|
British Drugs chief: Alcohol more dangerous than ecstasy, LSD and cannabis
|
View this Thread in Original format
| we_R_DNA |
| quote: | The British Government's chief drug adviser has sparked controversy by claiming ecstasy, LSD and cannabis are less dangerous than cigarettes and alcohol.
Professor David Nutt, chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, attacked the decision to make cannabis a class B drug.
He accused former home secretary Jacqui Smith, who reclassified the drug, of "distorting and devaluing" scientific research.
Prof Nutt said smoking cannabis created only a "relatively small risk" of psychotic illness. And he claimed advocates of moving ecstasy into class B from class A had "won the intellectual argument".
All drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, should be ranked by a "harm" index, he said, with alcohol coming fifth behind cocaine, heroin, barbiturates, and methadone.
Tobacco should rank ninth, ahead of cannabis, LSD and ecstasy.
Prof Nutt said: "No one is suggesting that drugs are not harmful. The critical question is one of scale and degree. We need a full and open discussion of the evidence and a mature debate about what the drug laws are for - and whether they are doing their job."
In a lecture and briefing paper for the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College, London, Prof Nutt attacked what he called the "artificial" separation of alcohol and tobacco from other, illegal, drugs.
He also repeated his claim that the risks of taking ecstasy are no worse than riding a horse.
A Home Office spokesman said: "Prof Nutt's views are his own and do not reflect the views of Government. The Government is clear - we are determined to crack down on all illegal substances and minimise their harm to health and society as a whole.
|
Read more: Click here |
|
|
| boris_the_bear |
i agree. alcohol is easily being abused on a much larger scale because it is regarded as usual business to get wasted on a daily basis = more related deaths. kids start drinking from a frighteningly early age.
i haven't heard of anyone dying of smoking pot too much, on the other hand |
|
|
| we_R_DNA |
| yeah I agree; People now days are like we have to drink more to get drunk, and in the beginning you only had to drink a little bit. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| This is far from the first time an opinion or study has come out saying this. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
Why does he consider alcohol less dangerous than heroin? Is it because of danger from infected needles or something?
Unlike with alcohol, almost no one dies from heroin withdrawal, or even has serious medical complications, and if there were standardized dosages and purity levels far fewer people would die from overdose. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Why does he consider alcohol less dangerous than heroin?
Unlike with alcohol, almost no one dies from heroin withdrawal, or even has serious medical complications, and if there were standardized dosages and purity levels far fewer people would die from overdose. |
You're misunderstanding the ranking. The low numbers are the highest risk. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| because there aren't standardized dosages and purity levels |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
You're misunderstanding the ranking. The low numbers are the highest risk. |
I don't think I am. He said this:
| quote: | | All drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, should be ranked by a "harm" index, he said, with alcohol coming fifth behind cocaine, heroin, barbiturates, and methadone. |
"Behind" meaning "less dangerous," right? I.e. those things are all more dangerous than alcohol. |
|
|
| ziptnf |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Why does he consider alcohol less dangerous than heroin? Is it because of danger from infected needles or something? |
They both have startlingly addictive properties, but anybody can use alcohol responsibly. I don't know anyone who uses heroin, but I imagine that people who start using it begin a destructive habit that is incredibly difficult to break away. Just because someone likes to get drunk doesn't mean they're an alcoholic, but if you met someone who has used heroin multiple times, wouldn't you consider them a junkie? |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| alcohol would be the 5th most dangerous, yes. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
I don't think I am. He said this:
"Behind" meaning "less dangerous," right? I.e. those things are all more dangerous than alcohol. |
Your reading comprehension is abysmal.
| quote: | All drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, should be ranked by a "harm" index, he said, with alcohol coming fifth behind cocaine, heroin, barbiturates, and methadone.
Tobacco should rank ninth, ahead of cannabis, LSD and ecstasy. |
In other words, you are reading this as though tobacco, cannabis, LSD & ecstasy are all worse than alcohol, which is the complete opposite of everything said in the article. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by ziptnf
They both have startlingly addictive properties, but anybody can use alcohol responsibly. I don't know anyone who uses heroin, but I imagine that people who start using it begin a destructive habit that is incredibly difficult to break away. |
But the same is true for alcoholics, the "difficult to break away" part.
The circumstances by which people get into heroin use and alcohol use are very different, so I think there is a population selection effect going on and it is hard to compare them. Most people have to go out of their way to get heroin, but alcohol is everywhere in most countries. I suspect that many people who start using heroin have already been using other drugs in a destructive, addictive way, and only after that seek out heroin as a stronger high. I could be wrong, though.
| quote: | | Just because someone likes to get drunk doesn't mean they're an alcoholic, but if you met someone who has used heroin multiple times, wouldn't you consider them a junkie? |
It would depend on why they were using it, and how often. |
|
|
|
|
