Most Dangerous Drug

[Steve James]

Is alcohol more dangerous than heroin? We all know that alcohol, heroin and crack cocaine are all highly addictive drugs. A new alcohol study ranks 20 drugs on 16 measures. Marijuana, Ecstasy and LSD all came in with lower rankings than alcohol, heroin and crack cocaine. The alcohol study environmental damage and costs to families and economy were taken into account determining how dangerous these drugs are. Since President Franklin Roosevelt repeal prohibition, alcohol has remained the most widely used and dangerous drug.


Dr. David Nutt of the Imperial College in London rated the 20 drugs in the new study. Using a point scale from 0 to 100, with 100 being the most dangerous, alcohol scored a 72. Heroin came in at 55, Crack Cocaine at 54, Crystal Meth at 33, Powder Cocaine at 27 and Tobacco at 26. Marijuana came in at only 20, with Ecstasy at 9 and LSD at a mere 7. The lowest drug scored was ‘Magic Mushrooms at only 5. The findings of the new study by Dr. Nutt and his team were published in the medical journal, The Lancet.

In 2007 Dr. Nutt did a similar study basing his findings on only nine criteria. This new study uses a new analytical technology known as Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, or MCDA. A UK group known as the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs met for a one day workshop. They scored 20 drugs based on nine criteria concerning the harm each drugs causes to the individual user and on seven criteria concerning the harm the drug causes to nonusers.
The purpose of this type of analysis using the MCDA technology and method is to affect public policy decisions. For example, a great deal of time, money and resources are used to combat the use of Ecstasy, however, as the new study shows, such resources and efforts would be better spent on fighting other forms of drug abuse.
The new study makes it plain that between alcohol and heroin, alcohol is more dangerous than heroin to both the individual user and to society as a whole. The study shows that alcohol, heroin and crack cocaine are all highly addictive drugs. The new alcohol study ranks 20 drugs on 16 measures with Marijuana, Ecstasy and LSD all came in with lower rankings than alcohol, heroin and crack cocaine. The alcohol study examines environmental damage and costs to families and economy were taken into account determining how dangerous these drugs are. Since President Franklin Roosevelt repeal prohibition, alcohol is the most dangerous substance abused.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... 13&ps=cprs
http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... crack.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39938704/
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/11/0 ... 148653343/

This seems to be an example of how "science" (ie. using a scientifically quantifiable formula) can be used to affect an issue that is considered "moral" by some parts of society. It'd be interesting to see the categories they used to reach their conclusions --though the conclusion, itself, is both empirically and intuitively correct.

[Dmitri]

And driving is the most dangerous activity.

[Darth Rock&Roll]

...or booty calls. those are dangerous when you drunk dial em too...

[Steve James]

To drive, unless it's on your own property, you need to be of a certain age, obtain a license, take responsibility for your actions, and suffer the consequences --including suspension of the privilege-- if you fail to act responsibly. That's done because it's dangerous: driving is not illegal because it's "bad."

[Chris McKinley]

That study artificially flat-lined both effective dosage and typical dosage as well as per capita consumption. Unfortunately, however valid his points might be otherwise, those practices just earned that study a special place in the circular file cabinet. Peer review is a bitch.

[Steve James]

Unfortunately, current peer-review practices prohibit certain types of human testing I'm interested, though. Where do you get your info on how the test (er, study) was conducted? Needless to say, I'm assuming that you don't consider your assertion a peer-review/

[Chris McKinley]

Journal of Neurophysiology archive of abstracts and abstracts links. If you have a membership, you can access the protocols directly. And no, one editorial comment on a martial arts forum does not constitute peer review.

[Steve James]

Journal of Neurophysiology archive of abstracts and abstracts links. If you have a membership, you can access the protocols directly.

Well, that's quite a non-citation. It's a bit journal, but moot to your point. So, I don't think you quite understand what was done with the study ... unless, you can point me to the JoN article that refers to it.

Tangentially, of course, if one argues that alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana (or tobacco), one naturally provides the numbers of casualties. Every state department of transportation would show more deaths by alcohol than any other substance. Tough to do "testing" though.

Anyway, if you think the study was improperly done (then, you know much more about it than I), that's cool. If you disagree with the conclusion, then how would you rearrange the list and on what grounds? I might raise LSD up a bit; but, only because I've had friends who've taken suicidal headers from high places while on the drug. The worst any of my pot-head pals has become is a loafer ... working part time at the factory and living in his mom's basement. In terms of alcohol, though, I've seen more death and destruction than from anything else.

[Chris McKinley]

I'm not arguing for or against the point(s) made by Nutt et all. I'm stating that his distribution is going to be heavily critiqued to the point that it will likely render his conclusions, well.....inconclusive. As to my personal views on alcohol, I think it can be very addictive. However, any study that considers only the substances themselves and doesn't take into account the complex processes that are involved in physiological addiction (not to mention psychological addictions) is only telling a part of the story and cannot be taken as orthodox reference.

[Steve James]

Again, I'm not sure how you get information on his methodology. And, in any case, just using the number of deaths caused by or related to a particular drug is sufficient to classify "danger" levels. Afa I'm concerned, one would have to be blind to deny the general conclusion. However, I was interested in the response. So, here's from one article. (Btw, one gets one's article printed in Lancet of JoN "after" peer-review, fwiw)

"The study was paid for by Britain's Centre for Crime and Justice Studies and was published online Monday in the medical journal, Lancet.

Experts said alcohol scored so high because it is so widely used and has devastating consequences not only for drinkers but for those around them.

When drunk in excess, alcohol damages nearly all organ systems. It is also connected to higher death rates and is involved in a greater percentage of crime than most other drugs, including heroin."

It's the third premise above that doesn't really need proof, either intuitively or empirically. Rather, it needs to be refuted "with evidence," which is what a researcher would do.

[Chris McKinley]

You'll have to read his protocol directly. "Denying the general conclusion" is a strawman....no one has mentioned anything of the sort. As to publication, peer review doesn't occur just once and you're in the clear. Everything published in Lancet, etc. gets continually peer reviewed from the time of publication onward.

Just to be clear, there has yet to be any disagreement, or even substantive discussion for that matter, of the general premise and conclusions that Nutt makes. I already posted my personal agreement above, as well as pointed out that even so, it's only part of the picture.

[Steve James]

Oh, and I do have an opinion, though the use of formulae (science) as a basis for determining the 'morality' of social practices was more interesting. I think all true Libertarians and advocates of the Constitution (like the Tea Partyers) would be all for the de-regulation of certain drugs (that are considered socially unacceptable, but have not been shown to be "more" personally or socially destructive). I thought they'd point to Washington, Franklin and Jefferson --all hemp growers-- for this the way they point to them for other things.

[Steve James]

You'll have to read his protocol directly.

Enough bs, thanks. Ciao.,

[aamc]

Having seen Mr Nutt on t.v. the media has done an excellent job of misrepresenting the study and inventing a headline that will incite outrage at Mr Nutt. Firstly and I've only got the interview I saw him do as reference. The study was not, what is the most dangerous drug. It was what is the most harmful drug. This is subtle and nuanced difference.

I just felt that the media once again shows a complete lack of understanding when it comes to the subtle of science or scientific studies. It storms in with a great 'shock' headline. Which invariable gets everyone outraged. Especially when it comes to drugs and the hypocrisy that most people have towards it. Its like all drugs : bad. Alcohol its okay, its culturally acceptable. Its never, well you know what all these things are dangerous, all these things are manufactured and as such will affect your body in such and such a way.

[Chris McKinley]

Hey Steve, go fuck yourself. If you've got to turn any discussion into a personal insult exchange, you're a fuckin' douchebag. Boy, that was fun.