@Ivo

Dude, you're obviously on drugs at this moment because you complete missed the point. I was saying education isn't going to achieve much. We are on the same side on this issue!

And yes, people do take drugs to alter their perception of reality. That is what drugs do. Obviously most drug users would express this in different words, experience highs and intense emotions and so on and so forth, but that's not important. I dare say a few people take drugs to fit in with certain crowds, but I don't give a damn about prats like that.

@diplomat
Education stopped you smoking? Really? All my grandparents smoked and lived (stive live) into their 80s which led me to conclude that most of the education about smoking was mostly bollocks. The thing that stopped me smoking was a simple dislike of the smell of the smoke, the huge price of the packet, and a complete failure to see any reason to start in the first place.

*that should read "still live"

Man, after solving the Israel-Palestine issue a few weeks back I'm shocked at the lack of progress on this thread.

@Octavious: yes. Both my grandfathers smoked, mostly pipes, and I quite liked the smell of those but I remember the anti smoking stuff and was never tempted.

@diplomat
Did your grandads ever do that thing where they'd inhale a lung full of pipe smoke, and then blow a bubble (from one of those little plastic pots of bubble mixture that are so great when you're a kid) filled with smoke? The only thing in my life that ever made me want to learn how to smoke was watching the misty orbs floating around the room until they exploded....

...happy days....

@Octavious: no, but it sounds like a real laugh

To a five year old it was the single most amazing thing in the universe

"A) can addict with only one use, or
B) can kill you with only one use?"

Addiction and physical harm are obviously very important factors, and are the ones that I use when I judge which substances are safe. However, the way you've phrased these questions is misleading. The very nature of addiction is such that you cannot get "addicted" on the first try. Substance dependence is usually defined when your brains reward circuits are wired in such a dysfunctional fashion such that you constantly and cyclically seek out the substance. It may also involve developing tolerance and withdrawal symptoms when deprived of the substance. The idea of getting "addicted" on the first try is a misleading statement propagated by the media.

It is difficult to measure which substances are the "most" addictive, as addiction has many facets. However, surveys of addicts of multiple drugs usually rate nicotine as the most addictive drug, over heroin and crack cocaine. The addictiveness of "hard" drugs is often overstated, again by the media. Government surveys have shown that roughly 8% of regular cocaine users become addicted, compared to 15% of regular drinkers, and 55% of regular cigarette smokers. By most rating scales, nicotine ranks higher than heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamines (the media's new hype drug), and in some scales, even caffeine ranks higher than these substances with roughly 30% of regular users become dependent.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/02/science/is-nicotine-addictive-it-depends-on-whose-criteria-you-use.html?pagewanted=1

http://www.michaelshouse.com/drug-addiction/most-addictive-drugs-world.html

In terms of "can kill you in one use", this is also a misleading question. Any organic substance in sufficient dosage can cause death. Take enough of any drug and you can die. The important thing to consider is the therapeutic ratio, which is the ratio between the effective dose required to achieve desired effects (usually the high) and the lethal dose. These are usually both presented as percents, as the effective dose is considered the dosage in which 50% achieve effects and the lethal dose is the dosage in which 50% die. According to this study which compiles measurements of safety ratios, where the lower, the more dangerous the substances, the following selected substances have ratings of:
Heroin - 6
Isobutyl Nitrate (Poppers) - 8
Alcohol - 10
Cocaine - 15
MDMA (ecstasy) - 16
Prozac - 100
Psilocybin (Magic Mushrooms) - 1000 (?) extrapolated
LSD (Acid) - 1000 (?) extrapolated
Marijuana - >1000 (?) extrapolated

You can see full results here:
http://web.cgu.edu/faculty/gabler/toxicity%20Addiction%20offprint.pdf

"can kill you in one dose" Mostly if you take a dose of a long time user, who has develped a high tolerance.

@Thucydides: you said"what about those drugs which...can kill you with only one use?

It's like legalizing suicide lol. Then again I suppose some of you would be in favor of that... "

While i might argue for legalizing suicide, I don't consider legalizing a drug which 'can' kill in one use the same.

If the intention is to kill yourself that is entirely different than if the intention is to 'have a good time (on drugs)'.

But first i would like an example.

As far as i'm aware an alergic reaction to some food can kill you the first time you try something - and yet we don't ban all alergians

Most drug related deaths of this kind, i believe, are related to unsafe mixing practice, which i have argued should be ended by extending consumer protection laws to protect drug-users.

Otherwise, Thucydides, please give an example.

@Ivo: perhaps my point about politicians is not applicable to all political situations. I don't know how strong different arguements would affect different populations. I'm sure the examples set by some European countries would have a greater impact on US politicians if their success continues.

@Octavious: i'm glad to hear your grandparents survived well. Sadly one (families) exception does not disprove the rule.

Smokers have a higher chance of developing lung cancer.

On the other hand, they is definitely a genetic component to cancers. It is possible the your family was genetically pre-disposed to avoiding lung cancer. I might be wrong about this, but cancerous mutations usually require several (about six) specific mutations in a specific order (each to disable some cell function, it is actually quite fascinating). Cancerous cells tend to have about a 23,000 mutation (at least in the case of lung cancer, if my memory serves) So you can estimate that you get about one mutation for every 15 cigarettes give one mutation (see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8414124.stm )

I believe the science, and as a non-smoker find tobacco rather unpleasant.

That said the positive effects of nicotine are often understated or completely ignored - for example stress reduction (and while non-chemical mechanisms can be used to reduce stress levels smoking a cigarette is normally easier) check it out.