a little confirmation bias. I live in a road full of people but I remember those bastards from number 41 so vividly because they're the ones always yelling and screaming at 3am. On the other hand, that's text from the Daily Mail link, so who the hell knows.
or even understand it.
Understanding your link is critical, surely? Otherwise someone could link to Fark's homepage calling it, I dunno, the 'the best new thing on the web', or 'puppies!' or something.
posted by stelas at 4:48 AM on November 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
I don't know which England they're talking about, but from what I saw, once a week wasn't what "most people" seemed to think was normal.
This could be true; it's much, much worse in cities than it is out and about in the country, and I'd be prepared to suggest a little confirmation bias. I live in a road full of people but I remember those bastards from number 41 so vividly because they're the ones always yelling and screaming at 3am. On the other hand, that's text from the Daily Mail link, so who the hell knows.
or even understand it.
Understanding your link is critical, surely? Otherwise someone could link to Fark's homepage calling it, I dunno, the 'the best new thing on the web', or 'puppies!' or something.
posted by stelas at 4:48 AM on November 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
I hope you're not offended
No, I'm not offended.
The first link is BBC. Thanks for finding the Lancet paper.
I don't think most Americans will agree that alcohol is more dangerous than crack, though I'd love to see your argument.
posted by twoleftfeet at 4:50 AM on November 1, 2010
No, I'm not offended.
The first link is BBC. Thanks for finding the Lancet paper.
I don't think most Americans will agree that alcohol is more dangerous than crack, though I'd love to see your argument.
posted by twoleftfeet at 4:50 AM on November 1, 2010
meth's social costs would be much higher here than they are on Nutt's chart
I was kind of surprised by that too. Nutt's chart is based on UK stats, right? Is meth not really a problem there? I'm having a hard time buying the "low harm to society" thing with meth.
Also, I think I'll have a beer.
posted by Ghidorah at 4:53 AM on November 1, 2010
I was kind of surprised by that too. Nutt's chart is based on UK stats, right? Is meth not really a problem there? I'm having a hard time buying the "low harm to society" thing with meth.
Also, I think I'll have a beer.
posted by Ghidorah at 4:53 AM on November 1, 2010
I saw David Nutt give a talk at Oxford just a few weeks ago. With respect to alcohol, his focus was certainly on the consequences for public health of cheap, ubiquitously available booze, in the UK specifically. The thing he said that stuck with me most is that in 10 years, deaths due to liver disease will outnumber deaths due to heart disease (I believe in the whole of the UK, although he could have been referring specifically only to Scotland). It is an immediate and devastating public health crisis, and to see the UK government dithering about cannabis and mephedrone while the population is rapidly drinking itself to death is appalling.
posted by aiglet at 4:54 AM on November 1, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by aiglet at 4:54 AM on November 1, 2010 [2 favorites]
In case anyone is interested in David Nutt's current work, here is a link to the Independent Science Committee on Drugs, and his blog (very new, only a couple of posts).
posted by aiglet at 4:58 AM on November 1, 2010
posted by aiglet at 4:58 AM on November 1, 2010
Here's the summary of the Lancet article; you'll need to be a subscriber/pay to see the full text, which would tell us what the sixteen criteria they used were:
posted by Abiezer at 5:00 AM on November 1, 2010
Members of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs, including two invited specialists, met in a 1-day interactive workshop to score 20 drugs on 16 criteria: nine related to the harms that a drug produces in the individual and seven to the harms to others. Drugs were scored out of 100 points, and the criteria were weighted to indicate their relative importance.So it's the view of specialists, which will be subjective to some extent I expect but at least thrashed out in in a formal collective setting.
posted by Abiezer at 5:00 AM on November 1, 2010
Oh bugger, that's what you get for failing to preview. Department of redundancy.
posted by Abiezer at 5:01 AM on November 1, 2010
posted by Abiezer at 5:01 AM on November 1, 2010
Faze: You probably want to lay off all these drugs and encounter the world on a straight, brain-cell to reality basis. It's like Photoshop. [...]
I probably want the choice as to what filters to apply to my own perception, and when. I probably want the opportunity to become familiar with them and realise how much of what we think of as "straight, brain-cell to reality" perception is, in fact, a mass of filters and interpretation. I probably want to be allowed to pursue happiness in my own way, if I'm not hurting anyone!
posted by Drexen at 5:07 AM on November 1, 2010 [2 favorites]
I probably want the choice as to what filters to apply to my own perception, and when. I probably want the opportunity to become familiar with them and realise how much of what we think of as "straight, brain-cell to reality" perception is, in fact, a mass of filters and interpretation. I probably want to be allowed to pursue happiness in my own way, if I'm not hurting anyone!
posted by Drexen at 5:07 AM on November 1, 2010 [2 favorites]
I always wonder why we (collectively, globally) feel the need to categorize what is worse. Can't we all agree both are bad when used in place of therapy - regardless of whether we choose to use drugs or alcohol.
With that said, alcohol in moderation is socially acceptable. It has been for many thousands of years. This research isn't going to change much. Heroin isn't, and this isn't going to suddenly change its legal standing and it would be irresponsible to even propose something like that - hence the article can really only be used to support the defence of a moral superiority over people who drink - and realistically that argument will eventually boil down to some sort of classism at the social level.
posted by Nanukthedog at 5:14 AM on November 1, 2010
With that said, alcohol in moderation is socially acceptable. It has been for many thousands of years. This research isn't going to change much. Heroin isn't, and this isn't going to suddenly change its legal standing and it would be irresponsible to even propose something like that - hence the article can really only be used to support the defence of a moral superiority over people who drink - and realistically that argument will eventually boil down to some sort of classism at the social level.
posted by Nanukthedog at 5:14 AM on November 1, 2010
You know, I used to be a teetotaler. Now, though, I like a drink now and then.
Why is it that we seem to swing between gluttony and total prohibitionism on so many topics?
posted by sonic meat machine at 5:15 AM on November 1, 2010
Why is it that we seem to swing between gluttony and total prohibitionism on so many topics?
posted by sonic meat machine at 5:15 AM on November 1, 2010
Drinking is a life-affirming joy and I'd rather lose ten or fifteen years from a happy, drink-laden life than have those extra years without it.
Wait till you try ecstasy...
posted by empath at 5:23 AM on November 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
Wait till you try ecstasy...
posted by empath at 5:23 AM on November 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
twoleftfeet: I don't think most Americans will agree that alcohol is more dangerous than crack, though I'd love to see your argument.
Considering that more than 10000 people a year are killed in drunk driving accidents—and typically, it's not the people who were drinking that are the ones most injured—yet the number of deaths from cocaine abuse is in the low hundreds annually, I'd be pretty flabbergasted at anyone trying to suggest that alcohol is less dangerous than cocaine. Less addicting: sure. Less dangerous? Hell, no.
posted by jsnlxndrlv at 5:26 AM on November 1, 2010
Considering that more than 10000 people a year are killed in drunk driving accidents—and typically, it's not the people who were drinking that are the ones most injured—yet the number of deaths from cocaine abuse is in the low hundreds annually, I'd be pretty flabbergasted at anyone trying to suggest that alcohol is less dangerous than cocaine. Less addicting: sure. Less dangerous? Hell, no.
posted by jsnlxndrlv at 5:26 AM on November 1, 2010
Some people say alcohol's a drug. It's not a drug, it's a drink.
posted by caek at 5:32 AM on November 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by caek at 5:32 AM on November 1, 2010 [1 favorite]
Oh the timing! This *would* be the first thing I see on MeFi after a bit of a debauched week/weekend.
Beer's my drug of choice. So tasty! Moderation-- not always easy. Ooops.
posted by SaharaRose at 5:34 AM on November 1, 2010
Beer's my drug of choice. So tasty! Moderation-- not always easy. Ooops.
posted by SaharaRose at 5:34 AM on November 1, 2010
Considering that more than 10000 people a year are killed in drunk driving accidents—and typically, it's not the people who were drinking that are the ones most injured—yet the number of deaths from cocaine abuse is in the low hundreds annually, I'd be pretty flabbergasted at anyone trying to suggest that alcohol is less dangerous than cocaine. Less addicting: sure. Less dangerous? Hell, no.
Very, very misleading argument. Ok, I am going to take up a drug on a recreational basis. Would it be more dangerous for me to take up alcohol or crack?
Alcohol is not more dangerous then crack. That is like saying driving is more dangerous than crack since a lot more people die driving than from crack, but I am fairly sure that a given instance of driving is lower risk then a given instance of crack. Alcohol usage in society has a higher impact then crack due to its widespread use. This is, in part, because alcohol is less dangerous than crack to the individual leading to higher rates of usage.
posted by Bovine Love at 5:47 AM on November 1, 2010 [2 favorites]
Very, very misleading argument. Ok, I am going to take up a drug on a recreational basis. Would it be more dangerous for me to take up alcohol or crack?
Alcohol is not more dangerous then crack. That is like saying driving is more dangerous than crack since a lot more people die driving than from crack, but I am fairly sure that a given instance of driving is lower risk then a given instance of crack. Alcohol usage in society has a higher impact then crack due to its widespread use. This is, in part, because alcohol is less dangerous than crack to the individual leading to higher rates of usage.
posted by Bovine Love at 5:47 AM on November 1, 2010 [2 favorites]
It's a poorly presented study and, cut and pasted straight from the headline, not a good FPP for Metafilter.
"Overall, alcohol is the most harmful drug because it's so widely used."
Alcohol's what?--maybe 900% more popular than heroin or meth? Far more use by far more people equals more cumulative harm. But concluding that alcohol is more dangerous than meth (et. al) is like saying THE COMMON COLD IS MORE DANGEROUS THAN BEING ATTACKED BY A GREAT WHITE SHARK!!1, because the common cold kills far more people annually than do great white shark attacks.
Critical Thinking 101 needs to be taught in the schools.
posted by applemeat at 5:57 AM on November 1, 2010 [3 favorites]
"Overall, alcohol is the most harmful drug because it's so widely used."
Alcohol's what?--maybe 900% more popular than heroin or meth? Far more use by far more people equals more cumulative harm. But concluding that alcohol is more dangerous than meth (et. al) is like saying THE COMMON COLD IS MORE DANGEROUS THAN BEING ATTACKED BY A GREAT WHITE SHARK!!1, because the common cold kills far more people annually than do great white shark attacks.
Critical Thinking 101 needs to be taught in the schools.
posted by applemeat at 5:57 AM on November 1, 2010 [3 favorites]
Alcohol is more harmful than heroin or crack
If I smoked as much crack as I drink alcohol, I'd probably have less teeth.
Maybe.
posted by chillmost at 6:00 AM on November 1, 2010
If I smoked as much crack as I drink alcohol, I'd probably have less teeth.
Maybe.
posted by chillmost at 6:00 AM on November 1, 2010
Bovine Love, your stipulation that you'll only be a recreational user seems to assume that this would somehow prevent your alcohol use from being harmful to society. Why? Do you think recreational drinkers don't ever harm others? If they do (and of course they do), then why think of yourself as an exception to that?
posted by oddman at 6:00 AM on November 1, 2010
posted by oddman at 6:00 AM on November 1, 2010
from what I saw, once a week wasn't what "most people" seemed to think was normal
Once a week, but for an average of five days at a time.
posted by Segundus at 6:02 AM on November 1, 2010
Once a week, but for an average of five days at a time.
posted by Segundus at 6:02 AM on November 1, 2010
There's a pretty significant difference between Public Health people and ordinary clinicians and neither the BBC or the Mail's writers seem to address it. The latter want to classify the drugs based on their effect on one's person, the former on their effect on a population. What's more, the makeup of the population in question isn't too clear.
So before you make a statement such as "Dude, X is totally worse than Y", you ought to preface it by saying either "From a public health perspective" or "From a clinical perspective".
posted by klarck at 6:04 AM on November 1, 2010
So before you make a statement such as "Dude, X is totally worse than Y", you ought to preface it by saying either "From a public health perspective" or "From a clinical perspective".
posted by klarck at 6:04 AM on November 1, 2010
- Not read the article, but the "war on drugs" hasn't been fought without casualty and harm. To say cocaine is less harmful seems like narrow line of argument.
I'll go read the article now and vote yes on prop19 tomorrow.
Everything in moderation, except excellence.
posted by tzelig at 6:05 AM on November 1, 2010
I'll go read the article now and vote yes on prop19 tomorrow.
Everything in moderation, except excellence.
posted by tzelig at 6:05 AM on November 1, 2010
I wonder where the new alcohol + caffeine beverages will fit on the chart once we have data on them. Four Loko and other beverages seem to be causing a bit of havoc, but regulation is difficult because they simply are adding a legal "drug" to a legal "drug." I can't think of any other examples of where two substances are legal while separate, but illegal when combined, but there must be.
posted by Michael Canfield at 6:08 AM on November 1, 2010
posted by Michael Canfield at 6:08 AM on November 1, 2010
MetaFilter: How dare you assume that I agree with my link, or even understand it.
posted by Wolfdog at 6:12 AM on November 1, 2010 [10 favorites]
posted by Wolfdog at 6:12 AM on November 1, 2010 [10 favorites]
I refuse to believe that meth causes such a small amount of "harm to others." Meth labs? People who have children but cook in their homes? Spying on people because they want a decongestant that works?
posted by giraffe at 6:13 AM on November 1, 2010
posted by giraffe at 6:13 AM on November 1, 2010
Why is it that we seem to swing between gluttony and total prohibitionism on so many topics?
Rule of thumb re alcohol on Metafilter: On the Blue? Hooray Booze!; On the Green? You're an alcoholic who needs counseling.
posted by applemeat at 6:14 AM on November 1, 2010
Rule of thumb re alcohol on Metafilter: On the Blue? Hooray Booze!; On the Green? You're an alcoholic who needs counseling.
posted by applemeat at 6:14 AM on November 1, 2010
I refuse to believe that meth causes such a small amount of "harm to others."
No one said the harms were small. What the harms are is fewer in number.
posted by applemeat at 6:16 AM on November 1, 2010
No one said the harms were small. What the harms are is fewer in number.
posted by applemeat at 6:16 AM on November 1, 2010
Why isn't caffeine on that list? I'm trying to taper off caffeine without the usual debilitating headaches. So far I'm down to four black teas a day. Hope to be on nothing but Japanese green tea by next week.
posted by fleetmouse at 6:17 AM on November 1, 2010
posted by fleetmouse at 6:17 AM on November 1, 2010
Bovine Love, your stipulation that you'll only be a recreational user seems to assume that this would somehow prevent your alcohol use from being harmful to society. Why? Do you think recreational drinkers don't ever harm others? If they do (and of course they do), then why think of yourself as an exception to that?In the line you are referring to I did not use the term "to society", and the omission was intentional. Furthermore I did not suggest that alcohol does not have dangers nor cause problems. I did not omit myself, and did not compare alcohol to abstinence. I compared alcohol to crack, and make it personal (i.e. individual). The article definitely makes the difference between individual harm and societal harm, but also lets loose of sensationalist sentences that can be repeated without context and be very misleading, like using "dangerous" without the qualifier "to society", which is generally taken to mean, by most people, "to the individual". Hence why we consider race car driving dangerous but don't typically consider eating dangerous inspite of the latter killing a lot more people then the former.
posted by Bovine Love at 6:18 AM on November 1, 2010
Alcohol's what?--maybe 900% more popular than heroin or meth? Far more use by far more people equals more cumulative harm.
Well, yes. When a paper is presenting findings on the extent that a particular substance affects the public health, and may help point to the most effective ways to focus harm reduction and treatment efforts, then this is an obvious conclusion.
Very, very misleading argument. Ok, I am going to take up a drug on a recreational basis. Would it be more dangerous for me to take up alcohol or crack?
It's not about you as an individual user. It's about the cumulative effects of a substance's use on the public health of society.
posted by rtha at 6:18 AM on November 1, 2010
Well, yes. When a paper is presenting findings on the extent that a particular substance affects the public health, and may help point to the most effective ways to focus harm reduction and treatment efforts, then this is an obvious conclusion.
Very, very misleading argument. Ok, I am going to take up a drug on a recreational basis. Would it be more dangerous for me to take up alcohol or crack?
It's not about you as an individual user. It's about the cumulative effects of a substance's use on the public health of society.
posted by rtha at 6:18 AM on November 1, 2010
Next week, "Oranges: 18% Better than Apples, Study Proves".
posted by Wolfdog at 6:22 AM on November 1, 2010
posted by Wolfdog at 6:22 AM on November 1, 2010
« Older Chrontendo plus | My Little GTO is GFG Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
That said, I am staunchly behind moves that highlight and attmept to address the damage that alcohol does in Australia and the UK particularly.
posted by smoke at 3:59 AM on November 1, 2010 [5 favorites]