Silk Road forums
Discussion => Drug safety => Topic started by: TreeSpirit on November 27, 2012, 11:41 am
-
Research: Ranking of drugs
A comparison of the harmful effects of drugs
The National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) has performed a risk assessment
on the harmful effects of 17 drugs plus that of tobacco and alcohol. These 19 items were ranked
according to their degree of harm. The assessment was performed by a panel of 19 experts who based
their judgement on their own scientific expertise and information derived from the literature. The
assessment focussed on the following three categories: (1) toxicity (acute toxicity and chronic toxicity),
(2) potential for dependency, and (3) social harm at individual and population levels.
If you are interested in the whole report (in Dutch) it is found on the clearnet here: http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/340001001.pdf
From most dangerous drugs to least:
Heroin
Cocaine
Barbiturates (sleeping pills/antidepressants)
Street Methadone
Alcohol
Ketamine (anesthetic)
Benzodiazepines (Valium)
Amphetamine (speed)
Tobacco
Buprenorphine (substitute for heroin, such as methadone)
Cannabis
Solvents (glue)
4-MTA (pepmiddel)
LSD
Methylphenidate (Ritalin)
Anabolic steroids
GHB
XTC
Alkyl nitrates
Khat
I found this very insightful and worth spreading the knowledge. I like some good scientific brain snack!
-
Whether they're right or not, I for one thank you and applaud you for sharing. Definitely the sort of research we should all at least have a glance at.
Too bad the report is in Dutch... hmm... google translate? ::)
-
yeah heroin is most dangerous because of stigma it has or what does it really do to the body ? when i see these reports and see heroin on top i don't even read them.
-
yeah heroin is most dangerous because of stigma it has or what does it really do to the body ? when i see these reports and see heroin on top i don't even read them.
And that would be one of the reasons myths and misinformation are prevalent... ;)
-
i know this list it's in the wiki where these dots as a drugs are and according to them H causes most physical harm and have most addiction potential. about addiction I agree but ive seen smackheads who used for most of their lives and they look ok to me. wouldn't say the same about alcoholics though. also theres definetely more dangerous drugs like crystal meth (not judging just my personal opinion) or fentanyl powder which im gonna be ordering soon and gonna IV. So someone who does not know what hes doing could die from fentanyl with a needle still in his arm or some snorter who has a mission to try every drug there is can fuck up very easily too.
-
I really can't comment on how bad heroine is; only known occasional users in person, but I'll admit, all of them seemed fine to me. I haven't kept up with any of them though, so for all I know they died the day after I last spoke to them or something.
I realize meth is supposed to be basically the worst most destructive drug on the planet, but... well, even if it is, and for argument's sake lets assume so: should it be judged by the damage the actual chemical itself causes, or judged by the damage the chemical causes you to cause yourself? As in frequent/constant exhaustion, starvation, malnutrition, and dehydration. On the one hand, any tweaker that's lost their grip is going to be doing these awful things to their bodies; but on the other hand, that's damage that could be virtually eliminated by more careful usage. So really you can go either way.
Who knows, maybe they choose to evaluate heroine in an overall lifestyle fashion instead of what the drug itself does. shrug. Just a thought.
-
Other studies have yielded similar results.
The RSA did this in 2007 and came up with pretty much the same list in the same order, with Alcohol and Tobacco ranked more harmful than illegal drugs like Cannabis, XTC, LSD, shrooms.
Without any real debate on the subject, the British Government ignored the report. Scientific truth has no place in drug policy, it seems.
-
Other studies have yielded similar results.
The RSA did this in 2007 and came up with pretty much the same list in the same order, with Alcohol and Tobacco ranked more harmful than illegal drugs like Cannabis, XTC, LSD, shrooms.
Without any real debate on the subject, the British Government ignored the report. Scientific truth has no place in drug policy, it seems.
I do realize that we used to literally burn innocent girls at the stake for witchcraft and that we've come a long way... but things like this really do make me feel as though I'm living in a sort of neo-medieval, ass-backwards age. Though I suppose I feel that way because I actually am.
-
Why is Krokodil not at the top... or in the list at all?!
-
Why is Krokodil not at the top... or in the list at all?!
I think "Krokodil" (from some shit I've read/watched on it) is just some weird eye dropper shit they mix with heroin to make it more potent but in the end it just makes your skin fall off and shit. So technically it's not a drug on its own and it's relatively new to the media where these long term studies are on drugs that have been around forever.
I don't understand how heroin and coke are the top two most dangerous. Alcohol is far worse and has ruined a lot more lives then that.....it's all fuckin' biased!!
-
Why is Krokodil not at the top... or in the list at all?!
I think "Krokodil" (from some shit I've read/watched on it) is just some weird eye dropper shit they mix with heroin to make it more potent but in the end it just makes your skin fall off and shit. So technically it's not a drug on its own and it's relatively new to the media where these long term studies are on drugs that have been around forever.
I don't understand how heroin and coke are the top two most dangerous. Alcohol is far worse and has ruined a lot more lives then that.....it's all fuckin' biased!!
krokodil is brown liquid made from codeine pills by mixing various chemicals and not cleaning the final product. skin falls off from chemicals who shouldn't be there in the first place. the liquid contains mostly desomorphine ( opiate 10x more potent tha morphine), some morphine and other opiates and chemical leftovers.
-
Why is Krokodil not at the top... or in the list at all?!
I think "Krokodil" (from some shit I've read/watched on it) is just some weird eye dropper shit they mix with heroin to make it more potent but in the end it just makes your skin fall off and shit. So technically it's not a drug on its own and it's relatively new to the media where these long term studies are on drugs that have been around forever.
I don't understand how heroin and coke are the top two most dangerous. Alcohol is far worse and has ruined a lot more lives then that.....it's all fuckin' biased!!
krokodil is brown liquid made from codeine pills by mixing various chemicals and not cleaning the final product. skin falls off from chemicals who shouldn't be there in the first place. the liquid contains mostly desomorphine ( opiate 10x more potent tha morphine), some morphine and other opiates and chemical leftovers.
i just got schooled lol
-
What a fucking joke.
Yes, smoking cannabis is definitely more harmful than sniffing glue. ::)
-
What a fucking joke.
Yes, smoking cannabis is definitely more harmful than sniffing glue. ::)
never noticed glue in the list lol. that makes this list even more ridicilous. everytime you inhale glue you destroy your brain cells.
-
What a fucking joke.
Yes, smoking cannabis is definitely more harmful than sniffing glue. ::)
never noticed glue in the list lol. that makes this list even more ridicilous. everytime you inhale glue you destroy your brain cells.
Yes, but where's your study proving it? How about the accompanying peer reviewed paper with the results? Counter examples, contrary theories that others may have, that sort of thing? ... oh, you're just pulling things out of thin air because you've heard them somewhere, huh. Ah. Well, that's kind of like what most people do when you ask them why drugs are bad, don't you think?
But you certainly seem to disagree with their conclusions about drugs and legality. So maybe the conclusions you get when you go about things in that way aren't so trust worthy after all. Just a thought :)
-
I was always under the impression that ketamine is a relatively safe drug as long as you aren't taking baths while trying to Khole or driving.
I know it has long term effects, but for the short term / occasional use I am surprised to see this.
-
Yes, but where's your study proving it? How about the accompanying peer reviewed paper with the results? Counter examples, contrary theories that others may have, that sort of thing? ... oh, you're just pulling things out of thin air because you've heard them somewhere, huh. Ah. Well, that's kind of like what most people do when you ask them why drugs are bad, don't you think?
But you certainly seem to disagree with their conclusions about drugs and legality. So maybe the conclusions you get when you go about things in that way aren't so trust worthy after all. Just a thought :)
I hope you're just joking, but if not - do you honestly believe that marijuana is more neurotoxic than huffing glue/gas/computer duster?! If that's the case, even my Mormon neighbors know more about drug safety than you do, and they don't even "use" caffeine.
Ask yourself this question: Aside from nitrous, why don't I hear about ANYONE using inhalants except incredibly poor people living in third world countries and children without adequate adult supervision? Because it's an incredibly dangerous drug that will destroy your life, simple as that.
I'm hoping that this study was just talking about N2O, otherwise it's providing an incredibly inaccurate portrayal of drug safety. The "high" you get from huffing occurs as a result of the brain damage you're causing yourself (not all that different than autoasphyxiation), i.e. you're cutting off your oxygen supply to your brain. Rest assured , if you do inhalants like glue for an extended period of time, you'll severally impair your cognitive function for life.
Instead of spending hours trying to find sources to back up my claims (really, it's not necessary...), I'll just link you to the "Inhalant Abuse" wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inhalant_abuse. If you want better sources, just look at the 39 reference material links posted.
-
Research: Ranking of drugs
A comparison of the harmful effects of drugs
The National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) has performed a risk assessment
on the harmful effects of 17 drugs plus that of tobacco and alcohol. These 19 items were ranked
according to their degree of harm. The assessment was performed by a panel of 19 experts who based
their judgement on their own scientific expertise and information derived from the literature. The
assessment focussed on the following three categories: (1) toxicity (acute toxicity and chronic toxicity),
(2) potential for dependency, and (3) social harm at individual and population levels.
If you are interested in the whole report (in Dutch) it is found on the clearnet here: http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/340001001.pdf
From most dangerous drugs to least:
Heroin
Cocaine
Barbiturates (sleeping pills/antidepressants)
Street Methadone
Alcohol
Ketamine (anesthetic)
Benzodiazepines (Valium)
Amphetamine (speed)
Tobacco
Buprenorphine (substitute for heroin, such as methadone)
Cannabis
Solvents (glue)
4-MTA (pepmiddel)
LSD
Methylphenidate (Ritalin)
Anabolic steroids
GHB
XTC
Alkyl nitrates
Khat
I found this very insightful and worth spreading the knowledge. I like some good scientific brain snack!
That list is complete and utter bullshit. Two things that caught my eye immediately: There's no fucking way heroin is the most dangerous drug and there's no fucking way cannabis is more harmful than any of these.
Other things I've noticed:
-Technically, alcohol is a solvent too.
-There's no fucking way LSD is more dangerous than MPH.
-They're called alkyl nitrites, not nitrates and they're solvents too.
-The steroids look pretty much out of place as they're the only non-psychotropic substance on the list.
-Barbiturates aren't antidepressants, they're the absolute opposite - depressants.
My guess as to how this retarded list came to be is that these "experts" compiled some numbers of dubious origin and crunched them through a mathematical formula that they themselves created to make the results/list look about right (with heroin and cocaine at the top) because people don't give a shit anyway.
-
You guys are seriously disappointing me here. No one has said anything -- nothing, not one damn thing -- that reasonably explains the possibility that more than a single group of researchers came to almost identical conclusions.
Now listen, I don't really think this list is properly organized either -- but my God, if you seriously think anecdotal evidence of "oh, but I've never seen anybody hurt more by this than that...", or just flat out stating "it's bullshit, this is worse than that and they've got it all wrong," without providing data to support your claims trumps researchers with a paper to back them up... well then I just don't fucking know what to say.
The human race spent many, many, MANY years trusting intuition and not requiring indisputable facts before accepting a conclusion. We got witches burned at the stake. Entire generations wiped out by holy wars. Iran and Saudi Arabia as they still are today -- publicly beheading people we'd call "totally innocent" here.
That's why I'm arguing in support of the paper -- not because of this list, but because it's one of the worst mistakes you can make to dismiss scientific evidence out of hand. At least read the fucking thing before you decide it's bullshit. Personally I don't care enough to bother, but I'm not arguing with it.
-
You guys are seriously disappointing me here. No one has said anything -- nothing, not one damn thing -- that reasonably explains the possibility that more than a single group of researchers came to almost identical conclusions.
Now listen, I don't really think this list is properly organized either -- but my God, if you seriously think anecdotal evidence of "oh, but I've never seen anybody hurt more by this than that...", or just flat out stating "it's bullshit, this is worse than that and they've got it all wrong," without providing data to support your claims trumps researchers with a paper to back them up... well then I just don't fucking know what to say.
The human race spent many, many, MANY years trusting intuition and not requiring indisputable facts before accepting a conclusion. We got witches burned at the stake. Entire generations wiped out by holy wars. Iran and Saudi Arabia as they still are today -- publicly beheading people we'd call "totally innocent" here.
That's why I'm arguing in support of the paper -- not because of this list, but because it's one of the worst mistakes you can make to dismiss scientific evidence out of hand. At least read the fucking thing before you decide it's bullshit. Personally I don't care enough to bother, but I'm not arguing with it.
What bugs me is not the shittiness of the list itself, but the fact that this list has been made in the first place. How the fuck can you order drugs by dangerousness? It's impossible. Some drugs are dangerous because they're addictive, others are neurotoxic etc. This list a blatant oversimplification of a very, very complex matter and these "experts" should know better. This is the kind of bullshit research bullshit laws are based upon. They are the witch hunters, not me.
I've read my share of research papers and none of them had such bullshit in them so I highly doubt this paper has any information in it that's both new and useful.
/rant
-
My friend took 3 marijuana's and overdosed in the hospital :'(
-
I haven't read through all of the posts in this thread, and this is probably a totally pointless thing to add, but the other day I came across this on Wikipedia and found it quite interesting:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Rational_harm_assessment_of_drugs_radar_plot.png
It's from a "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse" thingy-ma-jig that David Nutt and some other folks did in 2007.
-
For those bunking the list: There are a couple of things that can be found in the dutch source and its references, that are not reflected by just looking at the list:
- This lists only sorts the compounds on it by danger, it does not say -anything- about -any- other compounds. It is a study of these drugs, and will exclude many substances that are more harmful, less harmful, or would end up somewhere in the middle.
- The list is a composite of how dangerous a drug is to the user on the short term, on the long term, and also to society as a whole.
Especially that last part is tricky. Consider, for example, the position of cannabis and glue/solvent abuse. Sniffing glue will probably rank higher when it comes to (especially acute) risk to the user, but it has little consequences for dutch society as a whole. There is no violent crime associated with glue transports, people aren't killing others to steal their glue, and since its dirt cheap, people also do not have to break into cars and homes or commit other crimes to fund their glue habit.
Also, it seriously omits dose: Alcohol is rated fairly high on the list because of its abuse potential, but someone that drinks 1 or 2 glasses a day doesn't have or cause a problem (the legal limit for driving in the netherlands is 2 standard units). Someone that drinks a bottle of vodka a day and drives to a liquor store to get the next one right after is obviously a different category, and considering the cost of that he'd also have to steal to fund it.
The one at the very bottom is also an odd one: Khat (Qat) is a drug that actually causes quite some problems for its users, but its a very rare drug used by groups that as a whole have huge unemployment and such, so its additional effect on society has a whole is minimal.
-
Ben definitely has it right, and so does SelfSovreignity to a certain degree. While well executed science is irrefutable, the same bit of science can often be interpreted in ten different ways that leads to a hundred different possible conclusions. The researchers in this case should have probably included how each of the drugs ranked in each of the three categories as well as the combined list. If they would have done this, the information would definitely be a lot more holistic. The third catagory absolutely skews things also and it seems retarded to me to factor that into the equation because damage to society to a whole is largely influenced by that society's drug policies. Like Ben said, cannabis most likely was placed higher on the list than glue (which is laughable) because glue is low-cost, easily accessible and legal (doesn't need smuggled by criminal organizations, therefore leading to low social cost). But wouldn't this social cost be inverted if marijuana was legal and glue illegal?
Now compare alcohol and heroin: alcohol almost certainly ranked at or near the top in the first and second catagories, but much lower in the final while heroin was probably very low in the first and very high in the second and third (only due to the social cost). But this extremely high social price comes from the illicit nature of the heroin drug trade and the violence that it finances. This list would look completely different if the black man on the corner were selling fifths or bottles of glue that were coming from ruthless drug lords.
-
Yeah I suspected that might have been the case, thanks for the post Ben. The third point (social harm at individual and population levels) obviously played an important role in their rankings, so my criticism was a tad unjustified.
I still think it's a misleading list though (as is Dr. Nutt's), and I'd be interested to see what methodologies they used to come to their conclusions. Like you pointed out, they seemingly ignored the impact of dosage levels, something that would have a substantial impact when comparing recreational users with actual addicts.
Because of the 3rd criteria, I don't really think they've made an accurate "harm vs. dependence" ranking either. According to them, glue is less dangerous than mary jane, but if given the choice, I'd bet you'd choose smoking weed every day for the rest of your life vs. huffing glue. And if that's the case, then what exactly is the importance of these findings other than to confuse the hell out of drug users and average joes alike?!
-
Yeah I suspected that might have been the case, thanks for the post Ben. The third point (social harm at individual and population levels) obviously played an important role in their rankings, so my criticism was a tad unjustified.
I still think it's a misleading list though (as is Dr. Nutt's), and I'd be interested to see what methodologies they used to come to their conclusions. Like you pointed out, they seemingly ignored the impact of dosage levels, something that would have a substantial impact when comparing recreational users with actual addicts.
Because of the 3rd criteria, I don't really think they've made an accurate "harm vs. dependence" ranking either. According to them, glue is less dangerous than mary jane, but if given the choice, I'd bet you'd choose smoking weed every day for the rest of your life vs. huffing glue. And if that's the case, then what exactly is the importance of these findings other than to confuse the hell out of drug users and average joes alike?!
Exactly. It serves no real purpose and fails by trying what can't be done (ordering drugs by dangerousness). Yet, it causes the uninformed to misinterpret it, effectively providing them with false info.
-
Exactly. It serves no real purpose and fails by trying what can't be done (ordering drugs by dangerousness). Yet, it causes the uninformed to misinterpret it, effectively providing them with false info.
This research and this list is also used to question why alcohol is legal and why LSD is not, whilst it has less danger to the person and the society.
-
You guys might have mentioned this UK study, but from memory the ranking was very similar and the research and rating method seemed to be very objective.
I might be wrong, but this particular study placed Alcohol right at the top of the most dangerous drugs with Tobacco being a couple of spots behind,. This study also only included Amphetamines and not the Meth derivative which we can all agree is more "dangerous" than regular amph...
I also distinctly remember the researches saying that if Alcohol and Cigarettes were only invented/discovered mid-20th century, both would have been listed as the highest schedule drug due to factors such as death count, addiction, etc...
Incidentally, since joining SR about a year ago, I hardly ever drink and takes a pitiful amount to get me drunk lol
-
Actually the original source article (http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/340001001.pdf) lists the sub-scores on each category as raw data (starting page 84 or so).
I've uploaded a version of the results with some english explanation and interesting highlights here (clearweb):
http://www.imagebam.com/image/66fa9b223048873
I marked cocaine and tobacco in that graph because while their personal harm is about the same, the harm to society from alcohol is considered to be much larger. I suppose this has to do with drunk driving as well as the cost of treating patients after alcoholism (including liver transplants and what not).
Also interesting is that they consider LSD to have zero addiction potential.
For some reason tobacco (tabak) is rated very high for social damage. I suppose that is not because second hand smoke is that dangerous, but because a large portion of society uses tobacco and the overall effects are large due to that.
-
damn wtf
moral of the thread is don't google image search krokodil
that shit is fuucked.
-
What the hell isn't methamphetamine on the top. Based on the three criteria, it is clearly the worst, and I dont even see it on there.
-
I cannot bite my tongue any longer: half of you bastards are part of the reason our cultures are so fucked up in the first place, and you just plain fucking suck. Learn to provide evidence for your beliefs or shutup and stop spreading unfounded bullshit.
Ah yes, I feel it coming... Let the negative karma wash over me like a cleansing wave of honesty... :P
-
I cannot bite my tongue any longer: half of you bastards are part of the reason our cultures are so fucked up in the first place, and you just plain fucking suck. Learn to provide evidence for your beliefs or shutup and stop spreading unfounded bullshit.
Ah yes, I feel it coming... Let the negative karma wash over me like a cleansing wave of honesty... :P
lol buddy, current publication in ANY field is markedly less objective. It's just too competitive to secure funding, and researchers will manipulate data if the results are too "controversial." That's the first thing you'll be told in grad school.
-
I cannot bite my tongue any longer: half of you bastards are part of the reason our cultures are so fucked up in the first place, and you just plain fucking suck. Learn to provide evidence for your beliefs or shutup and stop spreading unfounded bullshit.
Ah yes, I feel it coming... Let the negative karma wash over me like a cleansing wave of honesty... :P
lol buddy, current publication in ANY field is markedly less objective. It's just too competitive to secure funding, and researchers will manipulate data if the results are too "controversial." That's the first thing you'll be told in grad school.
See, this is part of what I'm talking about. That may be -- I doubt it's *that* bad, but I do recognize it's not so great these days. I'm not even talking about academic research though.
I'm talking about the fucking angels in our daily lives that something like 60% of Americans actually believe in. The hauntings and ghosts that God only knows how many Americans think are very real and waste their eternities throwing tables at us or some shit.
I'm taking about every day, every minute, every decision made. It all matters. If you have no basis for believing it... stop and ask yourself why the fuck you do then.
-
I'm taking about every day, every minute, every decision made. It all matters. If you have no basis for believing it... stop and ask yourself why the fuck you do then.
Because you've been indoctrinated to believe it from birth and so has everyone around you, of course.
-
I'm taking about every day, every minute, every decision made. It all matters. If you have no basis for believing it... stop and ask yourself why the fuck you do then.
Because you've been indoctrinated to believe it from birth and so has everyone around you, of course.
And yet I'm constantly working to not accidentally believe anything that I have no reasonable basis for believing to be the truth, and generally I do pretty well with that. I mean I'm here, I'm a junkie and have accepted that and allowed myself to choose such a life even though 98% of the country thinks I'm either a scumbag or should be put to death or something.
I'm sorry if I'm irrationally taking it out all of a sudden, really I am: generally I find the people here to be a wonderful sort. But there's so much stupidity and so much idiocy and so much goddamn aggravating bullshit that gets thrown at me every fucking day... it just pisses me off so goddamn much that so many people don't use their brains and accept whatever they see or hear or read without stopping to think about it for a minute first.
Yes, I was raised in a culture that believes all sorts of bullshit. Yet I believe almost none of it. I wish everybody else would do the same, that's all. /rant over
-
I cannot bite my tongue any longer: half of you bastards are part of the reason our cultures are so fucked up in the first place, and you just plain fucking suck. Learn to provide evidence for your beliefs or shutup and stop spreading unfounded bullshit.
Ah yes, I feel it coming... Let the negative karma wash over me like a cleansing wave of honesty... :P
Ah yes, the 'ole "talk down to and belittle people who disagree with you" debate strategy, Bill O'Reilly would be proud! :)
You seem unable to articulate your point in a respectful manner, something that will only serve to alienate you from those you disagree with, regardless of the context. For being such an advocate of "free thought", you also seem quite combative towards dissenting opinions.
And yet I'm constantly working to not accidentally believe anything that I have no reasonable basis for believing to be the truth, and generally I do pretty well with that. I mean I'm here, I'm a junkie and have accepted that and allowed myself to choose such a life even though 98% of the country thinks I'm either a scumbag or should be put to death or something.
I'm sorry if I'm irrationally taking it out all of a sudden, really I am: generally I find the people here to be a wonderful sort. But there's so much stupidity and so much idiocy and so much goddamn aggravating bullshit that gets thrown at me every fucking day... it just pisses me off so goddamn much that so many people don't use their brains and accept whatever they see or hear or read without stopping to think about it for a minute first.
Yes, I was raised in a culture that believes all sorts of bullshit. Yet I believe almost none of it. I wish everybody else would do the same, that's all. /rant over
In all honesty, I think people like you are the real problem here. Everything you've written here is incredibly pretentious and smug, and you appear unable to keep your overinflated ego in check. Get over yourself, you're not as smart as you think you are.
(An example of this): You're an atheist. Great, so am I! The difference between you and me though, is that I actually can respect others for believing in something I personally find ridiculous whereas you would rather call them retards. Perhaps they infringe upon your liberties like you say they do, but if so, what you've written now is incredibly hypocritical.
To get back on track though, I'll try and defend what Ballzinator and I were trying to say here. We disagree with the rankings not because we "don't use their brains and accept whatever they see or hear or read without stopping to think about it for a minute first." No, we disagree with you because we find the methodologies of the study to be grossly misleading. To compare it to a person's religious beliefs is therefore inaccurate and unfounded; our opinion on this matter is NOT an attack on science or its overlying principles.
Here SS, read this, it's very similar to OP's study. (http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm). According to this chart, smoking cannabis is more harmful than huffing butane. Using this as a metric, I challenge you to a year-long contest: I'll heavily abuse weed daily while you huff butane daily. The winner is the person who displays less cognitive impairment. You in?
-
I cannot bite my tongue any longer: half of you bastards are part of the reason our cultures are so fucked up in the first place, and you just plain fucking suck. Learn to provide evidence for your beliefs or shutup and stop spreading unfounded bullshit.
Ah yes, I feel it coming... Let the negative karma wash over me like a cleansing wave of honesty... :P
Ah yes, the 'ole "talk down to and belittle people who disagree with you" debate strategy, Bill O'Reilly would be proud! :)
You seem unable to articulate your point in a respectful manner, something that will only serve to alienate you from those you disagree with, regardless of the context. For being such an advocate of "free thought", you also seem quite combative towards dissenting opinions.
And yet I'm constantly working to not accidentally believe anything that I have no reasonable basis for believing to be the truth, and generally I do pretty well with that. I mean I'm here, I'm a junkie and have accepted that and allowed myself to choose such a life even though 98% of the country thinks I'm either a scumbag or should be put to death or something.
I'm sorry if I'm irrationally taking it out all of a sudden, really I am: generally I find the people here to be a wonderful sort. But there's so much stupidity and so much idiocy and so much goddamn aggravating bullshit that gets thrown at me every fucking day... it just pisses me off so goddamn much that so many people don't use their brains and accept whatever they see or hear or read without stopping to think about it for a minute first.
Yes, I was raised in a culture that believes all sorts of bullshit. Yet I believe almost none of it. I wish everybody else would do the same, that's all. /rant over
In all honesty, I think people like you are the real problem here. Everything you've written here is incredibly pretentious and smug, and you appear unable to keep your overinflated ego in check. Get over yourself, you're not as smart as you think you are.
(An example of this): You're an atheist. Great, so am I! The difference between you and me though, is that I actually can respect others for believing in something I personally find ridiculous whereas you would rather call them retards. Perhaps they infringe upon your liberties like you say they do, but if so, what you've written now is incredibly hypocritical.
To get back on track though, I'll try and defend what Ballzinator and I were trying to say here. We disagree with the rankings not because we "don't use their brains and accept whatever they see or hear or read without stopping to think about it for a minute first." No, we disagree with you because we find the methodologies of the study to be grossly misleading. To compare it to a person's religious beliefs is therefore inaccurate and unfounded; our opinion on this matter is NOT an attack on science or its overlying principles.
Here SS, read this, it's very similar to OP's study. (http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm). According to this chart, smoking cannabis is more harmful than huffing butane. Using this as a metric, I challenge you to a year-long contest: I'll heavily abuse weed daily while you huff butane daily. The winner is the person who displays less cognitive impairment. You in?
Amen, this post made my day :D