Libertine is Dangerous.

[CKay]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_addiction

Erm.. I'm pretty sure we're not allowed to reference wikip. Nevertheless, evidence for addiction does not make something a recreational drug. Gambling is addictive - it is not a recreational drug.

and, you can back this up with real evidence (citations):

No, it really isn't. It's not psychoactive - the notion of a sugar rush is a long discredited myth.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/kx10890h33351475/

For a crucial piece of the puzzle we turn to the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology and a 1994 study by Daniel Hoover and Richard Milich, in which they looked at 31 boys ages five to seven and their mothers, all of whom had described their offspring as being "behaviorally affected by sugar."

The mom-son teams were split into the customary two groups: the moms in one were told their sons would be given extra-sugary Kool-Aid, while the others were told their kids were in the control group and would get a drink sweetened with aspartame. In reality, though, the same artificially sweetened stuff was administered to both sets of kids while the women got a sheaf of surveys to fill out. Mothers and children were then videotaped playing together, after which the moms were asked how they thought things went.

What did Hoover and Milich find? You guessed it: the moms who thought they were in the sugar group said their sons acted more hyper. In addition, they tended to hover over their children more during play, offer more criticism of their behavior, etc. The mother-son pairs in the other group were judged by observers to be getting along better. What's more, those moms who, going into the experiment, most strongly believed their kids were sugar-sensitive also scored highest on a test designed to gauge cognitive rigidity

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea ... sugar-rush

[ladajo]

You make your posts like you are the definitive source, and do not need backup.

Like when you claimed to have watched people being physically forced to take cocaine until they became addicted (which presumably took a good while) and then, when asked, couldn't back that up with any evidence? *cough bullsit*

Or when you said that you once stood next to a ton of coke and could feel pure evil emanating from it (you must have psychic powers or something)?

I crossed the C6H12O6 construct on purpose

Sorry, don't believe you.

I assume you were trying to be funny with your comment about "citing" wikipedia.

Onwards...
Actually, I said I was responsible for 14 tons of pure cocaine. Which for the record, was but one time I had responsibility for multiple tons of seized cocaine. Yes, I did stand next to it, I did sit on it, lean on it, move it around, etc. I do not recall saying I felt pure evil emminate from it. Please show me where I did.

And yes I have personally seen the results of physically forced addiction up close and personal like. I also said that I would not share the context, although I did drop serious hints about where/how. I guess you missed that part. If you dig deep enough here in the forum, you will find that my past drug war experiences have come up in the past. But that is before your time, so it is fair that you are unaware. And, none-the-less, not really any concern for me if you believe or not.

It is also purely your right to not accept that I may have pulled one over on you in regards to C6H12O6 being an Alcohol. However I do find it interesting that even when I explained to you I was in fact referring to it in the context I did, and gave you the pointers and my reasoning why, you completely dismiss it. Although, maybe I should have actually given you cites, I guess the part about it being used as a cutting compound was too much for you to think it was pre-meditated. Although, if you did bother to look it up, you would see that it was all an awful big leap for me to make without knowing what I was doing ahead of time. I also guess that idea that folks other than you could be complex thinkers is also too much.

giggle.

Now, let me see what your next post is all about. I notice that you actually made an effort to cite something for a change. Let's see what you came up with.

[Teahive]

I agree with you that education is key. But to my surprise, the note in the last national study about education seems to imply that the liberal control of education and media is promoting drug use to students. It does not seem that the education system is on board with the dangers of drugs use, given the correllation shown between more education and more drug use. I found it intriguing.

I assume you are referring to the survey you linked earlier, but I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion.

The correlation shown between education and current drug use would seem negative, while current use among today's college students appears to be in line with that of their entire age group. The fact that lifetime rates for those with college education are higher does, if anything, point towards that group being more willing to experiment at some point during their lives (maybe to make up their own minds?) but either less likely to become addicted or more likely to kick the habit.

Of course this should all be taken with the caveat that the figures do not reveal the quantity and frequency of drug use, which is something that is rather crucial for this discussion.

Education

Illicit drug use in 2010 varied by the educational status of adults aged 18 or older, with the rate of current illicit drug use lower among college graduates (6.3 percent) than those with some college (10.7 percent), high school graduates (8.5 percent), and those who had not graduated from high school (10.8 percent). However, in 2010, adults aged 18 or older who had not finished high school had the lowest rate of lifetime illicit drug use (38.9 percent) compared with the lifetime rate among high school graduates (46.4 percent), those with some college (56.2 percent), and those who were college graduates (52.0 percent).

College Students

In 2010, the rate of current use of illicit drugs was 22.0 percent among full-time college students aged 18 to 22. This was similar to the rate among other persons aged 18 to 22 (23.5 percent), which included part-time college students, students in other grades or types of institutions, and nonstudents. Among full-time college students aged 18 to 22, there was a decrease from 2009 to 2010 in the rate of nonmedical use of psychotherapeutic drugs (from 6.3 to 5.0 percent), with the 2010 rate being similar to the rates in 2008 (5.2 percent) and 2002 (5.6 percent).

[ladajo]

Ahh, I see now. You are arguing about "sugar high" or "sugar rush". I was thinking it terms of sugar addiction. Two different animals.

It is interesting to note that sugars consumption does follow with a corrosponding subsequent crash. This is a well known effect that atheletes, for instance, seek to avoid during competition. I wonder how sugar crash relates with sugar rush(es).

I fail to cite on purpose again.

I take it your opinion is actually that of "the straight dope".
I did enjoy the link. I will have to give the full Hoover-Milich article and associated study a read when I get a chance. Thanks.
It, at first take, would seem to be a psychological study on parenting and pre-concieved notions, vice the physical effects of sugar. After all, the data set and subsequent analysis was focused to the mothers' inputs into a qualitative collection tool vice the actual physical impacts of sugar to the children. Hmmm.

[CKay]

Actually, I said I was responsible for 14 tons of pure cocaine. [...] I do not recall saying I felt pure evil emminate from it. Please show me where I did.

No, you're quite right, you didn't say that. Mea culpa - a strawman on my part.

What you actually said was:

I have even been responsible for a 14 metric ton pile of pure cocaine while sitting with it in Cartagena and fully understood risks it posed just by being in the same room with it.

Sorry, but that's just a bizarre thing to say - all that just from being in the same room? Wow, you must be psychic or something.

And yes I have personally seen the results of physically forced addiction up close and personal like.

Oh right, so you've only seen the effects of supposed forced addiction, not the process. So no real proof that it was forced addiction rather than the more usual un-coerced kind? Funnily enough, that doesn't quite gel with what you said in this previous exchange:

You: "I know it can be done, because I have seen it done. Have you?"

Me: "Have you? I mean really watched as someone had cocaine forced on them until they became addicted? What on earth where you doing whilst all this was going on?"

You: "Yes. That is not for this forum, nor ever will be."

So which of your two conflicting stories is closest to the truth?

It is also purely your right to not accept that I may have pulled one over on you in regards to C6H12O6 being an Alcohol.

Okay, so let's accept that you intended alcohol to mean Inositol. Within the context of a discussion about recreational drugs, in which alcohol has been specifically identified as ethanol, (I've quite deliberately used that word several times), making the assumption that, where alcohol is once again mentioned, 'alcohol' means 'ethanol' is a perfectly justifiable leap.

On the other hand, the leap you made from my statement that ethanol should be considered a recreational drug to claiming that I had "insist[ed] that Alcohol and Drugs be treated equally" was not at all justifiable. My original statement was unambiguous, there was nothing in it, nor in anything that I had said previously to support your interpretation (quite the opposite, in fact). It was a distortion of my actual position - a classic strawman.

Now, at the beginning of this post I admitted my use of a strawman - will you admit yours?

[ladajo]

I agree with you that education is key. But to my surprise, the note in the last national study about education seems to imply that the liberal control of education and media is promoting drug use to students. It does not seem that the education system is on board with the dangers of drugs use, given the correllation shown between more education and more drug use. I found it intriguing.

I assume you are referring to the survey you linked earlier, but I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion.

The correlation shown between education and current drug use would seem negative, while current use among today's college students appears to be in line with that of their entire age group. The fact that lifetime rates for those with college education are higher does, if anything, point towards that group being more willing to experiment at some point during their lives (maybe to make up their own minds?) but either less likely to become addicted or more likely to kick the habit.

Of course this should all be taken with the caveat that the figures do not reveal the quantity and frequency of drug use, which is something that is rather crucial for this discussion.

Education

Illicit drug use in 2010 varied by the educational status of adults aged 18 or older, with the rate of current illicit drug use lower among college graduates (6.3 percent) than those with some college (10.7 percent), high school graduates (8.5 percent), and those who had not graduated from high school (10.8 percent). However, in 2010, adults aged 18 or older who had not finished high school had the lowest rate of lifetime illicit drug use (38.9 percent) compared with the lifetime rate among high school graduates (46.4 percent), those with some college (56.2 percent), and those who were college graduates (52.0 percent).

College Students

In 2010, the rate of current use of illicit drugs was 22.0 percent among full-time college students aged 18 to 22. This was similar to the rate among other persons aged 18 to 22 (23.5 percent), which included part-time college students, students in other grades or types of institutions, and nonstudents. Among full-time college students aged 18 to 22, there was a decrease from 2009 to 2010 in the rate of nonmedical use of psychotherapeutic drugs (from 6.3 to 5.0 percent), with the 2010 rate being similar to the rates in 2008 (5.2 percent) and 2002 (5.6 percent).

Teahive,
here is the full exchange part where I noted the lifetime numbers data.

I also think that education matters. However on first take the below stats may indicate otherwise.

Quote:
Education
Illicit drug use in 2010 varied by the educational status of adults aged 18 or older, with the rate of current illicit drug use lower among college graduates (6.3 percent) than those with some college (10.7 percent), high school graduates (8.5 percent), and those who had not graduated from high school (10.8 percent). However, in 2010, adults aged 18 or older who had not finished high school had the lowest rate of lifetime illicit drug use (38.9 percent) compared with the lifetime rate among high school graduates (46.4 percent), those with some college (56.2 percent), and those who were college graduates (52.0 percent).


http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k10NSD ... ts.htm#2.1

On second take, when one considers who (left slant) controls the education system in the US, it may make more sense. And if you add another dimension, to include that higher education tends for higher interest in media(news, etc), and who (left slant again) drives the media, it may indicate that there is a self-licking ice cream cone effect where a definite impact is seen from education to media influence to an individuals take on things.

Interesting in any event.

I thought the particularly interesting bit was:

"However, in 2010, adults aged 18 or older who had not finished high school had the lowest rate of lifetime illicit drug use (38.9 percent) compared with the lifetime rate among high school graduates (46.4 percent), those with some college (56.2 percent), and those who were college graduates (52.0 percent)."

In this, the fact that folks with much less education (non high school graduates) were much less likely to ever try drugs in their lifetime. I agree that repeated use is a key part of the overall discussion. My intent here was simply to note who seems more likely to give it a go in the first place and make some inference on a possible why.
Thanks for asking to clarify.

[CKay]

Ahh, I see now. You are arguing about "sugar high" or "sugar rush". I was thinking it terms of sugar addiction. Two different animals.

Well, as all this came about through your mentioning your kids' use of sugar and as I mentioned the sugar rush myth in my response, I think that the paper I cited is quite apt.

And yes, the definition that I would use for a recreational drug would include psychoactive effects - a high of some kind.

It is interesting to note that sugars consumption does follow with a corrosponding subsequent crash. This is a well known effect that atheletes, for instance, seek to avoid during competition. I wonder how sugar crash relates with sugar rush(es).

Yeah, but that's a physiological crash - we're not talking about an emotional sugar crash here, are we?

[ladajo]

Actually, I said I was responsible for 14 tons of pure cocaine. [...] I do not recall saying I felt pure evil emminate from it. Please show me where I did.

No, you're quite right, you didn't say that. Mea culpa - a strawman on my part.

What you actually said was:

I have even been responsible for a 14 metric ton pile of pure cocaine while sitting with it in Cartagena and fully understood risks it posed just by being in the same room with it.

Sorry, but that's just a bizarre thing to say - all that just from being in the same room? Wow, you must be psychic or something.

I remember re-writing that bit a couple of goes. Sorry if it was not clear. I recall that you had stated you have had a kilo (or more?) of pure cocaine, and thus was thinking that you understood the risks. My intent was to say that it was a physical risk. That much pure cocaine in an enclosed space, especially with some moisture (which there was) is a severe medical risk. You actually get a little buzzed just by going in for short periods and not even touching it. More so when there is high moisture, and you touch it. Pure cocaine is fairly dangerous, and if not properly handled can even kill you. In fact, for folks in the room, we would track and limit exposure cycles to help minimize risk.

And yes I have personally seen the results of physically forced addiction up close and personal like.

Oh right, so you've only seen the effects of supposed forced addiction, not the process. So no real proof that it was forced addiction rather than the more usual un-coerced kind? Funnily enough, that doesn't quite gel with what you said in this previous exchange:

You: "I know it can be done, because I have seen it done. Have you?"

Me: "Have you? I mean really watched as someone had cocaine forced on them until they became addicted? What on earth where you doing whilst all this was going on?"

You: "Yes. That is not for this forum, nor ever will be."

So which of your two conflicting stories is closest to the truth?

Again, I apologize for not being completely clear. I willfully limit details provided. The simple answer to your question again is "yes". Forced addiction is done on a regular basis in the drug "industry". It is used for various reasons, the most prevalent being subjugation and control of the targeted folks. It is more typical to happen inside sourcing states than consumption states. (When I say state, it is in the international context). In the Putumayo region of Colombia it has been a particularly popular tool, on occasion even done just for recreation.

It is also purely your right to not accept that I may have pulled one over on you in regards to C6H12O6 being an Alcohol.

Okay, so let's accept that you intended alcohol to mean Inositol. Within the context of a discussion about recreational drugs, in which alcohol has been specifically identified as ethanol, (I've quite deliberately used that word several times), making the assumption that, where alcohol is once again mentioned, 'alcohol' means 'ethanol' is a perfectly justifiable leap.

On the other hand, the leap you made from my statement that ethanol should be considered a recreational drug to claiming that I had "insist[ed] that Alcohol and Drugs be treated equally" was not at all justifiable. My original statement was unambiguous, there was nothing in it, nor in anything that I had said previously to support your interpretation (quite the opposite, in fact). It was a distortion of my actual position - a classic strawman.

Now, at the beginning of this post I admitted my use of a strawman - will you admit yours?

From earlier in the thread, and as I recall similar to comments you made in the previous thread:

ladajo wrote:
One of the largest issues and dangers in drug use, is when drugs are used together with alcohol (or other drugs).

Why do you insist on this artificial separation between alcohol and 'drugs'?

Alcohol *is* a recreational drug. End of.

Please note two things:
1. I said, "alcohol (or other drugs)"
2. Your question clearly implies that you see them as the same. "insist on this artificial separation"

I then explained where I saw the artificial seperation lays:

The difference that I choose to stick to lays with the accepted social connotation. If you have not caught that nuance from me yet, it should be clear now. To the Average Joe, Alcohol is not a drug, but Cocaine and MJ are. This is an important distinction to understand when discussing the dynamics of control mechanisms, especially those that are taken in a major social context such as society at large.

Followed by a request for clarification on your stance combined with a probe to see if you grasped mine:

Why do you insist that Alcohol and Drugs be treated equally?

To which you replied,

Another strawman - where did I say that all drugs should be treated equally?

In which the simple answer would've been, "clearly here where you wrote:

Why do you insist on this artificial separation between alcohol and 'drugs'?

Can I not re-state what you wrote to: "There is no seperation between alcohol and 'drugs'? Granted, you may not be "insisting" that there is no seperation, but given your previous thread comments, as well as your tone in this one, I took it as an insist. If it is not, then I apologise.
Also, if it was not, then possibly asking, "What seperation do you percieve between alcohol and 'drugs'?" would've been mo' betta.
I purposely went down the Inositol path because you kept saying Ethanol and I thought it would make a nice tie in to the sugar addiction branch.
Yes, alcohol is a recreational drug. I have never said otherwise. If so please show me. My position regarding alcohol, is that it holds lower comparative risk, and thus to date, access is embodied in different control mechanics. I also think, as I have stated, that alcohol is perceived very differently by society, and this must be accounted for in the discussion. This is why I continue to use the term alcohol seperate from 'drugs'.

You still need to clarify what you define as "recreational drugs" clearly. I do not think that "pyschoactive" is the defining point. Please cite your basis.

edit: added "this" to correct mistype in "insist on..." quote

[ladajo]

Ahh, I see now. You are arguing about "sugar high" or "sugar rush". I was thinking it terms of sugar addiction. Two different animals.

Well, as all this came about through your mentioning your kids' use of sugar and as I mentioned the sugar rush myth in my response, I think that the paper I cited is quite apt.

And yes, the definition that I would use for a recreational drug would include psychoactive effects - a high of some kind.

It is interesting to note that sugars consumption does follow with a corrosponding subsequent crash. This is a well known effect that atheletes, for instance, seek to avoid during competition. I wonder how sugar crash relates with sugar rush(es).

Yeah, but that's a physiological crash - we're not talking about an emotional sugar crash here, are we?

Nope, I never did mean "emotional". I was talking physical the whole time. However, that said, my other point is that sugar itself falls into the addictive substance realm. And that in turn means it is a physical and psychological issue.
As far as the link between hyperactivity in children and sugar consumption, the key point would seem to fall in the confusion of hyperactivity with an adreneline surge. Refined sugars do promote physical surges than more complex carbohydrates. And, yes I do give credit to the idea of 'pre-disposition' coloring perceptions. I see it in a professionally analyzed context almost everyday in my current work.

Here are some interesting reads on the sugar rush thing:
http://www.livestrong.com/article/46854 ... -children/

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency ... 002426.htm

and this one in particular says:

In an interesting study, researchers fed normal preschoolers a high-sugar drink, containing the amount of sugar in the average can of soda, and compared them with children who received a non-sugar drink. The sugar group experienced decreased learning performance and more hyperactivity than the non-sugar group.

http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/family ... cess-sugar

So it would seem that while most studies say hyperactivity is not related to sugar intake (fair enough), there are a number of credible stuides that say that high sugar intake does have physical effects associated with incresed energy levels, and resultant behavioral changes. But those behavioral changes are not to be confused with actual "hyperactivity" which is a defined medical condition.

[CKay]

I have even been responsible for a 14 metric ton pile of pure cocaine while sitting with it in Cartagena and fully understood risks it posed just by being in the same room with it.

That much pure cocaine in an enclosed space, especially with some moisture (which there was) is a severe medical risk. You actually get a little buzzed just by going in for short periods and not even touching it.

Okay, fair enough - I misunderstood you. I retract my sarcy comment.

From earlier in the thread, and as I recall similar to comments you made in the previous thread:

One of the largest issues and dangers in drug use, is when drugs are used together with alcohol (or other drugs).

Why do you insist on this artificial separation between alcohol and 'drugs'?
[...]
Alcohol *is* a recreational drug. End of.

Please note two things:
1. I said, "alcohol (or other drugs)"
2. Your question clearly implies that you see them as the same. "insist on artificial separation"

No, all that I said there was that they all belong within the wider class of recreational drug - nowhere did I say they were "the same". Elephants and shrews belong within the wider class 'Mammalia', but that does not make them "the same".

And stating that ethanol belongs within the wider class of recreational drugs is not insisting that ethanol should be "treated equally" with all other recreational drugs, nor that any one recreational drug should be treated equally with another. Different recreational drugs are different and should be treated as such.

"There is no seperation between alcohol and 'drugs'?

There is no sensible definition of recreational drugs that would not see ethanol being included within it - that's where there's no separation.

I have stated, that alcohol is perceived very differently by society, and this must be accounted for in the discussion

.
Yes, that is true. And plenty of people think that whales are fish - should that misperception be accounted for in a rational discussion of marine taxonomy?

You still need to clarify what you define as "recreational drugs" clearly. I do not think that "pyschoactive" is the defining point.

Psychoactivity *is* the defining point - it's the one thing that lsd, speed, cocaine, heroin, mdma, meth, psilocybin, amt, kat, cannabis, ketamine, valium, dmt, caffeine, ethanol and the rest all have in common.

[ladajo]

No, all that I said there was that they all belong within the wider class of recreational drug - nowhere did I say they were "the same". Elephants and shrews belong within the wider class 'Mammalia', but that does not make them "the same".

And stating that ethanol belongs within the wider class of recreational drugs is not insisting that ethanol should be "treated equally" with all other recreational drugs, nor that any one recreational drug should be treated equally with another. Different recreational drugs are different and should be treated as such.

From the other thread you wrote:

Some drugs can indeed, as you have said, affect one's ability to make reasoned decisions and can also create a desire for further use, which may well develop, first into psychological, then physiological addiction. Alcohol being a prime example and by far the most damaging in terms of its gross effects (deaths, chronic illness, violence) in Western society.

and

ladajo wrote:
I do drink. And I do so in a manner, and with folks who mutally accept the risk incurred. Which in my case is minimal and well managed.

So taking drugs is okay, so long as the user assesses and takes the appropriate measures to minimise risk?

and later I wrote:

The answer lays not in yes or no, but in the difference between alcohol and "drugs". If I have a beer, I am not detectably inclined to desire another or not. If I do a drug, I am detectably inclined to desire another go. The difference being in the threshold.

So if I go out in the woods and point my gun in a random direction and shoot are my odds more or less that I will will hit someone else vice I do it in the city. Drug use has a higher risk factor in developing dependancy than alcohol. Drugs are also a more direct and effective means to subvert rational thinking and behaviours.

and then later you wrote to my answer:

The answer lays not in yes or no, but in the difference between alcohol and "drugs".

Stuff and nonsense - ethanol is a recreational drug.

If there is such a supra-entity as "drugs", ethanol is certainly in there. It is different from other drugs only in as much as those drugs are different from one another. As it happens, it's more addictive - one of the few recreational drugs for which users can develop physiologically dependence - and exhibits greater associated harms (subjective and societal) than most other drugs. For example, the argument that it is more harmful than mdma is pretty convincing (to me at least).

In this and your previous arguments that you see decriminalization as an answer, as well as that you are against prohibition would seem to infer that you do think alcohol is a "drug" and drugs should be treated similarly.

I really think that in all this you continue to fail to see that my concerns are based around involuntary risk to others, as well as involuntary burdening of society. Somehow, I think that you are sticking to this perspective based on your ideas about pyschological dependance while ignoring the physiological components. You also do not seem to grasp the import of how society sees things, and that in that, how it holds great sway on any chosen mechanics of control. Yet, then you seem to argue that each "drug" should be treated differently.

I agree, there is some logic to treating each "drug" differently, and in fact have been saying that all along. It is about risk. As each "drug" manifests its risk, it should be handled accordingly.

[Teahive]

I thought the particularly interesting bit was:

"However, in 2010, adults aged 18 or older who had not finished high school had the lowest rate of lifetime illicit drug use (38.9 percent) compared with the lifetime rate among high school graduates (46.4 percent), those with some college (56.2 percent), and those who were college graduates (52.0 percent)."

In this, the fact that folks with much less education (non high school graduates) were much less likely to ever try drugs in their lifetime. I agree that repeated use is a key part of the overall discussion. My intent here was simply to note who seems more likely to give it a go in the first place and make some inference on a possible why.

I didn't seem to me that you were talking just about "giving it a go" earlier:

But to my surprise, the note in the last national study about education seems to imply that the liberal control of education and media is promoting drug use to students. It does not seem that the education system is on board with the dangers of drugs use, given the correllation shown between more education and more drug use. I found it intriguing.

The survey shows that college students today are no more likely to be drug users than their age peers. And higher lifetime use percentages do not equate to "more drug use", especially given that college graduates have the lowest percentage of recent drug use.

Going from there to "liberal control [...] promoting drug use to students" doesn't appear like an obvious conclusion.

My position regarding alcohol, is that it holds lower comparative risk, and thus to date, access is embodied in different control mechanics.

Lower comparative risk relative to what, though? All illegal drugs? Only some of them?

[CKay]

In this and your previous arguments that you see decriminalization as an answer, as well as that you are against prohibition would seem to infer that you do think alcohol is a "drug" and drugs should be treated similarly.

No. The only reason I go on about alcohol is to point out the hypocrisy in the prohibitionist stance. Even Diogenes knows that to have a hardline prohibitionist stance on all recreational drugs except alcohol is hypocritical.

I really think that in all this you continue to fail to see that my concerns are based around involuntary risk to others, as well as involuntary burdening of society.

I understand that, but those arguments should be applied to all drugs *including* alcohol. When this is done, many prohibited drugs come out as posing less subjective and societal harms than alcohol. Equally some - heroin, crack, meth, tobacco - come out worse.

Also worth mentioning: any utilitarian calculus should not only consider harms, but also any associated goods. All drugs have some benefits, even where they are grossly outweighed by their harms.

Somehow, I think that you are sticking to this perspective based on your ideas about pyschological dependance while ignoring the physiological components.

Hmm, go back and read my comments to Simon regarding heroin on page 2, or my arguments about the physiological dependence associated with alcohol.

You also do not seem to grasp the import of how society sees things, and that in that, how it holds great sway on any chosen mechanics of control.

This is true. Politics is the science of the possible.

I agree, there is some logic to treating each "drug" differently, and in fact have been saying that all along. It is about risk. As each "drug" manifests its risk, it should be handled accordingly.

Good. We agree on something.

[ScottL]

Ladajo,

I appreciate you taking the further effort to investigate. I agree, wikipedia is generally not an ideal source, but they do cite within the links I provided the actual research papers with data. It's hard not to use a source that cites all relevant text to the subject at hand and a waste of time to re-write others' research. As for the addiction arguments, I did note there are physiological effects, but that the addiction itself stems more from a psychological mechanism than physical.

I appreciate that you are remaining open-minded to the research. Some on this board would prefer to link to political blogs making their case instead of the hard research. While I can understand the fear of illicit drug use, we've been indoctrinated to believe all these horrible things will happen with no evidence. The fear is just a manifestation of racial tensions from the 1910s on up. I find it confounding and disturbing that the 1914 Act literally was pushed through by fabricated stories of rape and murder of white women by African-American men.

[ladajo]

I thought the particularly interesting bit was:

"However, in 2010, adults aged 18 or older who had not finished high school had the lowest rate of lifetime illicit drug use (38.9 percent) compared with the lifetime rate among high school graduates (46.4 percent), those with some college (56.2 percent), and those who were college graduates (52.0 percent)."

In this, the fact that folks with much less education (non high school graduates) were much less likely to ever try drugs in their lifetime. I agree that repeated use is a key part of the overall discussion. My intent here was simply to note who seems more likely to give it a go in the first place and make some inference on a possible why.

I didn't seem to me that you were talking just about "giving it a go" earlier:

But to my surprise, the note in the last national study about education seems to imply that the liberal control of education and media is promoting drug use to students. It does not seem that the education system is on board with the dangers of drugs use, given the correllation shown between more education and more drug use. I found it intriguing.

The survey shows that college students today are no more likely to be drug users than their age peers. And higher lifetime use percentages do not equate to "more drug use", especially given that college graduates have the lowest percentage of recent drug use.

Going from there to "liberal control [...] promoting drug use to students" doesn't appear like an obvious conclusion.

My position regarding alcohol, is that it holds lower comparative risk, and thus to date, access is embodied in different control mechanics.

Lower comparative risk relative to what, though? All illegal drugs? Only some of them?

In the study, the term "lifetime" refers to having ever tried. The frequency modalities are addressed in the "last year" and "last month" catagories.
I hear you about peer age currency, but what do you make of this?
These numbers clearly state to me: In the aggregate, the more education completed, indiciates a significantly higher (7% building to ~15% <=17+13/2>) chance a given person will have used drugs.

adults aged 18 or older who had not finished high school had the lowest rate of lifetime illicit drug use (38.9 percent)

the lifetime rate among high school graduates (46.4 percent)

those with some college (56.2 percent)

those who were college graduates (52.0 percent)

Granted peak lifetime use occurs in the 20's, so that may speak to the "some college" bit. But remember, we are specifically looking at high school drop outs, verses continued in the education system. My hypothesis was based on seeking correllation for more education equals more chance to have tried drugs. Obviously, being in the education system is providing more opportunity (remember we are talking voluntary use), and I postulated on a possible "why" that could fit. Education is a left institution, the left is supportive of use, education breeds willingness to be aware of things around you, educated folks read, watch video media, etc more than uneducated ones. The media is also a left institution. The left is supportive of use (still). So layer one, the education system could be supportive of use (or at least open to use), the media could be the same. Layer two is educated people partake of more exposure to media. Not a large leap I think to consider that more education could lead to a higher chance of using drugs (lifetime) given the two layers of <we'll say> non-opposition stance prevalence in the education system and media system, especially when considering that education brings more exposure to both.
What do you think?