- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Yeah . . . right . . . and that's in a BMW is it?[TW]Fox;17696615 said:
If you could make one thing legal
- Thread starter Vita
- Start date
I have it on good authority (Stephen Fry) that the death toll fro bee stings is higher than the death toll from ecstasy, and that's taking into account the ridiculously poor quality of most pills on the market these days - you'd be lucky to get 10% MDMA from most pills, unless you know a good source. Honest to God, the proof is slapping people in the face if they ever bother to take the time to look - you only have to consider the magnitude of the 'problems' with drugs to see that the proportion of those with serious problems is retardedly small in comparison to the amount of illegal drugs being consumed. Considering the effect of alcohol and nicotine, the cash cows of narcotics, decriminalisation of drugs has benefits so many and so great that raising the possible detriments (when considered against the current society in which drugs are as solvent as porn) is like throwing a sausage down an alleyway - pointless, retarded and entertaining for the easily amused.
Please note that as a standard my classification of 'drugs' excludes certain substances - heroin, crack cocaine and those methamphetamines that fit the category.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Keep up old chap, I've already clarified that it was a typo and i meant 'not more than double figures'.
Mind you, anyone with half a brain already knew that was it was unlikely I was genuinelly saying I wouldnt go over 1000mph.
[TW]Fox;17698136 said:
Right. Here goes... It looks like my gut instinct on that wager could well be correct.
Alcohol related deaths in 2008 in the UK - 13.6 per 100,000
Ecstasy related deaths in 1997-2007 in the UK (though this link is to a US site) - 10.9 per 100,000
I'm sure someone will nitpick on the basis that the years differ, or whatever, but bear in mind that this took me about 5 minutes to find... I'm sure the numbers are out there for those that know where to look.
The thing I've found over my life is that taking drugs has changed a good few of my friends. I'm not saying physically, but on a psychological level. It's not so much the drugs but the attitude that some people who take drugs suddenly adopt. Suddenly friends that would go out and mountain bike till it got dark, would sit back on the sofa and smoke there money and time away.
The fact that people are looking down on people and "pitying" them for not taking drugs is absurd. It's just a different choice in life. I don't pity others around me because they earn less than me, because that's what they chose to do. Different isn't something to pity ,those that have suffered misfortunes are those that deserve pity.
I also think that you learn and develop from the things you don't do in life as well as those you do. Quite frankly I think not taking drugs has by far been the harder path in life for me and I feel it's developed me as a person. So I don't think I'm ignorant, I've just invested my development of life experiences in other ways.
Also:
What exactly is the "need" to take drugs? If there was no drugs in the world do you think humanity be more or less productive?
Last edited:
Wow, thats very close.
I wonder if it suggests we need to do more about alcohol abuse rather than less about ecstacy abuse, though?
Actually wait, those figures are not what I meant. Infact they might prove that Ecstacy is a lot more dangerous than Alcohol.
Let me explain.
Those figures are for the amount of deaths in every 100,000 which are caused by Ecstacy and Alcohol, right?
But far less people take E than drink alcohol, therefore for the number of deaths per 100,000 to be similar suggests E is far more dangerous?
What we need is number of alcohol deaths per 100,000 DRINKERS and number of deaths per 100,000 E takers?
Last edited:
Nah, if someone was nitpicking they would say that you are comparing an entire class (alcohol) with a single specific (ecstasy) , they would say that a more accurate comparison would either be alcohol v drugs or a specific like whiskey v ecstasy.
That's if they were nitpicking.
i know the exactly the type of person you say you are and they are 1 in a million so you dont count
i know the exactly the type of person you say you are and they are 1 in a million so you dont count
Wahey ! One in a million, i'll take that, many thanks
[TW]Fox;17698198 said:
Alcohol is legal and therefore of verifiable quality. Ecstasy is illegal so there is no quality control whatsoever. Were ecstasy properly controlled you could well expect that figure to drop significantly. It's the uncontrolled substances that are in ecstasy that are the problem - not mdma.
the stats on both sides are always pretty dodgy imo
worth mentioning that when someone dies and it is blamed on ecstasy it is more than often a combination of drugs , not even always including actual MDMA , that is the risk people must take when they buy pills from the man on the corner. could compare it to uncontrolled homebrew booze where someone has to risk blindness/death
deaths in direct relation would be different again. how many people actually die of seretonin syndrome and similar ? how many people die from liver disease ? a lot of people die by being idiots and bump the stats , people like leah betts or people who go fighting/driving/swimming when drunk
worth mentioning that when someone dies and it is blamed on ecstasy it is more than often a combination of drugs , not even always including actual MDMA , that is the risk people must take when they buy pills from the man on the corner. could compare it to uncontrolled homebrew booze where someone has to risk blindness/death
deaths in direct relation would be different again. how many people actually die of seretonin syndrome and similar ? how many people die from liver disease ? a lot of people die by being idiots and bump the stats , people like leah betts or people who go fighting/driving/swimming when drunk
[TW]Fox;17698198 said:
I've just been to feed the baby, and while I was there I was wondering whether those stats were per 100,000 users or per 100,000 of the populous...
EDIT: Actually, looking back at it, the ecstasy number is per 100,000 users already - read the methods line. Not sure about the alcohol one, but even if it is per 100,000 of the populous, that would only strengthen my case.
Last edited:
Nah, if someone was nitpicking they would say that you are comparing an entire class (alcohol) with a single specific (ecstasy) , they would say that a more accurate comparison would either be alcohol v drugs or a specific like whiskey v ecstasy.
That's if they were nitpicking.
Why would they pick whiskey instead of alcohol? The active intoxicant is the same?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 12,234
- Location
- UK
I'd bin the TV license. Stupid ****.
It's an inherently sensible post you've made here, so I'll freely admit that my tendency toward vitriolic denouncement of those who hold differing opinions to my own have jumped ahead of my inclination to withhold judgement, and moreso it's made me really consider my outlook, so you have my respect in that regard, as well. However, I still feel compelled to say that I disagree.
Of course, I would never argue that taking drugs doesn't change a person right down to the core of who they are - that would undermine my views much more than you. At the same time, I've noticed that people coming in to the drugs scene from a relatively innocent (in this sense ignorant, but hampered by negative connotations that I do not intend at all - ignorance is simply a state of not knowing, and I don't believe there's a shameful side to it, unless a person revels in it [much like drugs... but that's another story]) background do tend to lose interest in many pursuits that clasically constitute a healthy lifestyle - exercise and active hobbies, a change in diet, sometimes a complete loss of enthusiasm for paths they've pursued for the better part of a lifetime - I've known doctors (ok, one doctor) with nearly 35 years of experience in the field quit his job and take up child minding after his first experience with LSD, and several others across a wide age range that have changed everything from their GCSE course choices to their career path after experimenting. From that point I'd argue that while you do learn from the things you don't do, you learn much, much more from the things you do do - whether they turned out to be right or wrong, respective of each person's ultimate decision. At least 3 of the above subjects I can name as having an adverse reaction to drugs, and they still ended up blissfully happy at their lives, even after changing their path.
Ultimately, it boils down to the creed that only by experiencing something can you truly come to understand it and its implications to your life. It's the eternal dichotomy of anthropologists - to gain a true understanding of a foreign culture you just immerse yourself in it, but by doing so you lose all hope of objective analysis. I've never had any inclination to tempt people toward my point of view, one I believe can only be truly understood through participation, but I've no qualms about objecting to what I perceive as blanket assertation borne of ignorance - something I'll freely admit I'm prone to finding where it doesn't exist. I guess my point is that while I understand the principles of learning as much by not doing as by doing, I disagree with it wholeheartedly.
Edit: God ****ing damn, using big words makes me feel superior.
Edit 2: Actually, they make me feel supercilious. Go figure.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 1,515
- Location
- London
+100000 million. not only chavs but there was a time when kids had to do what the teacher said. not all this " if you touch me ill call social services/tell my parents/sue you/call the police " bull****
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 1,515
- Location
- London