Which kills more people in general and is worse you think, Alcohol, Smoking or Drugs?

I think all drugs should be legal and regulated by the government. It would stop all the drug wars in Latin America and we could tax the drug trade and make money from it. The War on Drugs has failed, time to try something new.

The UFC? WTF There hasn't been a single death in the UFC cage.

Stupidity 
 
@mikethekiller said:

The UFC? WTF There hasn't been a single death in the UFC cage.

All of the above.

Smoking pipes and cigars isn't exactly good for you but its nowhere near as bad as smoking cigarettes, have you seen what's in those things? Makes me wanna gag.  
 
Drinking alcohol isn't bad for you either, its drinking excessive amounts of alcohol. Just like everything else, if you eat or drink to much of it there will likely be repercussions. 

cigarettes are pretty bad 

Cigarettes i would say is worse in how it kills people

drugs are bad m'kay

C.

C.

I think all drugs should be legal and regulated by the government. It would stop all the drug wars in Latin America and we could tax the drug trade and make money from it. The War on Drugs has failed, time to try something new.

Drugs, due to the murders that are caused by drugs.

This is a tough question. I consider drugs the worst because they can kill people faster, but Cigarettes kill way more people than drugs do. Cigaretttes are legal poison, and most of the people who smoke for an extended period of time will probably die from stuff caused by smoking(lung cancer, emphysema, sarcoidosis, etc). Plus, second hand smoke affects people who are just in the general vicinity, and affect their lifespan. So in overall death rate and impact, smoking is definitely the most widespread and dangerous

This is the biggest serial killer of em all my friends... :D
 

@iLLituracy:   I don't think by legalizing those drugs that people would all of a sudden become heroin addicts, cokeheads, etc. I think all forms of advertising should be illegal and that it should come with heightened warnings about the dangers of such drugs. I think the people who will do these drugs would do them regardless of their legal status. It would prevent a lot of violence and corruption; just look at how disastrous prohibition was. the war on drugs isn't much different. 

@Ebbm said:

@iLLituracy:   I don't think by legalizing those drugs that people would all of a sudden become heroin addicts, cokeheads, etc. I think all forms of advertising should be illegal and that it should come with heightened warnings about the dangers of such drugs. I think the people who will do these drugs would do them regardless of their legal status. It would prevent a lot of violence and corruption; just look at how disastrous prohibition was. the war on drugs isn't much different. 

This is pretty much wrong.  Not only is legalizing it something like saying "it's okay" because they can now do it without worry of being arrested, but you're also making it much more accessible. You're putting it in storefronts and making it much more easy to get. There are people out there who have never done anything because they've never had access to it. I don't think anyone wakes up one morning and says "I'm going to try pot today" or "Hell, I could go for some crack."  If you legalize it, people will try it and become addicted and ruin their lives due to it with most illegal drugs. 

 People that doe it or are willing to do it are gonna do it regardless of its illegal or not also no one intends to be caught by the police so being afraid of the cops aint a big deal as they usually dont plan on being caught but also take mesures to make sure that they arent caught tough they are eventually it usually takes some time to catch them and when they do they just release them 

Drugs are already easily assessable so saying that making them legal and regulating them would make them more assessable to people is canda wrong if your looking for drugs you dont have to look hard to find it 

Addiction well thats the point of the government making it legal because when it becomes legal they can control the amount that is on the market much like we do for prescription drugs also while controlling the ammount that is on the market we destroy the underground economy of illegal drug trade/trafficking 

Stop gang wars for Territory and make money of the sale of it 

If you arent looking for drugs it being legal wont affect you but if you use it or plan to then it being legals just makes it safer for you(Since people wont add stuff to it) and controlling the ammount that you receive so that you don't over-dose while getting tax from it and not wasting money in the war on drugs which were losing and most of the money goes to fighting things like weed

I don't agree at all. Drugs are already easily accessible without the legalization. A big reason teenagers do drugs  is as an act of rebellion. If drugs were legalized but regulated it would eliminate the war on drugs and the black market drug trade. This would end so much violence and corruption just like prohibition ended a lot of gang violence. Another point, similar to prohibition, is that a lot of homemade drugs are made poorly and can result in death if taken; just like homemade alcohol is more dangerous than store bought alcohol.  Legalization would also cut our prison population drastically and thus give a financial relief to taxpayers. 
 
I don't see how the government legalized drugs would be an endorsement of it. Like I said it will still be heavily regulated and come with more awareness of the dangers of drugs. The benefits outweigh the negatives in this case. 

Notwithstanding the vast public resources expended on the enforcement of penal statutes against users and distributors of controlled substances, contemporary drug policy appears to have failed, even on its own terms, in a number of notable respects. These include: minimal reduction in the consumption of controlled substances; failure to reduce violent crime; failure to markedly reduce drug importation, distribution and street-level drug sales; failure to reduce the widespread availability of drugs to potential users; failure to deter individuals from becoming involved in the drug trade; failure to impact upon the huge profits and financial opportunity available to individual "entrepreneurs" and organized underworld organizations through engaging in the illicit drug trade; the expenditure of great amounts of increasingly limited public resources in pursuit of a cost-intensive "penal" or "law-enforcement" based policy; failure to provide meaningful treatment and other assistance to substance abusers and their families; and failure to provide meaningful alternative economic opportunities to those attracted to the drug trade for lack of other available avenues for financial advancement

Moreover, a growing body of evidence and opinion suggests that contemporary drug policy, as pursued in recent decades, may be counterproductive and even harmful to the society whose public safety it seeks to protect. This conclusion becomes more readily apparent when one distinguishes the harms suffered by society and its members directly attributable to the pharmacological effects of drug use upon human behavior, from those harms resulting from policies attempting to eradicate drug use.

fear [of legalisation] is based in large part on the presumption that more people would take drugs under a legal regime. That presumption may be wrong. There is no correlation between the harshness of drug laws and the incidence of drug-taking: citizens living under tough regimes (notably America but also Britain) take more drugs, not fewer. Embarrassed drug warriors blame this on alleged cultural differences, but even in fairly similar countries tough rules make little difference to the number of addicts: harsh Sweden and more liberal Norway have precisely the same addiction rates 

A chart comparing drug use in the Netherlands where drug laws are more lax and the United States.
 

People that do it or are willing to do it have most likely already done it. Legalizing it is saying that it's okay to do it. There's never a point in time where it's okay to do crack or coke due to how addicting it is.

 
No one INTENDS to be caught, but the fact of the matter is when someone deals or buys drugs they KNOW the risk they're taking in possessing those drugs. If you legalize it then there is not risk in attaining or possessing them. As for being released, that's BS, do you know how much time you can do for having a crack rock?

 My point is that people who are looking for drugs have already done it. If you allow people to do drugs legally and put drugs on the market then you'll have a lot more drug users. 

A chart comparing drug use in the Netherlands where drug laws are more lax and the United States.
 

Social Indicator	Comparison Year	USA	Netherlands
Lifetime prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+)	2001	36.9%	17.0%
Past month prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+)	2001	5.4%	3.0%
Lifetime prevalence of heroin use (ages 12+)	2001	1.4%	0.4%
Incarceration Rate per 100,000 population	2002	701	100
Per capita spending on criminal justice system (in Euros)	1998	€379	€223
Homicide rate per 100,000 population	Average 1999-2001	5.56	1.51

And no, not everyone knows or has a dealer. Not everyone is willing to take the risk of doing illegal sh!t, either.

Wrong. Even if you tried to regulate how much people could attain at one time other people would just make a hustle dealing extras to addicts. You also run the risk of constantly having people go through withdrawal. It's not good, at all.

Gangs aren't just around to push drugs. It would give them one less reason to fight, but there's plenty of other activity to fight over. Especially if you're regulating how much drugs can be given to one person at one time. I don't see how that would effect gangs or drug dealers at all, because all you'd be doing is creating more addicts. How would you monitor what was attained legally and what wasn't?

Drugs have the strongest and most dangerous effects, but cigarettes are the most pervasive, thus causing the most health issues and deaths.

All of the above.  

Ah, cigarettes. The only legal way to kill yourself.

A.

E. Other= Holes filled with either poisonous snakes or bamboo spikes.

A chart comparing drug use in the Netherlands where drug laws are more lax and the United States.
 

Social Indicator	Comparison Year	USA	Netherlands
Lifetime prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+)	2001	36.9%	17.0%
Past month prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+)	2001	5.4%	3.0%
Lifetime prevalence of heroin use (ages 12+)	2001	1.4%	0.4%
Incarceration Rate per 100,000 population	2002	701	100
Per capita spending on criminal justice system (in Euros)	1998	€379	€223
Homicide rate per 100,000 population	Average 1999-2001	5.56	1.51

Grouping all illegal drugs together is a bit of a broad generalization, don't you think? Sure, heroin, meth, and cocaine can ruin your day, but I have yet to encounter a reputably documented case of anyone dying as a direct result of smoking pot. Also, are we talking about death that is not directly related to consumption, such as being killed by a drunk driver or being blown up because your idiot neighbor decided to dabble in DIY meth labs?

A chart comparing drug use in the Netherlands where drug laws are more lax and the United States.
 

Social Indicator	Comparison Year	USA	Netherlands
Lifetime prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+)	2001	36.9%	17.0%
Past month prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+)	2001	5.4%	3.0%
Lifetime prevalence of heroin use (ages 12+)	2001	1.4%	0.4%
Incarceration Rate per 100,000 population	2002	701	100
Per capita spending on criminal justice system (in Euros)	1998	€379	€223
Homicide rate per 100,000 population	Average 1999-2001	5.56	1.51

cigarettes & alcohol kill more than any else. and cigarettes more than alcohol.

They are all equal.

I'm pretty sure smoking kills the most(my only source "thank you for smoking"), but i also thing smoking and drugs kill people MUCH more directly, i think alcohol well 99 per cent of the deaths are indirect(drunk driving), so its not really the substance that's to blame but the people.

Stupidity 
 

@mikethekiller

said:

The UFC? WTF There hasn't been a single death in the UFC cage.

Maybe people make bets on fights and get killed because they can't pay? idk...

@MKF30: In the UFC there have been no deaths in the cage at all. As for MMA in general their are only two MMA related deaths I can think of, either way it shouldn't be place in the same category as murder.

@MKF30: In the UFC there have been no deaths in the cage at all. As for MMA in general their are only two MMA related deaths I can think of, either way it shouldn't be place in the same category as murder.

Boxing can really mess you up later in life, look at Muhammad Ali

It all depends,  George Foreman is still well 

They are all equal.

murder tops........