Has Anyone Ever Had Experiances With Illegal Substances?

[Jase]

Ah, lies, damn lies, and statistics. I would tip my hat to you, had I a hat to tip. Why are death rates from automobiles so high in America? Because everyone and their mother owns at least one car, with a decent chance of owning two. 10% of an entire population is still larger than 100% of 5% of that population, even if the former suggests a lower risk ratio than the latter. Is the number of people consistently abusing drugs on the magnitude of half of those who own cars? Also, how does this chart define drug deaths? Is it simply a matter of overdosing, or more specifically overdose in isolation? Does this chart also include in drug-related fatalities other complications extending from prolonged drug abuse, which vary based on the drug of choice, or are these lumped into categories such as "cardiovascular diseases," "malignant neoplasms," "respiratory infections," "Lower respiratory tract infections," "respiratory diseases," "Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease," and so forth. COPD alone classifies smoking as its primary risk factor - 80% to 90% of COPD cases occur in heavy smokers, and that's a legal drug. In fact, and purely to illustrate the permissive nature of definitions, a sufficiently obstructive individual could classify a knife in the heart as "acute cardiac failure," though I, charitable as I am, do doubt that the original codifiers of the data used in this chart were quite that oblique. For that matter, there's another good way to lie with statistics - don't those last four groups I listed look a bit...similar? Splitting higher-ranked groups and lumping lower-ranked groups (which aren't listed) is a good way to push other entries down the rank structure, especially if you then extract that ranking and present it in obnoxiously bold, centered, high-size fonts as gospel.

You should think twice about the biases of your sources, and how they may affect the data those sources choose to present. Even that which at first blush may appear to be raw numbers may in fact have been thoroughly massaged to make it more suitable for the intended message, and this is by no measure the raw numbers you wished to present.

From what i understand of this model, "drug use disorders" where the deaths related to drugs both in terms of OD's and medical complications.
Much the same as how they have lumped the alcohol use, in terms of the "knife to the heart" there was a sub section (I dont know if in added it) for murder.
I just chopped the chart to reduce it down, as the format, was somewhat, hard to deal with, without tabbing indents.
Like i said there were 79 listings, and well i couldnt be assed putting them in, i put the top 10, then the area that i needed.

In regards to bias, i should of noted, that these stats DID NOT, come from any drug related website, and i DID infact go to a few different MEDICAL websites, and made sure that all stats were close, and there was no major "WTF's" between them.
Im more then happy to revise the listings and add the number value to them, but i dont feel there is a need, given the fact that i did say the ranking of the stat in question.

[Sprung]

Oh i'm under no illusions that I can die at any moment. But because I don't do drugs, the chances of me dying faster than a drug user are much much lower.

That is the stupidest shit I have ever heard in my life.

[Mistral]

From what i understand of this model, "drug use disorders" where the deaths related to drugs both in terms of OD's and medical complications.
Much the same as how they have lumped the alcohol use, in terms of the "knife to the heart" there was a sub section (I dont know if in added it) for murder.
I just chopped the chart to reduce it down, as the format, was somewhat, hard to deal with, without tabbing indents.
Like i said there were 79 listings, and well i couldnt be assed putting them in, i put the top 10, then the area that i needed.

In regards to bias, i should of noted, that these stats DID NOT, come from any drug related website, and i DID infact go to a few different MEDICAL websites, and made sure that all stats were close, and there was no major "WTF's" between them.
Im more then happy to revise the listings and add the number value to them, but i dont feel there is a need, given the fact that i did say the ranking of the stat in question.

Are they just illegal drugs? Presumably, because as pointed out, COPD is being treated as distinct from smoking-related disorders, and alcohol-related disorders (another legal drug, moonshine excepted) is given its own category. If it's derived from autopsy reports, it'll also be vulnerable to whether they considered proximate versus ultimate cause of death, which could shift the burden of definition slightly to the individual who prepared those reports. That also fails to mention entirely the relative fraction of those vulnerable to different causes of death, given that the percentages are taken as a fraction of all deaths without regard to risk factors that tend to skew these results. As noted, by varying the population size, one can create a presumption of risk where there is none, or conversely, downplay an extant risk factor. I would be curious to see what percentage of those who use illegal drugs recreationally die of complications from drug abuse, not just a percent taken with respect to a total population size that includes teetotalers who would never be at risk in either case.

EDIT:

That is the stupidest shit I have ever heard in my life.

Really? I rather agree. Many drugs, illegal or legal, are well known to have side effects including various medical complications, which lower the life expectancy of the user in question. COPD has already been mentioned in conjunction with smoking. Heroin and other opiates are linked to problems in the circulatory system, vein collapse, abscesses, weakened auto-immune response, and so forth. Meth, even when properly cooked (and that's a gamble in itself), can lead to what is referred to as amphetamine psychosis, convulsions, stroke, arrhythmia, or heart failure, as a fraction of its laundry list. Marijuana's effects are primarily psychoactive rather than physiological, making it more difficult to track and giving plenty of fodder to those who claim an absence of ill effects, and its popularity as a recreational drug in conjunction with legal drugs presents a significant confounding variable, but there are certain correlations with depression, disassociative states, paranoia, anxiety, and disruption of memory. Significant usage of marijuana also has been reported to result in cardiovascular effects, including a moderate increase in risk for heart attack or stroke, and vascular failure in extreme cases as reported in Europe (where legalization is generally further apace). I suspect that the person in question is committing a binary fallacy regarding the outcomes, but his statement in itself is not entirely inaccurate.

[darkjusticex]

You should think twice about the biases of your sources, and how they may affect the data those sources choose to present. Even that which at first blush may appear to be raw numbers may in fact have been thoroughly massaged to make it more suitable for the intended message, and this is by no measure the raw numbers you wished to present.

@Jase: I was going to say pretty much the same thing. Only Mistral blew us all away with her in-depth dissection of your info. Her version is very well thought out. I however, will give it to you in the simple terms I was going to reply with until I saw she did it for me....

You got the info off of a pack (or carton) of ciggies, man. NEVER trust info from a cigarette company. They want to keep you hooked on the stuff so they will say anything or even withhold information to keep you coming back for more. Even certain drug companies like BAYER do the same thing - withhold info to keep you buying their product. They don't care about you. Why should they give you numbers that will really scare you?




You can't trust drug companies. Period. Oh and that HIV joke you made? The one where you're suggesting I don't get pussy? I'm not gonna really get into that with you man. But I will say this - Just because someone isn't doing drugs, keeps to kimself and tries to keep his life straight, doesn't mean he's some weak virgin type. I get what I want, when I want. I just don't do it all wild like in my younger days. After all.... HIV IS out there. Someone very close to me died of AIDS. If you've ever seen what it does to a person, you wouldn't be so quick to be wild anymore about random sex either.

I want the right girl. Not a random one. Not anymore. I'm well aware that she probably doesn't exist, or will be extremely hard to find. And i'm ok with that.

That is the stupidest shit I have ever heard in my life.

If you're not smart enough to process that information, I don't know what to tell you dude.

[Sprung]

If you're not smart enough to process that information, I don't know what to tell you dude.

*miss*

I hope the clean life protects you, always. Amen.

[Kermit Da Frog]

*miss*

I hope the clean life protects you, always. Amen.

Oh lawdy.

We're not going to start a religion thread, are we?

[darkjusticex]

You're missing the point. The clean life doesn't protect me. But it increases the odds I will have a longer life as opposed to drug users. I am not including factors such as car accidents and other stuff. I'm just talking about that one situation. Drugs.

[darkjusticex]

Jesus Christ, y'all writing novels in here?

I didn't get to say it last night, but that was very funny! I laughed about it today when I was offline too! lol

[Kermit Da Frog]

I didn't get to say it last night, but that was very funny! I laughed about it today when I was offline too! lol

[Jase]

Are they just illegal drugs? Presumably, because as pointed out, COPD is being treated as distinct from smoking-related disorders, and alcohol-related disorders (another legal drug, moonshine excepted) is given its own category. If it's derived from autopsy reports, it'll also be vulnerable to whether they considered proximate versus ultimate cause of death, which could shift the burden of definition slightly to the individual who prepared those reports. That also fails to mention entirely the relative fraction of those vulnerable to different causes of death, given that the percentages are taken as a fraction of all deaths without regard to risk factors that tend to skew these results. As noted, by varying the population size, one can create a presumption of risk where there is none, or conversely, downplay an extant risk factor. I would be curious to see what percentage of those who use illegal drugs recreationally die of complications from drug abuse, not just a percent taken with respect to a total population size that includes teetotalers who would never be at risk in either case.

I dont have that surveys full guidelines on me, i have emailed the WHO and asked for it thou.
I dont know when i will expect and answer, but the following will be assumptions on my part.

In regards to COPD, there might be a cut off area in regard to when someone stops smoking they are no longer deed a "smoker"
I based this on fact i have gotten from quit smoking sites then looked at what the WHO and local HO's say.
While these figures match up and the terminology of all these sites remain the same wording "Deaths caused by smoking" none seem to match the kind of figures related to the WHO and their COPD figures.
Thus leading me to belive there MIGHT be some sort of cut off.

It also might not take into consideration 2nd hand smoking.

In regards to the "illegal" drug use, i would again ASSUME, that it would be drug abuse, which would be prescribed drugs, that have been abused.

Id also like to point out that there hase been an increase of COPD in major citys due to Air pollution, the sample set i had posted was from the WHO, so given the fact that it would of included countrys like chile and China.
So again it might be safe to assume this is a contributing factor to the numbers.

[Synthetik]

I was going to post some kind of snappy retort, but changed my mind at the last minute due to the inevitable retaliation. The... the words. So very many words. The long words and the short, difficult words. Some even fancily dressed in italics or, god forbid, bold. Dancing across the screen, laughing at me, fearless with their strength in numbers... and letters. It's as though a long fought battle of attrition was about to be won when suddenly, a rampaging horde of words comes galloping over the horizon, flooding any possible recourse you may have had with intangible amounts of information, saturating your brain with their very existence. The cavalry has arrived, and I fear that I am far too weak to face them head on in a glorious last stand. So instead, I curl into the fetal position and reevaluate my life. You win sir. You win. Drugs are bad, and only after being bombarded by billions of bombastic yet baseless and bewildering term paper worthy responses from both sides have I realized the complete and utter pointlessness of this thread. I think I realized it at the beginning too, but only now, after seeing what a horrible thing that it's grown into, have I realized the true severity of the situation. Who am I to rationalize my decisions and reasoning? Why should anyone have the freedom to choose their own path in life? Why does toast always fall butter side down? The answer, of course, is no.

In short: tl;dr

[darkjusticex]

[Shareware]

Holy fucknuts, these walls of text are so big they keep out Mongolians.

[maca]

Don't think anyone here would disagree that drug addiction won't damage your health, or stop you from living a productive life. A heroin addiction certainly will, for example.

It's important to be specific about which drug, and not just lump all recreational drugs into one class. For example, millions of people have used ecstasy over a few decades without any hard evidence of long term negative effects in individuals. Crack was around a few decades also but caused an epidemic. Am I saying MDMA is totally safe and everyone should do it? No.

Some people simply aren't interested in mind altering substances. It's pointless arguing over. It's like a base jumper arguing with someone who isn't an adrenaline junky about what they're missing out. You're either into something or you're not.

[MarianoRyu]

Straight-Edge. Hard-core. Enough said.