20 Most Dangerous Drugs (British Study)

[Delta4Embassy]

Drugs that cause most harm: Scoring drugs | The Economist

"MOST people would agree that some drugs are worse than others: heroin is probably considered to be more dangerous than marijuana, for instance. Because governments formulate criminal and social policies based upon classifications of harm, a new study published by the Lancet on November 1st makes interesting reading. Researchers led by Professor David Nutt, a former chief drugs adviser to the British government, asked drug-harm experts to rank 20 drugs (legal and illegal) on 16 measures of harm to the user and to wider society, such as damage to health, drug dependency, economic costs and crime. Alcohol is the most harmful drug in Britain, scoring 72 out of a possible 100, far more damaging than heroin (55) or crack cocaine (54). It is the most harmful to others by a wide margin, and is ranked fourth behind heroin, crack, and methamphetamine (crystal meth) for harm to the individual. The authors point out that the model's weightings, though based on judgment, were analysed and found to be stable as large changes would be needed to change the overall rankings."

 

[KevinWestern]

Drugs that cause most harm: Scoring drugs | The Economist

"MOST people would agree that some drugs are worse than others: heroin is probably considered to be more dangerous than marijuana, for instance. Because governments formulate criminal and social policies based upon classifications of harm, a new study published by the Lancet on November 1st makes interesting reading. Researchers led by Professor David Nutt, a former chief drugs adviser to the British government, asked drug-harm experts to rank 20 drugs (legal and illegal) on 16 measures of harm to the user and to wider society, such as damage to health, drug dependency, economic costs and crime. Alcohol is the most harmful drug in Britain, scoring 72 out of a possible 100, far more damaging than heroin (55) or crack cocaine (54). It is the most harmful to others by a wide margin, and is ranked fourth behind heroin, crack, and methamphetamine (crystal meth) for harm to the individual. The authors point out that the model's weightings, though based on judgment, were analysed and found to be stable as large changes would be needed to change the overall rankings."

If 50,000 people drank alcohol and it resulted in 60 deaths, and 1,000 people did heroin and it resulted in 50 deaths, would alcohol still be considered the "most dangerous drug"?

Do you know if they applied a weighting system?

Interesting graph...

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Drugs that cause most harm: Scoring drugs | The Economist

"MOST people would agree that some drugs are worse than others: heroin is probably considered to be more dangerous than marijuana, for instance. Because governments formulate criminal and social policies based upon classifications of harm, a new study published by the Lancet on November 1st makes interesting reading. Researchers led by Professor David Nutt, a former chief drugs adviser to the British government, asked drug-harm experts to rank 20 drugs (legal and illegal) on 16 measures of harm to the user and to wider society, such as damage to health, drug dependency, economic costs and crime. Alcohol is the most harmful drug in Britain, scoring 72 out of a possible 100, far more damaging than heroin (55) or crack cocaine (54). It is the most harmful to others by a wide margin, and is ranked fourth behind heroin, crack, and methamphetamine (crystal meth) for harm to the individual. The authors point out that the model's weightings, though based on judgment, were analysed and found to be stable as large changes would be needed to change the overall rankings."

If 50,000 people drank alcohol and it resulted in 60 deaths, and 1,000 people did heroin and it resulted in 50 deaths, would alcohol still be considered the "most dangerous drug"?

Do you know if they applied a weighting system?

Interesting graph...

Last sentence. Like to think all studies use a weighting system. Otherwise, as you showed the results wouldn't be very reliable.

 

[KevinWestern]

Drugs that cause most harm: Scoring drugs | The Economist

"MOST people would agree that some drugs are worse than others: heroin is probably considered to be more dangerous than marijuana, for instance. Because governments formulate criminal and social policies based upon classifications of harm, a new study published by the Lancet on November 1st makes interesting reading. Researchers led by Professor David Nutt, a former chief drugs adviser to the British government, asked drug-harm experts to rank 20 drugs (legal and illegal) on 16 measures of harm to the user and to wider society, such as damage to health, drug dependency, economic costs and crime. Alcohol is the most harmful drug in Britain, scoring 72 out of a possible 100, far more damaging than heroin (55) or crack cocaine (54). It is the most harmful to others by a wide margin, and is ranked fourth behind heroin, crack, and methamphetamine (crystal meth) for harm to the individual. The authors point out that the model's weightings, though based on judgment, were analysed and found to be stable as large changes would be needed to change the overall rankings."

If 50,000 people drank alcohol and it resulted in 60 deaths, and 1,000 people did heroin and it resulted in 50 deaths, would alcohol still be considered the "most dangerous drug"?

Do you know if they applied a weighting system?

Interesting graph...

Last sentence. Like to think all studies use a weighting system. Otherwise, as you showed the results wouldn't be very reliable.

Missed that, thanks.

Yea, a little bit shocking. I mean, I feel like someone could be a closet alcoholic yet function ok for a good 20-30 years, while it would be a tad more difficult if you were doing heroin or crack all the time.

I mean, I can have a few drinks before work and (besides the smell) it'd be tough for someone to notice whereas if I shot up heroin that'd be a different story.

Again, very interesting.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Ah, this is what I was looking for when I found that British study...

"Everything You've Heard About Crack And Meth Is Wrong"
Everything You've Heard About Crack And Meth Is Wrong - Forbes

"Growing familiarity with marijuana has been accompanied by growing support for legalization because people discovered through personal experience that the government was lying to them about the drug’s hazards. But it is easier to demonize less popular drugs such as crack cocaine and methamphetamine, which in the public mind are still linked, as marijuana once was, with addiction, madness, and violence. Any attempt to question the use of force in dealing with these drugs therefore must begin by separating reality from horror stories.

That is where Carl Hart comes in. Hart, a neuropsychopharmacologist at Columbia who grew up in one of Miami’s rougher neighborhoods, has done bold, path-breaking research that challenges widely accepted beliefs about crack and meth. ..." Rest at link.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

My point with this thread is to reveal how just because a government says something's bad or dangerous, doesn't mean it is. It might be, but in the case of drugs, it's a boldfaced lie. So when they tell us how dangerous it is to make love because of all those boogeyman diseaes out there, take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Vox]

read the study itself, not the article about it. you might want to read about their methods more than just overview:

http://www.sg.unimaas.nl/_OLD/oudelezingen/dddsd.pdf

 

[Vox]

My point with this thread is to reveal how just because a government says something's bad or dangerous, doesn't mean it is. It might be, but in the case of drugs, it's a boldfaced lie. So when they tell us how dangerous it is to make love because of all those boogeyman diseaes out there, take it with a grain of salt.

one study does not change it as well.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Drugs that cause most harm: Scoring drugs | The Economist

"MOST people would agree that some drugs are worse than others: heroin is probably considered to be more dangerous than marijuana, for instance. Because governments formulate criminal and social policies based upon classifications of harm, a new study published by the Lancet on November 1st makes interesting reading. Researchers led by Professor David Nutt, a former chief drugs adviser to the British government, asked drug-harm experts to rank 20 drugs (legal and illegal) on 16 measures of harm to the user and to wider society, such as damage to health, drug dependency, economic costs and crime. Alcohol is the most harmful drug in Britain, scoring 72 out of a possible 100, far more damaging than heroin (55) or crack cocaine (54). It is the most harmful to others by a wide margin, and is ranked fourth behind heroin, crack, and methamphetamine (crystal meth) for harm to the individual. The authors point out that the model's weightings, though based on judgment, were analysed and found to be stable as large changes would be needed to change the overall rankings."

Yeah, a "study" that puts Alcohol as more dangerous than crack is worthless trash.

Typical "State the conclusion then fabricate the supporting factoids" study that is so common for leftist academia.

 

[Vox]

OK, just evaluating the table 1 of the criteria involved one can immediately see that except #1 everything else can be loaded with BIAS - selection one to start with.

Look at this set of criteria:

Drug-related mortality
The extent to which life is shortened by the use of the drug
(excludes drug-specifi c mortality)—eg, road traffi c accidents,
lung cancers, HIV, suicide
Drug-specifi c damage
Drug-specifi c damage to physical health—eg, cirrhosis,
seizures, strokes, cardiomyopathy, stomach ulcers

just a short scroll through it poses immediate questions - which groups of users were tested? the ones which have genetic predisposition for cirrhosis or the ones which do not?

which doses were compared - and how was it measured?

which population samples were singled - as there are differences in the way Native American Indians react to alcohol and white Germans, for example.
Same is with response to cocaine based on the genetic assembly of the population.

and many, many , many other questions of the similar type.

This, for example is an example of complete BS:

International damage
Extent to which the use of a drug in the UK contributes to
damage internationally—eg, deforestation, destabilisation of
countries, international crime, new markets

and this explains the perspective angle which has to be taken into consideration in evaluating the statistical base fro the artificially calculated criteria:

This study is funded by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (UK).
Yuji Wu assisted with some of the data analyses.

============

I am not even mentioning that the bias of multiple drug usage was never even accounted for...

 

[Uncensored2008]

read the study itself, not the article about it. you might want to read about their methods more than just overview:

http://www.sg.unimaas.nl/_OLD/oudelezingen/dddsd.pdf

Thanks for the link.

As suspected, it is an utterly bullshit "study." Most of the listed harm for alcohol was from drunk driving. Fair enough, that IS harmful - but when about 90% of the population drinks alcohol and less than 1% uses crack, a contrast of traffic fatalities where the drug was present is useless. The only VALID comparison would be of the percentage of traffic fatalities among known users. Thus the researchers did NOT weight the study and offer a biased and utterly worthless conclusion.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Both of you being qualified scientists and resident intellectuals of course. The Economist being some grocery market rag.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Drugs that cause most harm: Scoring drugs | The Economist

"MOST people would agree that some drugs are worse than others: heroin is probably considered to be more dangerous than marijuana, for instance. Because governments formulate criminal and social policies based upon classifications of harm, a new study published by the Lancet on November 1st makes interesting reading. Researchers led by Professor David Nutt, a former chief drugs adviser to the British government, asked drug-harm experts to rank 20 drugs (legal and illegal) on 16 measures of harm to the user and to wider society, such as damage to health, drug dependency, economic costs and crime. Alcohol is the most harmful drug in Britain, scoring 72 out of a possible 100, far more damaging than heroin (55) or crack cocaine (54). It is the most harmful to others by a wide margin, and is ranked fourth behind heroin, crack, and methamphetamine (crystal meth) for harm to the individual. The authors point out that the model's weightings, though based on judgment, were analysed and found to be stable as large changes would be needed to change the overall rankings."

If 50,000 people drank alcohol and it resulted in 60 deaths, and 1,000 people did heroin and it resulted in 50 deaths, would alcohol still be considered the "most dangerous drug"?

Do you know if they applied a weighting system?

Interesting graph...

If 50,000 people drank a liter of 80 proof alcohol only the most chronic alcoholic might survive. In my career I knew a heroin addict who lived for decades with few health problems (chronic constipation being the most serious problem) related to his jones.

My point is there are more variables than listed in the OP for anyone to make a judgment. However, alcohol and tobacco, seem to be the most lethal drugs, and both are legal.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

99% of serial killers grew up with abusive, alcoholic parents; I don't think there's a single instance of a serial killer with stoner parents

 

[eflatminor]

"MOST people would agree that some drugs are worse than others..."

Count me among those that would not agree. I couldn't care less who thinks what is "worse". You can inject gasoline into your veins as far as I'm concerned. If you aren't taking from another (already illegal) or hurting someone else (also already illegal), how you choose to abuse your body is up to you. Have at it...enjoy.

Call me crazy, but I think an adult's own body is nobody else's business.

 

[eflatminor]

heroin is probably considered to be more dangerous...

Heroin, which is nothing more than an efficient delivery system for morphine, is actually rather benign on the body, which is why hospitals use morphine so frequently as a pain reliever. It doesn't harm the person and leaves the body quickly. Obviously, the lifestyle of those addicted to opiates can be very harmful to their health, but that's a choice that not all need make. "Chippers", as they're called, infrequently indulge in the poppies while maintaining an otherwise healthy lifestyle. Personally, I don't do chemicals, but each to his own.

 

[Vox]

Both of you being qualified scientists and resident intellectuals of course. The Economist being some grocery market rag.

knowing how to read the study and know what it is worth is part of my professional requirements.

and yes, I have been involved in research and published some minor studies. before.

 

[Vox]

99% of serial killers grew up with abusive, alcoholic parents; I don't think there's a single instance of a serial killer with stoner parents

quite a few.
and some if not majority of the serial killers and psychotic mass murderers were stoners themselves.

 

[eflatminor]

...some if not majority of the serial killers and psychotic mass murderers were stoners themselves.

Which is about as relevant as their consumption of potato chips.

There is ZERO correlation between cannabis use and serial killing/mass murders.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"Another way of looking at the reciprocal relationship between violence and pleasure is to examine a society's choice of drugs. A society will support behaviors that are consistent with its values and social mores. U.S. society is a competitive, aggressive, and violent society. Consequently, it supports drugs that facilitate competitive, aggressive, and violent behaviors and opposes drugs that counteract such behaviors. Alcohol is well known to facilitate the expression of violent behaviors, and, although addicting and very harmful to chronic users, is acceptable to U.S. society. Marijuana, on the other hand, is an active pleasure-inducing drug which enhances the pleasure of touch and actively inhibits violent-aggressive behaviors. It is for these reasons, I believe that marijuana is rejected in U.S. society. For similar reasons heroin is rejected and methadone (an addicting drug minus the pleasure) is accepted.

The data from my questionnaire support this view. As Table 5 shows, very high correlations between alcohol use and parental punishment indicate that people who received little affection from their mothers and had physically punitive fathers are likely to become hostile and aggressive when they drink. Such people find alcohol more satisfying than sex. There is an even stronger relationship between parental physical punishment and drug usage. Respondents who were physically punished as children showed alcohol-induced hostility and aggression and were likely to find alcohol and drugs more satisfying than sex. The questionnaire also reveals high correlations between sexual repression and drug usage. Those who describe premarital sex as "not agreeable" are likely to become aggressive when drinking and to prefer drugs and alcohol to sexual pleasures. This is additional evidence for the hypothesis that drug "pleasures" are a substitute for somatosensory pleasures. "
Article: Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence