Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh
I too doubt many of the statistics quoted on addiction ,that all depends on the definition of addiction .In the article i used they defined addiction as taking the substance repeatedly knowing it had harmful side effects .Addiction to me is not being able to carry out day to day life without taking the substance .As i said in my reply to Will21st getting reliable and unbiased info is very hard and most peoples perceptions of drugs are reliant on personal experience or what they read in the press
|
I think we can totally debunk the article quoted. No one should use that as fact or reference. Their definition of addiction would mean that someone who eats a McDonalds or hard boiled sweets more than once is an addict. As you say, the level of harm is a scale and where is the line. Eating something that goes towards rotting your teeth or food that isn't squeeky clean healthy according to someone could be considered as bad as some drugs.
The point being is the drug advisors to the government looked at many drugs and their scientific conclusion was that MDMA was harmless and most drugs should be legalised due to actual harm levels (both to the person and others). Yet once again the PM has ignored that due to personal or political reasons. So very valid point about biased based on media, personal experiences, religion or whatever.
---------- Post added at 23:37 ---------- Previous post was at 23:34 ----------
Let me add that if every stimulant or drug got banned, like coffee, tobacco, alcohol etc, I don't think many would be able to handle the stress of every day life. Its a little escape and simple pleasure for what can be a hell of day/week otherwise.