Important if you are thinking of using Bath Salts/Mephedrone

[Coito ergo sum]

My view that a cigarette is less dangerous to the user than heroin is not based on that propaganda.

Are you sure? I'm not and would never suggest that becoming a heroin addict is a good idea, but if a user was given access to medical grade heroin, they could continue taking it their whole life with no significant negative effects on their health.

Yes, I'm sure. I would still rather have my son or daughter try a cigarette than heroin.

[Audley Strange]

I'll grant you that yes, now cigarette smokers = bad guys. Society is moving towards a prohibition on cigarettes but since it would be practically impossible to to that through the legal system they use the propaganda system instead.

Nor was I saying that drinkers are always witty and dashing I was saying that they always portray someone who uses heroin as essentially vermin. PErhaps your reading of it made it seem like a strawman.

You seemed to have missed my point. It wasn't about whether crack was dangerous or not, it was about a society which deems certain "dangerous" drugs acceptable and others unacceptable seemingly arbitrarily and to point out that if drinkers and smokers were always depicted as Pariahs and the effects exaggerated for propaganda and other recreational drugs were licenced relatively safe and traditionally used within the culture, I think you would be treating cigarettes with the same suspicion you would heroin.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'll grant you that yes, now cigarette smokers = bad guys. Society is moving towards a prohibition on cigarettes but since it would be practically impossible to to that through the legal system they use the propaganda system instead.

Nor was I saying that drinkers are always witty and dashing I was saying that they always portray someone who uses heroin as essentially vermin. PErhaps your reading of it made it seem like a strawman.

You seemed to have missed my point. It wasn't about whether crack was dangerous or not, it was about a society which deems certain "dangerous" drugs acceptable and others unacceptable seemingly arbitrarily and to point out that if drinkers and smokers were always depicted as Pariahs and the effects exaggerated for propaganda and other recreational drugs were licenced relatively safe and traditionally used within the culture, I think you would be treating cigarettes with the same suspicion you would heroin.

It's pretty obvious why alcohol is "acceptable" and heroin not acceptable - it's effect on the user at and near the time of use. The larger elements of "harm" caused by alcohol are "societal" and long term.

This isn't some generalized "suspicion." If the question is, would I rather have my son or daughter smoke a cigarette or inject heroin, I'd go with the cigarette. Wouldn't you? If not, why not?

[Audley Strange]

Ah is this about the method of use? Certainly I'd not want anyone to start digging in with any drug, (I've heard rave reviews about manilining cocaine, it's something I'd never do) however people also smoke heroin and I do beleive there is some sniffing heroin too.

Also no I'm not sure I would go for the cigarette, other than it is more socially acceptable (though less so these days) and that heroin is more likely to be tainted because of prohibition, but in a world where both were legal and neither had any social stigma, I'd say heroin was less harmful and even the addiction less difficult to break.

As for your point on alcohol, the large element of harm we have over here is not just long term. More and more people (especially young women) are being admitted to hospital with alcohol poisoning, often fatal. Drunks can often be aggressive and can turn violent very easily as evinced by any city centre at closing time. Combine that with the knives coming out or running in front of traffic or doing all sorts of potentially deadly stupidities because they are drunk, I'd say the effects of alcohol are more extreme and dangerous to the individual even in the short term.

I'm only worried about a heroin addict attacking me because of inflated prices due to illegality, some kid on a Tonic Wine binge might not be an alcoholic but I'd still be more concerned about dealing with a drunk than a skaghead.

While I'm not one of them, I have reasons to believe many more people use opiates recreationally without destroying their lives than you would suspect. Again we have given it a pariah drug status and so a lot of them never talk about it, knowing society's view on it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Ah is this about the method of use?

Negative. The main reason is the immediate impact upon the user.

Certainly I'd not want anyone to start digging in with any drug, (I've heard rave reviews about manilining cocaine, it's something I'd never do) however people also smoke heroin and I do beleive there is some sniffing heroin too.

I didn't suggest it was primarily to do with injections vs. smoking vs. snorting. It's the substance itself. Cigarettes and alcohol are, in fact, less harmful to the user at the time of use than heroin. In addition, It's easier to control the amount one takes in, and harder to O.D., and easier to regulate quality.

Also no I'm not sure I would go for the cigarette, other than it is more socially acceptable (though less so these days) and that heroin is more likely to be tainted because of prohibition, but in a world where both were legal and neither had any social stigma, I'd say heroin was less harmful and even the addiction less difficult to break.

So, are you saying if you had a son or daughter, and they were to smoke a Marlboro Light, or shoot junk, you'd say, "here son, you're better off with the smack..." Yes?

As for your point on alcohol, the large element of harm we have over here is not just long term. More and more people (especially young women) are being admitted to hospital with alcohol poisoning, often fatal. Drunks can often be aggressive and can turn violent very easily as evinced by any city centre at closing time.

As I said, the main "harms" cited for alcohol are "societal" AND "long term." What you just mentioned are "societal" ills. Those risks do not in any way suggest that the harm to the user of drinking a few drinks, and shooting heroin, is the same, much less that heroin is better for you than alcohol. We all know both drugs can be over-dosed. That doesn't change the fact that I'd rather have my son or daughter drink a few beers than spike some heroin (or snort it).

Combine that with the knives coming out or running in front of traffic or doing all sorts of potentially deadly stupidities because they are drunk, I'd say the effects of alcohol are more extreme and dangerous to the individual even in the short term.

So - given the choice - you'd give your son or daughter heroin before you gave them a beer?

I'm only worried about a heroin addict attacking me because of inflated prices due to illegality, some kid on a Tonic Wine binge might not be an alcoholic but I'd still be more concerned about dealing with a drunk than a skaghead.

While I'm not one of them, I have reasons to believe many more people use opiates recreationally without destroying their lives than you would suspect. Again we have given it a pariah drug status and so a lot of them never talk about it, knowing society's view on it.

Those are different issues. i am sure that plenty of people have used opiates recreationally without destroying their lives - I know tons of people who used a fair bit of cocaine, acid, mescaline, mushrooms, and all sorts of things - and have led normal, healthy lives. I'm not even an advocate of any of this stuff being illegal, including heroin. However, because people have used so-called "hard" drugs recreationally and been fine does not translate to "it's better that they do heroin than have a fag or a pint."

[Audley Strange]

No one said it was "better" and in fact I'll concede that given Heroin is currently distributed by a criminal market, it is certainly a much greater risk. However your putting up strawmen since again I'm not claiming it's better, but that administered properly heroin is not "immediately" more dangerous upon the health of the person than a pint of beer or a cigarette are and given that the health issue is not something that I would be as concerned about in the short term if my child was curious. After all we use diamorphine on children and adults in hospitals all the time, our doctors give us opoids to calm our nerves, the don't offer us a bottle of whisky for surgery any more or give us 20 Benson and Hedges after we've had a car accident. The drugs are pretty clean and pretty safe.

There is a social stigma attached to recreational drug use. More so for hard drug use. However I'd say that while it might not be a human need to get wasted it is pretty close to one and that in a responsible society we would not have the concerns we do about our children taking drugs because we would be confident that they would be doing it in safe hands. This is why I'm cautious about just legalising drugs without a vast support network in place.