LSD: Fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, or Dumbo's feather?

[tame_deuces]

By discussing prohibition we take the discussion of the drug onto what happens when we prohibit it. These two are quite different statements:

1. 'Alcohol is the worst drug in the world, because it is legal, a lot of people use it and it is culturally accepted'

2. 'Prohibition of alchohol is bad because you get tons of crime you could have avoided by controlling it'


Not trying to nitpick, just want to clarify what I mean.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]

Not to be mean, but it sounds like a bad way of advocating legality by stating that alcohol is the worst drug in the world because it is legalized and culturally accepted.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think any rational person without authoritarian tendencies can support the drug war, but that's a separate issue. I'm saying that all things being equal, alcohol is worse than heroin in almost every way.

Doing street heroin is medically equivalent to injecting Everclear into your veins. Which is more harmful? The latter. Heroin taken orally is almost 100% safe, so again unless you're using a double standard heroin wins.

I don't think it's valid to judge heroin as a more dangerous drug just because people use heroin in more dangerous ways. If we were talking about social criteria, then I could make a similar (but slightly different) argument, but I agree that such an argument would be harder to back up.

With regard to the scale, I could perhaps see heroin being called "more addicting" based on certain standards (I'd still call [censored], especially given that alcohol is more physically habit-forming, but they might at least have a leg to stand on). However, saying that heroin is more physically harmful than alcohol is pure misinformation. Cultural differences, no matter how great, can't be relevant in a consideration of physical harm. At most, dosage might be considered in relative terms based on social standards (rather than absolute standards of volume, for instance) - but a normal dose of alcohol is much more harmful than a normal dose of heroin, an extreme dose of alcohol kills you outright (just like an extreme dose of heroin), and it takes more normal doses of heroin to kill than normal doses of alcohol (this point is debatable, but the reverse is definitely untrue and alcohol is hard on the body - especially the liver - even at a relatively small dosage).

[tame_deuces]

Well yes, obviously I understand that alcohol is a a very bad drug all things considered. It certainly isn't 'unsafe' compared to many illegal alternatives - and if all things were fair then some other drugs should be legalized - or alcohol banned - for the politics to be equally fair (or 'equally unfair' pending on your viewpoint).

However I also feel that people are using the similar 'white lies' about some drugs that other are using about alcohol to 'rationalize' them - and often overstating their 'positive' effects into near falsehoods. LDS's 'It expands your horizon' vs alcohol's 'It is healthy social thing' etc.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Well yes, obviously I understand that alcohol is a a very bad drug all things considered. It certainly isn't 'unsafe' compared to many illegal alternatives - and if all things were fair then some other drugs should be legalized - or alcohol banned - for the politics to be equally fair (or 'equally unfair' pending on your viewpoint).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't care about "fair." I care about rational. And I don't believe there is any rational basis for the war on drugs that isn't based on fundamental assumptions that are authoritarian in nature.

Can you name a single other drug that's worse than alcohol based on physical criteria? Alcohol is incredibly unsafe.

[ QUOTE ]
However I also feel that people are using the similar 'white lies' about some drugs that other are using about alcohol to 'rationalize' them - and often overstating their 'positive' effects into near falsehoods. LDS's 'It expands your horizon' vs alcohol's 'It is healthy social thing' etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? First, nobody has to rationalize drug use. Drug use isn't bad by default, and only "okay" if it's successfully "justified." I don't need to back up or justify my use of drugs - the onus is on you to support your villification of them. Do you really think actions should be considered harmful until proven otherwise? Do you realize how ridiculous society would look before long if that were the case?

In the second place, it's very convenient that when someone claims positive effects from doing their drug of choice it's a "white lie," but when people claim positive effects based on your drug of choice it's just obvious. Do you have any objective, rational basis for taking this sort of perspective? I mean, I can point out the clear objective social costs of alcohol - alcoholism is extremely widespread and wreaks havoc on society and on human lives. But there are no studies indicating that alcohol has any definite social benefits. Who's being disingenuous here?

[tame_deuces]

First of all, I haven't 'villainified' any drug - my comments on heroin is simply from what I have observed - neither have I commented on being for or against prohibition whatsoever - so I think you are reading stuff into my posts that aren't there.

And my last point was pretty much what you just said, that people are attributing likely false 'positives' to alchohol just like some do to many other drugs.

[madnak]

Ah, sorry man. I must have completely misinterpreted.