Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I think balance is key and we are very unbalanced on booze right now. thoughts?
Alcohol, but only if they are served pure
it's common knowledge that our classing system is fucked... so this doesn't surprise me. The problem with heroin lies in it's addictive properties
is always near the top of harmful drugs lists , and its for a good reason, it fucks you up big time haha if alcohol was a new drug it would be made illegal , no questions . not to say i dont drin kthe stuff mind haha but i dont think its that obscene to put it up there with heroin
would i wanna do that
of course that depends on your definition of harm, but I'm going with numbers of people who are hurt or harmed by said activity, rather than having your morals damaged or anything weird like that.
just don't bother
and that's a statistically poorer risk than you would encounter if taking ecstasy.
Just sayin', like.
Well, I say headbutted. He more sort of twatted me with his jaw. Fucking hurt.
is when, at the age of seven, I visited a stable and narrowly avoided being killed by one of the bastards. I had been given some hay to feed "Monty" whilst my friend's sister droned to the owner about which of the grotesque muscle ogres was the best for her. Standing by its haunch I noticed Monty calmly look around at me and then reposition itself so his arse was in my face. I thought he was taking the piss and had begun to move around when what felt like a bullet clipped my ear. "Monty" had calmly taken in where I was, set himself and then aimed to cave in my skull with his six inch cast iron back feet. He took his store door off.
Was he put down? Was he put in a corner and made to think about what he'd tried to do? Was he fuck. My friend's sister bought the smug, dead eyed bastard. I fucking hate horses.
or was it 1
well either way considering how many people have taken it, those are some pretty good odds... of course the risk lies in buying stuff that has other chemicals in it other then MDMA, but of course because MDMA is illegal thus making the only source the blackmarket we will never know and more likely die O THE IRONY
I meant that the statement about horseriding and ecstasy is statistically accurate - it’s just that it seems counter intuitive to those that have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about.
nobody is going to do anything about it though, shrug.
RADICAL CHANGE IS WHAT WE NEED. REVOLUTION!
he was on BBC Breakfast this morning and had about four minutes to explain a complex issue with a huge number of sub-debates while Bill and Sian were just saying, "But is alcohol REALLY more harmful than heroin?"
Thank God Charlie Stayt wasn't hosting it this morning, the fucking questions that arse asks.
He was explaining the study to them in fairly simple, plain and direct language and they still adopted a cocked-head quizzical look and repeated the same question. Eejits.
Wahay! AMIRITE LADS?
Social harm surely isn't wholly intrinsic to a particular substance, it also has to do with whether that substance is legal or illegal, how widely used it is, how and where it is used, what kind of support is available to addicts etc. It may well be partly intrinsic (people are more likely to kick off after a few pints than a couple of pills), but it seems to me there are too many contextual factors to be able to straightforwardly say "drug A is more socially harmful than drug B." Not that this is indeed what Prof Nutt is saying - but it does seem to be how the papers are interpreting the research.
I bet far more people are hurt playing football, but that's because millions of people play football whereas kickboxing is a minority sport. But if I were going to do one session of either, I'd be more likely to get hurt doing kickboxing, because it's the more dangerous of the two.
I mean personally, to anyone...does that mean anything? Do you think "Ah - I thought heroin was more harmful than alcohol, but it appears not. I'm glad I've read this slightly hackneyed regurgitated slow-news-day-news. I have now learned that Alcohol is more harmful than heroin. That has changed my life in some way." ?
I don't give a bollocks whether it means anyone to the man on the street, but I would hope policy makers will take notice .
...just to fuck up their stats.
TAKE THAT QUANGOTRONICS
the escher-esque logic of being on the authoritarian right.
And that went really well.
here's the lancet article:
I'm yet to read all of it, but I know it's going to be very difficult to define 'harm', and people will be debating on the weightings of the 'harms' and the substances. But yeah, it's worth a read. If policy makers take a slight bit of notice I'll be surprised, mind.
defined harm is pretty great: very comprehensive, and an excellent idea to split it into two broad categories of self and others. The only bit I'm not sure about is, well, it's nitpicking really: should economic cost and physical cost be separate items? Isn't that doubling up on harm in some cases? Ie. more physical harm -> more NHS treatment.
Note also the weighted scores figure for each of the drugs: the patterns/types of harm are pretty different across different types of drug. So, drink produces a different sort of harm than heroin. On the other hand, they've weighted it on the basis of perceived harm, which is pretty good stuff.
This is a study by someone called Professor Nutt.
makes me more angry and prone to violence than any drug currently available, legally or illegally.
is society really so fragile that it would collapse if people were generally aware that the biggest health risk associated with heroin use is constipation?
i don't think there's a subject upon which we're been systematically lied to by our governments. yes drugs are a really bad life choice but lying about it just confuses the issue and cedes all authority to organised crime. horrendous.
or the most common health risk?
heroin is not actually toxic and has not been proven to damage the body in any significant way. opiates do slightly suppress breathing, which is why they're used on people with lung conditions, but to overdose on pure heroin to the point where you stop trying to breathe requires a truly heroic dose. in terms of the correct dose in relation to the amount required to overdose it's much easier to overdose on asprin.
the reason that heroin kills people is because it's impure.
I thought it could fuck up your liver and kidneys like most poisons. And I was under the impression most people who died from an overdose did due to asphyixiation.
but it makes several references to 'heroin poisoning' and from the Mortality/Morbidity section
"Death is most commonly due to respiratory failure or asphyxiation"
then yes, it is possible to poison yourself using heroin but not because heroin is itself toxic. if people were able to verify the quality of the heroin they were consuming and amount they were consuming then heroin would not be a dangerous drug. people can take it for long periods of time without showing any signs of physical or mental degradation as a result - cancer doctors prescribe medical variants for people to use over really long periods of time. hell, it doesn't even have to be in anyway debilitating in its effects if taken correctly.
now obviously i'm not advocating the use of heroin because highly addictive things are inherently bad, but in the case of heroin we've made a very minor drug into a full blown plague and it's utterly horrible.
you're right, asphyxiation is the normal cause of death in a heroin overdose.
The sooner the government shows signs of understanding that basic principle, and starts to show due respect to the opinions of the numerous professionals who produce reports based on that principle (as opposed to giving in to cheap journalistic shrieking) the sooner I have any respect for it's approach to this whole subject.
Risk = potential harm x likelihood x WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN
I've never seen an alcoholic drown a litter of kittens but i watched a heroin addict do it on youtube