Really? MORE dangerous? Vote 'no' here
Monday, November 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
smoking policy
Blog Archive
-
►
2011
(226)
-
►
December
(23)
- messing about with essex boys
- green ewes liberation society
- a small independent brewer's opinion
- singing hedgehogs
- Mrs Tam Fry
- finely balanced
- how fucking stupid?
- 24-3 now?
- NSFW pub locator
- title of the day
- pornaments
- shootview
- low paid
- sexist stuff
- oppressive regimes
- an advanced guide on good PR from paypal
- porn filter
- geeky
- like
- child abuse
- fuel poverty
- at least they won't be late for lectures
-
►
December
(23)
bogroll
Subscribe?
Posts
Comments
 |
contact details
follow me on twitter?
Copyright Notice
9 comments:
It's entirely possible that alcohol is, if they were on a level playing field, as it were. Of course, under the status quo, alcohol is made safer than it would otherwise be by means of regulation, and heroin is made much more dangerous by means of prohibition. So don't reject the notion out of hand.
The problem is, if what the Lancet says is true, it will no doubt be used as justification to further regulate alcohol rather than ending the prohibition of heroin.
What Mr CL says.
But they have those polls all the time in the Guardian and the result is always what you'd expect, i.e. "Do women make better managers than men?" and so oon.
Before anyone starts crying in
their ale,let us not forget how
many boozers sat back and let the smokers get a kicking. They,including the cowardly publicans just shrugged their shoulders when their mates and
the elderly alike were treated like
vermin. Anyone who gives the
spineless ale sipping weasels the
heavy hand of righteousness deserves our total support.We will be watching the various "freedom"
sites for the whimpering currs,
they will get a severe reminder of their apathy and nonchalance.
Pain Sharer
MW and Mr CL - Can I draw your attention to this post that someone else wrote when the original report (on which this latest report is based) was published in The Lancet? The original paper draws attention to the invalidity of the alcohol and tobacco results because they are legal and therefore widely available.
And then there's this news article about a synthetic alcohol replacement that is being developed by some bloke who used to be the head of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs until he was sacked last year.
A report declaring alcohol the most dangerous of drugs written by a man who has a financial interest in changing public opinion? I'm sure you can see how problematic that could be .. .. ..
But I do agree that if all drugs were legal then the "social damage" might be very different indeed. To positively declare that alcohol is "more" dangerous than heroin or crack is almost impossible at this point in time in my opinion.
Anonymous - as a smoker and a "spineless ale sipping weasel" I'm personally a bit fucked off with having others tell me what I can and can't do right now. Not all drinkers are non-smokers .. .. ..
From a toxicity point of view, pure heroin is only harmful in lethal dosages. It metabolises harmlessly, whereas alcohol generates lots of nasties which attack pretty much every organ in the body.
So I can't argue with Nutt on this one. Doesn't mean I'm about to swap the bottle of JD for a syringe though.
And as Mr CL says, this is more likely to be used as further evidence to try and restrict alcohol rather than the UK having a grown up attitude to drugs.
Love the fact that Guardian readers are somehow experts when not one of them has read the report.
As a secondary thought .. .. .. if alcohol scores 72 and tobacco scores 26 can someone tell me why we have a cigarette ban in pubs?
:D
I'm voting yes.
There will be no retreat from the prohibitioners.
So let them have their way, and then watch it explode in their face.
The only way they will learn, is the hard way.
But they have those polls all the time in the Guardian and the result is always what you'd expect, i.e. "Do women make better managers than men?" and so oon.
[Chuckle]
Post a Comment