Booze, smokes worse than some illegal drugs: study

[dragon wench]

I know we've had discussions on this subject before, but this study is quite new. I can't say I'm overly surprised, assuming the study is valid, which it does appear to be.

Booze, smokes worse than some illegal drugs: study
MARIA CHENG

LONDON — New “landmark” research finds that alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than some illegal drugs like marijuana or Ecstasy and should be classified as such in legal systems, according to a new British study.

In research published Friday in The Lancet magazine, Professor David Nutt of Britain's Bristol University and colleagues proposed a new framework for the classification of harmful substances, based on the actual risks posed to society. Their ranking listed alcohol and tobacco among the top 10 most dangerous substances.

Prof. Nutt and his colleagues used three factors to determine the harm associated with any drug: the physical harm to the user, the drug's potential for addiction, and the impact on society of drug use. The researchers asked two groups of experts — psychiatrists specializing in addiction and legal or police officials with scientific or medical expertise — to assign scores to 20 different drugs, including heroin, cocaine, Ecstasy, amphetamines and LSD.

Prof. Nutt and his colleagues then calculated the drugs' overall rankings. In the end, the experts agreed with each other — but not with the existing British classification of dangerous substances.

Heroin and cocaine were ranked most dangerous, followed by barbiturates and street methadone. Alcohol was the fifth most harmful drug and tobacco the ninth most harmful. Cannabis came in 11th, and near the bottom of the list was Ecstasy.

According to existing British and U.S. drug policy, alcohol and tobacco are legal, while cannabis and Ecstasy are both illegal. Previous reports, including a study from a parliamentary committee last year, have questioned the scientific rationale for Britain's drug classification system.

“The current drug system is ill thought-out and arbitrary,” said Prof. Nutt, referring to the United Kingdom's practice of assigning drugs to three distinct divisions, ostensibly based on the drugs' potential for harm. “The exclusion of alcohol and tobacco from the Misuse of Drugs Act is, from a scientific perspective, arbitrary,” write Prof. Nutt and his colleagues in The Lancet.

Tobacco causes 40 per cent of all hospital illnesses, while alcohol is blamed for more than half of all visits to hospital emergency rooms. The substances also harm society in other ways, damaging families and occupying police services.

Prof. Nutt hopes that the research will provoke debate within Britain and beyond about how drugs — including socially acceptable drugs such as alcohol — should be regulated. While different countries use different markers to classify dangerous drugs, none use a system like the one proposed by Prof. Nutt's study, which he hopes could serve as a framework for international authorities.

[Siberys]

Wow, alcohol is bad for you? I had no idea....

[dragon wench]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siberys Wow, alcohol is bad for you? I had no idea....

Indeed, that's hardly revealing. What I find interesting, however, is that the study suggests it is actually more harmful than certain illegal drugs like Marijuana and Ecstasy.
IMO this does raise more than a few questions....

[Siberys]

Ecstacy I can't speak for, but Marijuana is hardly at all harmful to begin with.

Yes, it has more carcinogens than a cigarette, but it also has a buttload of vitamins and minerals that are good for the lungs and really just make those carcinogens the equivelant of a scratchy throat rather than full blown cancer.

This is one thing I don't understand. Marijuana is a drug that can help fight cancer and prevent it in many cases, but because it's a potent narcotic, it's illegal. Cigarette's are not illegal, yet they cause cancer, increase stress, they have so many ailments that it's just not even funny.

In fact, if I recall, an actual reason behind making Marijuana illegal was because it made better rope and put rope companies out of business. That may have just been a rumor, but if that's even the slightest bit true, that's kind of pathetic for a drug, no?

[Claudius]

I think that drugs are taken to relieve some kind of suffering even if it is just boredom. However they do not perform very well in this regard.

All sense pleasures are only temporary and what goes up must come down.

But it does seem interesting what the study found. I'm not sure I agree with it. I think smoking cigarettes is a bigger problem than marijuana but that is because more people smoke cigarettes. I don't want to get on the road with stoned drivers even if they think they are not impaired. They are. I think enhaling smoke into your lung in general is a bad idea whether its woodsmoke or a psychoactive drug. I'm not sure what the long term effect of ecstacy is but I prefer non-substance enhanced techniques to bring about genuine feeling such as meditation and ethical practice (loving kindness).

In effect drugs are a phantom sorrow. Pain masquerading as happiness.

///The Universe is Numbered with Beings in Sorrow; I vow to Save them All.The Universe is Numbered with Phantom Sorrows and Illusory Views; I vow to Defeat them all. The Truth is Subtle and Immeasurable; I vow to Master and Teach it. Enlightenment is beyond both Tears and Knowing; I vow to Attain it.///

In effect a drug cannot substitute from refraining from distraction (ethics), a clear head (concentration), and insight into cause and effect and end to suffering (wisdom).

[galraen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siberys Ecstacy I can't speak for, but Marijuana is hardly at all harmful to begin with. Yes, it has more carcinogens than a cigarette, but it also has a buttload of vitamins and minerals that are good for the lungs and really just make those carcinogens the equivelant of a scratchy throat rather than full blown cancer. This is one thing I don't understand. Marijuana is a drug that can help fight cancer and prevent it in many cases, but because it's a potent narcotic, it's illegal. Cigarette's are not illegal, yet they cause cancer, increase stress, they have so many ailments that it's just not even funny. In fact, if I recall, an actual reason behind making Marijuana illegal was because it made better rope and put rope companies out of business. That may have just been a rumor, but if that's even the slightest bit true, that's kind of pathetic for a drug, no?

I was under the impression that at the international conference back in the 20's when banning of drugs was instigated Maijuana was put on the list at the insistance of Britain and France. Their reasons being that they blamed marijuana or hashish for the fact that people in their colonies/protectorates (particularly in relation to the Suez Canal) were 'poor' workers. Evidently the Suez Canal company was blaming all their shortcomings on their workers being stoned all the time. Strange that people would rather get stoned than work like slaves for a pittance, how inconsiderate of them.

To get back on track, whilst the mary jane that was around up until the last ten years was a lot less harmful than tobacco or alcahol (IMO), there's a variety of weed available in the UK known as 'Skunk', and that stuff is way over the top. Don't tell the cops, but I can tell you from personal experience that Skunk is far too potent, and can seriously mess with your head, I wont touch the stuff again. It's done what no amount of government propaganda or laws failed to do for 25 years, got me off the grass. It's also undone or undoing decades of effort to get the 'erb legalised. It was decriminalised in the UK a few years ago effectively (unless you're a dealer), but thanks to skunk it's likely to get reclassified as at least a Class B drug again, making possession completely illegal once more. Believe me skunk is more harmful than most forms of alcahol, and at least as dangerous as tobacco.

[Xandax]

Well, tobacco for one thing is growing increasingly more restricted as well, and I doubt it would be legal at all if it weren't for the historical aspect of it being legal. Similar restrictions exists with alcohol to "prevent" people from drinking to much.

So even if this study is correct and some drugs are less harmful then tobacco, I do not see any logical argument which could lead to say a legalization of them based on such a comparison; especially in the context of what is indeed happening with tobacco these days.
It would be a kindergarten type of argument where "he can do it, why can't I", and that never sounds convincing.

[Vicsun]

I read this yesterday and my immediate thought was, there are two possible outcomes:

1) Drug laws involving cannabis and/or ecstasy are relaxed
2) Drug laws involving alcohol and/or tobacco are tightened

Which one of those two is more likely is left as an exercise to the reader.

edit:

Quote:

So even if this study is correct and some drugs are less harmful then tobacco, I do not see any logical argument which could lead to say a legalization of them based on such a comparison; especially in the context of what is indeed happening with tobacco these days. It would be a kindergarten type of argument where "he can do it, why can't I", and that never sounds convincing.

I don't see a logical argument which would keep the less harmful drugs illegal. Even if we assume it's the government's duty to protect us from ourselves, the current position seems to be that alcohol and tobacco are safe enough (and therefore legal) while marijuana and ecstasy, while safer than alcohol and tobacco are not safe enough for us. That's rather illogical.

edit^2: Since the burden of proof lies on you here, instead of saying "I do not see any logical argument which could lead to say a legalization based on such a comparison", could you perhaps make a logical argument as to why they should be illegal while alcohol and tobacco should remain legal even though they're apparently safer?

[SupaCat]

Well I've read that Cannabis is the drug that is the most dangerous on long terms, because it damages your mental health. As for XTC, it's hard to say if it really is less dangerous than alcohol or tabacco. XTC is a designer drug and can contain a little bit of every thing, most of the times ratpoison and heroin, not to mention that it takes all of your fluids out of your body, something that tabacco and alcohol don't do.

[Xandax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicsun <snip> edit^2: Since the burden of proof lies on you here, instead of saying "I do not see any logical argument which could lead to say a legalization", could you perhaps make a logical argument as to why they should be illegal while alcohol and tobacco should remain legal?

Well you are twisting my words, or rather omitting an important part - intentional or not, that I can only guess.
I never said what you claim. I said:
I do not see any logical argument which could lead to say a legalization of them based on such a comparison;
See, by leaving out a significant part, you twist the statement into what you want me to "defend"

[Vicsun]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xandax Well you are twisting my words, or rather omitting an important part - intentional or not, that I can only guess. I never said what you claim. I said: I do not see any logical argument which could lead to say a legalization of them based on such a comparison; See, by leaving out a significant part, you twist the statement into what you want me to "defend"

Sorry, I thought the 'based on such a comparison' was implied; I've edited my post to reflect your whole quote. Can you address it now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SupaCat XTC is a designer drug and can contain a little bit of every thing, most of the times ratpoison and heroin.

Okay, I'll bite. Why would anyone cut ecstasy with rat poison? While a lot of ecstasy sold on the streets is ridiculously impure (the 'designer drug' you refer to is MDMA and is what an ecstasy pill should consist of), it's usually cut with caffeine, methamphetamine and occasionally ketamine and not rat-poison. Here's some data.

[galraen]

In my opinion the best option would be to get rid of the whole daft idea of illegal drugs completely. The only people that benefit from making drugs illegal are criminals, by making drugs illegal our governments have simply provided criminals with a market.

What's really criminal is the way governments refuse to learn from their mistakes. Surely the prohibition era in the US should have taught them that by making something that people want illegal they are creating an opportunity for criminal gangs to make a fortune. Prohibition in the twenties in America provided the springboard for the Mafia, which before prohibition had been a minor organisation, to become a monster organisation. Yet governments still plow ahead with their idiotic approach, it leaves one wondering how many politicians are in the pay of the criminal enterprises that profit from the fact that drugs are illegal.

If canabis, extasy, heroin etc. were legalised gang warfare in the UK would be a far smaller problem, the police would be able to stop wasting resources on chasing otherwise law abiding citizens and concentrate on the real criminals. They would also find that they'd get much more support from the community as well; if you're made a 'criminal' because you smoke weed, or pop pills, then you're bound to see the police as a threat and avoid them rather than help them.

What is the governments justification for making drugs illegal in the first place? What right do they have to criminalise people for doing something that only harms themselves and not others? By legalising all drugs the strength of the drugs could be controlled a lot better than they are at present, and they could even be taxed, I'm gobsmacked that Gordon Brown never exploited that aspect.

[Vicsun]

I just saw this on the BBC. Sixty-eight year-old grandmother convicted of growing and self-medicating with cannabis, and is sentenced to 250 hours of community service.

To get a perspective: she is growing weed privately in her apartment and using it to alleviate pain and depression. I have an extremely hard time seeing how convicting her helps society, and I think the case illustrates perfectly how broken drug laws are.

[BlueSky]

Personal opinion is tainted after seeing my father die of cancer and how he had to use Illegal drugs(herbs) to ease his pain, and help in his recovery from chemo.
I myself quit drinking over 13 years ago....and firsthand could tell you the drawbacks of alcohol....

[Tricky]

Well I drink, but I quit smoking six years ago. Recently tried another cig, but I just hate the taste now. I actually find burning up part of oxygen I breathe in quite comforting. It's a good way for me to ease down. And if I'm not doing it, someone else in my vicinity will, especially when going out of course. Plus, if I don't keep my throat used to smoky conditions I can really easily lose my voice when I go out. Or when I'm performing, which is twice a bad.

I have no intention of making it past sixty, so it's all good.