Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
More People Die From Prescribed Drugs Than From All Illegal Drugs Combined!
strike-the-root.com — More people die as a result of taking legal prescription and over-the-counter drugs each year than die from ingesting all illegal drugs put together. Do the research and you'll see. Our prisons are so full of drug users (most of them marijuana users) that the United States now houses 25% of the world’s prison population. It's really quite insane.
littlebylittle- 1891 diggs
- digg it
- littlebylittle, on 10/10/2007, -5/+49A medical report in 1998 estimated that adverse reactions to prescription drugs are killing about 106,000 Americans each year -- roughly three times as many as are killed by automobiles.[1] This makes prescription drugs the fourth leading killer in the U.S., after heart disease, cancer, and stroke. The report included only drugs that were given properly and under normal circumstances, excluding drugs that were administered in error or taken in attempted suicides ... The sale of prescription drugs has more than doubled in the U.S. during the past 8 years since the report.
http://consumerlawpage.com/article/drugs_that_kill.shtml- thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -12/+27What about the difference in amounts? There's probably BILLIONS of medications delivered properly every year. Compare that to the illegal drugs, and I think you'll see a much different picture.
- DJRayne, on 10/10/2007, -8/+24I think there may be BILLIONS of bong hits each day.
- native, on 10/10/2007, -9/+10You are pulling numbers out of your ass. There's probably BILLIONS of self-administered illegal drugs consumed every year. Which under your reasoning, brings the picture back to reality.
- thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7So are you saying that
all the legally administered drugs per day == all the self-administered illegal drugs per day - tkstock, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11If you think about it logically (and it may be hard if you're on illegal drugs)
The amount of legal drug users FAR outnumber the amount of illegal drug users. You would expect a higher number. Legal drugs are meant to HELP people (cure or cope) with ailments - however not all of the side effects are completely known before they go to market.
Illegal drugs have no such purpose. It's just a pleasure thing that people die from.- judbeasley, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5Ever read up on medicinal marijuana?
- tkstock, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Yes, and it's uses are tenuous, at best.
- solonGFX, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Exactly. I can't believe some of the people above who believe that legal drugs taken per day = illegal drugs taken per day.
Ever been to a hospital? A surgery? A pharmacist? Count the people there taking/being prescribed drugs, then multiply by the number of hospitals, surgerys and pharmacies. Does that still = the number of illegal drugs consumed per day?
I think not. - danarama, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1it'd be hard to read up on it on legal drugs
- Tilon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You're all missing the point, morons. The point is that 'legal' drugs go through an EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE AND LONG PROCESS which SUPPOSEDLY determines they are 'safe'.
You mean that money's just another racket? Say it ain't so! - tkstock, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Read the title, moron, the author is trying to say that legal drugs are more dangerous than illegal drugs. The OP is making a case for the legalization of illegal drugs. Money didn't come up in the discussion.
- aaronm67, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@tilon (reply didn't work)
I think you're missing the point. Many legal drugs do go through a very long and expensive process which determines they are safe, but it is impossible to test the effects on every single person in every single case, everyone will react differently.
The number of people who die from legal prescription drugs is probably a very small percentage, while I'd bet the number of people who die from illegal drugs like heroin or meth is a MUCH larger percentage.
- thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7So are you saying that
- dbr_onix, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Isn't the reason for this 'insane' statistic that these people are dying *while taking prescribed drugs*, rather than dying *because* of prescription drugs?
How many people who died 'because of prescription drugs' would have died regardless of taking them? Probably more than this article's authour would like to think, as it would invalidate this argument.
[Personal opinion time:] Regardless of what justification is given to legalize currently illegal drugs - Unbanning them will not mean everyone suddenly takes them responsibly, and no one will ever become addicted to them, just because they are not illegal.
If you unban addictive drugs, more people will become addicted to them - There can be no arguing that (Just like if you removed all speed limits, a lot of people would drive faster, and thus, more crashes. Yes, people speed now, but because it's against the law, less people do it, or they do it less regularly etc...). The more people taking drugs, and are addicted to it, they more money they need but buy more drugs. If they need more money than they have, they need to get the money somehow. Since most companys are probably not going to hire some one who knocks on their door, and asks for a job so they can buy more drugs, what's the most obvious means of money? Crime spings to mind..
Of course if drugs were legaized, not everyone who gets addicted to them would turn to crime, but going by current drug addicts means of generating funds, it'd a good bet fair few people will start - Those who may never have considered it before, trying drugs because 'it's legal now!'
And, people who currently take drugs will just take more, because it'd because easier to find them
All it will do it make the drug problem worse, it can not do anything but increase the number of drug addicts, which no matter what way to justify it, is not a good thing...
[Apologies for any spelling/grammar screw ups, I blame fatigue]- mojibake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1and many people who have accidents or end up hospitalized have their incidents categorized as drug or alcohol related when they may or may not have been under the influence that the time.
- nigh7dagger, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Do you have a source? Because that sounds pretty stupid.
- mojibake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1and many people who have accidents or end up hospitalized have their incidents categorized as drug or alcohol related when they may or may not have been under the influence that the time.
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5The point of the article is not to draw a comparison between the numbers. It is to show that legal doesn't mean safe and illegal doesn't mean dangerous. The government pushes drug prohibition and the criminalization of people who use drugs as a harm reduction measure. Basically they claim that they are saving us from ourselves and that putting us in jail is for our own good. To justify this, they must keep us thinking that the illegal drug are extremely dangerous, much more so than what they allow people to buy legally. This is where their story falls apart. Commonly used, legal drugs have serious and potentially deadly side effects. For example, acetaminophen (aka Tylenol/Panadol) can be toxic with as little as a single does of 10 grams or by surpassing 10 grams in 24 hours. Even taking 4-6 grams per day for extended periods of time can cause toxicity, liver damage and death. Despite these risks, it is still easily available to people of all ages at almost any store that carries any kind of pain reliever. On the other hand, many of the illegal drug have never been proven to cause anywhere near as much harm as they have been accused. They certainly do not justify the imprisonment of people and the enormous amounts of resources used in a failed prohibition.
- SkippyDoorknob, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5And far far more people's lives are saved by perscriptions drugs than from all illegal drugs combined. And far far more than are killed by perscription drugs too.
- ee80, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12I don't know how accurate of statistics you can have for this debate, but you are foolish to doubt that drugs should be legalized.. for so many reasons.
It is a fact that abuse of prescription painkillers has been on the rise.. They are very dangerous when combined with things like alcohol since the drugs' depressant effects synergize. I don't see the point of including a child's antibiotics or an elderly's blood pressure medication in the debate.
More people would become addicted but you would have the billions of dollars currently wasted on jailing drug users to use for treatment and education. That means real education, not scare tactic propaganda. Drugs have been used ritually since the dawn of man. Ritual use of psychedelics hasn't destroyed any Amazon tribes that I can think of. How many drunk driving deaths are there every prom night or around graduation time?
If legal, drugs could be produced more cheaply and be safer to consume. A single bag of heroin costs I believe $10-30 depending whether you live in the inner city or out in the boonies. That is a very small amount of processed plant material. Let me just take a guess that it would cost about $1 to produce, if that. The jobless addicts would need to steal many less VCRs to get their drugs. Maybe more of them could go on with a normal life instead of being forced into the shadows... It is human nature combined with the drug's addictiveness that makes the use continue legal or not... It is our laws and policies that cause the societal problem.
With suppliers being regulated to some degree, users would know that their drug isn't laced with pseudoephedrine (see the "cheese" killing our youth hype). Purity would be standardized, hence less chance of overdose. An adequately affordable supply would not force heroin addicts to mix their dosing with alcohol and drumroll please.... illegally acquired LEGAL PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. While being highly addictive, heroin's negative effects on the body with long term use are not as bad as our good ole legal alcohol and tobacco.
Legalizing pot is a great start and the movement is picking up steam across the world. it is necessary to legalize all drugs still. Our country was founded on liberty and this is one of our liberties we need restored. All of the drug smuggling could end when we bring things to the light. The inner city culture of gangbangers and drug dealers would definitely change. Who wants to shoot the competition over that corner to sell your $20 crack rock with a %3243 markup over cost, once all of your customers are buying it for $5 from their local drugstore?
A few more points before I wrap this up: The comment below this is referring to UNSCHEDULED drugs which have similar effects to the ones that are officially illegal. A lot of these are able to be obtained, but consumption or sale is still punishable under the analog laws. There is a vast amount of "designer" drugs that need study but are prohibited. A few studies have begun to be allowed again but our government makes it very difficult to study them even though the control systems are in place. These drugs can give profound positive effects if used responsibly. More study needs done, but they seem generally safe and not physically addictive.
I have heard references to a study that you are actually MORE safe than normal driving while stoned. Whether it is real or not.. anyone who has smoked pot knows that it is the opposite of being drunk. You drive more cautiously than normal and have to actually try to keep your speed UP to not seem out of the ordinary and draw attention to yourself. Most drugs do not have the motor function impairing effects that alcohol does and there is plenty of research on that. If you endanger others you deserve to be punished, but we should have the right to consume what we want.
I quit drugs years ago because of the problems the laws cause, not the drugs' effects. I wanted to do something with my life besides be forced into the sub-class of drug users created by our laws. I can drink alcohol socially with no problem. Now that I have graduated school and earn more than the average American, I would have no problem to smoke pot every day, hell even drop some LSD and go about my daily schedule without anyone knowing. I just don't bother though because the consequences of getting caught are too bad.
For every story of like.. A principal of 20 years getting caught buying crack from students.. there are many more who are never found out. For every junky going to jail for theft, there is a user who you don't see going about their daily life normally.
The period after legalization would have new problems no doubt. Don't act like there aren't problems now or that "the drug war" is working. It will take time for people to be reeducated with the truth about drugs and for the policy of treatment over imprisonment to work. In the end the benefits to both users and non-users will be great.- BigSax, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Bravo. Well thought out and organized argument. Thank you.
- StickyLids, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Great comment, man. I definitely agree with your statement about high driving. I have not read any studies personally, but I have driven quite a few times while stoned and I can honestly say that I would rather drive after smoking ganja for a 1/2 hour straight than drive after 3 beers. The government needs to open its eyes to the reality that weed is SAFE(R) than any other "drug". I say "drug" because technically I suppose that weed is exactly that, just a weed. Grow up fundamentalist America.
- noseeme, on 10/10/2007, -10/+6Protip: All illegal drugs have a legal, DEA scheduled equivalent that does the exact same thing.
Yes, that includes marijuana, heroin, crystal meth, MDMA, LSD, and cocaine.- WarpFox, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Wrong. There is no substitute for LSD, period. The closest legal substutute for meth is regular amphetamine, which is similar but not the same. Weed's legal counterpart is marinol, which i ate about 6 of (not all at once, but over a few hours) and didn't feel *****. There's no substitute for cocaine, either.
- ScrewedThePooch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9A prescription drug known as Desoxyn is the legal pharmaceutical equivalent to methamphetamine. There is no legal alternative to Ketamine, LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, or cocaine, and the substitute for marijuana only contains one active ingredient of the plant.
- littlebylittle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The legal alternative for cocaine is cocaine. It's used as a vasoconstrictor, predominantly for nasal and lacrimal duct surgery.
- Bajeda, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Desoxyn IS methamphetamine. It just has more quality control.
- bigd063, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ketamine and cocaine both have medical uses of their own in the US, and trust me, ketamine has many analogues that have identical effects.
- ScrewedThePooch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9A prescription drug known as Desoxyn is the legal pharmaceutical equivalent to methamphetamine. There is no legal alternative to Ketamine, LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, or cocaine, and the substitute for marijuana only contains one active ingredient of the plant.
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Not true. There is no legal substitute for marijuana. Marinol is synthetic THC, but it is not as effective as natural marijuana and does not contain all the cannabinoids that work together to produce the effects of natural marijuana.
- robbh66, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I'd love to see you claim there's a legal PCP.
- Bajeda, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why is MDMA on the road to being legalized as a prescription drug with LSD and others following? Fact of the matter is, you have absolutely no clue. www.maps.org
- WarpFox, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Wrong. There is no substitute for LSD, period. The closest legal substutute for meth is regular amphetamine, which is similar but not the same. Weed's legal counterpart is marinol, which i ate about 6 of (not all at once, but over a few hours) and didn't feel *****. There's no substitute for cocaine, either.
- nikkesen, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2This whole article deserves nothing more than a resonating... DUH!!!!!!!!
- littlebylittle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I’m not saying there should be some kind of legal drug-fueled frenzy unleashed on the United States, but there are many moderate steps which could be taken to remove power from organized crime.
If you want to start looking into the facts, start here:
http://stopthedrugwar.org/
Marijuana dealers offer Schwarzenegger $1,000,000,000
http://www.digg.com/politics/Marijuana_dealers_offer_Schwarzenegger_1_000_000_000
“A coalition of California marijuana growers and dealers has offered Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger one billion dollars to solve the current state budget crisis. According to economic studies, regulation and taxation of marijuana could produce six billion dollars in additional tax revenue. "Marijuana legalization is inevitable," Schaffer says.”- pb4upoo, on 10/10/2007, -7/+0 Drugs are a nightmare that can collapse any nation. One easy way to avoid all the expense of jail time for drug users is to simply pool every three who are caught and then having them draw staws as to which one will be executed. Obviously the trial should be held within 48 hours and no appeal should be allowed. That way we can finish the process cheaply and efficiently. A person who survives such a ritual will be very unlikely to take drugs again. And yes, I do include pot on the kill list.
- solonGFX, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I'm not even sure if that was sarcasm or not.
Incase it wasn't, ever heard of The Netherlands?- serend, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@pb4upoo (sorry replied t the wrong thread)
So now what do you do if one of the three is say your cousin, daughter, aunt etc.. who has a serious problem due to some childhood experience? Death is never the answer some people can't help it.
- serend, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@pb4upoo (sorry replied t the wrong thread)
- solonGFX, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I'm not even sure if that was sarcasm or not.
- littlebylittle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I should have said this in my opening comment: Blah, blah, blah, statistics, blah, blah, absolute values, blah, blah, relational proportions, blah, blah. None of this is the point. The point is that if you asked most people, they would say that more people die from illegal drugs than from adverse reactions to prescribed and OTC drugs. The fact is, they don’t. By a long shot.
- pb4upoo, on 10/10/2007, -7/+0 Drugs are a nightmare that can collapse any nation. One easy way to avoid all the expense of jail time for drug users is to simply pool every three who are caught and then having them draw staws as to which one will be executed. Obviously the trial should be held within 48 hours and no appeal should be allowed. That way we can finish the process cheaply and efficiently. A person who survives such a ritual will be very unlikely to take drugs again. And yes, I do include pot on the kill list.
- SkippyDoorknob, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4And how many innocent people are killed by people on illegal drugs or trying to steal things in order to get more drugs?
- Pake, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Not exactly fair to say illegal drugs kill less based on a static number when the comparison should be a ratio of users to deaths per users. In other words, I want percentages and this article gave none, so I'm digging it down.
- dragonexe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1[[Not exactly fair to say illegal drugs kill less based on a static number when the comparison should be a ratio of users to deaths per users. In other words, I want percentages and this article gave none, so I'm digging it down.]]
Why are you guys digging him down? He's spot on. What this article is implying is like saying that driving a car is more deadly than shooting yourself in the face because more people die each year from car accidents than from handgun related suicide.
I'm fine with the general statement that more of the drugs should be legalized, but its pathetic when people latch on to a horrible argument or misleading data not because it ACCURATELY supports their point, but just because it SEEMS to support their point. I've been let down by digg lately, I used to think this was a group more rational than the rest of the seething masses, when it turns out the only thing different about the average digger is that he/she's more technically apt, and has different opinions.
You should be digging this story down because the poor argument is a poor example of your point. - brad3378, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1To be fair, I didn't see any mention of the number of lives saved by prescription drugs. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that prescription Drugs save more lives than street drugs.
- thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -12/+27What about the difference in amounts? There's probably BILLIONS of medications delivered properly every year. Compare that to the illegal drugs, and I think you'll see a much different picture.
- ganjadude4391, on 10/10/2007, -19/+114and yet marijuana, which has NEVER caused a person to overdose is illegal, such hypocrisies make me sick. i need some medicine ;)
- insanebrain, on 10/10/2007, -6/+20It's impossible to overdose on marijuana. . you need to smoke more than 10000 joints in one day if you want to overdose
- tulpe, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3well, the LD50 for a rat is 42mg smoked.
if it where the same for humans you had to smoke ~3g pure THC- docbob84, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4The LD50 (Lethal Dose for 50% of the population for you non-biology types) is measured in mg per kg of body weight. 42mg/kg is waaaay too low for the THC LD50 for mammals, it's actually around 500 mg/kg (depending on whether your a rat or dog... guess it's a personal preference). That means that a person who weighs 200 lbs would have to take in 50 grams of pure THC, and even then only half would die. I don't know what the concentration of THC is in marijuana, but most similar plant compounds are relatively small. So assuming it's even 1000 ppm, that's still about 50 kilos of weed you would have to eat, smoke, or otherwise ingest in a period of a few hours. In other words, not very damn likely.
- Travisty2012, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19I read somewhere (wish I could site the source now) that to get the required amount of THC in your body to overdose, you would have to smoke so much that you would pass out from lack of oxygen before you could successfully get enough THC in your system to cause death.
It doesn't matter though, in a free country we should be free to grow a plant and smoke it should we choose to. I don't want my tax money going to try and stop other people from doing the same. A "war on drugs" is a war on the personal freedom of the people of this country and it's a shame.- StickyLids, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Is that a Bill Hicks quote in your last sentence?
"It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom. Keep that in mind at all times...thank you." - brad3378, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I totally agree about not wanting tax money to be spent on limiting a person's freedom.
Likewise, I wouldn't want my tax money paying for somebody's food stamps while they're home smoking a joint instead of out finding a job.
- StickyLids, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Is that a Bill Hicks quote in your last sentence?
- Stewmoney, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1So it is possible!?!?! Gotcha!
- Evacide, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Ya, and drinking too much water can also kill you. Retard.
- NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9You'd have to smoke a joint bigger than a highway street lamp in under 5 minutes, in order to overdose... lol And that's if no smoke was wasted...
- ascii63, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3During my university days, I would have considered that a challenge!
- mojibake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0and you'd have a roach which would last through your entire internship!
- tulpe, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3well, the LD50 for a rat is 42mg smoked.
- Shawn4168, on 10/10/2007, -29/+8So??? Just because nobody's ever OD'd from marijuana doesn't mean that it's never been responsible for people's deaths. If you consider all the people that have been killed directly or indirectly as a result of somebody being under the influence of marijuana, the statistics paint quite a different picture. This report also fails to consider the fact that a much, much higher population uses legal drugs than illegal drugs.
This report is simply proof that you can make statistics say whatever you want them to say. Buried as inaccurate.- ScottoGato, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Well, if handled correctly when prescribing marijuana, it would have the drowsy label and the "do not drive while on this medication" label. I would not recommend anyone to drive after they've taken it, just like alcohol and some other prescription medicines. I figure that is what you're referring to when you say they've been killed directly or indirectly from marijuana. Or maybe you're referring to gang wars that may arise over drug territories...which is only caused because marijuana is illegal. If it were to be legalized, you would see there would be no reason for a black market to exist. You would also be surprised to know how many people out there use illegal drugs. You are buried for your inaccuracies as well.
- simpleid, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11yea, and lots of people go on bloody rampages with guns, yet they're legal. oh and cars, not like no one's ever used a car to kill... and damn how many drunk drivers are there every freaking weekend on the roads. alcohol is still around.
your argument is weak and simple minded. - ScrewedThePooch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Compare this to the number of people directly or indirectly killed by alcohol and tobacco, and you have no contest. Get your facts straight.
- Stewmoney, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1How do people know that Marijuana doesn't cause lung cancer though? It does contain carcinogens after all.
/for legalization of drugs- nodlezfodlez, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Well you don't have to smoke it, now do you?
- gurudrew, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Inhaling the smoke from anything has the potential to cause lung cancer. It doesn't matter if it's a cigarette, joint or camp fire. That doesn't mean that I should not have the right to make my own choices. Plus, if I was legally allowed to grow my own, I could afford to ingest it instead. Leaving no risk of lung cancer. Smoking is the popular method of use because it takes less marijuana to achieve the desired high and because marijuana is illegal, the cost is inflated.
- docbob84, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If I had to guess, WITHOUT DOING ANY RESEARCH for you fanatics, I would say that comparing one cigarette to one joint, the joint is probably worse for you than the cigarette. So why do they say that weed does not cause cancer? It's a question of volume. Most normal, healthy-ish people (even teenagers, and I know some who have tried) do not smoke twenty joints per day for sixty years straight. And most stop, or cut back a lot, once they get out of the young, rebellion-filled phase of college, etc. Smokers don't do that, and get exposed to a lot more tar over their lifetimes.
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4People who drive while intoxicated kill people because they make bad decisions. It has nothing to do with the substance that they are intoxicated with. Thats why we banned drunk driving and didn't ban alcohol. Many more people enjoy alcohol responsibly than irresponsibly. The same could be said when no substances are involved. People who drive while overtired or distracted are just as dangerous as people who drive while intoxicated. You ban the dangerous action and punish the people who choose to partake in these actions. You pass laws that stop people from driving while overtired or on cell phone, not just ban being tired or owning a cell phone. This is just common sense.
When speaking specifically about marijuana, the US, UK, Canada and Australia have all done studies on the effects of driving while high. They have all reached similar conclusions that show that people who drive while moderately high are as safe if not safer than the average sober driver. It may be hard to believe, but people who are high are different from people who are otherwise less fit to drive. When high on marijuana, people are aware that they are intoxicated and compensate by driving slower and leaving more room between them and other cars.
I would be curious to see what other ways marijuana indirectly causes death.- mikew101, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"It has nothing to do with the substance that they are intoxicated with."
Wrong. When under the influence of drugs or alcohol the decision making process is not nearly as good. - mojibake, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0It has everything to do with what substance they are intoxicated with.
http://paranoia.lycaeum.org/marijuana/facts/mj-health-mythology.html#myth6 - oxdeltaxo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He's saying that it doesn't matter whether your your drunk on booze or high on drugs, it's still not advisable to drive while under the influence of these substances. Now shoo spin doctors!
- mikew101, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"It has nothing to do with the substance that they are intoxicated with."
- vermax, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5you obviously prefer to live in fear, safe in your prejudices. Studies have shown that stoned people are actually SAFER drivers than straight people! though perhaps annoying as hell to the people behind them. Straight, i drive 70mph on the highway, stoned, I'm comfy at 55.
- mikew101, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1While stoned drivers may drive more slowly they will also make slower deciscions when faced with immediate decisions such as when a car swerves over, and the overdosed driver doesnt move in time.
- mojibake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0"overdosed"
pshaw
- mojibake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0"overdosed"
- mikew101, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1While stoned drivers may drive more slowly they will also make slower deciscions when faced with immediate decisions such as when a car swerves over, and the overdosed driver doesnt move in time.
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@Stewmoney Apples contain carcinogens. Containing carcinogens doesn't mean that something causes cancer. Those who are for the prohibition of pot have tried for decades to prove that pot causes cancer. It is impossible to prove a negative (as in you can't prove that something will never happen because you can never account for all possible circumstances) so it can not be proven that marijuana can't cause cancer, but the lack of any proof that marijuana does cause cancer despite many attempts is the best measure we have to show that they two don't have a link.
- Stewmoney, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3It has to do with this misconception that if a doctor prescribes it to you then its ok. When in reality the Doctor is just prescribing you what the Pharm. is paying them off to prescribe.
- guyincognitoo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Sure, the doctors don't know anything and only do whatever they're told. Idiot
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2When they are told by the companies that pay them thousands of dollar and, in some cases, put them through medical school; yes they do.
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/00723/big-pharma-1.html
http://www.newstarget.com/001298.html
By the way, ending all you comments with an insult is very childish if you hadn't realized that already.- docbob84, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Not all doctors are owned by a pharmaceutical company. I know this because I would have taken their money toward medical school or my loans now in a heartbeat. I think it's sad that you don't trust your doctor, and if you are that suspicious you should find a new one. Ask them to explain the physiology of things to you; if it goes over your head, have them simplify things for you. Generally we can use examples and analogies to show you how medicines work. If you *still* think we're talking out of a medicine company's website, good luck with WebMD and getting your 'scripts online. But don't ever come to my office and accuse me of taking bribes from a pharm company.
- guyincognitoo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Idiot. I win. Oh, and payoffs are illegal, which is what it says in the articles you linked. Many places are no longer even allowing drug reps to enter the premises.
- Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Stewmoney is correct. Doctors prescribe stuff all the time just because they get some benefit from the pharmaceutical companies for doing so. The most blatant example that I even encountered was a doctor I used to have who constantly recommended a nasal spray for my allergies. That particular nasal spray only relieved runny noses, but I rarely had a runny nose. It was almost always just stuffy. That didn't stop him from continuing to recommend it. He kept forgetting that he had recommended it previously and that I kept saying I didn't need it. I never knew for sure, but I suspected that he was getting some benefit from the company that made the nasal spray.
Besides, I did try that spray once and it gave me headaches and particularly bad times. I and my girlfriend at the time quickly discovered that I would get *massive* mind-blowing headaches during orgasm. Not fun! They freaking hurt like hell.... All to fix a problem I didn't have.
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2When they are told by the companies that pay them thousands of dollar and, in some cases, put them through medical school; yes they do.
- guyincognitoo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Sure, the doctors don't know anything and only do whatever they're told. Idiot
- LogicBomB, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Shawn - exactly how does that occur exactly? Driving related deaths are negligable (because you do not loose awareness of your impairment like you do with alcohol), your altered state does not make you angry or enraged (like alcohol) and you can't OD. How exactly is one responsible for a death as a result of smoking it?
I'm sure some dumbass tried using a forklift stoned or whatever but those are few and far between and BY FAR less common than alcohol abuse.
Simply put: You are flat-out wrong.- robbh66, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If you don't think weed doesn't slow down your reaction time you're an idiot. I've seen it hundreds, if not thousands, of times after living with a stoner. It was especially bad the first few years, but got better as time progressed, just like alcohol.
- Drain23, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0as if ODing is the only measurement of harm
- insanebrain, on 10/10/2007, -6/+20It's impossible to overdose on marijuana. . you need to smoke more than 10000 joints in one day if you want to overdose
- geekchic, on 10/10/2007, -13/+88What the report doesn't say is how many people take illegal drugs compared to prescription drugs. I would guess that vastly more people take prescription drugs, and hence it is logical to expect the fatality numbers to be higher.
- swrlyhrly, on 10/10/2007, -5/+30I'm sure that's true however i think the point is supposed to be legal drugs don't equal safe drugs, as well as illegal drugs don't necessarily mean fatal drugs.
- thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -10/+10Yes, but all the pro-narcotics people are going to use this as ammo to say that they should be allowed to take whatever now-illegal substances they want because they are safer than prescription drugs.
- zengonzo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Or they could say exactly what swrlyhrly said ..
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Many illegal drugs are safer than some legal drugs. Even if they are not, the danger posed by the illegal drugs is not so much greater than that posed by legal drugs as to justify imprisoning people who use the former and doing nothing to people that use the latter. Thats the point of the article.
- thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Except someone with years of training and medical knowledge is prescribing something to help someone....
- tkstock, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't give a rat's ass if an illegal drug is safer than a legal one - there is one reason why the legal one is LEGAL - it is designed to HELP someone with an illness. Illegal, illicit drugs do nothing to help the person (with the possible exception of the sparse uses of marijuana)
- indicas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1tstock i believe that is too broad of a statement. quite a few illicit drugs can help people. they are not illegal because they do not help, they are illegal due to high abuse potential.
look at ecstacy for couples therapy, which is what ecstacy was first used for before it 'escaped'. - tkstock, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So, is it a legal drug that is abused? Or is it an illegal drug that was once used legally?
When the benefits outweigh the risks, that's a big factor in determining when a drug should be legal. In the case of most illicit drugs, they have little or no utility, and the risks of abuse are too high to make them legal.
- dannyapplesauce, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6Yes, but this is unfairly weighted. It's like saying more people die in car accidents then people die from falling off a cliff being struck by lighting and impaling themselves on a fence. That's a tad exaggerated, but this study isn't fairly weighted. ... Buried
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Did you even read that article or did you just skim the headline and come up with your conclusion?
- Shawn4168, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4I don't think that's supposed to be the point. The point of this article is that we should legalize currently illegal drugs. However, it's a poor point. Just because a drug isn't "fatal" doesn't mean that somebody innocent can't be hurt as the result of the actions of somebody under its influence.
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Why is it justifiable to ban a substance from all people because it poses a risk of harm to others if misused? Computers, car, water, fire, food, and a million other things can harm others if people don't use them properly. We don't ban all these things and lock people up for having cars and computers. We ban the misuse of them that causes harm to others and punish those that choose to partake in these actions anyway. Why should it be different with drugs? If I can smoke pot for ten years and never hurt anyone, why is it still ok to put me in jail?
A potential for harm is not a justifiable reason to ban a substance since all substances come with a risk of harm if not used properly.- tkstock, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You forget that all the things you mentioned have something that illicit drugs do not: utility.
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Why is it justifiable to ban a substance from all people because it poses a risk of harm to others if misused? Computers, car, water, fire, food, and a million other things can harm others if people don't use them properly. We don't ban all these things and lock people up for having cars and computers. We ban the misuse of them that causes harm to others and punish those that choose to partake in these actions anyway. Why should it be different with drugs? If I can smoke pot for ten years and never hurt anyone, why is it still ok to put me in jail?
- smedrick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I doubt many people assume legal drugs are safe. The safe factor is because they are controlled. Taking legal drugs strictly by prescription makes them safe.
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1So why don't we legalize the illegal drug and enforce limits on how much you can buy? You can't regulate something effectively while its illegal.
- tkstock, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Of course you can regulate something that's illegal, making it illegal is regulation - it's just regulation to the extreme!
Is regulation of pain killers causing people to not get them illegally and abuse them? No. People will abuse drugs whether they are illegal or legal, but you have to put up barriers to access or barriers to incentive to do drugs.
You wan't to remove those barriers, drug use would go up dramatically, which may be good for people like me that don't do drugs at all - we'll get the better jobs! Legalize drugs may be a good thing for my career!! - mikew101, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1because people on drugs need more drugs, and cannot live with any kind of limit. Thats why they rob and kill people for more.
- tkstock, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Of course you can regulate something that's illegal, making it illegal is regulation - it's just regulation to the extreme!
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1So why don't we legalize the illegal drug and enforce limits on how much you can buy? You can't regulate something effectively while its illegal.
- thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -10/+10Yes, but all the pro-narcotics people are going to use this as ammo to say that they should be allowed to take whatever now-illegal substances they want because they are safer than prescription drugs.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 10/10/2007, -10/+10geekchic " I would guess that vastly more people take prescription drugs, and hence it is logical to expect the fatality numbers to be higher." Two things: First, don't "guess" and then say "hence it is logical", second, try to get the point of the article.
- Shawn4168, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Why not? The reasoning in the article itself is no stronger.
- Terh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3logical != factual. Geekchic's wording was fine.
- speerross, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Not really. Firstly you are acting under the assumption more people would take illegal drugs if they were legal, I don't think the numbers would increase drastically. Secondly, the very fact that it is illegal drugs illegal for healthcare reasons vs legal drugs legal for healthcare reasons means that regardless of the amount of takers no deaths should be tolerated from drugs legal for healthcare reasons. They obviously aren't doing a very good job of caring for your health, whereas illegal drugs are taking for recreational purposes in which case a number of deaths is tolerable as people have chosen to take an unnecessary risk of their own free will.
Even when you take in to account the difference in the number of takers for many illegal drugs vs legal ones I'd be willing to bet a smaller percentage of people die from illegal ones, very few people die of ecstacy, none ever have died of marijuana and coke isn't nearly as dangerous as you might think. Regardless of all that, we use Morphine legitimately and that is 99% the same thing as Heroine. Tobacco is also more addictive than Heroine.- ScrewedThePooch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3No deaths have ever occurred from LSD or mushroom overdose either.
- flashingcurser, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Also heroine is far more effective pain killer, with less side effects than oxycoton. Marijuana has been recomended for years by oncologist for relief of chemo sickness. Cocaine is a very effective topical analgesic. If doctors could prescribe these drugs for treatments they could be used more carefully. If methadrine (the pharmaceutical name for meth-amphetamine) had recommended dosage, like it did prior to 1972, far few problems would arise from its use. This is probably true of most "ilegal drugs".
The biggest problem with overdose of heroine and cocaine is the inconstancies in quality from dealer to dealer. A user is used to buying a low potency/low quality drug from one dealer and then in a need to for a maintenance buy some other dealer who happens to have high potency drugs and they over dose on the same amount of drug. If it were all were pharmaceutical grade this would not be a problem.- flashingcurser, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2That is most incomprehensible thing I have ever written, please digg it down.
- sabach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1On the contrary, it all made sense to me. You want incomprehensible? Just keep reading, some of these people are like chimpanzees banging on their keyboards.
- flashingcurser, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2That is most incomprehensible thing I have ever written, please digg it down.
- mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Booze is the most heavily abused substance for a reason.
If you think for a second that decriminalizing other drugs wont vastly up their usage, you are already smoking to much of something.- corneliusJones, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0booze is the most heavily abused because A. it is physically addicting and B. for those who wish to stay within the law, it is their only option and C. since it is legal people consider it 'safer' than illegal drugs. perhaps if people were given the option to smoke a J legally, alcohol dependence would go down.
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Pot use is tolerated and controlled in Amsterdam and the ratio of people to marijuana use is the similar to the US. Alcohol is the most abused substance because it is the most used substance, not simply because it is legal. Marijuana is currently illegal yet readily available anywhere in the country. If the people who want it can already get it despite the laws, then why would changing the law have any significant effect on the rate of usage?
- isaactwito, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0That's absurd! Heroin is FAR more addictive than tobacco, at least in terms of how easily you can be addicted to it, as well as how strong the withdrawal is (granted, many people still relapse on tobacco because of the availability). Also it is not a matter of heroin being 99% the same as morphine. While both are an opiate, morphine is manufactured by regulated medical companies. Heroin on the other hand is the single most common drug to spliced with look-alike substances, making it extremely dangerous. Not to mention that heroin is horrible for users in that it is much less regulated in how much you can get compared to a prescription of morphine or having to have morphine after a surgery.
- Rustbucket, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3@BlacklabelSAR
>> "First, don't "guess" and then say "hence it is logical","
Why can't he make a logical conclusion based on an assumption? His logic is fine, if you don't agree with him maybe you should show evidence to contradict his assumption.- Terh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0And you should learn to use the comment system.
- sexybobo, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4this is just some prodrug person skewing statistics. the statistic that would be intresting to know is fatalities per 100000 users.
And with doing a little looking around finding statistics. 16 million people in the US use illegal drugs in 2002. and 2.4 billion prescriptions were prescribed in 2005. So extremely logically you are going to have more deaths if you do something 2.4 billion times instead of 16 million.- sexybobo, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4sorry ran out of time to edit.
106,000/2,400,000,000=0.000044166 so .004% of people that use prescription drugs die i wonder what that number is for illegal drugs? Also you need to factor in how many lives perscription drug's save and how many lives illegal drugs save to have a any close to accurate number.- huckamania, on 10/10/2007, -0/+02.4 billion prescriptions in 2005! Is that just in the US?
Anywhile, the set of illegal and legal drug users most certainly intersects. That is, some illegal drug users are also legal drug users and vice-versa.
None of this matters. The Drug War will be lost because the harder it is fought the more valuable the drugs become. It is also true that the harder it is fought, the more it will cost us as a society. Having 25% of the worlds prisoners in the "Land of the Brave and Home of the Free" is a national disgrace. - jtako, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0sexybobo said, "sorry ran out of time to edit. 106,000/2,400,000,000=0.000044166 so .004% of people that use prescription drugs die"
The number of prescriptions are 2.4 billion but the number of people taking prescriptions in the US must obviously be equal to or less than the actual population in the US, roughly 300 million. For easy math let's say the number of prescription users in the US is 240 million or one-tenth the number of prescriptions. Thus the number of people that use prescriptions and die is 0.04% or 441.7 per million.
- huckamania, on 10/10/2007, -0/+02.4 billion prescriptions in 2005! Is that just in the US?
- Shawn4168, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I agree with you, however, there's a flaw in your logic. 2.4 billion prescriptions != 2.4 billion users. But I completely agree that this argument alone is enough to throw out this article. There are, however, many more reasons why this report is full of crap.
- ScrewedThePooch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+516 million people REPORTED doing illegal drugs. That's different than 16 million people DOING illegal drugs. Many people will not answer that question honestly when surveyed by a government official.
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Here. Let me put in caps for you since you missed it the first five times it was said; THE POINT OF THE ARTICLE IS NOT A DIRECT COMPARISON BETWEEN THE NUMBERS!!! IT MAKES OTHER MORE IMPORTANT POINTS!
- Terh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"extremely logically"? What the hell does that mean?
I'm picturing computer scientists drinking mountain dew and rollerblading in a halfpipe.- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I think its like logic with extra spicy nacho cheese on top or something.
- sexybobo, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4sorry ran out of time to edit.
- cruxop, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4I'd also suggest that a large number of people who take prescription drugs are in bad health. Such as the aged and infirm who take drugs BEACAUSE THEY NEED THEM TO LIVE.
Thus when they do die from the drugs, its no real surprise since their systems aren't as robust as healthy peoples.- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1So people who need drugs can take them even if it eventually kills them while people who don't need drugs can't have them even though it won't kill them.... that makes sense....
/sarcasm - isaactwito, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I don't think that's quite the point, Phrag. People who take prescription drugs are doing it to fix something. Even if there is a problem that results from it, the intent is to help them. On the other hand the person out taking pcp, heroin, or crack is doing absolutely nothing beneficial to themself. I'd like to see a statistic of how many lives are saved and how many lives are lost with prescription drugs, side by side with the same statistics of illegal drugs. I wonder if that would make this a little clearer of an issue.
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1So people who need drugs can take them even if it eventually kills them while people who don't need drugs can't have them even though it won't kill them.... that makes sense....
- member57, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Then I would venture a guess and say the per capita users of legal prescription drugs there is a lower fatality rate than among illegal abusers. How many tens of millions of Americans are on prescription drugs? How many millions of losers do illegal drugs? Go ask any large city Paramedics, Police and Firefighters how many dumbasses OD everyday on the streets in their respective cities.
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1'losers' who used illegal drugs:
Former President Clinton
Current President Bush
Mayor Bloomberg
Francis Crick, the Nobel Prize-winning father of modern genetics
I could go on for hours, but you really aren't worth the effort.- tkstock, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Compare that list to the list of achievers that DIDN'T use illegal drugs.
I could go on for millenia, but you aren't worth the effort. - ShinRaTDR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@tkstock
That is such a stupid point.
- tkstock, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Compare that list to the list of achievers that DIDN'T use illegal drugs.
- brp1264, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0If it was controlled and regulated, and a user knew exactly what they were getting and how powerful a dose, then there would be significantly less overdoses. Sure, you'd always get the dumbass that outdoes him/herself (i've seen plenty of drunks like this), but at least if it was regulated like alcohol, wherein you knew how much and what you were ingesting, you would be able to make an educated decision. As of now, we don't have that luxury, and oftentimes drugs are laced or their strength is unknown. Take the power and money away from gangs and give it back to the government and people.
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1'losers' who used illegal drugs:
- Stefanoz72, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This DOESN't mean that illegal ones are healthier, BUT it's a strong clue that the huge ammount of money, resources and lives uselessly wasted on the "wars on drugs" is unjustified!
- vhold, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Exactly.. The title of this article could logically lead people to believe that if you legalized illegal drugs, even more people would die.
- caban, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The point is not to compare the toxicity of legal vs. illegal drugs.
The both come in greatly varying degrees of toxicity and can't be lumped together based on their legal status.
It's all drugs, and they cause problems and causalities no matter who sell them and regardless of legal status.
Many illegal drugs is also used as medicine, and a lot of medicine is used as recreational drugs.
I really doubt that today the majority of substance abuse is using illegal drugs...most junkies use a lot of legal drugs as well and there is many people hooked on various painkillers and antidepressants,
So the point is that while some drug dealers get put into prison for selling addictive substances to be used as recreational drugs others doesn't. That's hypocritical,.
If you compare the efforts when it comes to making sure that pharmaceuticals is safe and only prescribed when there actually is a need and the "war on drugs" it should be pretty obvious that the reasons for that war is not primarily health concerns. - johnj21, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The author also doesn't distinguish in deaths due to taking prescription drugs in an illegal fashion (drug sharing, overdosing) and deaths due to taking legally prescribed drugs in the manner in which they are prescribed. biased report
- Rambeezle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+01492 digg users are unable to use basic logic skills. I don't understand how people can digg something so nonsensical. More people are on prescription medication. Also, prescription medication has medicinal worth so you must deduct the lives prescription medication saved.
- swrlyhrly, on 10/10/2007, -5/+30I'm sure that's true however i think the point is supposed to be legal drugs don't equal safe drugs, as well as illegal drugs don't necessarily mean fatal drugs.
- 10goto10, on 10/10/2007, -1/+79"...ingesting all illegal drugs put together"
If that REALLY doesn't kill you, you're in for a hell of a trip- Lutz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1As illustrated in the flash cartoon http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/372276
- disoriented, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1that's the most hits of acid i've ever seen anybody take man...you're gonna be trippin for a month
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wow. I didn't know people still watched Cheech and Chong movies.
- tkstock, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I prefer "Stick Figures on Crack"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIzdAacXp6E
- disoriented, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1that's the most hits of acid i've ever seen anybody take man...you're gonna be trippin for a month
- TurnipFarm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0But what I can tell you, sir, is if Margaret Mead,
at her age, smoked grass...
- Lutz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1As illustrated in the flash cartoon http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/372276
- supermajic, on 10/10/2007, -19/+41Well I guess we should all start taking illegal drugs then...
Just because illegal drugs don't kill you, it doesn't mean they don't ***** you up.- juicebag, on 10/10/2007, -18/+12Prepare to get dugg down by digg's pot-lovers.
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Prepare to get dugg down by people who read the article and know that you aren't even coming close to the point it is trying to make.
- fenderguy746, on 10/10/2007, -6/+20Maybe you didn't rtfa since the last half of it explained the philosophical individual rights people have to make that choice.
Without the ability to choose we are no longer an individual.- sexybobo, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4Kinda the same reason murder is outlawed and so is drinking and driving. at very least when you are high your reflexes are slowed way down below the point of alcohol. when you get high in most cases you could be putting some ones life in danger which is not something you can choose to do.
- BiPolarMoment, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You made your own comment irrelevant by comparing it to alcohol--drinking and driving are illegal because as you said, "you could be putting some ones life in danger".
Smoking marijuana at home, by comparison, does no such thing. I suppose it should be illegal to pass out from alcohol at home as well?
PS. I don't smoke. - Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This doesn't even make sense as a comparison since you drink one and smoke the other and the effect on your reflexes is tied to the amount you ingest.
Every time you get into a car you are putting your life, the lives of everyone in the car and everyone around you in danger, even if you are completely sober. Same time when you fly a plane or operate machinery or do many other things. You don't ban a substance because it has a potential for harm. Water has a potential for harm. You ban an action because it poses a high risk of harm. If someone is driving in an unsafe condition, regardless of what causes that condition, you stop them before they hurt someone. It makes no sense to arrest anyone for doing something that could potentially pose a risk of harming someone in the future without any certainty that the circumstances necessary for causing harm with ever come about. That would be like arresting someone for driving safely down the street because they may driving in an unsafe manner later and pose a risk of harm to others.
- BiPolarMoment, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You made your own comment irrelevant by comparing it to alcohol--drinking and driving are illegal because as you said, "you could be putting some ones life in danger".
- Shawn4168, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1You're right. I should have the ability to choose to drink and drive. I should have the ability to choose to murder somebody. I should have the ability to choose to molest children.
- 40hands, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Learn how to debate.
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Hey, lets blow this way out of proportion now! Lets compare smoking pot to molesting children and murder. Are you really so desperate to be right in your own mind that you are willing to make yourself sound like a complete moron? Murder is illegal because it causes harm to someone every time it occurs. The same stands for child molestation. Drunk driving has a very high likely hood of harming someone. Even with that high risk of harm, people who are arrested for drunk driving only will have to go to driver education and possibly an alcohol abuse program, not jail. The vast majority of people who smoke pot never harm anyone, yet simply possessing marijuana, even when not posing a remote risk of harm to others, is against the law and can land you in jail. How do you justify putting people in jail for something that by itself poses less of a risk of harm than legal activities like owning a hand gun or driving a car? You can't do it!
- ScrewedThePooch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2In terms of operating a vehicle, alcohol is probably the most or one of the most impairing drugs in existence when compared to the illegal drugs. Try driving on pot or coke vs. driving on alcohol. There is no question that alcohol impairs your senses much more in higher quantities than the other two.
- mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1News flash, living in a country with other people always means giving up some of your rights.
- sexybobo, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4Kinda the same reason murder is outlawed and so is drinking and driving. at very least when you are high your reflexes are slowed way down below the point of alcohol. when you get high in most cases you could be putting some ones life in danger which is not something you can choose to do.
- MaxPayne3476, on 10/10/2007, -4/+29Please give me one GOOD reason that marijuana should remain illegal.
By legalizing and taxing marijuana (therefore, giving it roughly the same price as the current street price), we could essentially wipe out a states debt. California, anyone? New Jersey's budget crisis? The money brought in would be phenomenal.
The fact is that no one has ever died directly from marijuana. The average toke does not impair your driving ability, unlike alcohol and sleep-deprivation.
So please explain just how these drugs "***** you up" cause I sure missed the point.- juicebag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12I agree that pot should be legal if things like alcohol and tobacco are.
- supermajic, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1well i wasn't referring to all illegal drugs, although i do believe heavy usage of marijuana could probably '***** you up'. I was more talking about cocaine, heroine, ice, etc etc etc.
- Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2One good reason pot should remain illegal? Here's a few.
1) The Tobacco industry. It's the reason that the government keeps putting more and more restrictions but NEVER bans tobacco. It's a huge source of government income and jobs. It will slowly die if marijuana is legalized. Very slowly, but it'll happen, probably in under 20 years. It's harder to market something you can grow in your backyard, especially because they need to use preservatives/chemicals in the industrial stuff.
2) Other industries...economy as a whole. Yup. Hemp is a wonder-plant. It grows fast and does a lot. Better paper than you get from wood pulp. High-quality bricks. When supply increases to overcome demand, prices and values drop. The economy is based upon limit supply. Hemp is a wonder-weed, and the only legal way to limit its growth is keeping pot illegal. I'm not saying an economy -can't- exist with hemp products being prevalent. I'm just saying OURS would have a bit of an implosion for a long time.
Legal pot. Is it worth an economic depression?- WarpFox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+71) The tobacco industry would probably be the first to grow weed, since it already has the resources, capital, and logistics to produce and distribute it. If anything, they would probably have their stock prices go UP. Edit: Do you grow your own tobacco? Veggies? Some people do, but most would rather just buy it.
2) You would move all of the money changing hands on the black market (Billions) into the economy, creating more taxable transactions. There's probably enough taxable revenue in weed alone to fund the iraq war for a few more days. The logging industry my suffer some, and perhaps cotton, but this is business. Other industries would benefit from the cheaper supply of raw goods. - ScrewedThePooch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11) Tobacco is not the same drug as pot. Tobacco is physically addictive whereas pot is not. Many people who smoke pot also smoke tobacco as it increases the high, so this argument is flawed. Tobacco impairs judgment less than pot. People are therefore less likely to smoke pot while driving, but they'll still smoke tobacco while driving. If pot were legalized, it would most likely still be against most employer policies to come to work stoned, so smoking tobacco is an acceptable alternative. Just because people can grow it in their backyard, does not mean they want to or have the time to actually do it. If anything, the alcohol companies would probably suffer more than the tobacco companies. Since alcohol does more damage to your body anyway, it would be nice to have an alternative other than caffeine and tobacco. Tobacco is a stimulant, whereas pot is a depressant. People smoke tobacco to stay awake. People smoke pot to get stoned and relax. They are different substances. Comparing pot to tobacco is like comparing alcohol to caffeine.
2) Do you have any idea how much revenue could be earned from taxing pot? Legalizing it would cause a huge surplus of jobs, and new industries would pop up everywhere. - Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Wait a second... did you just justify keeping pot (a substance that has never been proven to cause cancer or emphysema) illegal by claiming that it will get people to stop smoking tobacco? Not only do I find this assumption completely unbelievable, but I think it would be a great thing if people who are smoking tobacco would stop and smoke pot instead. I don't believe it would happen, but thats still the worst reason for keeping pot illegal that I have ever heard.
As for hemp, it would free partially free us from dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuels. For that reason alone I would say that it is worth any problems that it may cause our economy during the transition period. It is inevitable that are going to have to stop relying so heavily on fossil fuels and the longer we wait to do it, the worse the transition is going to be.
- WarpFox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+71) The tobacco industry would probably be the first to grow weed, since it already has the resources, capital, and logistics to produce and distribute it. If anything, they would probably have their stock prices go UP. Edit: Do you grow your own tobacco? Veggies? Some people do, but most would rather just buy it.
- member57, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4I had to compose myself after laughing at your comment, it's so insane, especially if you actually believe that it will single handedly cure budget crises' I know that outrageous claims made by potheads that pot does this, does that, yada, yada, yada, Now it cures budget shortfalls!!! Dear God, I can't believe that such a wonder plant exists, it's like harvesting money!!!
Get a life and get off drugs, life seems more real....
- simpleid, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6lol it's not like legal drugs don't ***** you up either. most do a way better job at it too, and in a bad way.
what's with all these crappy arguments on the subject, are half of you retarded?- socokoolaid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Lets force our experimenting youth to get brain damage or die from gouging them selfs with cough syrup, because we keep too tight of reins on safe, well established, drugs like pot. Teens will experiment no matter what we do, we just effect what they have available to experiment with.
- Drain23, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0kids shouldn't be using any drugs, legal or not
- Drain23, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0haha and if you disagree, I sincerely hope you never reproduce
- socokoolaid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Lets force our experimenting youth to get brain damage or die from gouging them selfs with cough syrup, because we keep too tight of reins on safe, well established, drugs like pot. Teens will experiment no matter what we do, we just effect what they have available to experiment with.
- cavedog0, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And what's wrong with getting ***** up if you aren't doing anyone else harm?
- juicebag, on 10/10/2007, -18/+12Prepare to get dugg down by digg's pot-lovers.
- redrock34, on 10/10/2007, -9/+32That's because the drug companies have bought the federal government and don't want any natural drug such as marijuana hurting their profits.
- ddxChrist, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5You're kind of right, but not quite. The whole 'natural drug' point of view is incorrect. Pharmaceuticals come about from 'natural drugs'; it's called drug discovery. Then the molecule is altered and structure activity relationships are examined. This is how we get a variety of drugs from a single natural drug.
Now, in the case of drug companies and marijuana: It's likely they're against it because it would be difficult for them to compete. They're typically involved with synthesis, and since there are a variety of cannabinoids present in cannabis, it's unlikely that they would be able to synthetically match the individuals or companies who grow the plant itself.- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Redrock is correct that pharmaceutical companies don't like natural drugs. Their synthetics are sometimes produced from natural sources, but they can not patent and claim to be spending billions of dollars on R&D on a natural substance. If people viewed natural medicine more favorably and used them in conjunction with synthetic medicines, like they do in Germany, the medical system would be much better off but the pharmaceutical companies, which funnel billions of dollars into the political system, would take a hit to their profits.
- Shawn4168, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Yeah, because the public is clamoring for the opportunity to smoke weed to help treat cancer...
- 40hands, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I have a better one: WHO THE ***** CARES WHAT ANYONE DOES WITH IT. Novel idea, huh?
Get your idiotic ass out of other peoples business and go back to dry humping the DEA's headquarters. - Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Actually they are. A 2002 poll showed that 80% of adult Americans favor allowing seriously ill people to use marijuana medicinally.
- 40hands, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I have a better one: WHO THE ***** CARES WHAT ANYONE DOES WITH IT. Novel idea, huh?
- Discopopstar, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Nightshade and Death-Cap Mushrooms are natural drugs too, so I think everyone should be fine ingesting those. Natural != Good for you.
- mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"Dog ***** is all natural." -Carlin
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1[natural = good for you] != what the article claims
writing is pseudo math formulas instead of actual sentences = stupid
- mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"Dog ***** is all natural." -Carlin
- Branyers, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2And if we had universal health care, this would be a non-issue.
The list of ***** up things we need to fix just gets longer each day.- tkstock, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, Universal Healthcare will fix all of our problems. Yeah, right.
You are blaming the governement for the problems we currently have, and you want to give them control of our healthcare too? What are YOU smoking?
- tkstock, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, Universal Healthcare will fix all of our problems. Yeah, right.
- ddxChrist, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5You're kind of right, but not quite. The whole 'natural drug' point of view is incorrect. Pharmaceuticals come about from 'natural drugs'; it's called drug discovery. Then the molecule is altered and structure activity relationships are examined. This is how we get a variety of drugs from a single natural drug.
- toasty168, on 10/10/2007, -7/+14surprise surprise! "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist" - The Usual Suspects
- insanebrain, on 10/10/2007, -9/+12The greates trick Jesus ever pulled was convincing the world he did exist.
- noseeme, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Paradox alert!
- Shawn4168, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Your argument makes absolutely no sense.
- bartbrinkman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Oh, he did exist alright. His greatest trick (albeit deathly for himself) was promoting a borderline cult into an international faith.
- insanebrain, on 10/10/2007, -9/+12The greates trick Jesus ever pulled was convincing the world he did exist.
- AJH16, on 10/10/2007, -10/+16Per capita stats with actual numbers or its Buried as lame / inaccurate, simply because most people will see it and thing illegal drugs are safer, instead of realizing that just because x number of people die each year from jumping off of bridges and a much larger number of people die in car accidents, jumping off of bridges must be safer than driving your car. Also note, this doesn't attempt to look at how many deaths result as a indirect correlation to illegal drug use. (Say, DUI, which is technically illegal drug use since it is using a legal drug in an illegal manner.) I'm pretty sure you will get a much more grim picture.
- btgoss, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Excellent post.
- speerross, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7You're failing to realise that illegal drugs are taken for recreational purposes so some risk level is tolerable, as it is an unnecessary risk. Legal drugs are taken to benefit health so it is not tolerable for someones health to be made worse by them.
- SocialPoison, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I came in here to make that exact point.
medication_deaths vs illegal_drug_deaths is a worthless stat.
medication_users / medication_deaths vs illegal_drug_users / illegal_drug_deaths is much more telling.
Buried as lame... because it's technically accurate but misleading.
@speerross
And you're failing to realize that the article is pro-illegal drugs, not anti-medication. - Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Thanks for being the sixth or seventh person in a row to post this exact same thing. Go back. Read the article. Read the comments and replies. Then maybe you will get the point.
- shorty9, on 10/10/2007, -11/+9Time to legalize Marijuana!
http://www.hooqs.com/legalize-it!/17021,20206- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Stop spamming!
- Rustbelt, on 10/10/2007, -10/+17Big deal. I bet more people are murdered each year so people can steal the money to buy illegal drugs than people who are murdered to pay for prescription drugs.
- insanebrain, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Big deal . .There are more people dying stuffing to much food in their mouth than there are dying of drug abuse.
- holzp, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3You call it dying, I call it living! YUM!
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1McDookies! I'm dying from it!
- Shawn4168, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You're right! Let's outlaw food!
- holzp, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3You call it dying, I call it living! YUM!
- speerross, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13If the drugs were legal instead of illegal prices would be so low people wouldn't have to commit crime to buy them
- Rustbelt, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3I don't understand the "legalize drugs and crime will go down argument". Addicts who can't hold a job today steal and rob to get the money to buy drugs. Are you saying once drugs are legal these people will suddenly get jobs to pay for their legal drugs? No matter how cheap drugs get, no job=no money and they are still going to want their fix. If drugs are legal and cheaper, won't my stolen DVD player just buy addicts more drugs than it used to?
If you are talking about legalizing them so people aren't arrested and sitting in jail, wasting my tax dollars, well that I understand.- socokoolaid, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2People steal money for boos too. Alcohol is cheap and legal, but people steal for it.
- KidVicious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What rustbelt is saying is not false, and it's a shame that he is getting dugg down because people don't like the sound of the truth.
- Rustbelt, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3I don't understand the "legalize drugs and crime will go down argument". Addicts who can't hold a job today steal and rob to get the money to buy drugs. Are you saying once drugs are legal these people will suddenly get jobs to pay for their legal drugs? No matter how cheap drugs get, no job=no money and they are still going to want their fix. If drugs are legal and cheaper, won't my stolen DVD player just buy addicts more drugs than it used to?
- jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1This story is old
- vermax, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0so is sneering "this is old" you smug *****. until the laws changed, this is extremely pertinent, right this second.
- socokoolaid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Go fart in a wine glass... (*smug*)
- insanebrain, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Big deal . .There are more people dying stuffing to much food in their mouth than there are dying of drug abuse.
- didiman, on 10/10/2007, -6/+18There are two major flaws in the argument that this article is trying to make. One, prescription drugs save and/or prolong a lot of more lives than they end. How many lives do illegal drugs save? Two, a lot more people take legal prescription drugs than illegal drugs. The article is pointless.
- phuzed, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10Last study I seen in the Journal of Medicine was that 1-in-4 people in the US habitually (habitually was defined as once a month or 12 times or more a year) use marijuana. I highly doubt there is that much of a discrepancy. Secondly, prescription drug abuse is and has been on the rise for the past 10 years; not all prescription drugs prolong or saves lives, sometimes people go to their doctor for all sorts of so called 'pain'.
- Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Thirdly, marijuana has scientifically verified cancer-killing and cancer-preventing properties (cancer-preventing couldn't be a reactive prescription use). Medically, marijuana is known to improve appetite and settle nausea: both features AWESOME for someone in Chemo trying to keep food down. Finally, if taken in the right forms, there are no recorded permanent side-effects (the cancer risk is caused by smoking it. As a prescription, it could certainly be administered in other ways.) Medically speaking, it is a wonder-drug for a small number of extremely important things.
- ShorXrorE, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5yea thats ***** that marijuana has cancer stopping properties. that person is an idiot and has no idea what they're talking about. marijuana almost definitely does CAUSE cancer however. but regardless, THC tablets (the ingredient in marijuana that makes you high) is good for a lot of chemo/radiation treatments to help nausea. also MDMA (or extacy) used to be used in psychological therapy and was found very helpful. so actually, illegal drugs do often have positive medical benefits.
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1They article is not pointless. You just don't see the point because you are completely focused on the headline. Illegal drugs save the indirectly lives of plenty of people. For example, every time I drive home from work I have many people who drive like idiots around me. Instead of becoming more and more enraged at their actions, developing a really bad case of road rage, driving too aggressively myself and killing many people in a 20 car pile up; I go home, smoke a joint and feel better. I'm only half kidding about this.
- Stefanoz72, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1This DOESN't mean that illegal drugs are healthier, BUT it's a strong clue that the huge ammount of money, resources and lives uselessly wasted on the "wars on drugs" is unjustified!
- socokoolaid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Instead of relaxing with a dooby to calm your stress from you 65 hour American work week, why not down a fith of Wild Turkey, beat your wife, molest some child, then run over a school girl at 70 mile/hour in your gas gusselling '84 Buick Regal.
- jav1231, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8"Do the research and you'll see."
Should YOU do the research before purporting it to be true? - conrail, on 10/10/2007, -17/+6This is a false equivalency fallacy. The number of people using illegal drugs is a relatively small percentage of the population compared to people who use prescription drugs. Plus, illegal drugs do more harm than just killing someone. While noone may have been killed directly by marijuana, it's left a long trail of wasted stoner losers in its wake.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"While noone may have been killed directly by marijuana, it's left a long trail of wasted stoner losers in its wake." You mean like alcohol? Or does it outright kill it's users like tabacco? Marijuana should be legal or alcohol and tobacco should be illegal. There should not be a double standard. And never mind the real reason marijuana is illegal is because prison contractors want $. It has nothing to do with public safety.
- mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1This is my favorite stoner arguement "booze is legal and look at all the problems it causes!". OK, so you want to compund the problem by making more destructive substances legal? How does that help matters?
- PeppermintPig, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Because most of the problems with illegal drugs comes from their illegality, and not so much the drug itself. If the drugs are legal, the prices go down, making related crime diminish. The Drug War is profitable business, especially for corrupt police. Make everything legal, and let people take responsibility for their own actions. REAL education is needed, as opposed to the propaganda that the Government currently engages in.
- mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1This is my favorite stoner arguement "booze is legal and look at all the problems it causes!". OK, so you want to compund the problem by making more destructive substances legal? How does that help matters?
- jessicass, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6And mind numbing anti-psychotics that are manufactured for the specific purpose of effecting the function of one or more neurotransmitters don't leave a wake of zombies? Ever met anyone on a lot of benzos? Or how about oxycontin or any of it's cousins?
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"The number of people using illegal drugs is a relatively small percentage of the population compared to people who use prescription drugs."
Prove it.- tkstock, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"according to data just released by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) showing that at least half of all Americans takes at least one prescription drug, with one in six taking three or more medications." http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/healthcare/a/usmedicated.htm That's 160 million prescription drug users, to the ~16 million estimated in the above posts. Hence, illegal drug users comprise 5% of the population whereas prescription drug users comprise 50%. These numbers are approximate. And, most of the people that are taking legal drugs are elderly, not in the best health anyway.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"While noone may have been killed directly by marijuana, it's left a long trail of wasted stoner losers in its wake." You mean like alcohol? Or does it outright kill it's users like tabacco? Marijuana should be legal or alcohol and tobacco should be illegal. There should not be a double standard. And never mind the real reason marijuana is illegal is because prison contractors want $. It has nothing to do with public safety.
- mcnasby, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10There are more people using prescription drugs than illegal drugs, therefore you're not comparing apples to apples. It only leads me to believe this information is incredibly misleading.
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Should I even bother telling you that atleast a dozen people have already said this and it has already been explain at least twice as many time that you are missing the point of the article?... Nah....
- dragonexe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Exactly, that's like saying that driving a car is more deadly than shooting yourself in the face because more people die each year from car accidents than from handgun related suicide.
- djmadness, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Doctors these days are going for quantity not quality. They have 10-15 people queued up waiting for their 5 minute visit and resulting prescription. Look at all the note pads and pens and various office supplies they use. All are tagged with the pharmaceuticals latest offering.
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It goes beyond that. Some doctors are put through school by pharmaceutical companies with the understanding that as soon as they start to practice, they start pushing the what ever drugs the company tells them to.
- dark_helmet, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7People often take prescription drugs if they are likely do die of something. Illegal drug are often taken by quite healthy people. It is likely that the person taking the prescription drugs would have been even more likely to have died if they had not taken the drugs at all.
- MK0094, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Right on Dark. As the population ages, they take more drugs to stay alive, and yes, there are some unwanted side effects, but the majority lives longer. Illegal drugs on the other hand have not benifit to society (other than tax money on marijuana which could be legalized), and are meant for a good feeling for a little bit but destroy the body and mind as a result. How many people abuse Lipitor or Crestor vs. crack?
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Dying of prescription drugs is not the same as dying while on prescription drugs. Had they included all people who died while on prescription drugs, the number would likely be in the tens of millions instead of hundreds of thousands.
- tkstock, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think you're missing the point.
There are associated risks with some prescription drugs, but if the chance of curing a terminal or deadly illness is greater than the risks, people will take the risk. People don't take prescription drugs (legally) when they're healthy - they're being "forced" to take that risk in order to help themselves.
- tkstock, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think you're missing the point.
- varunb007, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Umm, how many people take legal drugs versus illegal drugs? I don't know the stat but I'm guessing the population taking legal drugs overwhelmingly outweighs the population taking illegal drugs. Therefore, even with a lower PERCENTAGE mortality, the ABSOLUTE number of people dying as a result of legal drugs might be more than illegal drugs. To conclude illegal drugs are safer would be asinine considering this blatantly biased data analysis.
On a side note, this doesn't necessarily mean that some illegal drugs shouldn't be legalized. Regulating and taxing relatively mild drugs such as marijuana might be beneficial to society because it would reduce the risk of impurities thereby making it safer and it would curtail gang activities and drug cartels, which would help reduce crime and violence.- Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'd honestly love to see %-mortality figures.
Marijuana doesn't kill straight, and very few people get lung cancer from it. Other drugs are taken much more rarely.
I also wonder if one would include Nicotine in a study of legal vs illegal. Probably not, but it -is- legal and a major cause of death.
Many recreational drugs are hard to OD on, too, with very few allergic reactions.
I can't count the number of people I've seen end up in the hospital from a prescription drug allergy.
I've -never- heard of anyone going to the hospital from an illegal drug allergy (and I have to admit, while I'm pretty straightlaced, I've known people who would try anything).
I -do- think it's sick that the main thought is regulating and taxing Marijuana vs freedom. Capitalism or harmfulness is the ONLY viable "American" reason to keep it illegal. Freedom is the ONLY viable "American" reason to legalize it. Whether it's taxable is just crap.
I can see restrictions preventing it from being distributed without a license, but otherwise it should be restricted only like fermenting your own alcohol...limit of plants/barrels, etc.
My friend who brews his own Mead and Ale can keep his entire circle inebriated about once a month with his limit. Seems perfect. A few plants limit without license seems only fair to me. The question is whether it -should- be legalized at all.
- Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'd honestly love to see %-mortality figures.
- BOBcat5785, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Maybe because there are a lot more people taking prescription drugs (legally) than illegal drugs?
- KevenM, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Who in their right mind would have buried this comment?
- jburka, on 10/10/2007, -7/+10I have also buried this story as inaccurate. I am a pharmacologist and recognize that prescription drugs are given to people who are ill. Their systems are already compromised and the drugs are administered to try to correct the situation. In many cases, this is very difficult. Every pharmacologist, physician, and health care provider recognizes that every drug has side effects ... basically because you cannot design a molecule which only going to act in the one place you want it too ... well, we're trying, but even more selective drugs such as the COX-2 inhibitors have their unwanted side effects! Also remember, that often drugs with nasty side effects are used because saving a life justifies the use of the drug. For example, aminoglycosides, a group of antibiotics for serious Gram -ve infections, are well known for their high risk of renal and otic toxicity. Illegal, recreational drugs are usually used by healthy people for no other purpose than satisfying themselves (I am not talking about down-and-out drug addicts). They are unlikely to die unless overdosed. So, what is the article comparing. Let's use stats and info properly and don't justify the use of illegal drugs using these stats. I have no problem legalizing marijuana, but let's use logical reasoning.
- speerross, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Logical reasoning suggests that a higher risk level is tolerable in recreational activities than those that are done out of necessity. So more people can tolerably die from illegal drugs as that is a voluntary unnecessary risk, it is intolerable for prescription drugs to be taken and for them to make someones health worse. Maybe you'd have less of a problem if people weren't profiting off the mass sale of prescription drugs in the US.
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4The comparison isn't trying to make prescription drugs look bad in comparison to illegal drugs. The comparison between the two was to show that legal drugs have risks just like illegal drugs. The illegal drugs are made illegal partially due to claims that they are extremely harmful. This article is trying to show that illegal drugs do not have a much greater risk of harm than legal drugs in general and so the policy for illegal drugs is unjustified.
- BaylorDawg, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5Isn't that the point of making drugs illegal... so people DON'T die from them??
- Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6More people die from lightning than from Marijuana. Most other drugs have a slightly higher lethality rate, but I wouldn't be surprised if they all have lower lethality percent rates than alcohol.
- nodlezfodlez, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3More people win the lottery than die from Marijuana. More people are named Arnold Schwarzenegger than die from Marijuana. More people die from ANYTHING than die from Marijuana!
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4More people die from the enforcement of marijuana laws than they do from the use of marijuana. If the point of prohibiting marijuana is to stop people from dying, then they are doing an extremely poor job. The best to stop marijuana related deaths is to legalize it.
- corneliusJones, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1you would think so baylordawg, but then you see that making drugs illegal only serves to create a black market where the drugs are not regulated (allowing variations in purity that can kill a heroin addict, or dangerous substances being laced into the drug), and prices are higher, plus there is the possibility of violence between rival dealers/cartels, not to mention petty theft (or sometimes murder) by addicts who can't afford the high black market prices.
doing drugs is a choice. and just because they are illegal does not take away this choice, as drugs are still freely available to anyone who looks hard enough (in high school getting pot was easier than getting beer).
- Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6More people die from lightning than from Marijuana. Most other drugs have a slightly higher lethality rate, but I wouldn't be surprised if they all have lower lethality percent rates than alcohol.
- Razyael, on 10/10/2007, -8/+10I'll take Misleading Statistics for $400, Alex.
- gimlik, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5Drugs are bad, mmmk. So, don't do drugs, mmmk.
- tkstock, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No one is getting your Southpark reference, apparently. I thought it was funny, mmmk.
- SteelChicken, on 10/10/2007, -11/+225% of the WORLDS prison population?
*****- holzp, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1OP is counting Iraq as one big prison.
- JohnInMT, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Do some research SteelChicken, or you really make yourself look foolish. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn2page1.stm
- GiulianoB, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Buried. This is a horrible argument. A lot of people taking prescription drugs are given to people who have illnesses and need those to survive. While no one really takes any illegal drugs in the same way. Also what is the percentage of people who become addicts and die from illegal drugs vs prescription. If prescription wins on that one then maybe you have an argument.
- revisrev, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3There are people who will die without marijuana. There aren't many, but there are a few, and a hell of a lot of people whose quality of life hinges on the use of marijuana.
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Alot of people also take prescription drugs for recreation. Many people who take legal drugs recreationally and evelop addictions get proper treatment and get better. This is because they are not demonized like people who use illegal drugs. If illegal drugs were did not carry such a social stigma, it would be easier to get help for those that abuse and become addicted to them. Take Rush Limbaugh for example. He most likely would have died from his prescription drug addiction and has probably done a lot of harm to himself before he got help. He was able to get help and not have to face criminal charges which I think is good with the exception that it is a double standard. If he had been smoking pot (and sometime I think he should be) he would have had a very small risk of dying or seriously harming himself from it, yet he would face imprisonment and not be able to get help if he were addicted because of the legal and social risks of admitting that you use marijuana. The point of the article, which you completely missed, is that the criminalization of people for simply using an illegal substance is insane when we look at the risks posed by the use of other, legal substances which are not banned outright despite their risks for abuse, addition, harm and eventual death.
- tkstock, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Alot of people also take prescription drugs for recreation."
Not legally.
- tkstock, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Alot of people also take prescription drugs for recreation."
- BlacklabelSAR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7"While noone may have been killed directly by marijuana, it's left a long trail of wasted stoner losers in its wake." You mean like alcohol? Or does it outright kill it's users like tobacco?
Marijuana should be legal or alcohol and tobacco should be illegal. There should not be a double standard. And never mind the real reason marijuana is illegal is because prison contractors want $. It has nothing to do with public safety. - scribebox, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3blah, there are alot of Rx drugs that are readily available off of street corners that are wayyyy better (or worst depending on your viewpoint) then ***** being made by drug cartels.
Take Xanax for instance, 2 bars are more potent then Heroine ever thought about being.
speaking of which, anyone know any good online-pharms?
-Scribe- seamuslp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1http://www.elitenetpharmacy.com/
I haven't bought anything from there, but you can get benzos, stimulants, ***** even modafinil and viagra in bulk powder. The downside is that it will take awhile to ship to the US - bg2500, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Xanax and heroin are not in the same class of drugs and are not really comparable except for the fact that they are both sedating. Heroin is an opium derived pain killer and Xanax is a benzodiazepine (a class of sedatives). I have never tried heroin, but have used xanax and find it hard to believe that it would be comparable to heroin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanax
- seamuslp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1http://www.elitenetpharmacy.com/
- kweee, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2More people die from cancer than from murder.
I guess murder's okay then!- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4More people die from the enforcement of marijuana laws than do from marijuana use. I guess we should just keep marijuana illegal then, right?
- graciouspatty, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0When do people die from the enforcement of marijuana laws?
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4More people die from the enforcement of marijuana laws than do from marijuana use. I guess we should just keep marijuana illegal then, right?
- Jonsblckhwk, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Maybe the dea should replace the FDA...
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2or maybe the FDA should get back to doing its real job of making sure products are safe for us to use.
- socokoolaid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Maybe between the two organizations they should make the public aware of the true, unexaggerated pros/cons/health concerns of illegal drugs, make them legal/regulated, then let intelligent, informed, adults make their own decisions.
- 2243cks2243, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5You will never get the real numbers on how many people use drugs. Too many people are told they are ***** because they may smoke pot. I own my own business, pay my taxes and don't kill people for money to buy drugs and you know what I smoke pot. There are a lot of people who smoke pot who aren't "wasted stoner losers". There are also a lot of people who abuse prescriptions drugs, does that mean we should make all drugs illegal that people abuse? Yea that makes sense. The main point of the article if you actually read it is that no one can tell you what to put in your body, you can make laws but they will not be followed. If there is a demand there will ALWAYS be a supply. As long as there is serious money to be made you will NEVER stop the drugs from coming here. And personally if someone wants to smoke crack or snort coke until they die, LET THEM! I'm sorry if I don't give a ***** about the family, if you really cared about someone you would have done something before they got that bad. How many people here know people who do drugs(pot or harsher ones)? Do you actually know anything about what you are commenting on? I have seen first hand what drugs can do, they can wreck you and I have seen the worst cases from "legal" drugs.
- member57, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Well , you are a loser for doing drugs, period, end of story. Now for "letting" people do drugs until they die is a great idea until you realize that these assholes get sick and require medical care, usually Medicare, or indigent medical care and us hard working, non drug abusing, tax payers pay for these assholes to get saved for another day so they can try again. I also feel the same way for assholes that smoke, same difference, different personal choice of some other jackass that now I have to foot the bill.
- sugablonde, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2you're missing the point dumbass.....it doesn't matter whether these 'drugs' are legal or illegal...they're going to do it anyway! not only that, but just like 2243cks2243 said, there are people who do drugs that are normal tax-paying citizens...they'll be paying for those who need medicare too. you'll be paying for these 'drug-takers' whether they're in jail or they need medical attention later down the road....it doesn't matter.
- socokoolaid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Paying drug user's medical bills would be enormously cheaper than paying the police, courts, and prisons to convict and incarcerate them.
- member57, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Well , you are a loser for doing drugs, period, end of story. Now for "letting" people do drugs until they die is a great idea until you realize that these assholes get sick and require medical care, usually Medicare, or indigent medical care and us hard working, non drug abusing, tax payers pay for these assholes to get saved for another day so they can try again. I also feel the same way for assholes that smoke, same difference, different personal choice of some other jackass that now I have to foot the bill.
- JohnnyXmas, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1I think this is a valid fact, because very few people would ever, EVER put ALL illegal drugs together, and then ingest them.
I mean, you gotta be pretty hungry to do that in the first place. - reed311, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5But how many lives were saved by people taking prescription drugs compared to lives saved by taking illegal drugs?
- Shawn4168, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Good point...there are so many problems with this article, but I didn't even consider that one.
- Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Pot has saved lives... There's just a limited number of studies about it.
- oscarsonthepond, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Maybe I'm just uneducated, but how has pot ever saved one life?
- apetrie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Marijuana enables some people to eat that otherwise cannot stomach food. Sometimes because of a treatment they are undergoing like chemotherapy, and sometimes because of chronic conditions. Pot is not going to cure you of anything, but it can help ease suffering and help you keep yourself alive while your body is being ravaged by other things.
- oscarsonthepond, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Maybe I'm just uneducated, but how has pot ever saved one life?
- Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1but how many people make the same comment over and over while completely missing the point of the article?
- socokoolaid,