Alcohol vs. Pot

[/b]

Where are the STATS?

Re: Alcohol vs. Pot


In high school a couple guys in my class got drunk, ran a stop sign, and were decapitated by a tractor trailor. Does that count as hitting the brain?

Miller, I think this claim does not require official stats. Well, of course I am talking from european perspective, I allow that it's possibly completely different in USA, but over here you don't need official stats to see that much much more people are drinking alcohol then smoking pot. Especially frequently.

Yeah, but that's good ****, mon.

I think the drunken soccer fans killing people isn't due to booze...but to the fact that drunken European soccer fans are f'n morons to begin with.

I don't really smoke pot(once in a while I do), and don't do any other drugs at all(many people have a hard time believing this), but I drink pretty regularly on the weekends. However, I'm gonna say that overall, pot is less harmful, even though I've seen a few people get "burned out" from it.

Also, isn't alcohol physically addicting, while supposedly pot isn't? I just think there's been more lives ruined from booze than pot.

As a Dutchman I can say legalizing (or better: "gedogen", sort of "allowing") softdrugs has more advantages than disadvantages.One example: the number of Dutch youth using softdrugs is lower than in most surrounding European countries, where softdrugs are forbidden.

And the number of young Malaysians using any drugs may be even lower. Drugs dealing and trafficking is eligible there to death penalty, and the law is strictly enforced. I am not a great admirer of the Malaysian dictator Mahathir Muhammed, but this point in his interior policy I consider being a posititve one.

Allow :-)
And yes, altough I've heard in the Netherlands those who DO oppose weed, strongly oppose it. Where as in Belgium for example, people just don't care...

Steissd: could be, but the West has evolved in such a way that drugs are there, and drugs will always be there. Be realistic. ReX: you will find those people in the Bible Belt (and occasionally in the Christian Democrats Party).

Drugs usage was imported to the West from the Arab countries and Turkey. It would be in favor of West to return it back to its inventors and to make all the Europe and the USA free of any drugs (with exception of their medical usage in favor of the terminal stage cancer patients).
The same refers to my country. If it was upon me, I would send all the drug dealers to gallows and impose compulsory treatment on the addicts.

Besides the fact that I don't find that realistic, I do think that drugs (softdrugs) can be part of us, as "entertainment", to have a good time. It could go wrong - so can alcohol. But it can also give you a lot of fun.

Drugs are the synonym of voluntary insanity. So is alcohol. Why should all this be a part of us?

Enjoyement. I do not say it HAS to be a part of us.

Streissd, your position is clearly that of a moral absolutist. I would prefer to more pragmatic approach. I see advantages and disadvantages in the use of pot. I recall in the 60s when I was working hard at my university studies how many of my intelligent and creative friends could not stay in school. They preferred to turn on each day, to avoid the problems of growing up. Most of them seem to me to have undergone a period in their lives of non-growth. They simply failed to developed the coping skills and character traits needed to deal with life realistically. At the same time, I also know successful professionals who use pot in moderation to cope with the stresses of the difficult lives they have adopted for themselves. Since I see both negative and positive consequences of pot I would not imprison individuals for its use. For some people therapy is appropriate; for others it is not. I would think that decrimminalization and government production, sale and regulation of its distribution would be most rational. The "war" on drugs has been one of our society's most disastrous and irrational policies. We, as a society, could produce and sell it for no profit, thus putting the illegal industry out of business. The same could apply to all "illicit" drugs. The disaster of the alcohol temperance movement comes to mind.

There was once a government-sponsored drugs manufacturing. Under regime of Noriega in Panama. As far as I remember, the USA was necessitated to remove Noriega from his office and to put him to jail to run a very long term. Why should then the U.S. government do things it punished others for?

It was wrong to punish the others. Should our government remain stuck to its wrong policies for the sake of consistency? (that sounds very Bushian, actually) And you know quite well, I'm sure, that my suggestion for government sponsorship and regulation of drugs would have no resemblance to that of the corrupt Noriega. He was a drug dealer in the bad sense of the term. They are the ones my suggestion is intended to put out of business. The lack of profit is the only reason they would guit the business; the danger of imprisonment is NOT, given its incredibly high profits.

I do not think zero tolerance toward drugs being a wrong policy. Drugs destroy thousands of young people, making them useless human garbage.
The methods employed in anti-drug war have lots of flaws that permit the drug dealers to evade punishment, but the general line is quite correct. And the word "Bushian" does not sound for me insulting, I do respect the ruling President of the USA Mr. George W. Bush.

Wow, that's says a lot. Would you support ANYONE who supports Isreal? I support Isreal, but not Sharon. He, Arafat and Bush should fall into a very deep hole. Pardon me if your support of our monster president has nothing to do with your valid concern for the survival of Isreal.

The US goverment shouldn't just be allowed to do things it punishes others for in any situation, that's madness, but if the US government has wrongly punished someone for no good reason, they should be allowed to, if they realise they have made a mistake, change their minds. "I, that do speak a word. May call it back again." - Shakespeare . They could actually admit that they have made a mistake, and say, "actually, you know what? let's legalise it! I'm sorry guys, we were wrong." Not that that would EVER happen - but if it did, that would be a situation where the US government should do something it punished others for.



Not what my thesaurus says. I've got: medicine, medication, medicament, remedy, cure, physic, narcotic, opiate, barbiturate, amphetamine, sedative, stimulant, dope, sedate, stupefy, narcotize, anaesthetize, deaden benumb, dull.

And aren't some drugs supposed to actually 'expand your mind,' if that's at all possible? Don't some drugs somehow make you use different parts of the brain that you wouldn't normally use? You can't just lump them all into the same category - some of them are addictive, some of them aren't, some of them kill off brain cells and make you stupid, some of them give you a life-changing, mind-expanding experience, which is arguably worth the possible side-effect of insanity.

And anyway, what's wrong with a bit of insanity? A bit of colour? I'm not sure I want to live in a world where everybody says, "hello, how are you today?" "oh I'm very well thankyou, feeling perfectly sane today, you?" "oh yes me too, very sane."

Don't you want to see people dancing around screaming, "BLUHARLURGEHOO!!!!" or hiding in basements, blabbering about "the voices!"???

Well, this world would resemble to me a lunatic asylum, and this is the last place I would like to be in.