>Strangely I know more ex-heroin addicts than ex-alcoholics, and there are way more alcoholics out there, but that's just anecdotal data I guess :)
Indeed it is! You conveniently ignore all alcohol consumers except the ones with dependency problems.
>Actually no.
Actually, yes! You're arguing that there is variance in absorbtion, and you are right. That is different, however, from e.g. the LD50 or the ability of people to measure dosage accurately.
>I guess you have preconceptions about what heroin use implies.
You're conveniently ignoring that non-pathological use of heroin is extremely small. It's a rounding error when compared to alcohol usage. You are cherry-picking.
> Strangely I know more ex-heroin addicts than ex-alcoholics, and there are way more alcoholics out there, but that's just anecdotal data I guess :)
Good thing this has been formally studied
>Maybe if you leave out all of the DUI and accidents where alcohol played a role, you'd be right [...]
Yes, and people with pools in their back-yards experience more drowning. Color me surprised.
You're also leaving out all the incidental damage from heroin use in your analysis. Shall we factor in drug-related murders? How about secondary complications like pneumonia?
Again, cherry-picking.
>Ah, ad hominem to finish, a classic.
An observation, actually. I've rarely seen this level of bad-faith argumentation.