Tricks wrote:
andyt wrote:
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?
It doesn't affect your argument - whatever threshold will be applied to all three substances. But my guess is they just go with the stats that show any usage of the subs and divide into dollars spent on treatment.
Your argument boils down to that if illegal drugs were legal, there'd be this huge pent up demand for them and thus they would cause even more damage. As if people are just itching to shoot smack, but don't because they're law abiding citizens, or somewhere is a huge group of people who won't smoke pot only because it's illegal.
Let's say pot became as pervasive as booze, and used in the same way. Is it your claim that the physical health effects of pot are as severe as alcohol and we would see all these damaged people from pot? Can you back that up?
Quote:
Marijuana has often been touted as one of the safest recreational substances available. This is perhaps true; many reputable scientific studies support the conclusion that cocaine, heroine, alcohol, and even cigarettes are more dangerous to the user's health than marijuana. In addition, the celebrated pharmacological properties of cannabis have led thirty-six states to permit its use as a therapeutic drug for, among others, those suffering from AIDS; various painful, incurable and debilitating illnesses; the harmful side effects of cancer chemotherapy, and glaucoma. Additional research is being conducted concerning the use of marijuana on the treatment of anxiety and mental disorders.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99 ... lth_1.html Quote:
• Marijuana smoke is laced with carcinogens and can lead to respiratory problems, but no link has been established with lung cancer. Some studies suggest the drug's active ingredient may even have anti-cancerous properties.
• It can be addictive -- one federal survey found that 4.3 million people had a problem with marijuana abuse or dependence in 2009 -- but research indicates it may not be as addictive as other drugs or alcohol.
• While people are under its influence, marijuana can impair memory and hinder the brain's cognitive abilities. Whether such effects are long-lasting is not clear.
• In rare instances, it can lead to psychotic episodes, but whether it can be linked to mental illness in vulnerable people remains an open question.
One of the biggest unknowns is marijuana's effect on a developing brain. Many experts consider this question particularly important because brains mature until people are in their 20s.
Also open to debate is whether legalizing marijuana would lead to more fatal traffic accidents, especially if people combine drinking with the drug.
All of these uncertainties provide plenty of fodder for those on both sides of the Prop. 19 debate in California.
Some medical professionals view marijuana as clearly less harmful than alcohol.
"It seems to be a rather safe substance with very low potential for addiction and withdrawal," said Dr. Donald Abrams, a professor of medicine at UC San Francisco and chief of hematology and oncology at San Francisco General Hospital. He recommends marijuana for many of his cancer patients.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-10-deb ... juana.htmlTo be clear, all drugs do damage. If I thought prohibition worked I would be all for banning all of them, including ETOH and tobacco. But it doesn't work, so harm reduction is the way to go. And legalization and regulation are the way to do that.
Can you find statements that claim alcohol is safer than pot?
