Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Researchers: Alcohol Health Risks Underestimated, Marijuana Relatively Safe

Posted by samzenpus on from the not-so-bad-after-all dept.

schwit1 writes Compared to other recreational drugs — including alcohol — marijuana may be even safer than previously thought. And researchers may be systematically underestimating risks associated with alcohol use. They found that at the level of individual use, alcohol was the deadliest substance (abstract), followed by heroin and cocaine.

8 of 398 comments (clear)

  1. FFS by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is only news to those who have had their head in the ground, listening to fox news and government shills.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:FFS by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's a difference between physical danger and social effects.

      It is important to note that this study ONLY looks at the physical danger of the drug itself. I don't think it surprises even the most ardent opponent of weed that people very, very rarely die from THC overdose. That is NOT the reason they oppose it. The only meaningful comparison is when you include the "social effects", such as deaths from intoxicated driving, and also the economic cost of alcoholism, apathetic potheads, etc. But the argument that "weed is not as bad as alcohol" really isn't a convincing argument for legalization. Instead you need to compare the costs and benefits of legalized dope, with the costs and benefits of dope prohibition. I think that Colorado and Washington make a pretty clear case for legalization.

    2. Re:FFS by sfcat · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't think so. In university some pharmacy or chemistry guys could scrounge pure ethanol. (98 or 99%.) Screwdrives with that were nasty.

      But nobody became addicted to that after 1 or 2 dozes, have they? Heroin, on the other hand, is so addictive, a decent percentage of humans get hooked after only a few dozes.

      If that was really the case then people who were given morphine drips in hospitals would have high rates of addiction after leaving the hospital. But this doesn't happen. People who get addicted to Opioids either are in constant, on-going pain (due to injury or other reason) or are purely recreational users who are likely responding to external stresses. Basically, the entire model of addiction you are using is wrong and the numbers on addiction bear this out quite clearly. And before you tell me about "soldier's sickness" after the Civil war, remember that most of those soldiers had on-going, serious pain management issues (due to missing limbs and poor quality surgery at the time). This is why our "war on drugs" has been such a monumental failure, our basic model of addiction is wrong and leads you to believe non-sense (like your post). Heroin is certainly addictive but addiction is a response to stress and pain, not a moral failing or a bio-chemical crutch. A better model is provided by the Rat Park research. Policy using this model as a basis will be much more effective if for no other reason than its a far more accurate model of how humans behave than the practically medieval way we deal with addiction right now.

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    3. Re:FFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Please account for the fact that the United Kingdom frequently prescribes diamorphine (heroin) in place of morphine. This is one of the "other opioids" being used for chronic medical conditions that you've mentioned, yet pain patients in the UK aren't facing significantly different addiction rates than those of other Western countries.

      Also, having in the past been addicted to various opioids for a number of years, morphine delivers a "pharmacologically intense pleasure signal" just fine. It may not have the rush of heroin, but the enduring high is essentially the same, given that heroin is primarily and rapidly metabolized into morphine, anyhow.

      I'll leave you with this Wikipedia quote: "However, this perception is not supported by the results of clinical studies comparing the physiological and subjective effects of injected heroin and morphine in individuals formerly addicted to opioids; these subjects showed no preference for one drug over the other. Equipotent injected doses had comparable action courses, with no difference in subjects' self-rated feelings of euphoria, ambition, nervousness, relaxation, drowsiness, or sleepiness."

  2. The facts are irrelevant! by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We've known this for many years. It doesn't matter in a dogmatic political system that profits from human suffering.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  3. Not what it sounds like by pla · · Score: 5, Informative

    FWIW, TFA talks about the therapeutic index (LD50 vs effective dose) of these drugs, not their long-term effects.

    So no, this doesn't add more information to the "alcohol is good for you this week / alcohol is bad for you next week" debate. Just saying that we typically drink a significant fraction of the amount it would take to kill us.

  4. Protip by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do whatever you enjoy in life. Drink, smoke, eat meat, take drugs. Don't listen to the alarmists, everything is bad for you. Instead, learn to enjoy in moderation, at the right moments.

    Just don't let it become a habit. There is no savor in habits, only self contempt and other bad things, like addiction.

  5. Alcohol is better for you than water by viperidaenz · · Score: 5, Informative

    Woman drinks 30 - 40 glasses of water and dies. * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

    You're 'supposed' to drink 8 glasses a day. A 5x increase of water intake can lead to death.

    Women are 'supposed' to limit themselves to 2 standard drinks per day. Drinking 10 standard drinks does not result in death.