Absolutely no.
It may be true to some extent for alcohol abuse.
Saying that alcohol is objectively more harmful and dangerous than many/most illegal drugs is simply an outrageous lie.
I never saw anyone die for a glass of wine a day, I guess that there is plenty of cases of death for regular drugs users.
It's simply disconcerting that you encourage the use of illegal drugs saying that are not dangerous on a public website.
I guess that in some countries it may be even a crime, but regardless I find it extremely offending.
Sorry you disagree but the data really isn't on your side here. I'm not sure why you find it offending.
The line between alcohol use and abuse is a very fine one, plenty of people cross it all the time. Many of them end up dead.
If you look at all the people who try, say, cannabis, and count who gets addicted and who dies or gets sick from it, then compare those percentages to alcohol, alcohol comes out far, far worse.
You don't get to say "it's ok, those people were abusers, users are all fine" because the addictive nature means some users become abusers, and many, many people are harmed by it. That's the whole point of measuring harm, to see what actually happens when humans use these substances in large numbers.
Nowhere have I or will I say that drugs are not dangerous. But I'm afraid it's you that's absolutely wrong about the relative harms here. It's not a lie, I suggest you actually try reading about this sometime.
My recommendation to get started would be "Drugs without the hot air" by Professor David Nutt.
Alcohol is not physically addictive in the same way opiates or cocaine is addictive. It's silly to be scared of becoming "addicted" to alcohol.
After many years of abuse, alcoholics can get to the point that their bodies dont function properly without some alcohol, but they already have to have a problem for many years to get to that point.
> Alcohol is not physically addictive in the same way opiates or cocaine is addictive.
That's true; of the basic axes by which things are typically labeled "more" or "less" addictive (all of this IIRC) alcohol is high on habituation (which is sometimes not considered "physical", as if any behavior could exist without a physiological bases) and withdrawal, fairly low on tolerance and reverse tolerance. Cocaine has a dangerous combination of featuring tolerance and reverse tolerance, is moderately high on habituation (though perhaps not as strongly habituating as alcohol), and fairly low on withdrawal. Opiates are strongly habituating, feature significant tolerance effects, and have serious withdrawal (on average more severe than alcohol, but, less often fatal by itself than alcohol withdrawal.)
So, alcohol, while definitely physically addictive, and in some respects as much or moreso than cocaine or opiates, is, truly, not physically addictive like cocaine or opiates.
Also, alcohol is very habit forming, regardless of physical addiction.
What's silly to me is that alcohol somehow gets excused from its acute effects (overdose deaths, accidents) and its chronic effects (cirrhosis, premature aging, weight gain, cancer and all sorts of other stuff, because it's just a beer... but drugs, nooo, drugs are evil, the big bad boogeyman.
Alcohol is considered one of the more addictive drugs, when compared to LSD, cannabis, ketamine, ecstasy and all sorts of other recreational substances.
It just pales in comparison to heroin and cocaine. And meth.
I agree with you there. Although, I don't really think LSD, cannabis, ketamine, or ecstasy are addictive at all, other than being potentially habit forming, which just about anything can be.
I would just put alcohol more in the habit forming category though, maybe a bit more potential than cannabis over the very long term.
Opiates, cocaine, amphetamines, meth, benzos, and even Ambien are in another league.
> I never saw anyone die for a glass of wine a day, I guess that there is plenty of cases of death for regular drugs users.
And I've never seen anyone die from taking "regular drugs" recreationally.
This is just a stupid comparison. You're comparing "a glass of wine" to a "drug user". A more apt comparison would be "someone who drinks three bottles of wine a day" and "a person who smokes heroin/crack/amphetamines daily" (IV use would be closer to drinking bottles of hard booze).
Both of these groups of people have an increased risk of death, permanent health damage, mental issues and a risk to others around them.
The theory that everyone who tries drugs will become an addict and a daily user simply isn't true.
> It's simply disconcerting that you encourage the use of illegal drugs saying that are not dangerous on a public website.
It's a perfectly valid opinion that drugs should not be illegal. You do not have to agree with that and you should definitely not be offended by it. It's a discussion that will likely be taken in your country too in the next few decades.
No-one is saying they aren't dangerous (and if they are, that's misleading), but making comparisons to e.g. alcohol and tabacco is a valid thing to do. And if you look at the hard facts, the illegal status isn't that obviously justified.
TIL it's offensive to have an informed opinion. First, lets cover the fallacies - no one said alcohol is more dangerous than crack. No one said alcohol is more dangerous than heroin. Several people did say alcohol is more dangerous than LSD, MDMA, other drugs. The data backs this up, in terms of mortality and in social ills that come of alcoholism. Being nonaddictive and having such an insanely high lethal dose, there isn't even regular data on how many people die to LSD yearly! So if we're playing the "outrageous lie" game, then you're winning.
There are plenty of drugs other than alcohol that can safely be taken regularly. Legality and safety aren't correlated at all, at least in the US.
I've never seen anyone die from a joint per day. Plenty of other drugs are the same. They can all be dangerous, including alcohol, if you take enough of it or take it too frequently.
> I guess that in some countries it may be even a crime
Not in any country I would want to be in. Who needs freedom of speech anyway?
