How many people are actually killed by drugs? [Archive] - Green Grass Forums

View Full Version : How many people are actually killed by drugs?

BlueCat

08-17-2005, 09:31 PM

This has probably been posted many times before but I think it deserves a repeat.....

The number of drug deaths in the US in a typical year is as follows:

Tobacco kills about 390,000.
Alcohol kills about 80,000.
Sidestream smoke from tobacco kills about 50,000.
Cocaine kills about 2,200.
Heroin kills about 2,000.
Aspirin kills about 2,000.
Marijuana kills 0. There has never been a recorded death due to marijuana any time in US history.

All illegal drugs combined kill about 4,500 people per year, or about one percent of the number killed by alcohol and tobacco.
Tobacco kills more people each year than all of the people killed by all of the illegal drugs in the last century.
Source: NIDA Research Monographs

Which drug causes the greatest burden on our medical facilities?
Alcohol and tobacco are the clear leaders. Some authorities have estimated that up to forty percent of all hospital care in the United States is for conditions related to alcohol.

As a medical hazard, few drugs can compete with alcohol or tobacco on any scale. A study at Rockefeller University in 1967 concluded that "Tobacco is unquestionably more hazardous to the health than heroin."

How many millions of people will have to go to prison?

The following chart shows the growth of the US prison population since 1960. The US prison population was relatively stable from about 1926, when figures were first compiled, through 1970. After this point, the effects of Nixon's war against drugs, and later the Reagan and Bush war against drugs, produced a dramatic increase in the number of prisoners.

SAY YES TO WEED AND NO TO BUSH..

andruejaysin

08-18-2005, 05:54 AM

So if I read this right then more people were killed (worldwide) on Sept. 11, 2001 by cigarettes than by terrorists?

pisshead

08-18-2005, 10:33 AM

there are hundreds of things that you're more likely to be killed by than evil freedom hating muslims...if you believe they are the terrorists...

so let's give up the constitution and all of our rights so those freedom hating terrorists don't get us!

weirdo79

08-19-2005, 05:40 AM

One thing I have to say to you Blue although I agree with you almost entirely in your statement one thing has always stuck in my craw about certain stats. The Tobacco ones, you ever notice theres an abnormal amount (apparently the number one killer in the world). Here's the part I dont understand (or perhaps I understand to well and this is only thinly veiled sarcasm....) How come when you go to the hospital with a "lung" problem (disease etc) The first questions asked when it comes to "what your exposed to" are always "do you smoke AND are you ever around anyone who does". Why not simply be less biased and ask "have you ever lived in a smog filled city....., Have you ever lived beside a factory that deposits carbon in the air....etc etc etc ad infinitum. There are millions of reasons why people get lung diseases, problem is if you have had even one exposure to tobacco it gets blamed. Not the thousands of tonnes of car exhaust in the atmosphere or that black crap filming over everything within 5 miles of a certain factory......Can you say "Scapegoat" . I'm not saying their blameless in anything (like marketing to children etc) but in all reality they're(tobacco companies) as bad as any other mass producer.....no more , no less....

Apparently smoking kills but pollution only kills when you live in a bubble and have never been exposed to tobacco....

tokosan

08-19-2005, 05:46 PM

yeah, they instantly count anyone who has died of a lung-related illness and either A. smoked or B. had second-hand smoke. then immediately chalk it up to "omg he died of ciggaretted b/c he went to the bar and they blew smoke in his face"

I would imagine that almost all the numbers there and false or imbelished in some way. Exept the weed one of course :D

BlueCat

08-19-2005, 06:12 PM

Hi weirdo...Maybe this will help make it a bit clearer... :)

Oxford University, cataloged the causes of cancer in the United States. They calculated that smoking accounted for more than 87 percent of all cancer deaths and that pollution was associated with about 2 percent of all cancers. The EPA agrees.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, among both men and women. It claims more lives than colon, prostate and breast cancer combined. Since the mid-1990s, more than 150,000 Americans have died of the disease each year.

Yet most of these deaths could have been prevented. That's because smoking accounts for about 85 percent to 90 percent of lung cancer cases.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?id=DS00038

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35427

tokosan

08-19-2005, 06:26 PM

All this is a moot point of course, because pretty much all politicians (regardless of thier stance of legalization) lack the testicular fortitude to actually introduce legislation for that! Nooooooo, ya gotta please where the money comes from! The lobbyists!

Tell me, how much money does the largest marijuana lobbying group have? Probably not much, compared to others.... I will venture that guess....

Untill they start getting PAID, and i mean PAAAAIIIIDDD, nothing will be done about this crap system we live with today.

BlueCat

08-19-2005, 08:19 PM

weirdo79

08-19-2005, 11:41 PM

Once again said tests were done with "were you exposed too..." (also both sites use the logical assumption that since there is chemicals in ciggarette's and more carcinogenic agents in said chemicals then say that one factory(ignoring the other 50 within a few miles) down the street that you have a higher chance of contracting the disease THUS a large number of people MUST have contracted it specifically from that source. (despite lack of physical evidence ie: Assumption and Supposition). Every other branch of research I've heard of requires more stringent results sorry(well except religious studies of course...).I know Health sources tend to fib a bit though , Think about how many of them still rail against Cannabis as a medicine.

Placebo's have over a 50% rate of success in curing almost anything.....When it comes to medicine take it with a grain of salt.

I deal with biopsy studies or at least those that prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I certainly would not convict a person based solely on circumstantial evidence. If theres a chance (even 80% according to an obscure formula...which doesnt test out mathematically) that he did it, but no physical evidence backed up by logical reasoning I'm not going to convict....

I'd try an experimental procedure to save myself , but I would never ask anyone to do so themselves...

Also blaming tobacco over pollution at such a wide margin considering exposure is farcical in the extreme. I'm no genius but I am a bio grad and it doesnt add up at all.

BlueCat

08-20-2005, 12:07 AM

well I don't know what doesn't add up...if you want to take up for cancer sticks knock yourself out....Before my dad died he worked as an assistant pathologist for UTMB and I spent more days in the county morgue than I can count weighing lungs. There is a HUGE difference in a smokers lung and one that has been exposed to smog...
and age makes no difference you can always tell a smokers lung.

I'll go with the Mayo clinic study. I'm sorry but I hardly think the tobacco companies are poor scapegoats... :rolleyes:

But whatever, dude...its your life smoke away. The post was in support of weed anyway, I really don't care about the rest.

weirdo79

08-20-2005, 04:43 PM

Actually I dont smoke......But hey If you want to buy into one or two vague studies without much hard evidence thats fine. (I've weighed and measured human lungs as well afflicted by many diseases its a prerequisite generally speaking of any anatomy courses.....it doesnt give you special experience, anyone can get the same looking up the information...) Here's the problem you claim a smokers lung and a smog exposed one are "totally different" however you fail to see that you can't possibly know what that person was exposed to in what amounts actually. (ask your dad's boss the chief coroner about that one, It's exactly like those tests you quoted, assumption and supposition). You can't always tell a smokers lung either thats total bs and I've heard it from so many doctors (and respiratory therapists of which one of my best friends is in charge of in kingston and he's anal about any smoke...but he's still logical about statistics and gathering of information). Not all smokers have big grey or blackish brownish etc etc lungs. If you'de like we can exchange personal information and I can send you my own mothers chest tests....who has chain smoked since age 13. Here's the problem not one doctor or specialist she's been too can tell she's a smoker by the condition of her lungs.....Guess she's a freak of nature. But oh wait theres thousands of cases like her out there. But hey you can always tell a smokers lungs (nothing in medicine is absolute im surprised your father never told you that). Age makes a difference with any organ as well....come on.....claiming it makes no difference....really....come on.

Also the Mayo Clinic isnt special to me theyr'e like any other american funded organization biased to science that opposes their governments views(as it directly affects their funding look at what the bush admin has done to pro pot groups and studies...just stopped funding anyone coming out with positives)....which would explain some of the things on their "marijuana" page. They put just enough actual scientific information but then went vague at the end as to a conclusion. (so as I imagine to not offend their "overlords").

If we commit murder together but you blame me and get away scot free....yeah im the scapegoat so yes they are scapegoats(however you added the poor I dont feel pity for them and I never suggested anyone should...)

And if you dont know what adds up look at the stats. Cigarrette's are not these magical cancer giving sticks. If you look at the laws of physics and biology and chemistry as a whole and look at the stats it just doesnt add up at all. It's like the whole religion thing. They just use god to explain anything they cant. Just like we blame tobacco as its convenient (we do know it has certain cancer causing agents etc). But ignoring those 50 factories overall by counting them against all cigarrette's one at a time is as I said farcical. There is more chemicals in the air itself than cigarrette's. Not to mention as I've said before time of exposure. Your ALWAYS exposed to pollution.

None of these factors even came into these studies....and they do not mention the type of study either is....This is why I subscribe to medical journals and in fact any scientific journal I can afford. They always tell you exactly what kind of test what number of subjects and the formula used in the hypothesis. Sorry vague assumptions that arent backed by the scientific theories we know (nor are even really plausible), don't really strike me as factual things to get my "bun in a knot" about type thing.

The AMA still says Cannabis is bad, yet 70 years ago they were the most vocal opponents of stripping it of its legal ability....guess they must have discovered something really bad about it eh.....As does any american medical association directly funded by the government....Gee I wonder why that is...(see above).

Speaking of which does anyone remember if eggs are bad or good for you right now?(it changes so often.....):rolleyes:

BlueCat

08-20-2005, 05:05 PM

The AMA still says Cannabis is bad, yet 70 years ago they were the most vocal opponents of stripping it of its legal ability....guess they must have discovered something really bad about it eh.....As does any american medical association directly funded by the government....Gee I wonder why that is...(see above).

I agree with you. We are on the same side here...BUT
the issue of my post was NOT is smoking worse than smog..... the issue is that the evidence presented to date by more than one nation says tobacco, alcohol, etc..is more harmful than cannabis

It makes no sense to me that weed is illegal and tobacco is not....

That was the point of the post so why come in defending tobacco?

weirdo79

08-21-2005, 01:03 AM

as I pointed out in the first sentence of my first post, It was because I have a problem with the factual improbability of tobacco being the #1 killer on the planet (however if they said alcohol I might buy that considering its effects and contributions to driving accidents, Ie: the statistics can be supported by a vast array of hard evidence). Otherwise I agree 99% with the other things you said. Which I also already stated in said post.

Natural Tobacco with no additives is nowhere near as bad the stuff companies sell us now. Thats another good point.

Basically it all comes down to ALL of them are guilty equally yet tobacco gets blamed. That is my point. Were avoiding a more serious issue by just accepting those stats and ignoring the greater harm of widespread worldwide pollution. A smoker doesnt produce enough tonnage even in a year of chain smoking compared to most cars after a week even. It's really no surprise when you think about it. Smoking is limited by human breathing, vehicular and industrial by product pollution isnt limited by anything other than fuel(as they are so widespread at any given time thousands if not millions are going at any one time).

Thats my whole point, just expounding upon my disagreement with your one statistic thats all. I'm not opposing legalization etc or anything of such a sort. Just the greater problem of people ignoring the overall issues and instead blaming tobacco for any lung issues. It just bothers me like I mentioned about religion , instead of fixing the problem they're basically just sweeping it under the rug and putting their fingers in their ears saying "lalallalalalala". (like religious people when confronted about their religions origins, ie: what other religion it was actually based on for example christianity has roots in babylonian egyptian sumerian mythology etc.)

I like Panacea's not Placebo's hope that clears up my point.

Basically it all comes down to exposing one fraud while not seeing the larger one connected. (usually the things people get labelled as "wingnuts" or tinfoil hat wearer's etc), The word conspiracy no longer conjures up images of people actually planning others harm for most it conjures up the image of the loner who's a bit wacko. Unfortunately in no way shape or form do they not exist. After all many government officials are convicted (never the important ones of course) as well as commercial exec's in trying to cover up certain things.

Heck some people still dont believe in aliens despite NASA and over 50% of astronaut's going public over the years , not to mention declassified files exposed by the freedom of information act. But hey facts have no place in the real world these days

(most of that rant wasnt aimed in anyway at ya blue, I just tend to ramble when baked going off on tangents and such)