A new British study challenges why some drugs are regulated or illegal and why others aren’t. It ranked the danger of different drugs based on the physical harm to the user, the drug’s potential for addiction, and the impact on society, Associated Press reported.
Heroin and cocaine topped the list as most dangerous, followed by barbiturates and street methadone. Alcohol was the fifth-most harmful, and tobacco was ninth. Marijuana was 11th, and Estasy was at the bottom of the list.
So does alcohol or tobacco need more regulation, or does pot or some other drugs need less?
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
42 Comments
Prohibiting alcohol didn’t work in the thirties, and it wouldn’t work now.
Marijuana should be legal.
By regulating these street drugs to such an extent – we are just MAKING criminals right and left.
I don’t drink or smoke pot – but many do. Why? Stress? I dunno…but something makes them want to ‘take the edge off.’
How much money is spent on the War on Drugs that could go towards better causes?
I don’t advocate making DNA-altering drugs, and drugs that harm the unborn legal, however. Any time another is harmed by a person’s drug usage – there is a problem.
If folks would just start taking responsibility for their actions – instead of blaming the childhood, their boss, or their neighbor – we would have a better world. But as long as they can establish a victim mentality – they can justify trying to ‘escape it’ with drugs or alcohol.
Legalize it and tax it.
Use portion of the taxes on rehab programs.
Legalize it and tax it.
Use portion of the taxes on rehab programs.
Legalize it and tax it.
Use portion of the taxes on rehab programs.
My fault for the multi-postings.
Ponders why people need drugs at all…
I remember being told once that if tobacco and Alcohol had been invented today they would be just as illegal as any other drugs. I can proudly say I quit using Alcohol over a decade ago, now tobacco….well let me put this cigarette out first!
Back when I was a teen me and my buds used to do a variety of different drugs including acid (LSD), pot and good old Boones Farm or something stronger. My opinion about drugs is that they should probably be legal or at least not a felony. Marijuana should have been made legal decades ago. But I would never recommend that anybody use any drugs. I quit doing it when I joined the USAF because they don’t put up with drugs or excessive drinking. I even quit cigarettes and, of everything I ever did, those were the hardest to give up. While I think cigarettes should remain legal I also think most smokers are slobs and that their habit should be regulated so that it does not effect others. Smoking should only be allowed outdoors away from others. And yes, I do believe that employers that offer health benefits should be allowed to reject smokers and drug users if they so desire. Smoking and drug use should never be acceptable. It just shouldn’t be criminal.
Many people are victims. I was a victim myself and you have to understand life from the victims point of view. Sometimes you go to life with the family you have- not necessarily the family you want. Some of us have the strength and the helping of God to overcome. Others, including some of my own family, never overcome it and live broken lives of alcohol and drugs and early deaths. It is easy to blame the victim but when you start life on the starting line with 2 broken legs you may never catch up.
“If folks would just start taking responsibility for their actions – instead of blaming the childhood, their boss, or their neighbor – we would have a better world. But as long as they can establish a victim mentality – they can justify trying to ‘escape it’ with drugs or alcohol.”
LOL, Joe, your point is made.I doubt if we’re ever going to see the legalization of pot. There’s just too much money at stake. Alcohol and Big Tobacco will never allow it. I guess it all depends on your drug of choice. If you drink booze, coffee, tea, take aspirin, smoke, or eat McDonalds sesame seed buns, you’re a drug user.Personally, I’d much rather be around someone that’s stoned on pot than someone who’s had too much to drink.
Many, many years ago, there was a TV special called “America’s Town Meeting” (or something like that). It had a panel of speakers on different topics. One of the topics was about legalization of drugs. Jesse Jackson spoke out strongly aganist such legalization. Jackson was never a person I agreed with on most things, but that night I agreed with him and I was impressed with his reasons and arguments against legalizaion. For the last 36 years I have seen, up close and personal, the terrible destuction caused by alcohol abuse, illegal narcotic usage, and perscription drug abuse. Sure, alcohol and persription drugs are not evil in and of themselves, it is the abuse of those items that is bad. But, if heroin, cocaine, meth, marijuana, and all of the other illegal drugs are legalized this nation will suffer more death and destruction then most people can imagine. The idea of legalization and taxation is a cop-out. All of the taxes from the sales of alcohol added together, do not re-pay the cost to our society caused by alcohol abuse, and remember, not everyone who buys alcohol, abuses it.
“The height of stupidity is to continue to do the same thing and expect different results.” We’ve been fighting this “war on drugs” for over 40 years–is it any more difficult to obtain illicit drugs now than 40 years ago? Roughly 2/3 of our prison population is non violent drug offenders (at a cost of approximately $40,000 per year per inmate.) Most of these people would be productive, tax-paying citizens if released. Our entire drug policy needs review from someone who has at least a lick of sense.
” not everyone who buys alcohol, abuses it.”
Absolutely correct. But also “not everyone who buys marijuana, abuses it” either. So why should a drug that is LESS serious than alcohol be illegal when alcohol is legal?
The reasons for the prohibition of marijuana are that it is the only recreational drug that could be totally supplied readily by local users and suppliers rather than corporations. While it is true that one can legally make his own beer and wine it is highly unlikely that a drinker can totally supply his needs/desires. This is especially true if he is a ’serious’ drinker. The same thing is true with tobacco. However, home gardeners CAN grow enough weed to do so. That cuts Anhauser-Busch and RJR out.
thinkfirst – you raise a point about legalization leading to an increase in addiction. Data I have seen (and personal observation) suggest otherwise. Instead of an incraese what we would see is a shift of “drug of choice.” It seems that there is a percentage of us who will become addicted – to something. So, legalization would simply move things around.
From what I have read marijuana is LESS addictive than either alcohol or tobacco. The others you list are probably more addictive than these (although I have seen claims that tobacco is more addictive than cocaine). That is why I favor legalizing marijuana but am much less in favor with the others.
On the addiction issue we need to be asking why it happens and how to deal with it – whether we are looking at alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, or other substances. However, prohibition simply doesn’t work.
Finally, I suspect that the illegality might actually hinder treatment. The reason: if a person comes forward for alcohol treatment he is not brabded a criminal. If a persone comes forward to deal with something else, he is so branded.
Now, back to my coffee (caffeine) …
Yes, the so-called non-violent drug offenders that kill people driving while intoxicated. The non-violent drug offenders that burglarize private residence and businesses to support their habit.
The non violent drug offenders that live on the street because of their drugged out manic state causing a nuisance, public health hazards and a burden on society by spreading disease, debauchery and prostitution to support their habit.
Those non-violet drug offenders?
Republican – you also raise a point that should be addressed. For example, we recently had a very serious fire in north Wichita caused by a drug user. Thing is, the drug was tobacco. And, most DUI is alcohol.
So, we DO need to establish ‘rules for use’ that will adress these issues. For example – establish blood levels at which one is presumed to be impaired. For alcohol thos is 0.08%.
I would go a step further and establish a cumulative level if there are more than one drug in the body. For example – if a person were at 0.04% alcohol and also had a ‘half-measure’ of sleeping pills than he would be presumed to be under the influence. And this should apply to everything – recreational drugs such as alcohol and prescription drugs that are known to impair. (I would probably not include tobacco or caffeine in that, to the best of my knowledge, they are not impairment drugs)
Republican. most of the problems you listed with drug abuse homelessness driving under the influence ect can be attributed to alcohol. Also you seem to advocate massive government control over people’s lives in order to keep them safe? Personally I’m pissed that my property taxes got raised to build another expansion to the jail and that a day after completed will be at max capacity
Yes Mr. Huie,
There is an exacting standard that needs to be applied to laws governing appropriate use.
Be it the cigarette smoker who needs a fix every hour or the drinker who has the secret stash in his desk.
Also, the recognition that pain pills can be abused which will also impair judgment and responsible usage. Rush Limbaugh comes to mind with his abuse of pain medication. His pain had gone, but was addicted to the drug that resolved the pain.
Uppers that long haul truckers use is inherently dangerous when they come down from their optimized state into one of dazed consciousness.
Marijuana recreational users should realize that even a small amount of tokes with today’s very powerful marijuana can lead one quickly to a state of impaired judgment.
Smoking could cause an impairment if one has to use night vision or physical activity is required. That is, smoking does constrict blood flow and does directly affect night vision and physical health. Those occupations that rely on those functions would be directly affected.
Sounds like we are in agreement. So, do we prohibit them? Alcohol? Tobacco? Pain meds? Or do we find another way to deal with these questions?
By the way, I didn’t know about the vision issue with tobacco. Never having used the stuff I guess I simply hadn’t thought of it. Makes for an interesting question with people driving ‘under the influence of tobacco”
The history channel has run some programs on cocaine and opiates that are very interesting.Of course, Cocaine used to be in Coca-Cola and other drinks and snacks. For flavor, I think they still use some parts of the plant, with the drug removed, in Coke products.Anyway, according to the History channel, cocaine was given to Black laborers in very large doses, in order to get more work out of them.Then, a few criminal acts were hyped up as being caused by the cocaine and lawmakers pushed hard to make cocaine illegal.It was very racial.Well, not much different than alcohol prohibition. That attempt was supported, in part, by the “Know-Nothings” as an attempt to discourageCatholic immigration.—–The history of drugs in America is very interesting. The biases we have, for and against different drugs, is generational.For you libs, the Federal abuse of the “commerce clause” allowed most of our anti-drug laws.Early attempts at drug prohibition were viewed as unconstitutional.Having said all of that, if we legalize everything how does the FDA do its job?How do we stop “patent medicine” or the addition of cocaine, and other drugs, into our “energy drinks”?How do we stop drugs that are now illegal from showing up at the “health food store”?At one time, not long ago, most patent (snake oil) medicine contained drugs which are now illegal.I also encourage you to type ACOA into your browser.”Adult Children of Alcoholics.”Those who grow up in an alcoholic home are damaged, even if there is never any direct violence associated with that addiction.Same is true for any drug: the kids do get hurt!—–Is prohibition more damaging than trying to answer the problems of legalization or decriminalization?I don’t know.Things will change.I am guessing the country isnt quite ready yet, though.
Ecstacy at the bottom of the list? That’s wrong. People who use ecstacy regularly are in danger of serious brain damage.
Marijuana isn’t going to be made legal because it’s too easy to grow and impossible to regulate and tax.
Nearly every farm in Kansas that had railroad tracks running through it during WW2 has wild Hemp or Marijuana growing on it now.Most of our rope, at that time, came from Hemp grown in Kentucky and Tennessee and shiped by rail to the Pacific.We sell crabgrass killer and dandelion killer at just about every outlet you can think of.Nobody actually WANTS crabgrass or dandelions, and we can’t get rid of them!How can we get rid of pot?
Marijuana isn’t going to be made legal because it’s too easy to grow and impossible to regulate and tax.
Posted by: Todd
Regulation or tax will not be the reason why it won’t be made legal. It won’t be made legal because to soon it will get out of hand. Those who THINK they can maintain it as a “recreational” drug will end up on the losing end of that arguement.
People today are so quick to jump on the “magic pill.” They want the easy way out.
True story. I recently went to the doctor just for a check up (Kaiser). I had never seen this doctor before since my usual doctor had recently moved and was no longer available. After saying good morning and checking my BP, here are the first 3 questions he asked me.
1. Are you depressed?2. Do you have acid reflux?3. Do you sleep alright?
I immediately thought of what commercials I had seen on the previous nights television. I have NO doubt that had I wanted I could have walked out of there with 3 prescriptions had I answered yes to all three questions.
That is also why I have such a problem with the medical marijuana. IF it was truly given to those that need it, I’m all for it. But like the above 3 questions had I told him that MJ probably was needed also, I could have gotten it.
“Those who THINK they can maintain it as a “recreational” drug will end up on the losing end of that arguement.”
Pure opinion, irrelevant.
“Between 1980 and 1997, the amount of THC in marijuana available in the United States rose dramatically.”
“Marijuana use impairs a person’s ability to form memories, recall events (see Marijuana, Memory, and the Hippocampus), and shift attention from one thing to another. THC also disrupts coordination and balance by binding to receptors in the cerebellum and basal ganglia, parts of the brain that regulate balance, posture, coordination of movement, and reaction time. Through its effects on the brain and body, marijuana intoxication can cause accidents. Studies show that approximately 6 to 11 percent of fatal accident victims test positive for THC. In many of these cases, alcohol is detected as well.”
“A study comparing 173 cancer patients and 176 healthy individuals produced strong evidence that smoking marijuana increases the likelihood of developing cancer of the head or neck, and that the more marijuana smoked, the greater the increase. A statistical analysis of the data suggested that marijuana smoking doubled or tripled the risk of these cancers.”
“Although all of the students had scored equally well in 4th grade, the smokers’ scores were significantly lower in 12th grade than the nonsmokers’ scores were.”
“Long-term marijuana use can lead to addiction for some people; that is, they use the drug compulsively even though it often interferes with family, school, work, and recreational activities.”
“They also display increased aggression on psychological tests, peaking approximately 1 week after they last used the drug.”
“Treatment programs directed at marijuana abuse are rare, partly because many who use marijuana do so in combination with other drugs, such as cocaine and alcohol.”
http://www.drug-addiction.com/marijuana.htm
Above are just a few exerpts from the link above. I was in high school in the sixties and saw the first effects of the large use of recreational marijuana. I see many of the excessive users at reunions and they are still doped up or at least appear to be that way.
Any drug which affects your personalty, ambition, health habits, etc.. shouldn’t be made more accessible. I know this won’t be a popular opinion and I to have a problem with prisoners incarcerated for nothing but pocession of a dime bag. If we looked closer this probably doesn’t happen, it is just all we hear about.
I agree that most people who smoke pot will never have an addiction but what about those who do. Have we just given them another tool to destroy themselves with?
The study highlighted is but one of a whole mess of studies out there. They all have facts to back up their positions. Don’t give more weight to this study than it deserves.
ksgrm,”I agree that most people who smoke pot will never have an addiction but what about those who do. Have we just given them another tool to destroy themselves with?”I’ve known people who were just as addicted to religion as some people are addicted to drugs, and just as self-destructively. In fact, all of the cocaine abusers I’ve had contact with alternated between cocaine and heavy duty christianity. Are you suggesting we outlaw religion too?
Jed, there are people who abuse lots of things. Heavy duty Christianity as far as I know doesn’t harm you physically and other than annoying others who have to listen to you doesn’t harm those in your way. The same can’t be said about pot smokers and cocaine users. Not sure how persons addicted to religion are self destructing.
No matter what stories of harm about marijuana that some people want to tell, it is simply not true but of course what dictates what is good or bad about it is really what people just wanting to believe in it for whatever they can get out of it or to satisfy their fears.I would not mind having a farm, growing hemp for industrial purpose.Marijuana does have a superior yield of crop for a wide application of products in many things but the problem is too many people have hang ups about it, they just can’t see the trees beyond the forest on its true nature.
Gene writes:
“Marijuana isn’t going to be made legal because it’s too easy to grow and impossible to regulate and tax.”——-
I understand this – but, heck, so are tomatoes….
The point is (I feel,) that we have to balance the cost of restricting a substance against the cost of damage we incur from that substance.
In the case of hard drugs – it might be warranted, but in the case I marijuana, I really don’t think so. In my community, marijuana is regularly run through the attorney/businessman circuit.
I, personally, do not smoke it – I did a couple of times as a kid, and I doubt I ever would again were it legalized, but I think we’re shelling out HUGE bucks to stop something that is unstoppable. And it’s just not that dangerous.
People on Cold Medication are more whacked-out at times.
I think that we might be able to ‘wean’ folks from alcohol with marijuana – making our streets safer and reducing violent crime also.
Just my two cents.
Truth and lies
The truth is that the Anti smokers Are LYING To You !They say the EPA found that smoke in a well ventilated bar causes cancer.The reality is the EPA never even LOOKED at such low levels of exposure, but looked instead at very HIGH levels over periods of 40 years straight and STILL failed normal scientific significance standards!They say studies show bans won’t hurt the bar/restaurant business.The reality is those studies gave those results by ignoring noncompliance, overall economic growth, and restaurant degradation to fast food outlets.
They say “tornado winds” are needed to ventilate non-smoking sections.The reality is even mild air movement in a well designed bar moves smoke quite effectively to exhaust vents.
They say “Smoking bans have reduced California’s cancer rate by 14% ”The reality is California’s total smoking bans began in 1998… having NO effect on cancer rates with a 20 year time lag. The REAL causes of the decrease are 1980s air pollution laws and a changing population base.
They say there’s “a strong societal consensus” for total bans.The reality is that such consensus only favors decently ventilated non-smoking areas: NOT total government mandated bans imposed on all.
They say non-smokers are being “poisoned” by smokers in bars.The reality is that NO normal elements of tobacco smoke in a decent bar even approach EPA “Permissible Exposure Limits” of safety.
In 1975 the US and UN were advised that the best way to eliminate smoking was by “fostering an atmosphere where it was perceived that smokers injure those around them, especially their family, infants, and young children”
THE LIE: Cigarette smoke and Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) or Second Hand Smoke (SHS) Causes cancer.
THE Truth: Simply stated there is no known cause for any type of cancer. With all the testing that has been done with every type of chemical, gas, inert matter, and substances that have been altered through exposure to heat or chemical reaction, nothing has been proven to cause cancer. NOTHING! In some instances specific substances, in massive quantities, have been administered to laboratory rats. In these cases many of the animals might have developed a cancer. These sorts of tests may be considered Junk Science in that they have no relationship to a real life scenario.The World Health Organization ran one of the most exhaustive tests on SHS ever done. After years of meticulous record keeping of all the data, their ultimate findings showed no measurable relationship of SHS to any form of cancer or other illness. The only measurable fact they did discover was that of all adult children who came from homes where both parents smoked had had a 22% better chance of NOT contracting lung cancer than did adult children who came from homes where both parents did not smoke. The W.H. O attempted to hid these facts from the public until several astute reporters forced them to make their facts public.
THE LIE: The desire for smoking bans is a grass roots movement.THE TRUTH: Smoking bans have almost exclusively been started by organizations such as The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, A.S.H., the Heart, Cancer, and Lung Organizations and major pharmaceutical corporations. Over one billion dollars, from the Master Tobacco Settlement has funded the activities of many of these organizations for the past 5 years. Promoting smoking bans is big business for these organizations, especially the drug companies who are reaping huge profits on their almost worthless smoking cessation products.When all sources of money are added together, nearly $1,500,000,000.00 have been squandered in bring about smoking bans in about 155 municipalities across the nation. The average money spent on each of these municipalities equates to about $9,675,000.00 per location. In simpler terms it will take Jerry Lewis’s Muscular Dystrophy Telethon 30 years to collect the same sum of money at the rate of $50,000,000.00 per Telethon. When a properly informed public is given the opportunity to vote on a smoking ban issue, they invariably will vote the ban down. This has already happened on numerous occasions.
THE LIE: Second Hand Smoke is a public health issue.THE TRUTH: It is impossible for SHS to be a public health issue for the simple reason there is NO proof that SHS has hurt anyone. In fact, according the W.H.O. (see above), SHS may have some beneficial effect on children. The smoke haters like to point out that the Health Departments have a right to control smoking issues for the same reason they have the right to check on health conditions in restaurants and bars.This is a specious argument primarily because true health issues in food service establishments relate primarily to microbes and organisms that have an absolute direct effect on heath and sanitation. It is the Health Departments’ sole responsibility to see to it that health standards are maintained. If individuals are concerned about SHS a simple notice stating that smoking is allowed is all that is needed for the public to make a decision about patronizing and establishment. This concept is called, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!
THE LIE: Smoking bans are good for business.THE TRUTH: Of all the nonsense put forth by the smoke haters this concept is nearly the most ridiculous. There was no basis in fact for this idea when originally stated. Now that the financial results of the bans are being felt in many different cities it is becoming painfully obvious that many businesses are being irreparably harmed. Many of the smoke haters who not only are experts on SHS would also have you believe they are experts in the field of accounting. They will site tax records and other data to prove the business of bars and restaurants are up since the bans were imposed. Their numbers however are egregiously manipulated and include figures from establishments that normally wouldn’t be part of such a survey.The fact of the matter is the anecdotal evidence is far more realistic. There is a hardly a restaurant or bar that hasn’t been adversely affected by these bans. Business has dropped off from between 20% and 50%. Many businesses have been forced to close. Jobs have been lost, a life time of work in building a business has been lost, and city tax revenues have been adversely affected.
THE LIE: Restaurants and bars are public businesses.THE TRUTH: All restaurants, bars, and any other businesses that have been set up by an individual or group of individuals are PRIVATE ENTERPRISES! There is no getting around this fact. It is carved in granite. Our Constitution mandates the rights of private property as one of the most important rights we have! The fact that anyone should think they have the right to abrogate the very tenets of our Constitution demonstrates a colossal arrogance that we can not afford to have in this country.When a small group of people attempt to force their own jaundiced views on the citizenry it is called an Oligarchy. Our elected officials are our SERVANTS! They are in office for only one purpose and that is to see to the needs of all the people Henry David Thoreau said in the 19th century, “the government that governs best, governs least”. He was right then—he is right today!
THE LIE: Technology does not workTHE TRUTH: Dr. James Repace, the self appointed expert on second hand smoke, once stated to the effect that a 300 mile per hour hurricane couldn’t clear out the danger of SHS in an enclosed space. In Atlanta, Georgia there is an organization that deals with some of the most dangerous infectious germs and bacteria in the World. Out of very obvious necessity, the filtration system they use must be 100% effective, 100% of the time. The system they use (which does contain several built in redundancies) is not out of “Buck Rogers” but one that is very similar to the type of commercial systems most restaurants or bars use.Several St. Louis Park food service establishments had their air tested by an independent organization. The results of these tests showed favorable results and the overall effectiveness of properly maintained filtration’s systems. If Atlanta, Georgia can have an organization that deals with Anthrax, Small Pox, Bubonic Plague and other organisms that could kill people by the 100’s of thousands with no fear of exposure, common sense dictates that similar filtration’s systems should work on the relatively benign particulates of SHS.
THE LIE: 3000 lives a year are lost due to SHS.THE TRUTH: Originally the number that was first generated by the E.P.A. was 53,000 deaths per year. They published this number before even running their “test”. The “test” is in fact not a test, but rather what is called a META survey. This survey took 31 different reports and compiled all the data to come up with a figure of only 3,000 deaths that were attributed other undefined causes. The first number E.P.A. published was a piece of hypothetical misinformation. The second number of 3,000 they put forth was a deliberate lie. A Federal Judge by the name of Osteen ruled the 3,000 deaths attributed to SHS by the E.P.A. was a deliberate lie foisted on an unsuspecting public. Judge Osteen determined the number of 3,000 deaths was not attributable to SHS and that the E.P.A. told this lie in the expectation to harm the legitimate business pursuits of the tobacco industry. Judge Osteen completely vacated the findings of the E.P.A. So that there is no misunderstanding as to this decision, it should be noted that another court partially overturned Judge’s Osteen decision for purely judicial reasons. THEY DID NOT, in any way, repudiate Judge Osteen’s basic premise concerning his comments about the E.P.A. or their motives.
THE LIE: Most people approve and support smoking bans.THE TRUTH: most people who do not smoke really don’t care one way or the other about the smoking issue. It is only a very small but well funded group of smoke haters who want to see these ban invoked. When these bans are ultimately passed and the true effect of them is fully realized, then people start to speak out against them. In New York a poll was taken to see how the people felt about the ban. 86% of those polled stated the ban went way too far. Canada, one of the most strident nations in attempting to enforce a smoking ban nationwide, is currently facing wide spread rebellion against their Draconian measures. The reports of businesses being financially ruined run rampant. Politicians who supported the bans are being voted out of office. Cigarettes, which are now literally worth their weight in sterling silver, are being stolen with increasing regularity and then sold on the black market. These very same actions will and indeed are occurring in the United States as well. If the bans were truly supported would such occurrences happen?
THE LIE: Smokers and smoking impose a heavy cost on society.THE TRUTH: Of all the lies told by the anti smoke haters this one has to be the most ludicrous. For example, if smoking kills people well before their time, the saving of Social Security and Medicare benefits would be significant. The extra medical costs to the “State” are more than exceeded by the outrageous taxes currently paid by smokers. Contrary to reports that smokers miss more work time than non-smokers is a completely unsubstantiated number. Indeed, there are so many variables as to why people miss work, it would be impossible to determine whether smoking was a significant cause or not.Furthermore, it has been a policy of long standing that insurance companies assess smokers a higher rate for insurance premiums. This has been done in spite of a lack of any definitive proof that smokers, because of smoking, contribute to higher medical costs. It is astounding that an otherwise healthy person who watches his weight, exercises, eats a healthy diet, and drinks only in moderation if at all, has to pay a higher insurance premium than an obese person who eats and drinks to excess and doesn’t know the meaning of the word exercise, but does not smoke.
THE LIE: Smoking statistics do not lie.THE TRUTH: In this World there are lies, and statistics. Never has an argument been won based on statistic alone. They can serve only as a point of departure. In a free and open society people must be allowed to operate as free agents without the fetters of the doomsayers. Life is a risk, but it is that risk which gives it zest. When we allow ourselves to sacrifice our freedoms for the sake of safety, we deserve neither safety nor freedom. Accepting statistics at face value will lead us down that garden path. There are many statistics that can be cited that make the danger of smoking seem mild by comparison.For example, the use of cell phones, hair dryers, and electric blankets have higher risks that SHS. About half of the smoking population has quit over the past 30 years, yet there has been no comparable increase in life expectancy. The smoke haters will quickly tell you this is because of the effects of second hand smoke. The fallacy of their argument is that if there has been smoking there has also been second hand smoke. In spite of the decline of smoking, childhood illnesses such as asthma, ear infections and A.D.D are rapidly increasing. Cigarettes and/or smoke have about 4,000 identifiable chemicals. Your daily diet has about 10,000 such chemicals. Arsenic which is considered a leading cause of lung cancer is found in significantly larger quantities in a glass of water than in a cigarette.
Here’s a few facts.Due to constant repetition, a lot of what people accept as fact the numbers, statistics and effects of smoking and secondary smoke is so twisted that it’s little more than an outright lie.
The 400,000 “Deaths Due to Smoking” is just a number derived from a computer model called SAMMEC specifically designed to produce such a number. If the input data or formulas had less Anti smoking bias, and cofounders were corrected for, that number would be far lower. If SAMMEC focused on eating related deaths it would give a figure as high as 900,000 “Deaths Due to Eating!”
Smoke contains 4,000 chemicals, but 3,950 of them are measurable only in nanograms and picograms. Know how big a picogram is? A single grain of salt weighs 100 MILLION picograms. A lot of those smoke “chemicals” are present as only a few SINGLE picograms or less. Our diet subjected to the same level of analysis yields TEN thousand chemicals!Secondhand smoke IS worse than firsthand smoke, but only if you snort it through a straw right from the burning end of a cigarette. A nonsmoker in a decently ventilated area with smokers will usually inhale far less than 1/100th or even 1/1000th of a cigarette per hour. The Class A carcinogen alcohol as evaporated vapor from drinks is over 500 times as concentrated in an average bar as Class A smoke carcinogens.
The case against passive smoke (environmental tobacco smoke or ETS) is mainly based on statements that it causes lung cancer or cardiovascular disease in non-smokers. This short analysis examines what is considered the strongest evidence, that on lung cancer. What follows applies equally to the risk for cardiovascular disease and for any other disease attributed to ETS, as the methodologies of the studies are essentially the same.The possible risk of ETS for lung cancer could be determined if the frequency of lung cancer is greater in non-smokers exposed to ETS. Because it is impossible to find persons never exposed to ETS, the only real possibility is to observe if the frequency of lung cancer is higher or lower in non-smokers that are more or less exposed. A study would then require a reliable measurement of both the extent of individual exposure and of the frequency of lung cancers in different groups of non-smokers. Because there are many other proven risks for lung cancer, a study also must find whether individual lung cancers in non-smokers might be linked to other risks and not to ETS.The following analysis reveals that no study of ETS and lung cancer has met these simple requirements, and therefore was not capable of determining risk.1. Nonexistent Measurements – Because lung cancer is a disease that develops slowly and manifests itself for the most part at an advanced age, the exposure to ETS needs to be measured over the lifetime of non-smokers. This is what ETS studies claim to have done, even though it could not have been a measure of exposure starting from any person’s birth through the 60-70 years needed for lung cancer to develop, nor a backwards reconstruction of a person’s exposure from old age to birth, both tasks being obviously impossible.So impossible, in fact, that ETS exposure has never been measured at all. Instead of an independently objective measure, 60-to-70-year-old non-smokers have been asked to recall what their personal exposure to ETS might have been during their lifetimes . Typically, such people were asked to recall how many cigarettes, cigars or pipes had been smoked in their presence since early childhood. Their reveries – elicited in a few minutes usually over the phone, or even provided by proxy recalls of the relatives of deceased persons — were recorded by the studies as precise numbers devoid of error and uncertainty.It is well known how difficult it is to remember what one ate one week ago, never mind 20 years ago or during childhood; how could it be possible to remember, with an absurd expectation of precision, the total exposure to smoke over the 50-60 years of a prior lifetime? The only compelling conclusion is that without dependable measures of exposures, the ETS studies produced statistical estimates of risk that are illusory.2. Fatal Flaws -According to summaries conducted by groups that have an interest in finding elevated risks for ETS, the average of all studies on lung cancer and passive smoke published up to May 2006 (about 75) claims a risk elevation of some 20 per cent. Such a relatively low elevation is not credible because the studies have not accounted for a whole series of other known risks of lung cancer, and prejudices and biases that are inevitably present. Here a few examples.It is known that people with lung cancer are more prone to amplify their recall of exposure (recall bias) than those who are not so affected, and for obvious emotional reasons. Another example is that some declare of being non-smokers without saying they have been smokers, and therefore contaminate and bias the results (misclassification bias). Yet another one: there are over 30 risk factors for lung cancer reported in the professional literature – over 300 of them for cardiovascular diseases – and their very likely interference in ETS studies has never been credibly measured and corrected for. It is therefore exceedingly probable that the small risk elevation of 20 per cent is fictitious because of interferences that are not and cannot be calculated. Singly or combined, these considerations are sufficient to explain the glaring inconsistencies of different studies, and erase the credibility of the claimed risk of ETS.3. The Absurd Methodology – The overwhelming majority of ETS studies does not define risk on the necessary basis of higher or lower frequency of cancer in function of higher or lower exposures to ETS, as it should be done. Rather, self-declared non-smokers all with lung cancer and exposed to ETS have been compared to self-declared non-smokers without lung cancer, the latter also exposed to ETS because it is impossible to find never exposed people. To illustrate, studies may have found that non-smokers without lung cancer recalled ETS exposure at a 100 rate, while non-smokers with lung cancer recalled exposure at a 120 rate. With an absurd logic, the studies presume that having remembered 20 per cent more represents 20 per cent more risk!Such presumption also implies the equally absurd reasoning that a 20 per cent excess exposure – which is impossible to verify or measure in the first place – had been responsible for all the lung cancers of the non-smokers with the disease, while non-smokers who remember only a little less exposure remain totally immune from lung cancer.Conclusion – No study of ETS and lung cancer has provided a credible and accurate measurement of ETS exposure. The overwhelming majority of the studies has not measured different frequencies of lung cancer in different groups. Lacking reliable measurements, the statistical analyses of the studies are illusory. No study can guarantee that some of the non-smokers studied were in fact smokers or had been smokers. No study could exclude that the lung cancers observed might have been caused by other risks and not by ETS. The overwhelming majority of studies adopted improper and absurd methods of risk calculations. The majority of studies did not report differences of risk, and many claimed a reduction of risk. Independently or combined, these considerations negate the credibility of claimed ETS risk for lung cancer, and are equally applicable to ETS studies of cardiovascular and other diseases.The statement of the US Surgeron General is based solely on the studies discussed above. All smoking bans are also based solely on this body of evidence.
ksgrm said:Any drug which affects your personalty, ambition, health habits, etc.. shouldn’t be made more accessible.I submit to you, that you are on a slippery slope if you want to decide for others what is good for them. The web site you showed is obviously very one sided. It’s bad for America to control what people want. It doesn’t matter really, that it might be bad for them. The drug was has had more bad consequences than good. It has nearly destroyed the 4th amendment. And pot is still plenty available. The next time your hear on the news that the “largest ever” stash of pot or what ever was found,doesn’t that tell you that the war is losing?Not only are we putting in jail, harmless people who smoked pot, but we are also contributing to the underground system of providing drugs. By doing so, we stoke the fires of crime.Doesn’t make sense.Take the state budget of Kansas, and subtract half the prisoner time $40,000, and you can really save money.
Never got back to Mr. Huie.
Doing something about a problem is never easy. Smoke, by itself is a problem in any environment. There are clear guidelines utilized by Industry, Government and Medical professionals that identify, categorize and explain the effects of smoke particle inhalation.
I do know that cigarette smoke stinks up my clothing, which is very annoying and I have to get my suits dry cleaned to get the smell out. Dry cleaning fluid…well that’s a different subject. :)
Every long term smoker I have met has had at the end of their smoking life, a cough, apparent lung dysfunction (wheezing, impairment of breathing, mucous accumulation,etc.) As I understand it, the smoke destroys the surfactant layer in the lung which causes a dry tissue effect of the aveoli n the lung. The body tries to compensate and creates other fluids which causes emphysema related fluids.
Maybe a Physician can explain that better. :)
Anyway the effect of Smoke particles in the air from almost all sources have been known to cause health effects, regardless of the proximity of the affected. (smoker versus non smoker)
What to do about it, is what is being done. That is smoking in public places, places involve health risks (hospitals, etc.), and I would suggest a higher Sin tax on the coffin nails.
And I’m not blowing smoke about this subject. :)
I think we simply need to encourage people to engage in healthy behavior, and accept the reality that it would be difficult, at best, to get substances like alcohol and tobacco banned. Just because they’re legal doesn’t mean pot should be, even though it’s “not as bad” as the other two. I don’t know how anyone can say which is better or worse, because it all boils down to how it’s used in an individual’s life. 30 years ago, I dated a guy who insisted that marijuana was not harmful. But because of it, and his refusal to give it up, he lost me. And his behavior indicated that he was quite miserable because of it.
Whatever the drug of choice, if you’re using it to “take the edge off” instead of finding healthy ways to do that, it’s a destructive force in your life, in one way or another.
ksgrm,One of the people I was thinking of quit jobs because god told her to, sent all her money to preachers and lived in an abandoned building and ate out of dumpsters. While on the street, she was raped and assaulted numerous times. She’s much better now, since joining Fundamentalists Anonymous.
Republican – I think we are largely in agreement. I have no problem whatsoever with people smoking as long as it doesn’t effect me. And my personal physician disagrees strongly with the pro-smoking position in the very long thread above.
That said, I also have to be willing to give a bit. There were people smoking at Players last night as we all watched the game. That is a choice I make, to be there. In that case they also have a good enough air system as to minimize the effect to a level I consider acceptable.
Looking at the other big legal recreational drug – the fact that I do not partake does not effect those who were enjoying their beers during the game. Nor did their enjoying a few brews effect me.
What is needed in my opinion is more of a “live and let live” attitude. In some public environments smoking should be allowed; in others not (because of the second-hand problem). And with other recreational drugs we should also take such a stand.
Jed I think we can both agree that your friend has a serious mental problem that was treatable. That like saying that all spiders are bad because I personally don’t want them close to me and go bananas when they get close to me. I’m the problem not the spider. I hope the help you friend got is the right help.
I think you overlooked a large part of my earlier post:
“Although all of the students had scored equally well in 4th grade, the smokers’ scores were significantly lower in 12th grade than the nonsmokers’ scores were.”
This drug does have very serious aftereffects. I know many people who smoke it on a regular basis think they haven’t been affected but those of us who observe them would tell them differently if asked.
The 60’s mantra became ‘only dopes smoke dope’ for a reason. Studies have shown brain cells are destroyed with each toke you take.
Agreed Mr. Huie on our commonalities.
As far as having an answer to what should be legislated and what shouldn’t be, I don’t have an answer.
Perhaps the answer is through private sources such as insurance. If a club wants to promote the consumption of alcohol, tobacco and other recreational drugs, then perhaps the underwriters and their mathematical modelers can figure out what to charge the company to assess their liabilities and practical uses.
Out side of that, I agree that moral issues should not be used in judging the use or non-use. In my mind it is a matter of practical concern.
ksgrm – do you favor prohibition of alcohol? What is the effect of heavy drinking between 4th grade and 12th grade?
I submit that there are significant gradations in effect depending on age, amounts, etc. Those KU fans behind me last night enjoying a few beers I am sure are fine today. I doubt that the caffeine in my iced tea has much adverse impact upon me either. the same thing is true with smoking marijuana – there is a BIG difference between a guy having a couple of joints and the guy getting heavily stoned every day.
Ben I am not for prohibiting liquor but I am against legalizing another drug that could be much more available (they could grow their own). Kids need less temptation and not more. As a scientist type I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you that alcohol does indeed kill brain cells. Fortunately we have an abundance of them so it doesn’t become a problem for most people. But anyone who has lived with an abuser knows the damage it can do. I just think studies like this are irresponsible and false.
I guess as a parent and grandparent I see that part as a personal/family responsibility issue. Also we could talk about advertising that makes drug use glamorous. I think that is more serious than illicit obtaining of weed.
My point is that of the three main recreational drugs it is the least harmful and least addictive one that is illegal.
I would legalize it under simialr restrictions as the other two. (And, for the record, I don’t use any of them. Just far too much caffeine)
Ben I have been a social drinker, a light smoker and drink way to much diet coke now. I worry that by legalizing pot we will make it like liquor is now, ok but with an age restriction. When it is grown so easily how do we control it? I have looked at a house to buy in the Ozarks that had a crop in the backyard.
All things to be concerned about I agree. I guess my thing is that we need to deal with them via ‘non-legal- means.
I suspect that as parents we are more in agreement than in disagreement. I think if we as parents taught and set examples better it would go a long way.
I feel that cannabis, Mary Jane should be the only legal drug. The truth is that it is:”The safest therapeutically active substance known to man”