I was listening to an ABC report of qat (khat). In 1980 the World Health Organization classified qat as a drug of abuse that can produce mild to moderate psychological dependence.

It contains Cathinone which converts fairly quickly to caffeine about 48 hours after picking. It has quite mild effects, similar to a triple shot espresso.

The interesting thing is that some sectors of the Muslim community are against it, stating that it's haram (forbidden)  while others support it.   It's used culturally in Yemen, Saudi Arabia and North Africa.

Now here's the interesting bit. Those Muslims who use it (mainly for Qu'ran studies) don't regard it as a drug. For them it's just like a cup of coffee, but there is evidence that it causes problems for longterm users.

Like the Fijian 'drug' kava, it is allowed to be imported into Australia because of its cultural significance, and because it's relatively mild in effect. 

I find it interested how different religions and branches of religion regard some substances as forbidden while others accept them.

For example, Mormons forbid tea and coffee, while Jains go even further than that and forbid not only all meat and fish, but even onions and garlic because of their alleged tendency to cause aggression. (Yet they have a very powerful business lobby in India)

muso wrote on Nov 1^st, 2010 at 2:43pm:


No muso, for 'personal' effect tobacco might be dangerous, but when have you ever heard of someone being killed by a smoking-driver???

Or injured in a brawl started by a someone intoxicated by tobbacco???

The only time smoking is dangerous when driving is if you drop the cigarette and set fire to your crotch....

muso wrote on Nov 1^st, 2010 at 2:15pm:


Yeah but isn't a can of Redbull or any of those other 'energy' drinks equal to a triple expresso too???

JC Denton wrote on Nov 1^st, 2010 at 3:57pm:


eeew!

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2010 at 6:31am:


Sorry about that- I quoted the relevant bit anyway. It was only a passing reference.
Quote:



Absolutely no question about it - but that's just the acute risk associated with road accidents and violent assault.

I was just thinking aloud. If you dig deep enough, another cause of accidents is having a heart attack or a stroke.  

Now the biggest risk factors for coronary disease includes smoking - and diet of course.

Of course whether you die in an accident or on a hospital bed from lung cancer, the end result is the same.  

We were talking about harm to other members of society, so is smoking off the hook there?  Not entirely - what about the smoker's family? Various sources here:

- Children of smokers are twice as likely to start smoking than children of non-smokers.

- Children of smokers are also 2 1/2 times more likely to die of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), or crib death.

- A child who lives in a smoking household for the first 18 months of its life has an increased risk of developing a range of respiratory illnesses including wheeze, bronchitis, bronchiolitis and pneumonia. They are also more prone to getting colds, coughs and glue ear (middle ear infections). Their lungs show a reduced ability to function and slower growth.
  -  A child exposed to secondhand smoke in the home is more likely to develop asthma symptoms, have more asthma attacks and use asthma medications more often and for a longer period.
- School-aged children of smokers are more likely to have symptoms such as cough, phlegm, wheeze and breathlessness.
 - Children of smokers have an increased risk of meningococcal disease, which can sometimes cause death or disability.

Then there are the partners.

If you're a smoker, I'm sure you are very considerate. All that I'm pointing out is the risk to society as a whole.

It's difficult to say if smoking poses a greater risk to society or not. Violent crimes kill a lot less people each year than more insidious risk factors.  

If you are a smoker, I'll toss this ball to you regarding this relatively new legislation that makes it illegal to smoke in public places. Does this have the unintended indirect effect that smokers indulge in smoking more often at home, and therefore expose their family more to passive smoke?

- Food for thought.

Quote:


Qld. The smoking within a certain distance from places that serve food regulations. Here in Qld there are also laws that come into effect during some public events.

I've been told by a police officer to put out my cigarette as the area was currently covered by a smoking ban (for a street fair).

Laws banning smoking on public beaches in NSW came in years ago.


I've tried Khat a couple of times. The effect is extremely mild. It will keep you awake and make you alert, but without any actual feeling of "being on something".

Life_goes_on wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2010 at 3:22pm:



I knew about the beach smoking ban in NSW...that was a decade or more ago...but had more to do with pollution from the butts than with 'health' concerns....
Most people just buried their butts in the sand, when I was younger..
The councils got the runs with having to rake up the cigarette butts every morning....


I suppose it's fair enough for the food service area ban....
Most people in NSW walk to the kerb outside pubs/restaurants now....


Although how that would work with a hotdog vendor or a caravan hamburger/pie seller, I don't know...

Life_goes_on wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2010 at 4:04pm:


If Yobsville = Townsville, then I can understand that. The police there have their work cut out. In the small town near where I work, I know the local cop pretty well. Ok we have 3 of them.

He doesn't overdo it or underdo it. If it was the days of the restricted drinking hours, I could picture him at the bar until late.

Are you a legal assistant or something?