[Multics]

> The ethical question is if drug use would go up and thus a legalise-drugs policy would be guilty of leading people down a bad and potentially deadly path.

Depends on the drug. Drugs can be objectively ranked based on the harm they do to users and others. For example, heroin is worst, alcohol is the second worst (so I've heard Dr David Nutt proclaim), crack third.

If less harmful drugs are used as substitutes for more harmful drugs -- cannabis in lieu of alcohol, for example -- the path will be 'good' and less deadly.

Alcohol related deaths each year are around 3 million, in the UK. Tobacco related deaths around 6 million...

I don't believe there's any amount of evidence that would move the current UK government on the legal status of cannabis et al. The only way drugs less dangerous than the current legalised drugs will be made legal is if most of the world legalises them first; thus, highlighting Britain's current draconian stance.

Alternatively, a political party such as the Liberal Democrats could come to power (unlikely!).

There's an 'interesting' logic used with drug such as cannabis, in Blighty:

* Illegal drugs are dangerous. * Cannabis is illegal, therefore cannabis is dangerous

On marijuana legalisation, I'm looking forward to the upcoming second wave of votes in the US.

If you get a chance to vote, please do! It has consequences not just for your state, but for the rest of the world.

[Tenobrus]

By "3 million, in the UK" do you actually mean "2.5 million, worldwide"?

https://ncadd.org/in-the-news/155-25-million-alcohol-related....

Tabacco is also only 5 million worldwide. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_...

(I'm not trying to undermine your point at all, and I don't blame you for just going with what you remembered, I just prefer statistics with sources)

[Multics]

Worldwide, yes.

WHO estimates it to be 6 million[1], for tobacco.

And around 3 million[2] for alcohol.

If you're going to correct me with statistics, please do so with more than the first couple you come across! It wouldn't have taken much to conclude that the 5 million isn't the only stat on the subject! The same goes for the 2.5 million, and alcohol.

[1] http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs339/en/

[2] http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/facts/alcohol/en/

[nagrom]

You clearly state in your original post that your 6 million and 3 million figures are in terms of deaths in the UK. The GP was pointing out that you were wrong: they are worldwide figures, and not UK-only figures. A little less stridency in the tone of your reply would have boosted your credibility and made you seem a lot less prone to hyperbole.

[Multics]

> You clearly state in your original post that your 6 million and 3 million figures are in terms of deaths in the UK. The GP was pointing out that you were wrong: they are worldwide figures, and not UK-only figures.

I've said that's correct.

You're conflating the UK vs worldwide statement with the numbers given.

If there's a call for stats and sources, then would it not be fair to treat them with rigour? Or should what I said be examined in fine detail, but not the reply?

[Dylan16807]

Are you really complaining that Tenobrus used a slightly lower estimate than you when correcting your two orders of magnitude misstatement?

[Multics]

Tenobrus corrected me on two accounts: 1/ UK vs. worldwide 2/ The exact figures

I'm saying the figures are correct, and said plainly that it should have been worldwide, not the UK.

OK, fine, statistics are important, but if you're going to make statements espousing the importance of statistics, then you better have the right ones -- or at least be aware of them --, and not just copy 'n paste the first few from your search engine of choice!

It takes some knowledge to put together a commentary on the current situation with drugs. Any idiot with an AOL connection can Bing some stats -- badly.

Edit: Changed the search-engine-as-a-verb to 'Bing', from 'Google'.

[Dylan16807]

>Tenobrus corrected me on two accounts: 1/ UK vs. worldwide 2/ The exact figures

I disagree. It looks like one simple correction to me, and isn't meant to be an excessively precise number.

And you keep acting like his number is wrong. It's not. It's right next to the number you intended.

You're being picky and pedantic because someone corrected you, and it's ill-becoming.

[Multics]

Correction #1:

> By "3 million, in the UK" do you actually mean "2.5 million, worldwide"?

Correction #2:

> Tabacco is also only 5 million worldwide.

Note the use of the word 'also'. It means in addition to.

> It's right next to the number you intended.

Why bring it up, if the numbers are right next to each other? Who's being pedantic?

> And you keep acting like his number is wrong.

His numbers are wrong, if the point being my numbers were wrong. If he knew about both sets of figures, would he have still quoted 2.5/5 million? No!

I've not tried to make the figures out to be larger than they are. I made a mistake with where they apply.

Just because I didn't link to a set of figures (can't link to everything), doesn't mean they're not correct.

People are acting like I pulled the numbers out of my ass. And apparently I'm prone to hyperbole (see nagrom's comment).

> Tabacco is also only 5 million worldwide.

The dude can't spell 'tobacco'. That's nitpicking!