The Wall

[JKDS]

It's a lot harder to OD on alcohol than it is to OD on heroin, meth, or cocaine. Is there any dispute on this point?

Many deaths from alcohol are from drunk driving, due to the impairing effects of alcohol. I don't see why "heroin driving", "meth driving", etc would be less dangerous than drunk driving.

As far as cigarettes and cancer go, a lot of the dangers of cigarettes was learned precisely because they are legal. It was quite a battle to learn all this info as well, considering the alternate facts presented by big tabacco for decades. Illegal drugs are harder to determine the health effects. First, illegality makes it hard to find people who would admit to use, and also to testing. Second, there's ethical concerns with administering a poison to people so as to test it's poisonous effects. That was a problem with cigarettes as well btw.

I don't think we'd be surprised to learn, conclusively, that meth has adverse health effects. Before and after pics of a meth head after just a few year should be enough.

Clearly, heroin is dangerous. You arnt going to smoke a single cigarette or drink a single beer and suddenly die. Heroin, on the ither hand, carries such a risk. Granted, it's small. But it's still substantially greater than that of cigs or alcohol.

Tbh, my jurisdiction doesn't have too much cocaine, so I can't provide an informed opinion.

[CoccoBill]

Many deaths from alcohol are from drunk driving, due to the impairing effects of alcohol. I don't see why "heroin driving", "meth driving", etc would be less dangerous than drunk driving.

This depends completely on the substance in question. Alcohol makes you more likely to take risks, slows reaction time, reduces concentration etc. Amphetamines are banned substances in many sports because they increase your ability to concentrate, make you more alert. Cannabis makes you drive slower and more risk-averse. These are all unique substances with unique effects, lumping them together and treating them like they're the same is not very helpful. I don't think any substance, legal or not, that impairs one's ability to drive safely should be allowed, but there should be actual proof that it does indeed do that to a meaningful degree.

Before and after pics of a meth head after just a few year should be enough.

Many of them are staged and all of them are propaganda.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/w...ser-looks-like

Clearly, heroin is dangerous. You arnt going to smoke a single cigarette or drink a single beer and suddenly die. Heroin, on the ither hand, carries such a risk. Granted, it's small. But it's still substantially greater than that of cigs or alcohol.

I agree, or at least that whether a dosage that you can conceivably ingest in one go can be lethal or not. With alcohol for a big guy that's somewhere around 2 bottles of hard spirits, for a small person or a kid it can be half of that or less. There's not such a massive difference, but there is a difference, sort of difficult to drink a bottle of vodka by accident.

Still, the substance exists and has the same properties whether it's legal or not. You can find just as or even more dangerous legal substances in most bathroom cabinets, kitchens and garages. "I quit drugs because there were no drugs available", said no addict ever.

[JKDS]

This depends completely on the substance in question. Alcohol makes you more likely to take risks, slows reaction time, reduces concentration etc. Amphetamines are banned substances in many sports because they increase your ability to concentrate, make you more alert. Cannabis makes you drive slower and more risk-averse. These are all unique substances with unique effects, lumping them together and treating them like they're the same is not very helpful. I don't think any substance, legal or not, that impairs one's ability to drive safely should be allowed, but there should be actual proof that it does indeed do that to a meaningful degree.

i agree

Many of them are staged and all of them are propaganda.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/w...ser-looks-like

Well, if vice says so.

I agree, or at least that whether a dosage that you can conceivably ingest in one go can be lethal or not. With alcohol for a big guy that's somewhere around 2 bottles of hard spirits, for a small person or a kid it can be half of that or less. There's not such a massive difference, but there is a difference, sort of difficult to drink a bottle of vodka by accident.

Still, the substance exists and has the same properties whether it's legal or not. You can find just as or even more dangerous legal substances in most bathroom cabinets, kitchens and garages. "I quit drugs because there were no drugs available", said no addict ever.

i agree.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's a lot harder to OD on alcohol than it is to OD on heroin, meth, or cocaine. Is there any dispute on this point?

Many deaths from alcohol are from drunk driving, due to the impairing effects of alcohol. I don't see why "heroin driving", "meth driving", etc would be less dangerous than drunk driving.

As far as cigarettes and cancer go, a lot of the dangers of cigarettes was learned precisely because they are legal. It was quite a battle to learn all this info as well, considering the alternate facts presented by big tabacco for decades. Illegal drugs are harder to determine the health effects. First, illegality makes it hard to find people who would admit to use, and also to testing. Second, there's ethical concerns with administering a poison to people so as to test it's poisonous effects. That was a problem with cigarettes as well btw.

I don't think we'd be surprised to learn, conclusively, that meth has adverse health effects. Before and after pics of a meth head after just a few year should be enough.

Clearly, heroin is dangerous. You arnt going to smoke a single cigarette or drink a single beer and suddenly die. Heroin, on the ither hand, carries such a risk. Granted, it's small. But it's still substantially greater than that of cigs or alcohol.

Tbh, my jurisdiction doesn't have too much cocaine, so I can't provide an informed opinion.

Whether a task is easy or hard is determined by the person doing it, and not by someone else's assertion, right?
... but I assume you mean to add, "on accident," which is a very different statement.

If anyone can't pass an impairment test, then they're unfit to drive. The source of the impairment can be drugs, emotions, lack of sleep, etc. The criminal act is reckless (wreckfull?) driving. The cause of recklessness is irrelevant; the threat to public safety is relevant.

If the threat of cancer from cigarettes is justification for making them illegal, then why is the threat of heart disease from high-cholesterol not a reason to outlaw whole milk or cheese?
If the fact that tobacco contains nicotine is the reason, then why are tomatoes and potatoes legal?
My point is that these are obvious red herrings, which play to an appeal to emotions, but not to any scrutiny of reason.

Literally everything has adverse health effects if dosage is off. Oxygen poisoning is a thing.
I can understand this kind of argument from someone who isn't working in the legal system, but I don't get it coming from you.

If I drink gasoline, even a capful, that's poison, but it's legal for me to buy gasoline by the gallon.
I've met a few space cadets who huffed gas fumes, too. Clearly there are drug-like properties to gasoline.

If your arguments for why drugs should be illegal don't mesh with the legality of other legal goods, then what's up with that?


Is the liklihood that a person ingests the poison a factor? I mean, is that argument present in the legal language which is in or immediately motivated the bill which addresses the legality of a substance? I imagine this could vary from bill to bill. Is it a commonly cited factor? What metric is cited as the standard for "too prevalent to ignore?"