[awjr]

"War on drugs" is a terrible world affliction. Prohibition neither works nor is conducive to a better society. Governments should just tax and sell the drugs to the general public. Alcohol is considered to be the most harmful drug but is legal because it can be taxed, controlled, and makes money. (http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_caus...)

Governments should also support people that want drugs to come off those drugs and while we're at it, release all prisoners who are specifically in for possession/dealing/trafficking.

We really need to give up on this idea of a drug free world.

I think we need to look to Portugal for an example of what can be done and also as a starting point for possibly developing a better model http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-d...

[ap22213]

I don't see it quite so cynically. Alcohol is legal because there would be outrage or civil unrest if it was banned.

Most people that I've met (who may not be considered alcoholics) certainly have some level of alcohol dependency. And, I'm being loose here with the word 'dependency', but in the last year, I've never seen one of my friends or acquaintances refuse alcohol at a bar or restaurant, while others were drinking.

However, that does bring up the issue of money and alcohol. Restaurants seem to push the stuff pretty heavily, at least in the US. There should at least be some restrictions on the amount of profit that bars / restaurants can make off of it.

[chimeracoder]

> Alcohol is legal because there would be outrage or civil unrest if it was banned.

There is outrage and 'civil unrest' in some sort surrounding other drugs; the difference is the communities in which it manifests.

The war on drugs very disproportionately affects people along lines of race and socioeconomic status[0]. These communities certainly are outraged at how their families and communities are being destroyed (literally) by the prohibition of these drugs and the societal ramifications that go along with the prohibition. The difference is that they're not in a position to voice that outrage as loudly.

Remember why prohibition of alcohol was repealed - wealthy taxpayers were mad that their tax bills went up after the passage of the 18th amendment (the government could no longer make revenue off of alcohol taxes). This is exactly why initiatives to legalize marijuana in Colorado (Amendment 64), Washington, and California (Prop 19) have used the language 'tax and regulate'. It's not some crazy new idea - it's literally the same tactic that succeeded in passing the 21st amendment!

[0] http://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindn...

[Crito]

> I've never seen one of my friends or acquaintances refuse alcohol at a bar or restaurant, while others were drinking.

I've never seen somebody refuse the optional free pickle spear at the sandwich line at work.

[tbrownaw]

Just yesterday, I got an extra pickle spear from someone who didn't want theirs. :)

But yeah, social pressure != dependency.

[superuser2]

There is such a thing as responsible, low-level alcohol consumption that doesn't turn into a spiral of addiction and self-destruction. Same with LSD. Not so much with heroin.

[DanBC]

> There is such a thing as responsible, low-level alcohol consumption

That responsible low-level use tends to need strong laws to enforce it.

Minimum unit pricing (which only affects the very cheap, poor quality end of the market); tight alcohol and drivng limits; time restrictions on serving alcohol.

See eg the measures that France brought in (less dead people from cirrhosis; less dead and injured from traffic accidents; more profitable drinks industry) to England, which has seen a five fold increase in cirrhosis over the same time.

Alcohol has enormous costs which are mostly hidden because people don't want to accept the truth.

[superuser2]

Many of those costs are directly related to suburban car culture. When you take the subway anyway, risks are much lower.

I would argue that people drinking enough to incur liver damage are doing so not because alcohol is addictive but because they have other psychological issues for which alcohol is the only effective relief. In which case, if it weren't for alcohol, they'd do something else. You can't make the whole world a padded cell.

[shawabawa3]

> Not so much with heroin.

Do you have a source for that?

Some quick googling found this study which suggests it happens

  [1] http://www.jrf.org.uk/system/files/1859354254.pdf

[spacemanmatt]

How can you ignore the existing outrage and civil unrest around today's prohibition? It is just like the early 1900s. We have black markets, cultural adaptations of the criminality, and all the same corruption patterns.

[eru]

> Alcohol is considered to be the most harmful drug [...]

Only because of the wide spread of use.

[Xylakant]

No, actually not. Alcohol is a potent poison and kills cells - hence the use as desinfectant. The physical damage caused by alcohol abuse rival and surpass most illegal substances.

[thaumasiotes]

Alcohol is also one of a very small number of drugs where the physical symptoms of withdrawal can be fatal. That doesn't mean being an alcoholic is worse than being addicted to some other drug (salt withdrawal is invariably fatal, but nobody's out there saying "salt ruins lives"), but it's potentially an argument for alcohol being especially nasty to the body.

[coldtea]

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/...

Oh, and they controlled for the obvious correlations too, like lifestyle differences etc.

[Xylakant]

oh sure, this is about moderate drinkers, not about people abusing alcohol as a drug. The side effects of moderate use of pretty much every controlled substance are pretty much insignificant as long as you use a pure, unadultered drug (let's forget about croc or battery acid etc). But once you get into heavy use, alcohol starts looking pretty bad: destroys liver and brain among other things, compared to e.g. opium where the worst side effect is constipation. Overdoses obviously kill in both cases, so let's keep that out of the picture here.

[coldtea]

>But once you get into heavy use, alcohol starts looking pretty bad

Well, you can die with heavy dose of water too. Actually not even that heavy, people have died drinking like 7-10 liters.

>The side effects of moderate use of pretty much every controlled substance are pretty much insignificant

Yeah, but the research shows moderate use of alcohol not only doesn't have bad effects (even if insignificant) but it even has significant (measurable) beneficial effects.

[danielbln]

> Yeah, but the research shows moderate use of alcohol not only doesn't have bad effects (even if insignificant) but it even has significant (measurable) beneficial effects.

Citation? Also, what's 'moderate' use for you? A 'standard drink' equals about 10 grams alcohol, the German institute for addiction (DHS) says* that the threshold dose for risk free consumption is at 20 grams per day, with two days break per week. Above you are risking a plethora of health risks, from mouth cancer, to liver deseases, breast cancer and what have you. There are some benficial health effects, but none of them are 'significant'.

*http://www.dhs.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/dhs_stellungnahm...

[thisjepisje]

How many people do you know that use excessive amounts of water recreationally, or are addicted to litres and litres of water?

[toomuchtodo]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_caus...

[chimeracoder]

Withdrawal from alcohol can literally kill you[0]. Withdrawal from opiates can also cause similar withdrawal symptoms, but is not fatal[1].

There are many ways to judge the statement 'most harmful drug', so there's no bright line, but that's a pretty big mark against alcohol.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delerium_tremens [1] Ibid.

[awildone]

And it get's worse. Because your not really tripping but rather fighting poisoning, it effectively cuts the connection to the better part of who you are. If it wasn't for alcohol, a lot of the trouble we see in society simply wouldn't exist.

[growler]

I think there are a few examples of tripping being the result of poisoning. Mushrooms, various cacti...

The reason mescalin makes you puke is not because it does a body good.

[awildone]

Can't comment on mescalin though, only tried cb, shrooms and hbw in the trippy part of the spectrum...

[awildone]

Some would say the puke part is part of the cleansing, more spiritual than physical. Comparing shrooms to alcohol is very unfair. One is a spiritual plant, one is poison.

[spacemanmatt]

Pish. Once in a while, a drink is just the right elixer for a conversation or a mood change with a new friend. It doesn't deserve top billing, and the other drugs don't deserve to be so screwed, but it does have a deserved place in the human experience. Calling it mere 'poison' misses the mark for me.