Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Deepflow
18% isn't a huge amount though, assuming that 82% are either still alkys or abstaining entirely.
|
I'd view it as highly probable that a huge amount (at least as much as the 18% again) of that 82% are abstaining precisely of the existence of the "urban myth".
Quote:
|
What your views on legalisation are is irrelevant if you persist in the demonisation of heroin. I still hold to my opinion that the drug itself isn't the largest problem (though I would never say that you aren't in danger of addiction), just that if it were legal and cheap the problems stemming from addiction would be hugely limited compared to what they are now and once people realised that some of their contemporaries were addicted to it and continued a relatively normal life regardless then societies view might change to a more sensible one. If you insist on blaming the drug rather than society (your earlier statement about how destructive it is compared to alcohol is the only example I can think of, admittedly) then we (as a society) are never going to move forward on drugs laws.
|
I didn't say it was the largest problem. I said
Quote:
|
I agree with a lot of what you said there but are you seriously trying to tell me that alcohol is more destructive than heroin?
|
My problem was that a claim which is unproven, difficult to verify, running contrary to both popular and general medical opinion (I'm going anecdotal on this last point but what else can I do really?) was made. From my limited knowledge on heroin the biggest problems are the cost, the suppliers and the impurities. Apparently you can actually take some insane amount of pure heroin without ODing.
Obviously we can never be positive to be sure to be sure xtrasyn but when prohibition was introduced in the USA it's not like all the recreational drinkers vanished into thin air. (This is also slightly in reply to dante's first section in the post above this one.)