Quote from: krigger on January 31, 2018, 01:19:39 PM

Quote from: bluefirecorp_ on January 29, 2018, 10:51:04 PM

Quote from: stantpro on January 29, 2018, 04:25:51 PM

If all drugs are legalized, it then means that poison is also legalized for some combination
of drugs have chemical output very harmful to health.Hence, legalizing all drugs could abet
poisoning and fatality from those who may fall victim to the pangs of such ''hard drugs''.There
should be absolute control to drugs people are permitted to use.

Bleach is already legal my dude.

Problem is addiction and no one gets addicted to bleach.

you're totally right, how many cases are reported for bleach addiction?

cry4crypto, you show us ONE video of a people addict to bleach... do you think that alcohol/tobacco health issues are the same that bleach addict issues? do you think that they can be compared?

__

people make comparaison without knowing basic facts... for instance here, they compared "tobacco population" and "alcohol population" to "hard drugs population"... do you they think that we are talking about same size population?

same thing about so many factors...
"2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL)" for alcohol abuse... why they don't quote it for hard drugs/even soft drugs?
ok, imagine we have 300 million people addict on hard drug... 500 million peoples addict on alcohol/tobacco... your average life expectancy is 35A with hard drugs when it is 75A with alcohol or tobacco, and normal life expectancy is about 85A...
500 millions x 10 years of life lost in average = 5 billions of years lost
100 millions x 50 years of life lost in average = 5 billions of years lost
.... Grin

?

"Alcohol kills more teenagers than all other drugs combined. It is a factor in the three leading causes of death among 15- to 24-year-olds: accidents, homicides and suicides."
-> are they as many people that take drugs, that people that alcohol? then how can you compare people dying from cause if they are 100x more people in one group? = you can't compare
but if you do people (ppl dying from a cause/number of ppl involved with this cause), you will have an accurate factor to compare two populations...

"Youth who drink are 7.5 times more likely to use other illegal drugs and fifty times more likely to use cocaine than young people who never drink. One survey found that 32% of the heavy drinkers over 12 were also illegal drug users."
-> do we know how much people that use hard drugs are poly addicted to many substances?

i can do for all of their argues... you just expose facts without possible comparaison in both population...

what about costs for tobacco/alcohol? maybe because they are many many many more people in alcohol/tobacco population than in hard drug population?

to compare 2 populations between them, you must discriminate them by same factor.... then you have to report the number of people dying of each cause by number of population...

i see that people use many argues without having any basics in epidemologic

_____________

let's make simple instance...

you make a clinical essay on a new antibiotic for meningitidis
allright, you take two populations,
A population with 1000 peoples, that take usual antibiotic as described in medical literature and protocoles
B population with 20 peoples, that try new antibiotics

allright, you save 20 peoples from meningitidis in your B population, when you only save 1990 peoples in your A population.

then you have 100% survive in B population with new antibiotic, and only 99,5% survive in A population with old one.

can you conclude that the new antibiotic is superior to usual one?;-)