Alcohol Is The Most Dangerous Drug

[NobodySpecial]

"mean score from independant experts" then averaged to a spurious number of decimal places looks suspicious to me.

Did they each just check a box on a form from, 5=the most dangerous to 1=the least dangerous or is there an SI unit of dangerousness of drugs that each 'expert' measured in a carefully controlled experiment?

 

[Evo]

The full article here. Registration is free.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)60464-4/fulltext

I haven't read the original article (only the news), but I can't see the value in comparing the cost to society of illegal and legal substances (alcohol vs meth, for example). The simple fact of the difference in their legal status implies the means of distribution and consumption are likely to be so different that it is silly to draw comparisons from aggregates.

And adding the cost to self with the cost to society to produce a "total" cost is even more meaningless.

That's exactly what they did.

 

[Gokul43201]

It is explained in the linked article.

Not well enough for me. This is all it says:

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.​

That doesn't tell me anything about how the scale actually works.

If X is a drug that instantly kills all 5000 of its consumers each year, and Y is a drug that instantly kills 50% of its 10,000 annual consumers, what would their scores be (assuming all their other costs are negligible). If Z kills 1% of its first-hand consumers, and 0.1% of unintentional second-hand affectees, what is Z's scores on each of the two scales (harm to users, harm to others)?

 

[BobG]

A link to the original 2007 study: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07/n366/a01.html

I think there's a little confusion as to which study is which.

Nutt did the original 2007 study based primarily on the harm to the user. (This is the study one can easily access.)

That study was criticized since it ignored harm to others.

The study was also criticized for failing to weight any of the categories. For example, addictiveness is one of the 9 categories. Should high addictivity be rated the same as high immediate physical damage? (But the study was intended to provide data to make decisions, not to actually provide decisions; in which case, providing rankings was a little counter productive.)

Nutt released a new study in the last few days that updated the original study with 7 new categories to measure harm to others.

This article (Alcohol 'more harmful than heroin or crack') at least implies indirectly that the number of users figured into the new added categories, but the new study is the article that's hard to gain access to.

 

[Evo]

A link to the original 2007 study: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07/n366/a01.html

I think there's a little confusion as to which study is which.

Nutt did the original 2007 study based primarily on the harm to the user. (This is the study one can easily access.)

That study was criticized since it ignored harm to others.

The study was also criticized for failing to weight any of the categories. For example, addictiveness is one of the 9 categories. Should high addictivity be rated the same as high immediate physical damage? (But the study was intended to provide data to make decisions, not to actually provide decisions; in which case, providing rankings was a little counter productive.)

Nutt released a new study in the last few days that updated the original study with 7 new categories to measure harm to others.

This article (Alcohol 'more harmful than heroin or crack') at least implies indirectly that the number of users figured into the new added categories, but this is the article that's hard to gain access to.

Thanks BobG, good catch! I will try to find it.

Here is a description of the "study", turns out it wsn't a study at all.

The Lancet analysis ranked 20 drugs according to harms attributed to them by Nutt and other experts in a “one day interactive workshop”

.

The article explains the checklist they used in the workshop in order to come up with this Earth shattering *news*.

Where did the story come from?
The study was carried out by Professor David J Nutt from Imperial College London, Leslie A King, the UK Expert Adviser to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, and Lawrence D Phillips from the London School of Economics and Political Science.

The researchers report the results of a consultation exercise and analysis carried out by the UK Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs (ISCD). The ISCD is an independent group founded to review the scientific evidence relating to drugs. The group is chaired by Professor Nutt.

Sure sounds credible and unbiased to me.

Here is the new Lancet article. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61462-6/abstract

 

[BobG]

Even the original study has some problems.

From Nutt's table:

The physical harm categories seem reasonable. You have direct harm from the drug, plus secondary dangers caused by the method of ingestion. Intravenous drug use carries hazards completely unrelated to the drug itself. Heroin and barbituates are the two drugs most likely to cause immediate harm, while tobacco and marijuana have little chance of immediate harm (with the risk presumably being the chance of being burned alive when you fall asleep with a lit cigarette?). Tobacco, heroin, and alcohol are the three drugs most likely to cause long term harm from chronic use.

The dependence categories might be a little questionable. In Nutt's table, pleasure equals harm. The more pleasurable a drug, the worse it is. Heroin and cocaine tie for the most pleasurable, with alcohol and tobacco tied for third.

I wouldn't even touch the social harm, since that seems very subjective, even if it might be reasonable.

I wonder how sex would rank. There's some risk of STDs, a small risk of physical harm from overly enthusiastic sex, but probably very little long term harm from chronic practice. It's also very pleasurable, which would definitely make it bad.

In fact, I'd put the mean physical harm at 0.6 if precautions against STDs were taken and no costumes were involved. Pleasure would rate a 3.0, pyschological addiction a 2.6, especially considering the 'love' emotions that often accompany sex. I think the physical addiction would be low; but at least higher than a physical addiction to ingesting solvents, perhaps a 0.2 - yielding a mean dependence of 1.93 (about the same as alcohol). For social costs, intoxication is 0, social harm a 2.2 (many divorces are caused by sexual infedility) - just a little lower than alcohol. Health costs would be low, about the same as Ecstasy at 1.1 (this includes the cost of purchasing viagra, etc) - with a mean social harm of 1.1 (more social harm than ecstasy, but less than steroids). The total harm would be 1.01, which is actually very low considering the pleasure factor. It's more harmful than khat, but less harmful than ecstasy.

Love is the drug! (But a Class C drug, at most.)

 

[Proton Soup]

Evidently, the thing some kids do in some "dry" indian reservations is to spray an entire can of http://www.wellbriety-nci.org/Publications/ocean.htm" into a cup of water, then drink it. YIKES!

huh. that's got to be better for you than lysol and bread, tho.

 

[mugaliens]

No 'shrooms are better option. Everybody will experience Santa first hand.

Great. Yet another childhood belief of mine utterly shattered. I think I'll wander off and cry, now.

On a more serious note, I've seen the mushroom displays in the malls, but never realized it was usually the same mushroom. We get Christmas' green from the evergreen, a predominanently pagan symbol. Now we know another source of the traditional Christmas red.

 

[bassplayer142]

Don't know where some of you get your information. Nearly 100% of the drinkers I know LOVE the taste of beer. Most of them probably drink to much also but the taste is still a big thing. But they all drink to get a buzz.

EDIT:

I can't believe from what I've read here that nobody hasn't put some of these drugs in a so called different "class"! How can you possibly compare these drugs when they are used for different situations differently. Everyone knows that alcohol is more of a social drug while pot just makes people want to chill out. This post may have strayed from the original intent of the thread but its like comparing apples to oranges. The leading majority of people don't sniff glue because apart from whatever high they get from it it is simply not an enjoyable process. Alcohol is popular because it works so well in social situations (and depressive settings too).

 

[1MileCrash]

But one is not free to harm others, which is what those who abuse alcohol and drugs do. I agree with Evo.

Any way that those who abuse drugs and alcohol can harm others is already illegal.

 

[Evo]

Any way that those who abuse drugs and alcohol can harm others is already illegal.

The study takes social problems into consideration. It's not a scientific study on the physical effects of drugs. The title of the thread is misleading.

 

[1MileCrash]

The study takes social problems into consideration. It's not a scientific study on the physical effects of drugs. The title of the thread is misleading.

It's my fault, I responded directly to a post on the first page, not noticing that this thread spans 5 pages.

Regardless, it touched on the legality of drugs. I was just pointing out that saying that drugs should be illegal because someone might take drugs and therefore increase the chances that he may harm others ignores the fact that whatever action he takes to harm others is already illegal.

Ergo, "cocain should be illegal because otherwise people can just get high off of it and then risk crashing their car into someone" - driving impaired is illegal regardless.

 

[Upisoft]

Great. Yet another childhood belief of mine utterly shattered. I think I'll wander off and cry, now.

Now it's obvious why the alcohol is the most dangerous. Most people will use it to ease the pain... from lost beliefs.

 

[BobG]

Regardless, it touched on the legality of drugs. I was just pointing out that saying that drugs should be illegal because someone might take drugs and therefore increase the chances that he may harm others ignores the fact that whatever action he takes to harm others is already illegal.

Ergo, "cocain should be illegal because otherwise people can just get high off of it and then risk crashing their car into someone" - driving impaired is illegal regardless.

Are you ignoring the fact that many of the activities included under social harm aren't illegal?

It's not illegal for a single mother of five to have her 13-year-old daughter babysit the younger kids 7 nights a week so the mother can spend the family's meager paycheck at the bar, buying sailors drinks so they'll sleep with her.

And it's not illegal for her to threaten to knock the kids' g**d** teeth down their f** throat every morning if they don't shut up and let her sleep off her hangover.

 

[JaredJames]

Regardless, it touched on the legality of drugs. I was just pointing out that saying that drugs should be illegal because someone might take drugs and therefore increase the chances that he may harm others ignores the fact that whatever action he takes to harm others is already illegal.

Ergo, "cocain should be illegal because otherwise people can just get high off of it and then risk crashing their car into someone" - driving impaired is illegal regardless.

I think the key is that it increases the chance of you committing said illegal acts.

Theft is theft and is illegal regardless of the cause. However, a person may not normally steal but the need for their next fix makes them go out and do so.

You can't say "person A went out and stole, the fact they were on drugs is irrelevant". The fact may well be, "person A was so desperate for their fix, they'd do anything to get it. in this case turning to crime". It is an important distinction. Drugs, regardless of which one, can make people do things they wouldn't normally entertain the thought of.

 

[Upisoft]

It's not illegal for a single mother of five to have her 13-year-old daughter babysit the younger kids 7 nights a week so the mother can spend the family's meager paycheck at the bar, buying sailors drinks so they'll sleep with her.

I thought it works the other way, i.e. the sailors buy her a drink, so they can sleep with her.

 

[The legend]

yeah^...works the other way usually.

 

[JaredJames]

She may just really want it...

 

[1MileCrash]

I think the key is that it increases the chance of you committing said illegal acts.

So?

At what point does "preventative laws" just become a nanny state? I'd say pretty damn near immediately. We can't jail someone for doing something that might make them do something that is actually harmful to someone else. Can't drive impaired without a car, make cars illegal?

You can't say "person A went out and stole, the fact they were on drugs is irrelevant". The fact may well be, "person A was so desperate for their fix, they'd do anything to get it. in this case turning to crime". It is an important distinction. Drugs, regardless of which one, can make people do things they wouldn't normally entertain the thought of.

Yes, which usually requires them to break the law, because it's illegal.

I don't really hear much about alcohol lords, commanding gangs of murderers and thieves to make money off of alcohol. At least, I haven't heard of that since prohibition.

Half of the problems that people have with drugs would vanish if they were legalized. Yes, I agree drug dealers on our streets are bad, murdering over drugs are bad, etc. Yet those problems exist because of it's illegality.

And usage going up? I challenge you to find 10 adults who have never done any illegal drugs, and ask them, "if it became legalized, would you start doing crystal meth?" Report your results. The average person doesn't shy away from drugs because it's illegal, they shy away from drugs because they aren't idiots.

And I'm not even going to mention the improvement we'd see in law enforcement. Freeing up our cops to pursue actual crime (harming other people or infringing upon their natural rights) imagine that. And don't get me started on how much more prison space we'd have if we'd release the people who got busted for possession or selling drugs only (if they killed someone because of drugs, stole, etc. then of course let them rot.). Let them free, onto the streets. If they are dealers they are now out of business, since anyone can buy them from a drug store now, and if they are addicts, let them go home and shoot up all they want, as long as they don't bother me.

Call me cold-hearted, cynical, whatever you want, but I firmly believe that sometimes you just have to let people fail.

 

[JaredJames]

1MileCrash. You do realize what drugs actually do to people? Do you know what addiction is?

Legal or not, the effects they have aren't good at all. It is the addiction that drives people to commit crimes. If you legalised heroin, would that make it less addictive? No. People who take heroin still risk becoming addicted to it and once the addiction kicks in it will start to destroy your life (as with any drug). Your ability to work is impaired and you can potentially lose your job. Once that happens, you're still addicted and you still need your fix. So what do you do? You turn to crime.

Your whole "as long as they don't bother me" stance is ridiculous in so many ways. "Let people suffer the effects of what drugs can do to them as long as they don't bother me", just isn't realistic, in any way.

Just because something is legalised, it doesn't mean the crime ascoiated with it disappears. It simply means you go from having illegal dealers to legal ones. All drugs pose problems, some worse than others. Alcohol in moderation isn't addictive. Heroin and Cocaine are. Marijuana, I'm not so sure about.

Your above post, if I'm reading correctly seems to imply all drugs should be legal (as you don't address any specific ones - particularly those causing the biggest problems). If this is the case, then you clearly don't understand the differences between the various drugs and classes available and their effects and harm on society.

 

[1MileCrash]

1MileCrash. You do realize what drugs actually do to people? Do you know what addiction is?

Legal or not, the effects they have aren't good at all. It is the addiction that drives people to commit crimes. If you legalised heroin, would that make it less addictive? No. People who take heroin still risk becoming addicted to it and once the addiction kicks in it will start to destroy your life (as with any drug). Your ability to work is impaired and you can potentially lose your job. Once that happens, you're still addicted and you still need your fix. So what do you do? You turn to crime.

Oh, I agree. But what people do to mess up their lives is no concern of mine or the goverment's. When they decide to turn to crime, throw them in jail.

Just because something is legalised, it doesn't mean the crime ascoiated with it disappears. It simply means you go from having illegal dealers to legal ones.

Legal dealers? You mean like legal skittles dealers or legal doritoes dealers?

Pardon the terrible analogy there, but who in their right mind would take the risk of buying a legal, abused substance (lets say cough syrup for example) from a guy off the street rather than going to a licensed drug store to buy it?

 

[JaredJames]

Oh, I agree. But what people do to mess up their lives is no concern of mine or the goverment's. When they decide to turn to crime, throw them in jail.

Who pays for jail? Who sentences people to prison? Who polices those 'laws'? Who pays for the emergency medical treatment of drug users?

Drugs, once they become addictive and tear someones life apart (losing jobs etc) is when crime becomes an issue.

It's always the concern of the government.

Alcohol in moderation is not a problem for the government. Certain drugs however, regardless of quantity, cause major problems, whether through addiction or simply 'after effects'.

Legal dealers? You mean like legal skittles dealers or legal doritoes dealers?

Pardon the terrible analogy there, but who in their right mind would take the risk of buying a legal, abused substance (lets say cough syrup for example) from a guy off the street rather than going to a licensed drug store to buy it?

Legal dealer, aka a chemist/pharmacist. That's all they are, legal drug dealers.

 

[1MileCrash]

Who pays for jail? Who sentences people to prison? Who polices those 'laws'? Who pays for the emergency medical treatment of drug users?

Care to elaborate here?

Legal dealer, aka a chemist/pharmacist. That's all they are, legal drug dealers.

Okay, and does the "legal drug dealer" at your corner drugstore commonly enter gun fights?

I feel we might be discussing something different - I am talking about violence associated with the distribution of illegal drugs. This is virtually non-existent for abused substances that are legalized.

 

[JaredJames]

Care to elaborate here?

Government, and as such, taxpayer money. Therefore it is always ours and the governments responsibility. After all, that's what we put them there for.

Okay, and does the "legal drug dealer" at your corner drugstore commonly enter gun fights?

I feel we might be discussing something different - I am talking about violence associated with the distribution of illegal drugs. This is virtually non-existent for abused substances that are legalized.

People addicted will still commit crime to get their fix. Whether violent or otherwise. I don't know how legalisation would affect dealers. Not sure if it would help their cause or work against them.

An addicted person will get their fix however they can, if it means an armed robbery on a drug store, so be it. All you do is get those people to carry guns to defend themselves (or employ armed guards).

 

[Upisoft]

C'mon, have a drink and stop arguing. Let be all friends and talk about the lady that ...oops, I'm married... sorry.

 

[turbo]

I feel we might be discussing something different - I am talking about violence associated with the distribution of illegal drugs. This is virtually non-existent for abused substances that are legalized.

You would be VERY far off the mark here in Maine. There are home-invasions, armed robberies, and petty thefts involved in satisfying addicts' need for legal opiates. It might be a good idea to consider limited, controlled distribution of opiates instead of maintaining a condition that drives the price of a single Oxycodone pill to over $50. Our state can't afford the legal costs (investigation, policing, prosecution, and incarceration) associated with drug abuse. We need solutions, not slogans.

 

[Jasongreat]

You would be VERY far off the mark here in Maine. There are home-invasions, armed robberies, and petty thefts involved in satisfying addicts' need for legal opiates. It might be a good idea to consider limited, controlled distribution of opiates instead of maintaining a condition that drives the price of a single Oxycodone pill to over $50. Our state can't afford the legal costs (investigation, policing, prosecution, and incarceration) associated with drug abuse. We need solutions, not slogans.

You make a very good point, is it the legality, or the abuse that causes the problem? Are the legal drugs exempt from abuse? Does it really matter if it is opium, or a substitute? Methamphetamine or a substitute like ridillan?

I say use the more natural version, opium instead of oxycontin, or vicadin, or loratab or percocet, or demoral, or morphine and on and on. That would give plenty of third world countries a good export, instead of us spending millions to burn said crop, costing both societies.

 

[Jasongreat]

=jarednjames;2967217]1MileCrash. You do realize what drugs actually do to people? Do you know what addiction is?

I do, do you, or just what youve heard or been taught? I will agree with you that drug abuse, legal or illegal, is a bad thing. Drug use isnt, unless you feel that the government is trying to hurt us, since they are the the biggest supporter of drug dealers(pharmacuetical companies).

Addiction is just a word that has been made up, recently, to make those who don't want to quit feel like it isn't their fault that they can't quit.
Although opium, coca plants, marijuana and others have been around since the beginning of recorded time, addiction is a word that has been around a very short amount of time. Dependance, like what happens when heroin replaces chemicals your body usually makes for itself, or habitual, like what happens when one gets used to doing certain things at certain times, are very real. Addiction is just an excuse, that doesn't exist, except in ones imagination. And is used as a justification to intrude into others' lives, for their own good.

 

[mugaliens]

Addiction is just a word that has been made up...

You really ought to spend some time volunteering in an addiction recovery ward. You'll learn first-hand that while the words may be new, the physical and psychological affects of drugs have remained much the same for milennia.

 

[JaredJames]

You really ought to spend some time volunteering in an addiction recovery ward. You'll learn first-hand that while the words may be new, the physical and psychological affects of drugs have remained much the same for milennia.

Seconded. Addiction is very real. A lack of will power may be a large driving factor but the effects that the body experiences when it doesn't receive what it wants can be horrific.

 

[ThomasT]

Or is alcohol a drug that would be better treated the same way society treats tobacco use?

Yes, this makes sense to me. Maybe we're currently sending the wrong message about regular alcohol consumption to impressionable minds. Take away the positive ads, and replace them with negative ads. Increasingly tax its sale. Maybe increase penalties for drunk driving, public drunkeness, etc. Open more government-funded alcohol rehabilitation centers. Etc. And see what happens.

I think it makes sense to do this with any and all intoxicants. Not just alcohol. We all know that all of the previously mentioned intoxicants are harmful and unnecessary (except wrt the reduction of physical pain). The current situation mostly victimizes people who really aren't criminals and puts great wealth and power into the hands of people who really are criminals. (Hmm, that has a familiar ring to it.) I doubt that legalization would result in a significant increase in consumption of anything. And, I think that the positive effects of legalization would outweigh the negative effects. Also, I just don't like the idea of some semi-intoxicated legislator voting for various restrictions on my freedom to get buzzed while recovering from his four-cocktail, lunchtime schmoozfest. Anyway, we should try legalization and see.

 

[Jasongreat]

the effects that the body experiences when it doesn't receive what it wants can be horrific.

It sounds like you are describing chemical dependency to a tee, not 'addiction'.

 

[Siv]

Actually, nicotine is probably worse.

But here's something interesting ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2707143.stm

 

[Dembadon]

It sounds like you are describing chemical dependency to a tee, not 'addiction'.

It is acceptable to use chemical dependence and addiction synonymously when discussing substance abuse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence

Addiction is just a word that has been made up, recently, to make those who don't want to quit feel like it isn't their fault that they can't quit. Although opium, coca plants, marijuana and others have been around since the beginning of recorded time, addiction is a word that has been around a very short amount of time. Dependance, like what happens when heroin replaces chemicals your body usually makes for itself, or habitual, like what happens when one gets used to doing certain things at certain times, are very real. Addiction is just an excuse, that doesn't exist, except in ones imagination. And is used as a justification to intrude into others' lives, for their own good.

The Oxford American Dictionary:
-------------------------------------
addiction |əˈdik sh ən|
noun

the fact or condition of being addicted to a particular substance, thing, or activity : he committed the theft to finance his drug addiction | an addiction to gambling.

ORIGIN late 16th cent. (denoting a person's inclination or proclivity): from Latin addictio(n-), from addicere ‘assign’ (see addict).
-------------------------------------
Redefining words that have been established for hundreds of years isn't going to convince an informed individual that your argument is factual. Just because substance Y has been around for X years, doesn't mean that it has been abused for X years.
Edit: Another form:

The New Oxford American Dictionary:
-------------------------------------------
addicted |əˈdiktid|
adjective

physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects : she became addicted to alcohol and diet pills.
• enthusiastically devoted to a particular thing or activity : he's addicted to computers.

ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: from the obsolete adjective addict [bound or devoted (to someone),] from Latin addict- ‘assigned,’ from the verb addicere, from ad- ‘to’ + dicere ‘say.’
-------------------------------------------

 

[Jasongreat]

Just because substance Y has been around for X years, doesn't mean that it has been abused for X years.

That is the point I was trying to make, although I admit not very well. The word addiction has been around, according to the oxford dictionary definition that you posted, the 16th century, which implies that before that time there was not a need to describe the abuse of drugs even though they were all(poppy, coca, marijuana) here and being used, granted not in the superduper forms chemistry has given us, excepting marijuana. Today the argument against illicit drugs, is that those drugs can't be used without becoming a drug abuser or as it is described today 'addicted'.

Imo though, mentally dependent means, cognitive(learnt) dependence, which would categorize it as habitual. But if it is a learned dependence, it can be unlearnt. People who are not wanting to unlearn, say they are 'addicted' to excuse themselves of actually doing so and society accepts that, since it reinforces their preconceived notion they have about drugs use. Physical dependence is a very real and dangerous side effect of all drugs, both legal or illegal.

Every drug abuser I have ever met, which is quite a large number, used drugs to try and fix other problems in their life, or atleast forget about them. The drug is not the problem, it is how they try to cope. Until the underlying problem is addressed, not the superficial problem(drug abuse), they still have those problems, and throwing them in jail, or making them a social outcast only exacerbates the problem.