[andyt]

$1:

Victoria, Canada: Health-related costs per user are eight times higher for drinkers than they are for those who use cannabis, and are more than 40 times higher for tobacco smokers, according to a report published in the British Columbia Mental Health and Addictions Journal.

According to the report, "In terms of [health-related] costs per user: tobacco-related health costs are over $800 per user, alcohol-related health costs are much lower at $165 per user, and cannabis-related health costs are the lowest at $20 per user."

[andyt]

Marijuana Vs. Alcohol

May 23, 2010, by Dr. Goldstein
By Ken Goldstein, PhD
In considering the allocation of law enforcement towards arresting those using Cannabis for recreational use, one can compare the physical effects and societal costs against one of the most popular recreational drugs, alcohol. In this regard, Cannabis is far less toxic than alcohol. In fact, Cannabis is the only currently known therapeutic substance without a known toxic dose. Except for those susceptible to mental illness such as schizophrenia, there are very few known adverse affects of long-term use and most of those can be attributed to the use of smoking as a route of delivery. As there are other methods of using Cannabis, such as eating and vaporization, these problems can be easily overcome. Plus, while Cannabis can be habit forming (like gambling, overeating, sex, etc…) it is not addictive, which is to say it does not cause physical dependency. There are also no known withdrawal symptoms severe enough to require medical attention. These include lack of appetite and anxiety. However, let us examine the adverse effects of alcohol use.
On the other hand, alcohol is highly addictive, can be deadly if overdosed, and has potentially fatal withdrawal symptoms, commonly known as delirium tremors or “DTs”. To put this in perspective, even heroin withdrawal does not carry a significant risk of death. Furthermore, to present a very shortened list, medical problems resulting from long-term alcohol abuse include liver disease such as cirrhosis (a scarring of the liver) and hypertension. Cirrhosis is the 12th most deadly disease in the US, and causes irreversible damage, even once alcohol consumption stops. Hypertension, on the other hand, can cause severe kidney damage and can contribute to further heart disease.
The results of alcohol intoxication are quite well known. Most well known is decreased motor control, making it very dangerous to operate a vehicle. There is also the effect of decreased inhibition. While this makes alcohol quite popular as a social lubricant, this is a two-headed sword as it can also result in impaired decision-making ability. There is also extensive evidence in both the animal and human literature for its ability to increase aggressive behavior. This can be verified simply by going out to a nightclub and observing the security personal (bouncers) necessary to keep things under control. Also, one only needs to visit any Emergency Room on a Saturday night to see the myriad of problems caused by alcohol.
What is important to remember is that even with all of the associated problems, dangers, and potential health risks, millions of Americans are able to enjoy alcohol responsibly. Even with its legal status and the ever-present advertising campaigns from brewing and distilling industry, most people do not drive drunk, get cirrhosis of the liver, or experience withdrawal symptoms worse than a bad hangover.
Yet, even with all of the dangers of alcohol, it is legal for those over 21. The primary reason for this is that our attempt at alcohol prohibition is widely considered an abject failure that failed to significantly reduce alcohol use or abuse, and fostered disrespect for the law by encouraging otherwise law-abiding citizens to live outside it. Not only that, but prohibition resulted in the removal of all regulations regarding the production of alcoholic beverages, which resulted in many being sickened by adulterated “bathtub gin”. Last, but not least, prohibition enriched and expanded criminal organizations that were more than able to step in when legal means of distribution were closed down. Unfortunately, unlike the legal distributers they replaced, these new alcohol distributers did not hesitate to commit violent crime to enhance their business.
Many of the issues faced during alcohol prohibition are the same ones currently affecting responsible cannabis users. Despite the fact that the vast majority of Cannabis users are responsible adults, Cannabis prohibition forces otherwise law-abiding citizens to break the law and enrich criminal enterprises, many of which are far better armed and more dangerous than “bootleggers” of the 1920’s and ‘30s. Furthermore, since there are currently no standards or regulations regarding the quality and purity of the product, people can be sickened by unscrupulous dealers who may have adulterated their Cannabis with far more harmful substances. Has Cannabis prohibition worked? In an AP report appropriately titled “US drug war has met none of its goals, “drug czar” Gil Kerlikowkse recently stated that the war on drugs “In the grand scheme of things has not been successful”. Unfortunately, while it only took 14 years for alcohol prohibition to be repealed, Cannabis prohibition continues.
Considering the low level of societal costs associated with the recreational use of Cannabis and limited law enforcement resources available to the City of New Brunswick, it behooves us to place enforcement of Cannabis prohibition at the very bottom of the long list of law enforcement priorities facing our overworked police force. To arrest somebody for Cannabis possession and/or use is to take them away from patrolling the streets and arresting those committing far more dangerous crimes against persons and property. Like many cities, New Brunswick has serious crime problems that are not addressed by arresting Cannabis users, which only takes our law enforcement personnel away from protecting citizens from those who truly pose a threat.

[andyt]

Alcohol is used by a very large number of people with the vast majority of these using in low- or moderate-risk ways. Conversely, cannabis and tobacco are used by far fewer people. The majority of cannabis use is low- and moderate-risk, however, while the majority of tobacco use is high-risk.

Understanding patterns of risk in society is important. A large number of people engaging in low- or moderate-risk use can account for a large share of overall harm.5 This is the situation with alcohol. In Canada, there are many (over 21 million) low- and moderate-risk drinkers. These drinkers account for 40% to 60% of alcohol-related health and social harms.2

The situation with tobacco is very different. (In fact, tobacco use is never considered low risk, thus zero low-risk users). Here we have about four million users who account for a large proportion of the overall harms. In the case of cannabis, we have much fewer people overall using the substance across all levels of risk.

While it is difficult to directly compare the harms of cannabis, alcohol and tobacco, harms can be indirectly compared by measuring the social costs connected to each of the substances (Figure 2).

0:

chart2-_Converted_.jpg [ 24.45 KiB | Viewed 247 times ]

Conclusion

The harms, risks and social costs of alcohol, cannabis and tobacco vary greatly. A lot has to do with how the substances are handled legally. Alcohol and tobacco are legal substances, which explain their low enforcement costs relative to cannabis. On the other hand, the health costs per user of tobacco and alcohol are much higher than for cannabis. This may indicate that cannabis use involves fewer health risks than alcohol or tobacco. These variations in risk, harms and costs need to
be taken into account as we think about further efforts to deal with the use of these three substances in Canada. Efforts to reduce social costs related to cannabis, for example, will likely involve shifting its legal status by decriminalizing casual use, to reduce the high enforcement costs. Such a shift may be warranted given the apparent lower health risk associated with most cannabis use.


http://heretohelp.bc.ca/publications/cannabis/bck/7

[saturn_656]

Is this thread about PM Harper and his stance on Israel... or Weed?

[raydan]

Yeah, I kinda wonder why we feel the need to "reaffirm support for Israel" every chance we get.
Is there any other country we do this for on a regular basis?

[Tricks]

$1:

The former U.K. drug czar has published a study damning alcohol as a more dangerous drug than heroin or crack cocaine and urged governments to radically readjust their targets in the fight on narcotics.

Prof. David Nutt, head of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs, published his comparison in the medical journal, Lancet.

One Canadian expert said the study should prompt a new discussion about the dangers of alcohol abuse and a “more rational” consideration of our overall drug policy.

Nutt’s study weighs the danger of a drug based on a 16-point checklist – nine factors relating to harm to the user, and seven more measuring harm to others. Effects measured range from death to loss of mental functioning to crime to failed relationships.

The checklist produces a score out of 100 – the higher the score, the greater the danger.

Overall, alcohol scored a 72 on Nutt’s measure, well ahead of heroin (55) and crack (54).

In order of personal risk, the worst offenders were heroin, crack and crystal methamphetamine. The worst narcotics in terms of their effect on others were, in order, alcohol, heroin and crack.

I want to know how this was quantified, because that's a load of shit. First, the availability of Alcohol automatically makes it more likely to be part of a shit situation than hard drugs, but to claim that substances like Heroin (arguably the most addictive substance on the planet) or Crack are better for those around you than Alcohol screams shoddy research or serious bias in the study.

$1:

Nutt has argued in the past that tobacco and alcohol are a greater danger to society than marijuana or LSD.

Again, that's easy to say when two are legal and easy to obtain and two are illegal and much more difficult.

$1:

“We cannot return to the days of prohibition,” said Leslie King, an adviser to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs. “Alcohol is too embedded in our culture and it won't go away.”

Then how can you compare them to hard drugs? If alcohol is embedded into our society OF COURSE it's going to have more detriment to it than a substance that a small fraction of the population use.

$1:

“Once you look into the science … you will see that alcohol is currently doing the most harm in our societies,” said Dr. Jurgen Rehm, a senior scientist at Toronto’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health who has done similar research in Canada. “We need to go over the arsenal of alcohol-control policies, and examine them rationally on what they can do for Canada.”

Once again, of course it is. It's legal. Make Heroin legal and see what kind of harm it does to our society.

$1:

Rehm was one of the authors of a 2006 study that posited that the per capita cost to Canadian society of tobacco ($541) and alcohol ($463) far outweighs that of illegal drugs ($262).

How can these even be compared? Did they just gloss over the fact that illegal drugs are going to have lower costs for the sole reason that they are illegal?

$1:

Alcohol Use and Health
There are approximately 79,000 deaths attributable to excessive alcohol use each year in the United States.1

$1:

Illegal drugs exact an enormous toll on society, taking 52,000 lives annually

So 2/3 of alcohol. But they're illegal. And difficult to obtain. But they have less deaths so they're better right?
http://www.acep.org/content.aspx?id=26004

$1:

Immediate Health Risks
Excessive alcohol use has immediate effects that increase the risk of many harmful health conditions. These immediate effects are most often the result of binge drinking and include the following—

Unintentional injuries, including traffic injuries, falls, drownings, burns, and unintentional firearm injuries.7

None of those from other drugs. None at all, nope, no way.

$1:

Violence, including intimate partner violence and child maltreatment. About 35% of victims report that offenders are under the influence of alcohol.8 Alcohol use is also associated with 2 out of 3 incidents of intimate partner violence.8 Studies have also shown that alcohol is a leading factor in child maltreatment and neglect cases, and is the most frequent substance abused among these parents.9

See above for all responses to this.

$1:

Risky sexual behaviors, including unprotected sex, sex with multiple partners, and increased risk of sexual assault. These behaviors can result in unintended pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases.10, 11

THE TERM CRACK WHORE EXISTS FOR A FUCKING REASON.

$1:

Miscarriage and stillbirth among pregnant women, and a combination of physical and mental birth defects among children that last throughout life.12, 13

See above.

$1:

Alcohol poisoning, a medical emergency that results from high blood alcohol levels that suppress the central nervous system and can cause loss of consciousness, low blood pressure and body temperature, coma, respiratory depression, or death.14
Long-Term Health Risks
Over time, excessive alcohol use can lead to the development of chronic diseases, neurological impairments and social problems. These include but are not limited to—

Neurological problems, including dementia, stroke and neuropathy.15, 16
Cardiovascular problems, including myocardial infarction, cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation and hypertension.17
Psychiatric problems, including depression, anxiety, and suicide.18
Social problems, including unemployment, lost productivity, and family problems.19, 20
Cancer of the mouth, throat, esophagus, liver, colon, and breast.21 In general, the risk of cancer increases with increasing amounts of alcohol.
Liver diseases, including—
Alcoholic hepatitis.
Cirrhosis, which is among the 15 leading causes of all deaths in the United States.22
Among persons with Hepatitis C virus, worsening of liver function and interference with medications used to treat this condition.23
Other gastrointestinal problems, including pancreatitis and gastritis.
http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

See above again. It's really easy to list off the negative effects of any drug, because, shocker, they all have them. Take heroin, get addicted to heroin, chances are you will die. Period. If you don't get off it (and that, btw, is insanely difficult) you will die because of it. But alcohol is worse.

$1:

For example, in the mid-1990s, the World Health Organization commissioned a team of experts to compare the health and societal consequences of marijuana use compared to other drugs, including alcohol, nicotine, and opiates. After quantifying the harms associated with both drugs, the researchers concluded: "Overall, most of these risks (associated with marijuana) are small to moderate in size. In aggregate they are unlikely to produce public health problems comparable in scale to those currently produced by alcohol and tobacco On existing patterns of use, cannabis poses a much less serious public health problem than is currently posed by alcohol and tobacco in Western societies."

[/quote]I don't disagree entirely with this. Cannabis isn't as bad as people make it out to be. But, just like alcohol and nicotine, there will be adverse effects. People will drive under the influence of it and kill others. People will obtain lung diseases from it. People will die as a result of it. To say otherwise is fucking stupid.

[Tricks]

andyt andyt:

$1:

Victoria, Canada: Health-related costs per user are eight times higher for drinkers than they are for those who use cannabis, and are more than 40 times higher for tobacco smokers, according to a report published in the British Columbia Mental Health and Addictions Journal.

According to the report, "In terms of [health-related] costs per user: tobacco-related health costs are over $800 per user, alcohol-related health costs are much lower at $165 per user, and cannabis-related health costs are the lowest at $20 per user."

Quantify user then get back to me.

[Tricks]

I also question the implication that weed has little to no costs associated with it for several reasons.

1) Length/frequency. Many people don't use it as often or as long as cigarettes (which btw I loathe).
2)Popularity. It hasn't been as popular for as long so I'm not sure we're seeing extended use and the issues associated with it quite yet.
3)Pot smokers may do other things. How often is a pot smokers illness attributed to smoking or drinking because he does them too?

[martin14]

raydan raydan:

Yeah, I kinda wonder why we feel the need to "reaffirm support for Israel" every chance we get.
Is there any other country we do this for on a regular basis?

The US..

[andyt]

Tricks Tricks:

andyt andyt:

$1:

Victoria, Canada: Health-related costs per user are eight times higher for drinkers than they are for those who use cannabis, and are more than 40 times higher for tobacco smokers, according to a report published in the British Columbia Mental Health and Addictions Journal.

According to the report, "In terms of [health-related] costs per user: tobacco-related health costs are over $800 per user, alcohol-related health costs are much lower at $165 per user, and cannabis-related health costs are the lowest at $20 per user."

Quantify user then get back to me.

user = 1 person. Quantified enough for you? Ie devide the total costs by the number of users.


You've done the usual CKA SOP - ask me to back up my claims, nit pick away, yet offer no contradictory evidence of your own. You of course are the great expert, while the experts quoted in these links know nothing. Yet somehow you think you've proved something.

[andyt]

Tricks Tricks:

$1:

The former U.K. drug czar has published a study damning alcohol as a more dangerous drug than heroin or crack cocaine and urged governments to radically readjust their targets in the fight on narcotics.

Prof. David Nutt, head of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs, published his comparison in the medical journal, Lancet.

One Canadian expert said the study should prompt a new discussion about the dangers of alcohol abuse and a “more rational” consideration of our overall drug policy.

Nutt’s study weighs the danger of a drug based on a 16-point checklist – nine factors relating to harm to the user, and seven more measuring harm to others. Effects measured range from death to loss of mental functioning to crime to failed relationships.

The checklist produces a score out of 100 – the higher the score, the greater the danger.

Overall, alcohol scored a 72 on Nutt’s measure, well ahead of heroin (55) and crack (54).

In order of personal risk, the worst offenders were heroin, crack and crystal methamphetamine. The worst narcotics in terms of their effect on others were, in order, alcohol, heroin and crack.

I want to know how this was quantified, because that's a load of shit. First, the availability of Alcohol automatically makes it more likely to be part of a shit situation than hard drugs, but to claim that substances like Heroin (arguably the most addictive substance on the planet) or Crack are better for those around you than Alcohol screams shoddy research or serious bias in the study.

What does addiction have to do with effects on others?

$1:

Nutt has argued in the past that tobacco and alcohol are a greater danger to society than marijuana or LSD.

Tricks Tricks:

Again, that's easy to say when two are legal and easy to obtain and two are illegal and much more difficult.

What horseshit. Kids find pot easier to obtain that alcohol, exactly because it is illegal and not regulated. Adults too don't have trouble getting pot. So what danger are you claiming that pot represents to society that makes it worse than alcohol? Got anything to back that up? Take a look at the graph that shows health and legal costs per user of pot vs alcohol. Pot health costs don't even show on the graph because they are so small, vs alcohol. The only thing that show is legal costs, and that's because it's illegal.

$1:

“We cannot return to the days of prohibition,” said Leslie King, an adviser to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs. “Alcohol is too embedded in our culture and it won't go away.”

Tricks Tricks:

Then how can you compare them to hard drugs? If alcohol is embedded into our society OF COURSE it's going to have more detriment to it than a substance that a small fraction of the population use.

Take a look at the per user costs. But we if we ban drugs, we should ban alcohol, exactly because it is so embedded in our society and causes so much harm because of it.

$1:

“Once you look into the science … you will see that alcohol is currently doing the most harm in our societies,” said Dr. Jurgen Rehm, a senior scientist at Toronto’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health who has done similar research in Canada. “We need to go over the arsenal of alcohol-control policies, and examine them rationally on what they can do for Canada.”

Tricks Tricks:

Once again, of course it is. It's legal. Make Heroin legal and see what kind of harm it does to our society.

Sure. If heroin were legal everybody would rush right out and use it. You're trying to have it both ways here. If legality is what's causing the problem, then lets ban alcohol.

$1:

Rehm was one of the authors of a 2006 study that posited that the per capita cost to Canadian society of tobacco ($541) and alcohol ($463) far outweighs that of illegal drugs ($262).

Tricks Tricks:

How can these even be compared? Did they just gloss over the fact that illegal drugs are going to have lower costs for the sole reason that they are illegal?

So $1000 vs 262 for all illegal drugs combined, but if we legalized pot it would be right up there with alcohol? Got anything to back that up?

Tricks Tricks:

Take heroin, get addicted to heroin, chances are you will die. Period. If you don't get off it (and that, btw, is insanely difficult) you will die because of it. But alcohol is worse.

Can you back up that assertion in regards to legal heroin of specific dosage? If you have access to an affordable source of clean heroin of measured dosage, and you don't operate machinery, you will be constipated and not have much interest in sex, but otherwise can live a long life. The danger of heroin is that it's easy to overdose - the effective dose is too close to the lethal dose. But if you are using measured amounts, that's no more likely to happen than people using prescription morphine say.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Tricks Tricks:

THE TERM CRACK WHORE EXISTS FOR A FUCKING REASON.

As opposed to the "regular" whores that are just paying their way through law school?

[Tricks]

andyt andyt:

user = 1 person. Quantified enough for you? Ie devide the total costs by the number of users.


You've done the usual CKA SOP - ask me to back up my claims, nit pick away, yet offer no contradictory evidence of your own. You of course are the great expert, while the experts quoted in these links know nothing. Yet somehow you think you've proved something.

I meant if they do it once every few weeks are they a user? Or was there a threshold?

[Tricks]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Tricks Tricks:

THE TERM CRACK WHORE EXISTS FOR A FUCKING REASON.

As opposed to the "regular" whores that are just paying their way through law school?

Maybe not whores, but strippers might

[Tricks]

Respond to the rest later, have to go to work.