I think cocaine might appear to be more destructive due to its cost-- addicts turn into criminals in order to fund the habit, and ruin themselves in the process. A hopeless bottle+/day drunk will likely physically destroy himself quicker than a coke addict, but with a full-time job he can probably support his habit.

Most studies I have read go by drinks per week, and I tend to think that problems from 30/week would signify a person binge drinking 2-3 days a week, and not a person who just has 4 per night every night.

Just wondering, if from your knowledge, there is a distinction here? If 2 drinks per day is supposed to be "good" for us, then it seems 2 more a day is a short jump to make to end-stage cirrhosis, unless that 30/week is more like 15 every fri & sat night (which I assume would be worse).

No, cocaine appears more destructive to me because I have closely watched cocaine addicts. I'll accept that the drugs are "apples and oranges", but cocaine... the people I watched had money, there was no criminal activity to support the habit. Teeth falling out, outrageous paranoia.... If the evidence does suggest that regular alcohol use is worse than regular cocaine use, I wish I could agree with those findings. But to me, they are apples and oranges - alcohol being the orange, cocaine being the apple that gets us kicked out of the garden.

Both substances have their problems...but, I have personally known people who have OD'd and died from alcohol. Yea, this can happen with cocaine, but it is quite rare. Drunk driving and its associated problems are bad enough; your average college binge drinker probably will appear to be fine, but some are the true alcoholics I am talking of...kids in their mid-20s who develop type-2 diabetes and cirrhosis of the liver because they are drinking 1-2 bottles a day.

Cocaine is bad news of course, but so is alcohol if taken to excess. I do think though that, because of the cost and the nature of the drug, alcohol is more easily controlled by most people than cocaine. And cocaine definitely will cause mental issues over time...but from personal experience with addicts and from the studies I have read, alcohol still seems to be more effective at physically destroying the human body.

Another problem with the studies is that alcohol is legal while cocaine is a schedule-2 substance. It is much more difficult to perform studies with illegal drugs than it is with legal ones, and this might be why we don't have more information about the problems of cocaine use. I also suspect that some of these studies indicating severe problems in 4 drink/day drinkers are inaccurate; you can't have good control over recreational drug users, or expect that they will be honest about how much they drink. Other studies (like the old Tucson garbage project) have shown that people grossly "underestimate" (lie) about their substance use. So, someone may have cirrhosis from "4 drinks a day", and that is how it is recorded, but in reality, maybe he was drinking more than that.

Excessive use of cocaine and/or alcohol is terrible for you.

Yes, this is a problem that extends well beyond cocaine. Ah, but the truth hurts, and power brokers hate the truth.

If it only takes 4 drinks per day to give you a reasonable chance at ending up with liver cirrhosis, then I think we would have a worldwide epidemic on our hands...

Umm, I think we do. Binge drinking is a real problem in Europe, Australia and the USA. Other cultures don't seem to hit the booze so hard and many people in the world are too poor to overindulge.
Maybe it's like the fat epidemic - humans aren't designed to say "no" to food and drink!

That was my point...heavy drinking is quite common around the world (perhaps like an epidemic), but I meant that with all this heavy drinking, you would think that liver cirrhosis would be more common if it only takes 4 drinks per day to likely give you issues. The "epidemic" of liver problems that should go along with the epidemic of heavy drinking doesn't seem to exist on the same level. Of course, there could be many reasons for this.

I call for immediate drug testing for ALL elected officials. One can only imagine what we would find out.

As I'm opposed to mandatory drug testing of the civilian population, I would also oppose mandatory drug testing of elected officials. The government has no right to invade my privacy in such a way, and no right to invade the privacy of our elected officials. By drug testing them, we will begin to criticize our politicians for their personal decision rather than the way in which they serve the electorate. Let's judge politicians based on how well they perform in representing us, and let's not judge them based on their personal lifestyle decisions, like the decision to have a few beers or burn a joint from time to time.

Drug tests all around just mean more people will fail them and as a result be punished for their lifestyle choices.

Well, if one of your "lifestyle choices" happens to be committing crimes (using illegal substances), then isn't that something that is a real conflict with being a legal representative (or working for a company that doesn't want to be liable for the actions of its employees)? :perplexed: We elect people who work within the law...not those who are above it. Lifestyle decisions can have a real impact on your work if they are bad decisions...

I really don't see a big problem with drug testing. Whenever you take a job you are knowingly sacrificing some privacy by becoming part of the "team" at your workplace. A drug test is just part of the contract between the company and the employee. If you don't like that condition of employment, you can seek work with those companies that do not drug test.

That's all fine until the law in question is an unjust law. In which case, at least in my opinion, civil disobedience takes precedent over obeying the law just because it's the law.

There's a problem, though. It's called privacy.

You say that taking a job requires we give up some privacy - and I agree. We give up certain privacy while we are at the workplace or while we are working on behalf of the employer. But our privacy at home should in no way be compromised by employment.

Drug testing is a way for the government to use companies to stamp out the use of certain drugs. Bottom line. Drug testing is more often than not the result of government regulation that makes drug tests compulsory. Companies, by and large, do not care so long as you come to work sober and do your job well. If you come to work intoxicated or are unable to do your job properly, then the company fires you. Drug tests are simply not needed by companies.