Quote:
Alcohol damages the liver. As long as the liver is not badly damaged it can repair it self rather quickly. This is a fact. Therefore moderate alcohol use has not permanent damage to your body.
Again: my beef with alcohol has relatively little to do with the harmful effects it has on the user. That said, your logic is that because damage to the liver is repaired rather quickly, moderate alcohol use has does no permanent damage to your body. That would be true if your body was that of a giant liver. Let's assume though, that the only damage that occurs is to the liver. Your liver is not like a tempurpedic mattress. To return it to the way it was it requires nutrients from the body... nutrients that are needed for other functions of the body. This can reduce immunity, overall organ function, hell, I couldn't even begin to go into all the minor negative impacts, but again, those really aren't a big deal. Further, regular mild alcohol consumption has been linked to brain cell deterioration, much like marijuana.
My concern is not with "responsible" alcohol consumers. My concern is the exponentially poorer decisions one makes as alcohol consumption rises. It's easy to say you would never drink and drive when you're sober, but when you're drunk off your ***, who's to say? You may know your limit when you're sober, and you may still know it after a few drinks, or you might say, eh, couple more won't hurt, and before you know it, you're fighting a guy who accidentally stepped on your shoe. Point being, the more you drink, the less likely you are to exercise the judgement that it's time to stop, and the more likely you are to make decisions that will hurt yourself or others, be it physically or emotionally. Now, if that doesn't sound like you, and you can say with certainty that you've never made a decision you regretted because of alcohol, and you never will, I say drink up. I might even have a couple with you, but probably not.
Quote:
The only physical damage ever associated with marijuana smoking is the general harm traditionally associated with smoking anything. Again the definition of someone that smokes marijuana in moderation is not someone that is going to cause a great deal of damage to their lungs. Lungs also heal similarly to the liver.
Again, as above, there is evidence that continued marijuana use causes the deterioration of brain cells. As you pointed out, there is the additional harm to the lungs; however, you may be overestimating the healing ability of the lungs. Yes, the lungs can heal (though like the liver, they use the body's other resources to do it), but I think perhaps you overestimate how effectively they do so. Even a chronic smoker's lungs can eventually become like new, but it takes many years. Even if you're smoking a blunt every three days, your lungs aren't going to be able to fully recover between blunts. You are still increasing your risk of lung cancer, and yes, people who have never smoked anything but the casual marijuana have died from lung cancer.
Quote:
Speed is basically a potent form of Ridalin not approved by the FDA.
This is true. Ritalin is a form of speed, but it is absolutely nothing like using speed as a recreational drug. The dosages prescribed by doctors (of ritalin) are dwarfed by the potency used by recreational drug users. Furthermore, ritalin is ingested, not snorted or injected into the bloodstream, which further dilutes its effects (when used as intended anyway), and finally, in a correct diagnosis of ADD, the drug acts differently than it would in a person without ADD. ADD is caused by a chemical inbalance in the brain, which can be corrected by a proper dosage of ritalin and improve brain functioning. It's commonly prescribed for children who have difficulty paying attention in school; however, it has been documented to cause depression as a side effect, possibly as a result from "coming down" off of the drug.
Quote:
Heroin is safer than a lot of the painkillers approved by the FDA but is extremely addictive.
I think I mentioned this earlier in the thread. Heroin is a relatively harmless drug to the user aside from being incredibly addictive. The danger is in overdosing, especially as tolerance is aquired rapidly. Another problem is that the person's life can spiral quickly out of control as they become dependent on the drug instantly and often their entire life becomes centered around their next fix, until they die either of overdose or withdrawal.
Quote:
Meth is bad. Crack is bad. Coke is bad.
At the risk of sounding like a smartass hypocrate, drugs are not bad; abusing them is bad. This was a theme commonly discussed in my classes. Naturally on premise, I agree, though I would add to the list :p
Quote:
Shrooms have no physical side effects that I know of.
I admittedly know very little about shrooms. They aren't commonly used in this area and my impression of them is that they are rapidly declining in popularity and availability, but that's based only on my lack of ever coming across them or hearing about their recent use.
Quote:
Scientifically I know very little about ecstasy but the people I know that have done it seem to quit in less than a year after they first try it.
It's not that bad (relatively speaking). I really don't know much about it either because it's not especially problematic in this area, and, as I once heard it put, mostly popular with rich white kids. It is a mind-altering substance though, and can cause you to do things you normally wouldn't do. Personally I'd be more concerned about increased STD transmission and unwanted pregnancies during X parties (it's a social drug and commonly causes people to be more "open" with one another than they normally would be). In terms of harming your health directly, it's probably the last recreational drug to worry about, but again, it is the mind altering effects that truly has the potential to harm lives.
Anyway, -you- can check for -yourself-. I don't just pull this stuff out of my ***. Believe it or not, I kept it in my head.
Quote:
and meth if only done recreationally is fine once it's legalized.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but... why is meth fine? Granted if it were legalized it would be LESS harmful because it could be created without a lot of the poisonous chemicals that find their way into street meth because of the creation process, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it'd be "fine".
Quote:
Kachi, being in the heath field, just says that you have to give the rote response against all drug use without ever admitting that, not everyone who ever partakes in mood altering substances will become addicted.
So you're suggesting that because I'm in the health field, I'm automatically biased against drugs even if they don't negatively impact your health? I have thoroughly examined all popular recreational drugs, and have even openly admitted many times that I would prefer the legalization of marijuana. I never said that all drugs were addictive. Marijuana, for example, is not physiologically addictive. Neither is X. I guess that disproves your theory.
Maybe you just need to actually read my posts or something. Your entire post is irrelevant to any of the points I've made.
