Alcohol // Current

Alcohol 'protects men's hearts'

Drinking alcohol every day cuts the risk of heart disease in men by more than a third,... more

SparkShark16
added this
1 day ago
|
0 comments

Alcohol 'protects men's hearts'

Drinking alcohol every day cuts the risk of heart disease in men by more than a third,... more

cutee_leslie
added this
1 day ago
|
0 comments

Alcohol 'protects men's hearts'

Drinking alcohol every day cuts the risk of heart disease in men by more than a third,... more

Healthylivinggal
added this
2 days ago
|
1 comment

Cannabis, Tobacco and Alcohol Use - Comparing risks of harm and costs to society

Health-related costs per user are eight times higher for drinkers than they are for those who use cannabis, and are more than 40 times higher for tobacco smokers, according to a report published in the British Columbia Mental Health and Addictions Journal.

According to the report, “In terms of [health-related] costs per user: tobacco-related health costs are over $800 per user, alcohol-related health costs are much lower at $165 per user, and cannabis-related health costs are the lowest at $20 per user.”

The review, authored by researchers from the Centre for Addictions Research of British Columbia at the University of Victoria and the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse at the University of Ottawa, stated: “Alcohol is used by a very large number of people with the vast majority of these using in low- or moderate-risk ways. Conversely, cannabis and tobacco are used by far fewer people. The majority of cannabis use is low- and moderate-risk, however, while the majority of tobacco is high-risk.”

The study reported that social costs applicable to marijuana are primarily “enforcement-related.”

The authors concluded: “The harms, risks and social costs of alcohol, cannabis and tobacco vary greatly. A lot has to do with how the substances are handled legally. Alcohol and tobacco are legal substances, which explains their low enforcement costs relative to cannabis. On the other hand, the health costs per user of tobacco and alcohol are much higher than for cannabis. This may indicate that cannabis use involves fewer health risks than alcohol or tobacco.

“These variations in risk, harms and cost need to be taken into account as we think about further efforts to deal with the use of these three substances. … Efforts to reduce social costs related to cannabis, for example, will likely involve shifting its legal status by decriminalizing casual use, to reduce the high enforcement costs. Such a shift may be warranted given the apparent lower health risk associated with most cannabis use.”

According to a recent Rasmussen national poll of 1,000 likely voters, Americans believe by more than two to one that alcohol is “more dangerous” than marijuana.

http://blog.norml.org/2009/11/17/do-the-math-tobacco-related-health-costs-800-booze-related-health-costs-165-pot-related-health-costs-20-any-questions/
http://www.heretohelp.bc.ca/publications/cannabis/bck/7Health-related costs per user are eight times higher for drinkers than they are for... more

copperdragon
added this
4 days ago
|
34 comments

Drillers Seek Scotch Lost in Antarctica in 1909

A beverage company has asked a team to drill through Antarctica's ice for a lost cache... more

jmsrmy
added this
4 days ago
|
0 comments

Johnson: Drug enforcement pricey waste

The Prohibition against drug use is causing more trouble and expense than the drug use... more

copperdragon
added this
10 days ago
|
0 comments

Drunk Pole Dancing Gone Wrong

Recognize this? Know The Signs. See http://www.KnowTheSigns.com

SocialMedia8
added this
10 days ago
|
3 comments

Mime Artist Provoked By Drunk

Recognize this? Know The Signs. See http://www.KnowTheSigns.com

SocialMedia8
added this
10 days ago
|
0 comments

Drunk Looks Stupid And Crashes

Recognize this? Know The Signs. See http://www.KnowTheSigns.com

SocialMedia8
added this
10 days ago
|
0 comments

Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug - Booze

Anti-pot propaganda drives most people to drink alcohol instead. But booze is far more dangerous than marijuana.
Professor David Nutt didn’t play the game. As the chief drug policy advisor in the British Government, an unspoken part of his job description was to help maintain a public fiction about marijuana – or cannabis, as it is known in the U.K. and other parts of the world. Specifically, he was expected to further the misperception of cannabis as a substance worthy of being classified and prohibited in a manner similar to more dangerous drugs like heroin and cocaine.

He made a big mistake at the end of last month. In a lecture at King’s College in London, he spoke honestly – and truthfully – about the fact that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol and urged the government to factor the relative harms of substances into their policy-making. Moreover, he accused the British government of ignoring the evidence about the true harms of cannabis in order to reclassify the drug and increase penalties for possession.

Reacting with the logic and reason of pub patron after last call, Home Secretary Alan Johnson immediately demanded that Prof. Nutt resign as the head of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. He said Prof Nutt had "crossed the line between offering advice and … campaigning against the government on political decisions."

More accurately, Prof. Nutt crossed the line between deceiving citizens and being honest with them. The home secretary, a former member of Parliament, is no doubt comfortable with a little verbal jousting over public policy decisions. What he could not abide by was a top ranking official threatening the anti-cannabis mythology embraced at the very top level of government. Based on Nutt’s fateful bout of truthfulness, Johnson said he had “lost confidence” in Nutt as an advisor.

In a letter to Professor Nutt, Mr. Johnson explained how the system is supposed to work. He said: "As Home Secretary it is for me to make decisions, having received advice from the [Council] ... It is important that the Government's messages on drugs are clear and as an adviser you do nothing to undermine the public understanding of them ... I am afraid the manner in which you have acted runs contrary to your responsibilities."

The Home Secretary’s chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson put a similar spin on this hostile reaction to fact-based statements to the public. "These things are best sorted out behind the scenes,” he said, “so that the government and their advisers can go to the public with a united front."

In the real world, what this means is that advisors are free to provide research or reports based on an honest assessment of the scientific evidence, but when this research is completely ignored in setting policy, they are expected to keep their mouths shut and move on as if nothing ever happened.

This is all part of the game the government plays in order to maintain marijuana prohibition. In the United States, there are many examples of significant advisory opinions related to marijuana being completely ignored – even where the opinions were part of a decision-making process that should have led to action by the federal government.

In 1970, Congress established the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse to study marijuana and make recommendations about how to control its use. The Commission’s final report suggested removal of criminal penalties, noting, “The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior.” President Nixon ignored the Commission’s findings and launched and all-out war on marijuana users.

In 1988, Francis Young, an administrative law judge at the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), following hearings to determine whether marijuana should be placed into a less restrictive category under the Controlled Substances Act, wrote that marijuana should be moved from Schedule I (theAnti-pot propaganda drives most people to drink alcohol instead. But booze is far more... more