Social acceptance of non-drinkers

LaVidaLoca

"It suggests to me that he/she entertains the belief that a person who gets drunk cannot possibly know how to find their pleasure in other ways. That’s nonsense. The best feel-good vibes I get in my life I get from regular exercise and meditation and those practices are much more habitual for me than consuming alcohol.
"

That's not what I said, you merely inferred that. What I AM saying (and you know perfectly well that its true) is that as a society, Ireland has a far higher percentage of people who DO live their lives in the limited way I described, than in most other countries.

We have a major problem with alcohol. Now, as you rightly say, not all of us do. Many people have a couple of drinks and go about their day. I never denied this was possible.

But a very high percentage of the Irish population are functional alcoholics, and we as a society are far more orientated towards the consumption of alcohol as a way of life, than almost anyone else. You know that that is true. Lets at least admit that and start to do something about it.

Thats not a judgement on all people who drink. Hell I could never be that smug about it, as I used to be one until fairly recently. And most of my friends still are. And for some it never really has a negative effect on them. Others spend most weekends in bed hungover. Have stupid arguements with their significant others, miss work, and worst of all: Spend most of their lives talking about all the cool stuff they're gonna do one day, but never quite get round to it, cause they're too busy sitting in the pub talking about it ("The Irish Disease") - It is only because alcohol is the legal and socially acceptable drug in our society that this is tolerated.

Imagine this conversation:

HIM: Oh man, I was three hours late for work this morning, and I had a huge fight with my Girlffriend last night and I think we've broken up now but Im not sure,, and I had a bruise on my eye when I feel down on the toilet floor last night cause I was drinking"

Probable reaction: "Ha ha , you're a ****ing legend man!"

Now substitute "I was drinking" for "I was doing coke" . See how much more sinister and depressing the conversation feels now? Well thats how a lot of non-drinkers feel about drink.

Earthhorse

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

It is a threat to those people when they hear that you dont drink, cause they know you're getting more out of life and they wish they could do the same.

seahorse wrote: »

I've never felt "threatened" by anyone else's choice not to drink! Actually, to be honest, the inference that that would be threatening is just absurd.

Threatened might be too strong a word to use. The way I always describe it is that if you don't drink with Irish people it is like you won't break bread with them; a mild, if impersonal, insult. I've noticed this feeling dissipating as I get older. I'm not sure if this has to do with my maturing or my group's maturing but it certainly was present and I think that's in large part thanks to how tied in to socialising alcohol is in Ireland (I don't really care how this compares with our international friends, I just know it is here).

seahorse wrote: »

Well I find that attitude very peculiar and difficult to understand. I often don’t drink when I go out and I never feel myself socially disenfranchised because of it. I think if a person finds maintaining different habits that deeply distressing they should probably seek some professional help in confidence building.

That's a bit much I think. Fact is a lot of socialising in Ireland takes place in the pub. After work and at the weekends it is where most people retreat to. They get to know each other there and feel comfortable with each other in other social situations as a result. My point? Well, a lot of planning of the "other" social situations takes place in the pub. Cinema trips, holidays, what have you. So it can be hard to get on board your group's diverse activities when you aren't there for a lot of the planning of it and are sometimes only an afterthough.

I'm painting a rather bleak picture here. It's not as if I never get invited to the cinema, gigs, or on trips when I don't go out. But it is an assumption that gets made if you don't show up in the pub often enough; he's not drinking = he's not socialising to many people.

The most notable impact, I think, on a non-drinker is the romantic side of things. Seriously, I know it's not a deal breaker or anything but it's just another obstacle on an already tough course.

seahorse, though I know it might not be true for you surely you can see how not drinking full time would have an impact on someone's social life in a culture such as Ireland's? I don't think it's a controversial claim to make at all.

jph100

Earthhorse wrote: »

The most notable impact, I think, on a non-drinker is the romantic side of things. Seriously, I know it's not a deal breaker or anything but it's just another obstacle on an already tough course.

seahorse, though I know it might not be true for you surely you can see how not drinking full time would have an impact on someone's social life in a culture such as Ireland's? I don't think it's a controversial claim to make at all.

ur dead right with the above.

hupyago

I don't drink ,now anyway
alchohol is good for you in small doses the problem is people ruining themselves and their life and family etc. by their overdosage of alchohol
I think this whole drink culture will come to a head with all the education and awareness of how it is a problem.The need is for alternatives of ways to socialise etc
my granda went through a period of heavy drinking when he was younger and became a pioneer for the rest of his life
he told me once that was a whole load of puffin and bummin and blowin making big talk and that he had seen enough people be ruined with it
that him and another fella decided to give it up and get married (seperately of course)
I suppose it can be hard not to drink if its deeply ingrained in your family
very little drinking happens in my family
and a lot of the younger generation in my family don't drink and are determined not to
It seems the pattern of alcholism was broken in earlier generations

NonDrinkersClub

'Originally Posted by seahorse
Well I find that attitude very peculiar and difficult to understand. I often don’t drink when I go out and I never feel myself socially disenfranchised because of it. I think if a person finds maintaining different habits that deeply distressing they should probably seek some professional help in confidence building.'

I'm a non-drinker but not by choice. I don't consider myself above anyone else because I don't drink. I found it used to limit me socially as I don't like being around people who are really drunk...they bore me & it's a waste of my night minding them and worrying about them. It's perfectly understandable and it's the same for a lot of non-drinkers who tend to stay away from the drinking scene.

I certainly don't think I need professional help for feeling this way. If anything, I think the people that drink too much are the ones that need help! I have no problem hangin' out with someone who's havin' a few pints but I never waste my time with people who are set on getting hammered on a night out.

It's all about finding alternatives. I stopped going to the pub years ago and a lot of my social life is based around other things now, like the cinema & playing music with people. I always wished there were more late night activities for people who would like an alternative to drinking and I am doing everything in my power to make it so.

I started this Non Drinkers Group to get people talking to each other, away from the social stigma you can get when trying to bring up this subject in person. Most of the time, no one wants to know! Drinkers usually aren't interested which is fair enough as it doesn't affect them. It's great to finally have a place where there are a lot of non drinkers to talk to.

My main point is that I think both drinkers & non drinkers are entitled to have opinions about each other but really, it varies so much from person to person that you can't generalise.

seahorse

hupyago wrote: »

...he had seen enough people be ruined with it
that him and another fella decided to give it up and get married (seperately of course)

NonDrinkersClub wrote: »

I certainly don't think I need professional help for feeling this way. If anything, I think the people that drink too much are the ones that need help!

Oh I'd agree with you there NonDrinkersClub, needless to say they do! I think you must have misunderstood my quote though, because the first line of your quote above does not refer to what I actually said. Since you do not find the lifestyle of alcohol abstinence socially excluding to the point of being deeply distressing then my suggestion of confidence building assistance doesn't apply to you.

Earthhorse wrote: »

seahorse, though I know it might not be true for you surely you can see how not drinking full time would have an impact on someone's social life in a culture such as Ireland's? I don't think it's a controversial claim to make at all.

Hi Earthhorse. I think a total stranger telling me (as Morf has done) that they have the right to make any sort of derogatory assumption they please about me (“Why shouldn't we? You are abusing alcohol!”) is a far more controversial claim, and a far more presumptuous one.

As far as a severe limitation of social life is concerned though, no I don’t understand that, because my plans are almost never made in the pub. I don’t know how old you are as compared to me or how different our social circles are or what other circumstances might impact to make the structuring of our social lives different, and most likely there are things I’m overlooking, but on the issue of it being crucial to be physically present when plans are made, I just don’t get that? Why is that necessary? I’ve had that experience many times and in that case people will just pick up the phone. If they don’t bother, well then, presumably they’re not worth bothering with.

I go out and stay sober more often than I get drunk and I’ve never felt socially limited, excluded, weird, strange, certainly not disenfranchised, or any other negative feeling associated with being sober. I’ve never had anybody suggest to me there was anything wrong with my staying sober. It is only here on this thread, for the very first time I am experiencing a strong opinion either way on the matter and it’s not to disenfranchise me for staying sober, it’s to admonish me for getting drunk.

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

Imagine this conversation:

HIM: Oh man, I was three hours late for work this morning, and I had a huge fight with my Girlffriend last night and I think we've broken up now but Im not sure,, and I had a bruise on my eye when I feel down on the toilet floor last night cause I was drinking"

Probable reaction: "Ha ha , you're a ****ing legend man!"

The probable reaction from me would be: "You're a ****ing gobs****!" I cant think of anyone I've met who'd respond in the way you've described since the teenaged kids on my college course.

You made some other interesting points LaVidaLoca, but I'm rushing out of here now so I'll check the thread when I have the time. I just want to remark that, yes, we all know drinking goes on in this country to unhealthy proportions, but we are not the worlds worst as a lot of people seem to want to make out. As LuckyLucky points out a good half a dozen of our neighbouring countries share very similar proportions, some are worse than us, and for anyone who isn't aware of it, we are ALL well behind Russia, which isn't included in the European league obviously. None of this alleviates Ireland of its responsibilities, but I think it's time we stopped blackening our reputation worse than it deserves in this regard.

Also, you pointed out that "a lot of non-drinkers" equate alcohol to cocaine. All I'd say to that is, well, anyone who thinks that's an accurate equation needs to take another look because they really are comparing pebbles to boulders.

LaVidaLoca

Comparing alchohol to cocaine is comparing pebbles to hookers or whatever.

Alcohol causes far more damage than cocaine in our society.

Both are higly addictive Class A narcotics. One is legal, the other isnt. That really is the major difference. If you think otherwise, you're fooling yourself.

With both alcohol and cocaine users, the amount of users who get seriously addicted to it is about the same (somewhere around 17 per cent) .

The difference is that with cocaine we are majorly hysterical about it's effects (witness the whole Katy Ffrench malarky) , with the other, we are not hysterical enough. Somebody dies ever day directly or indirectly from alcohol's effects, but we dont give it the same treatment as coke.

Remember when poor Oliver Reed died a few years back after a lifetime of chronic alcoholism? People at his funeral were pouring pints of Guiness into his grave and went to the pub for a good piss-up in his honour afterwards. Can you imagine if people had poured wraps of coke into the soil at poor Katy Frenchs funeral?

Its exactly the same thing. Only the prevailing mentality makes it look any different.

luckylucky

seahorse wrote: »

Also, you pointed out that "a lot of non-drinkers" equate alcohol to cocaine. All I'd say to that is, well, anyone who thinks that's an accurate equation needs to take another look because they really are comparing pebbles to boulders.

Not at all sure about that one. Have you ever had cocaine?

I've only ever had it once, so I'm no expert, nor do I want to be. But I found the effect of cocaine to be a lot milder than the effect of alcohol, afaik cocaine if anything sharpens the senses, whereas alcohol befuddles them. Don't get me wrong I'm not advocating cocaine as a positive thing, we don't need another addictive substance becoming mainstream( or even more mainstream as cocaine is pretty prevalent in Dublin from what I've heard).

Alcohol is reponsible for hundreds of millions of euros worth of health related problems in Ireland alone. So maybe it's cocaine that's the pebbles and alcohol the boulders.

LaVidaLoca

"hookers", dunno where that came from!

Maybe my subconscious is trying to tell me something!

Earthhorse

seahorse wrote: »

Hi Earthhorse. I think a total stranger telling me (as Morf has done) that they have the right to make any sort of derogatory assumption they please about me (“Why shouldn't we? You are abusing alcohol!”) is a far more controversial claim, and a far more presumptuous one.

Well yeah, you're right but I think this thread has gotten just a smidgen out of hand in some of the language being used. Besides I'm not really here to defend what he said, rather to make my own explanation regarding the subject at hand.

seahorse wrote: »

As far as a severe limitation of social life is concerned though, no I don’t understand that, because my plans are almost never made in the pub. I don’t know how old you are as compared to me or how different our social circles are or what other circumstances might impact to make the structuring of our social lives different, and most likely there are things I’m overlooking, but on the issue of it being crucial to be physically present when plans are made, I just don’t get that? Why is that necessary? I’ve had that experience many times and in that case people will just pick up the phone. If they don’t bother, well then, presumably they’re not worth bothering with.

The only thing I would take issue with here is your use of the word severe. I don't think it's severe but I do think it's noticable. It's not necessary to be physically present when plans are being made always but if you're not around sometimes you won't get asked, simple as that. It's not a big deal but has more of an impact on you if doing non drinking activities is your main source of socialising.

Again, I just think if you're not drinking full time you sometimes have to make more of an effort to remind them you're around and up for stuff. I'm 29 and male, by the way, (and feel like I'm posting on a dating website when I type that!) but don't know how much difference that makes.

seahorse wrote: »

I go out and stay sober more often than I get drunk and I’ve never felt socially limited, excluded, weird, strange, certainly not disenfranchised, or any other negative feeling associated with being sober. I’ve never had anybody suggest to me there was anything wrong with my staying sober.

I'm sorry you're getting admonished on this thread. I guess that's just how some people see it and it certainly isn't the purpose of this forum; drinkers are welcome at all the events provided they don't drink at them or so I believe!

One of the reasons I didn't post in this thread for so long was actually because of the title. I don't think non drinkers are not socially accepted. That makes us sound like the disenfranchised natives whose rights have been trampelled upon. I would, however, suggest that there is a difference between drinking occasionally, even if it is the minority of times, and giving up drink full time. You might get a different reaction if you told people you don't drink as oppossed to telling them you're not drinking tonight.

seahorse wrote: »

The probable reaction from me would be: "You're a ****ing gobs****!" I cant think of anyone I've met who'd respond in the way you've described since the teenaged kids on my college course.

I'm probably gonna sound like a broken record here but I think the truth lies somewhere in between. I don't see that exact dialogue taking place as LVL posted it but there is a lot of kudos given in this country for being able to hold one's drink and going mad on nights out. There'll be a certain amount of "Aw, man, we were so drunk that night!" and that sort of thing going on. To be honest, that aspect of things doesn't bother me that much because it's just people reminiscing about good times and a bit of camaradarie but it does get a bet sad at times.

NonDrinkersClub

'Seahorse:
Also, you pointed out that "a lot of non-drinkers" equate alcohol to cocaine. All I'd say to that is, well, anyone who thinks that's an accurate equation needs to take another look because they really are comparing pebbles to boulders.'

Alcohol and cocaine are both drugs and they aren't good for you, especially when taken in large amounts. All drugs can have bad effects on the body and after reading the many comments on this forum, it is pretty clear that a lot of non-drinkers are primarily concerned with their health.

Alcohol & tobacco are legal substances but that doesn't mean that they are any better for you than cocaine. The difference is that they're accepted in our society and they're heavily taxed thus bringing in lots of cash for the Government to combat increasing alcoholism, cancer and other associated illnesses. It's a bit of a cycle really, but I'm guessing there's profit to be made somewhere along the way. It's in the Governments interests to keep them legal. Just think of the uproar their would be if they were to ban alcohol...sure most of them are probably drinkers & smokers themselves!

I don't really have an opinion on which is better or worse, but here's some facts on both so people can make up their own minds:

Alcohol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol
Alcohols often have an odor described as 'biting' that 'hangs' in the nasal passages. Ethanol in the form of alcoholic beverages has been consumed by humans since pre-historic times, for a variety of hygienic, dietary, medicinal, religious, and recreational reasons. The consumption of large doses result in drunkenness or intoxication (which may lead to a hangover as the effect wears off) and, depending on the dose and regularity of use, can cause acute respiratory failure or death and with chronic use has medical repercussions. Because alcohol impairs judgment, it can often be a catalyst for reckless or irresponsible behavior.

Cocaine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine
Cocaine is a potent central nervous system stimulant. Its effects can last from 20 minutes to several hours, depending upon the dosage of cocaine taken, purity, and method of administration.

The initial signs of stimulation are hyperactivity, restlessness, increased blood pressure, increased heart rate and euphoria. The euphoria is sometimes followed by feelings of discomfort and depression and a craving to experience the drug again. Sexual interest and pleasure can be amplified. Side effects can include twitching, paranoia, and impotence, which usually increases with frequent usage.

With excessive dosage the drug can produce itching, tachycardia, hallucinations, and paranoid delusions. Overdoses cause tachyarrhythmias and a marked elevation of blood pressure. These can be life-threatening, especially if the user has existing cardiac problems.

seahorse

Earthhorse wrote: »

I'm 29 and male, by the way, (and feel like I'm posting on a dating website when I type that!)

Ah sure you're only a baby; I'm nearly thirty-two.

Earthhorse wrote: »

I would, however, suggest that there is a difference between drinking occasionally, even if it is the minority of times, and giving up drink full time. You might get a different reaction if you told people you don't drink as oppossed to telling them you're not drinking tonight.

Probably I would. I wouldn't know as I've never said that. (and I fully intend to stay in the dark on the issue, lol)

Earthhorse wrote: »

I'm probably gonna sound like a broken record here but I think the truth lies somewhere in between. I don't see that exact dialogue taking place as LVL posted it but there is a lot of kudos given in this country for being able to hold one's drink and going mad on nights out. There'll be a certain amount of "Aw, man, we were so drunk that night!" and that sort of thing going on. To be honest, that aspect of things doesn't bother me that much because it's just people reminiscing about good times and a bit of camaradarie but it does get a bet sad at times.

Probably it is somewhere in the middle Earthhorse. I would probably be more liable to THINK "What a gobs****" in that circumstance, but whether or not I'd say it would depend on a lot of other factors.

As for the cocaine issue; alcohol is neither a narcotic nor a class A drug. In fact alcohol does not feature anywhere on the ABC drug classification system as that system was implemented to measure the potency in terms of the likely harmful effects of ILLEGAL drugs, which alcohol is not. Personally I think it should have a place on the system, at least to give people a clearer idea of its harmful effects. If it did though, it would not be positioned in class A nor class B as those positions are reserved for narcotics in class A and barbiturates and amphetamines in class B. In fact valium, tamazepam and ketamine all feature as class C drugs and they are all addictive on a FAR faster scale than alcohol. Do you people know that it takes donkeys years of hard drinking to develop the physical side affects of alcohol withdrawal, but the physical withdrawals of valium are apparent after a few weeks?

This comparing alcohol to illegal drugs, I’m sorry but it’s clear I am talking to people with no personal experience of illicit drugs who are most likely from areas that have never experienced large-scale drug problems. Alcohol will kill a person of progressive heart and liver failure over the span of thirty years. Heroin and cocaine will kill a person in the span of thirty seconds. The only reason narcotics haven't ripped the guts out of this country is because they are illegal and therefore not nearly as prevalent as alcohol. There is a reason they are illegal in not only in this country but just about every country I can think of; and that is because the powers that regulate such matters know damn well that if they were not illegal their countries would grind to very abrupt and ugly halts. Anyone who thinks otherwise might want to educate themselves by taking a trip down to the Merchants Quay Project or Trinity Court at Pearse Street or any of the drug outreach projects in this city; there's a very simple barometer of measurement - take a look around the waiting room and compare what you see to what you see in the pub on a Saturday night.

luckylucky

seahorse wrote: »

This comparing alcohol to illegal drugs, I’m sorry but it’s clear I am talking to people with no personal experience of illicit drugs who are most likely from areas that have never experienced large-scale drug problems. Alcohol will kill a person of progressive heart and liver failure over the span of thirty years. Heroin and cocaine will kill a person in the span of thirty seconds. The only reason narcotics haven't ripped the guts out of this country is because they are illegal and therefore not nearly as prevalent as alcohol. There is a reason they are illegal in not only in this country but just about every country I can think of; and that is because the powers that regulate such matters know damn well that if they were not illegal their countries would grind to very abrupt and ugly halts. Anyone who thinks otherwise might want to educate themselves by taking a trip down to the Merchants Quay Project or Trinity Court at Pearse Street or any of the drug outreach projects in this city; there's a very simple barometer of measurement - take a look around the waiting room and compare what you see to what you see in the pub on a Saturday night.

From this I gather you are talking about heroin rather than cocaine. Heroin is afaik a very very destructive drug, and yes countries would grind to a very abrupt halt if heroin use was major. Cocaine on the other hand is as prevalent in high soceity as it is in city slums. A former company boss of mine was a big cocaine taker and highly successful. Not saying that it was because of the cocaine that he was, but it didn't seem to hugely hinder him either. It's rife in the very successful entertainment industry according to an ex-pat I know over here who was a film director. Cocaine is rife in London, I don't see London grinding to a halt.

Again don't get me wrong. I'm not saying cocaine isn't a destructive drug, but from my observations at least I just have major doubts that it is actually any worse than alcohol.

LaVidaLoca

Of course alcohol isnt officially clasified as a class A drug. It's legal.

This however is for a cultural reason rather than a medical one: It happens to be THE legally abused drug in our society, largely because for centuries it was the only one available in Northern Europe - most other drugs are native to further flung parts of the world. Whereas anybody can make booze in their back garden.

However, if we were to judge alcohol by the same criteria as we judge other drugs it would be considered a class A:

(1) Physically addicitve? You bet your ass. It is so physically adddictive that alchoholics can actually DIE from the effects of withdrawal. You cant even say that about heroin.

(2) Pyschologically addictive. Same. Roughly the same percentage of people who use alcohol regularly become addicts as people who use cocaine regularly.

Now dont think for a second that this means I think that Heroin and cocaine are 'not that harmful'. I think they are very harmful, and so is alchohol.

It is only because we are used to the negative effects of booze, cause they are so familiar to us, that we give it such an easy ride.

Now in the interest of fairness, I would agree that Heroin is definitely more addictive than booze, and maybe cocaine more than it too, but they would still all fall within the classification of Class A.

Also Heroin does far less damage to the body than alcohol, assuming clean needles etc. Its actually non-toxic - i.e. you could be a heroin addict for years, and assuming you didnt manage to pick up HIV or hep C, upon getting clean your organs would all be in tip-top shape. Alcohol irreversably damages every organ it comes in contact with. It is in it's pure form, a poison, most closely related chemically and in it's type of intoxicating effects to sniffing glue.

It is only becuase it happens to be the one we all use (due to an accident of history and geography) that we forgive all this.

Can you imagine domestic violence without alcohol? Can you imagine casual violence without alcohol? What percentage of rapes and/or date rapes are done with alcohol as the major factor? What percentage of car accidents is it a factor in?

Come on. Stop the bull****.

seahorse

This thread has gone well off-topic and I apologise to anyone reading it for my part in that. I have to say though, I am getting a clearer understanding of why some people do not drink at all. I give narcotics an absolute wide berth and have done for a very long time and I know if I were entertaining some of the ideas expressed here regarding alcohol I'd give that an equally wide berth also. That, however, does not mean to say that these assumptions are correct; I'm glad to say they are not, otherwise this country would be in very sorry shape.

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

(1) Physically addicitve? You bet your ass. It is so physically adddictive that alchoholics can actually DIE from the effects of withdrawal. You cant even say that about heroin.

LaVidaLoca, that comment is just a display of your ignorance regarding heroin addiction. Heroin addicts are detoxed with methadone on a downward sliding scale of just 5 millilitres at any one time over the course of many months precisely because immediate and total detox from that particular family of narcotics is well known to induce death via heart-failure.

As for the physically addictive potency of alcohol; it is so incredibly slow to develop it takes DECADES of daily abuse before it materialises in the human body. Heroin, on the other hand, is physically addictive within the span of two to three weeks of regular use. Cocaine is psychologically addictive within the same time span. Many of the people who’ve presented at Dublin’s drug centres in the last five to eight years are addicted to and intravenously administering themselves both.

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

Alcohol causes far more damage than cocaine in our society.

The reason alcohol causes more damage than cocaine in our society is because it is more prevalent, but as the use of cocaine has become more widespread we have seen the acceleration of its ill affects. You can read about them any day of the week in the media. 84 people were murdered last year, many of them gunned down; in fact last year was the bloodiest year on record since the civil war. Every year with the current acceleration of cocaine use the murder rate has risen accordingly. What exactly do you think these murderous young criminals are high on? Do you think they’re sipping chardonnay?

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

Heroin does far less damage to the body than alcohol, assuming clean needles etc. Its actually non-toxic - i.e. you could be a heroin addict for years, and assuming you didnt manage to pick up HIV or hep C, upon getting clean your organs would all be in tip-top shape.

Nonsense: Users of Heroin develop infection of the heart lining and valves, abscesses, infected cellulites, collapsed veins and liver disease, also pulmonary complications including various types of pneumonia, which in turn aggravate and accelerate heroin's depressing effects on respiration, which can be lethal. This is before we even get around to talking about the damage done to people by the hundred and one different types of poisons narcotics are ALWAYS cut with. Also, as far as “assuming clean needles” is concerned, lol, you can NEVER assume clean needles; staggering proportions of intravenous narcotic abusers present with Hep C, between 77 & 90+ %, for the simple reason that the urge for the drug is so powerful no addict out there could care less whether or not their needles are clean when they are in a state of withdrawal.

In any case, in terms of keeping a person physically healthy and safe, whether or not the needles are clean is often neither here nor there; a girl I recently worked with just got out of Beaumount hospital after five days of intravenous antibiotics in an effort to save her gangrenous leg, which came about as the result of injecting herself with a clean needle. Heroin leaves you with a body in tip-top shape? Please Jesus; wouldn’t that be nice. :rolleyes:

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

Both are higly addictive Class A narcotics. One is legal, the other isnt. That really is the major difference. If you think otherwise, you're fooling yourself.

I'm afraid you are fooling yourself; I just hope you don't manage to fool anyone else along with you. Ethyl alcohol is not a narcotic, nor anything like it; it is a mood-altering depressant. Do some research.

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

However, if we were to judge alcohol by the same criteria as we judge other drugs it would be considered a class A

Maybe by you it would, but not by the medical profession, because the criteria for a class A drug is that it must be a narcotic.


This is the last post I’m going to compose on the subject of the chemical composition of drugs, because to be honest LaVidaLoca, it is a waste of time discussing anything with a person who doesn’t understand the subject matter but insists that they do.

What you are posting are simply your own opinions, and extremely ill-informed ones at that. I wouldn’t bother discussing this at this length but for the fact that your bias which puts alcohol on a par with narcotics may be read by some impressionable youngster who might then equate having a line of coke or buying a bag of heroin with drinking a pint of Carlsberg in their local bar. That would be a very sorry equation for any young person to make.

I’d suggest before you talk about these things any further you might consider educating yourself. Maybe go over to the volunteer board and post about volunteering with recovering addicts or do some research on addiction studies.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Not going to go through indivual arguments here as it would take too long.

I think seahorse is "more" right on the cocaine/alcohol thing.

this link seems to be the most logical scale I've ever seen on drugs & its from scientists with evidence rather than politicians with opinions.

Alcohol is quite high but scores a fair bit lower than Cocaine for "harmfulness"

LVLoca has made some very good points though. Especially that one about drink taking over from natural confidence after age 14-15. Though I suspect this doesn't happen on a landscale percentage.

As an almost non-drinker(newly I admit) I hope I remain non-biased on the issue. There's nothing more pathetic than stretching the effects of alcohol because you want your argument to be true.

I hope social acceptance improves for non-drinkers as there is a hostile attitude with most people, and I've avoided going out with certain people recently to avoid that sh*t. They're not bad people so I don't want to be rid of them, they're just insecure. It's honestly not that I can't enjoy myself but if people won't be themselves what's the point of being there. Seahorse is correct to an extent, holier than thou attitudes will give a bad reputation, however some people will resent non-drinkers no matter how they act.

luckylucky

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Not going to go through indivual arguments here as it would take too long.

I think seahorse is "more" right on the cocaine/alcohol thing.

this link seems to be the most logical scale I've ever seen on drugs & its from scientists with evidence rather than politicians with opinions.

Alcohol is quite high but scores a fair bit lower than Cocaine for "harmfulness"

LVLoca has made some very good points though. Especially that one about drink taking over from natural confidence after age 14-15. Though I suspect this doesn't happen on a landscale percentage.

As an almost non-drinker(newly I admit) I hope I remain non-biased on the issue. There's nothing more pathetic than stretching the effects of alcohol because you want your argument to be true.

I hope social acceptance improves for non-drinkers as there is a hostile attitude with most people, and I've avoided going out with certain people recently to avoid that sh*t. They're not bad people so I don't want to be rid of them, they're just insecure. It's honestly not that I can't enjoy myself but if people won't be themselves what's the point of being there. Seahorse is correct to an extent, holier than thou attitudes will give a bad reputation, however some people will resent non-drinkers no matter how they act.

The cocaine/alcohol thing seems to have gone off on a tangent tbh. the examples that seahorse was giving vis-a-vis narcotics seemed to be primarily to do with heroin, which I don't think any of us are in doubt is a horribly nasty drug to be addicted to, both alcohol and cocaine are child's play in comparison as far as I can gather.

Ok even if cocaine is 10 times worse than alcohol, the big big factor is that drinkers(I'm a big one) do so several times a week, it's regular, it's prevalent and it's considered relatively normal, there is plenty of benefits from drinking but so so many negatives too, overall as a drug perhaps only smoking rivals drink in it's detrimental effects on society, other drugs are nowhere near as prevalent. It is right that it should be questioned.

Say however if alcohol was discovered for the first time tomorrow. I think it would be banned as quick as any drug.

Now i'm going to flip it around... does mankind in general need some drug or addiction in life... be it drink, drugs, sex etc? Does human nature need to have something to grasp on to? Do governments actually want people to be like this as maybe it keeps people more docile.

Anyway maybe getting even further off topic

NonDrinkersClub

On the subject of heroin and needles - I heard something horrible from the Garda couple I live with. They said that junkies are now sterilising their needles by injecting them into oranges! They said that Moore Street has a terrible problem with this and so do convenience shops (Spar, Centra, etc) who can't even display their fruit outside anymore. They also dip their needles into vinegar bottles on restaurant tables. Buyers beware! :eek:

LaVidaLoca

You seem to think I am promoting the use of narcotics. Dunno where your getting that idea from. I personally know several people who have had their lives ruined (and in some cases ended) by narcotics abuse, so I am very far from doing that. I am merely trying to point out that alcohol is very much in the same league, and that it is only social convention that makes us think otherwise.

"This thread has gone well off-topic and I apologise to anyone reading it for my part in that. I have to say though, I am getting a clearer understanding of why some people do not drink at all. I give narcotics an absolute wide berth and have done for a very long time and I know if I were entertaining some of the ideas expressed here regarding alcohol I'd give that an equally wide berth also. That, however, does not mean to say that these assumptions are correct; I'm glad to say they are not, otherwise this country would be in very sorry shape.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LaVidaLoca
(1) Physically addicitve? You bet your ass. It is so physically adddictive that alchoholics can actually DIE from the effects of withdrawal. You cant even say that about heroin.

"LaVidaLoca, that comment is just a display of your ignorance regarding heroin addiction. Heroin addicts are detoxed with methadone on a downward sliding scale of just 5 millilitres at any one time over the course of many months precisely because immediate and total detox from that particular family of narcotics is well known to induce death via heart-failure."

All facts of which I am well aware, having spent three months talking a childhood friend of mine through this process, and even saved his life with CPR once. He is now dead as a result of his addiction, having comitted suicide after several failures to get off it. Dont you dare tell me I know nothing about heroin addiction.

As for the physically addictive potency of alcohol; it is so incredibly slow to develop it takes DECADES of daily abuse before it materialises in the human body. Heroin, on the other hand, is physically addictive within the span of two to three weeks of regular use. Cocaine is psychologically addictive within the same time span. Many of the people who’ve presented at Dublin’s drug centres in the last five to eight years are addicted to and intravenously administering themselves both.

You're certainly right there. Heroin is much faster acting. And heroin is more addictive than alcohol as I stated in my last post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaVidaLoca
Alcohol causes far more damage than cocaine in our society.

"The reason alcohol causes more damage than cocaine in our society is because it is more prevalent, but as the use of cocaine has become more widespread we have seen the acceleration of its ill affects. You can read about them any day of the week in the media. 84 people were murdered last year, many of them gunned down; in fact last year was the bloodiest year on record since the civil war. Every year with the current acceleration of cocaine use the murder rate has risen accordingly. What exactly do you think these murderous young criminals are high on? Do you think they’re sipping chardonnay?"

Yip, your absolutely right, cocaine is a nasty drug and can make people violent. Alchohol is too. Do you simply ignore the fights you see on Saturday nights? The muggings, the rapes, and so on? Why do you ignore the fact that most of those people are out of their minds on cheap lager (or whatever) ?


Quote:
Originally Posted by LaVidaLoca
Heroin does far less damage to the body than alcohol, assuming clean needles etc. Its actually non-toxic - i.e. you could be a heroin addict for years, and assuming you didnt manage to pick up HIV or hep C, upon getting clean your organs would all be in tip-top shape.

Nonsense: Users of Heroin develop infection of the heart lining and valves, abscesses, infected cellulites, collapsed veins and liver disease, also pulmonary complications including various types of pneumonia, which in turn aggravate and accelerate heroin's depressing effects on respiration, which can be lethal. This is before we even get around to talking about the damage done to people by the hundred and one different types of poisons narcotics are ALWAYS cut with. Also, as far as “assuming clean needles” is concerned, lol, you can NEVER assume clean needles; staggering proportions of intravenous narcotic abusers present with Hep C, between 77 & 90+ %, for the simple reason that the urge for the drug is so powerful no addict out there could care less whether or not their needles are clean when they are in a state of withdrawal.

All of which is true: But you seem to be ignoring the technical point I was making. Heroin itself is less chemically toxic than alcohol as you well know: The infections are nothing to do with heroin itself: All to do with dirty needles and the fact that it's illegal.

I"n any case, in terms of keeping a person physically healthy and safe, whether or not the needles are clean is often neither here nor there; a girl I recently worked with just got out of Beaumount hospital after five days of intravenous antibiotics in an effort to save her gangrenous leg, which came about as the result of injecting herself with a clean needle. Heroin leaves you with a body in tip-top shape? Please Jesus; wouldn’t that be nice. "

You really dont appear to be reading my posts properly. If you think that Im saying "hey guys heroin is good for you.", you are sorely mistaken. I merely pointed out the medical fact that heroin (on its own) is actually less toxic than alcohol. (Ask any Pharmacologist). If you are so simple minded that you think this means Im advocating its use, thats up to you.

ALL I am trying to do is acknowledge the truth: Heroin and Cocaine are nasty addictive life-ruining drugs that **** people up and ruin their lives. Agreed?

Alchohol is almost as bad. That is all I am saying. Dont try and win an arguement by completely misreading and misrepresenting the things Ive said and then saying "Voila, I win. "

boringteetotal

Last time I went out sober which is quite a while back, people reacted in a pitying way which was pathetic. 'Ah go on have ONE at least, even a west coast cooler, ah are ya sure? Alright so pet'. POSERS!

From my experience people drink to numb emotional pain. This is purely personal observation not a generalisation. It works for them I suppose. People can also use food, drugs, prmoiscuous sex etc.

I don't feel any need to get drunk. I think losing your full awareness and judgement is dangerous. There's huge peer pressure to drink I'd say. To be in with the 'cool crowd'.

I 'd rather be a boring ol granny any day than pretend to be a shiny happy boozer.
No disrespect to mature moderate drinker.

de5p0i1er

Most of my friends accept me for who I am the odd time when I meet somebody new they ask me why I don't drink like I have the plague or something, they get used to me after a while and learn that its handy to have a sober guy around at the end of the night to take care of the person whos really hammered and get them home safe.