These graphs make more sense if harmfullness iwould be displayed vertically in a scale of 1 to 1000, measured by ld50 value. Then you would find psilocybin at 1, alcohol near the top and cafeine around 640. The way it is now is highly suggestive, as if lsd and psilocybin are the lesser evils but still very bad and unhealthy while that is just not true.
Alcohol and tobacco just as harmful as heroin
- Auteur de la discussion multavisi
- Date de début
Arcticpheonix
Elfe Mécanique
- Inscrit
- 10 Oct 2007
- Messages
- 360
Regarding LD50 and relative toxicity, are these numbers accurate:
Substance : Animal, Route : LD50
Grain alcohol (ethanol) : rat, oral : 7,060 mg/kg
Table Salt : rat, oral : 3,000 mg/kg
Paracetamol (acetaminophen) : rat, oral : 1,944 mg/kg
THC (main psychoactive substance in Cannabis): rat, oral : 1,270 mg/kg males; 730 mg/kg females
It's taken from the LD50 page on Wikipedia (English). All the numbers have sources, but I find it hard to believe that THC can kill you easier than Ethanol can. Do people die of alcohol easier than Marijuana simply because they ingest more milligrams of ethanol drinking, than they do THC while smoking? Or is the LD50 here wrong for THC?
Substance : Animal, Route : LD50
Grain alcohol (ethanol) : rat, oral : 7,060 mg/kg
Table Salt : rat, oral : 3,000 mg/kg
Paracetamol (acetaminophen) : rat, oral : 1,944 mg/kg
THC (main psychoactive substance in Cannabis): rat, oral : 1,270 mg/kg males; 730 mg/kg females
It's taken from the LD50 page on Wikipedia (English). All the numbers have sources, but I find it hard to believe that THC can kill you easier than Ethanol can. Do people die of alcohol easier than Marijuana simply because they ingest more milligrams of ethanol drinking, than they do THC while smoking? Or is the LD50 here wrong for THC?
well, vodka has 40% alcohol, weed has much less THC than alcohol has in proportion. Imagine taking 40% of a vodka shot of pure THC crystals....but I dunno, maybe it is wrong.
The whole problem is, that the study is not really dealing with pure numerical data.
The whole problem is, that the study is not really dealing with pure numerical data.
Also, no telling wat substance they are reffering to by saying 'Ecstacy'.
Pills sold as ecstacy contain a vast variety of crap.
Of course the public wouldn't know wat mdma means (the cops over here don't even know! they haven't a clue!).
But they might have considered putting up 'mdma (ecstacy)', so we know they're actually reffering to a specific substance.
This way it's just a bunch of bullcrap.
Wtf is ecstacy? That is not an existing substance!
Also, of course societal harm is bullshit.
How does one measure societal harm??
You tell me.
Is that like crackheads on the street ruin the view like windmills do in landscapes?
As if it's the wellbeing of a single organism.
It would be nice to have a society.
I don't have to live with an illusion like that in order to feel all right.
We're in a state of devide and rule and competition end of story.
Society.. give me a break.
Pills sold as ecstacy contain a vast variety of crap.
Of course the public wouldn't know wat mdma means (the cops over here don't even know! they haven't a clue!).
But they might have considered putting up 'mdma (ecstacy)', so we know they're actually reffering to a specific substance.
This way it's just a bunch of bullcrap.
Wtf is ecstacy? That is not an existing substance!
Also, of course societal harm is bullshit.
How does one measure societal harm??
You tell me.
Is that like crackheads on the street ruin the view like windmills do in landscapes?
As if it's the wellbeing of a single organism.
It would be nice to have a society.
I don't have to live with an illusion like that in order to feel all right.
We're in a state of devide and rule and competition end of story.
Society.. give me a break.
Forkbender
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 23 Nov 2005
- Messages
- 11 366
I think you have to at least compare the threshold/active/strong dose to an ld50 dose and see how much these differ.
^ That's exactly what I was thinking, if you arranged it that way LSD and mushies would be at the bottom, cannabis probably very close thereafter.. Paracetamol on the other hand, doesn't fare nearly so well in such a graph..
Anyway it's a strange list... For example a lot of people with very different personalities and chemical makeups can enjoy cannabis. I'd recommend cannabis to just about anyone, but not mushrooms. Not everyone is psychologically ready to deal with magic mushrooms.
Also, LSD has suffered from years of hype and yellow journalism. I still have to tell even experienced drug users now and then that no, a guy didn't take LSD and think he was an orange for the rest of his life, that's an urban legend (well explained on snopes.com) that the news put out as 'fact'.. People also tend to erroneously assume that just because a chemical is synthesized in a plant it's somehow safer than one synthesized by humans.
Also bastiaan raises a good point. the media puts out stories about "ecstasy" that are often about something other than mdma. in canada recently a couple people died from taking "tainted ecstasy". in other words, they took something other than MDMA, but the media and the drug warriors use this as an example to hype up the dangers of the drug. I wonder if LSD would score higher than it should for similar reasons.. what with all the rc's circulating on blotter these days
Anyway it's a strange list... For example a lot of people with very different personalities and chemical makeups can enjoy cannabis. I'd recommend cannabis to just about anyone, but not mushrooms. Not everyone is psychologically ready to deal with magic mushrooms.
Also, LSD has suffered from years of hype and yellow journalism. I still have to tell even experienced drug users now and then that no, a guy didn't take LSD and think he was an orange for the rest of his life, that's an urban legend (well explained on snopes.com) that the news put out as 'fact'.. People also tend to erroneously assume that just because a chemical is synthesized in a plant it's somehow safer than one synthesized by humans.
Also bastiaan raises a good point. the media puts out stories about "ecstasy" that are often about something other than mdma. in canada recently a couple people died from taking "tainted ecstasy". in other words, they took something other than MDMA, but the media and the drug warriors use this as an example to hype up the dangers of the drug. I wonder if LSD would score higher than it should for similar reasons.. what with all the rc's circulating on blotter these days
Dantediv86
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 18 Avr 2007
- Messages
- 2 264
weird! the LD50 of THC is supposedly 4 times that of alcohol!
Dantediv86
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 18 Avr 2007
- Messages
- 2 264
even more weird they didn't include caffeine
about LSD
doesn't it cause vasoconstriction? never heard anything good about vasoconstricting drugs (xcept LSD!)....i've heard good about lysergic acid byproducts and obstetrics giving them to women for childbirth in the past....
about LSD
doesn't it cause vasoconstriction? never heard anything good about vasoconstricting drugs (xcept LSD!)....i've heard good about lysergic acid byproducts and obstetrics giving them to women for childbirth in the past....
Caduceus Mercurius
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 14 Juil 2007
- Messages
- 9 628
Ergot, the fungus from which LSD is synthesized, can induce uterine contractions. That's why pregnant women should avoid LSD, but might use ayahuasca (which is a common practice) or mushrooms.Mescaline a dit:
I'm not that surprised, as it's measured in milligrams, not in number of joints or drinks.Dantediv86 a dit:
Difficult to judge its impact on society, I guess. Because are consumerism, materialism and capitalism good or a bad influences on society?Dantediv86 a dit:
Dantediv86
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 18 Avr 2007
- Messages
- 2 264
true, i do understand why they didn't include caffeine
however LD50 of cannabis changes depending on the route it takes to enter the body....intravenously is very unlikely to happen unless in a lab environment!
however LD50 of cannabis changes depending on the route it takes to enter the body....intravenously is very unlikely to happen unless in a lab environment!
Arcticpheonix
Elfe Mécanique
- Inscrit
- 10 Oct 2007
- Messages
- 360
Dantediv86 a dit:
I hate to argue with you here, but doesn't the LD50 stay the same? It would be easier to REACH if you injected pure THC instead of smoking, but the dosage should stay the same. At least that's my reasoning.
Dantediv86
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 18 Avr 2007
- Messages
- 2 264
LD50 for pot injested is different 'cause the body absorbs it and is stored within membranes in the blood it's not dissipate through the body tissues as fast as through the digestive system
therefore the LD50 for the same dose changes
therefore the LD50 for the same dose changes
I don't necessarily see what the big fuss is about. Isn't this usual with politics these days? Especially the prohibitionist side of the drug war? Isn't this always happening? I refuse to read medical shit anymore, it's all a bunch of propaganda and lies (not all, but the lies are in there) and I don't take anyone advice. I'll find out for myself.
Infact..
I'm going to go smoke a cigarette. Right now.
Infact..
I'm going to go smoke a cigarette. Right now.
tryptonaut
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 20 Nov 2004
- Messages
- 3 440
The physical damage of LSD is higher than the physical damage of anabolic steroids? Yeah right, anabolic steroids are just waiting to damage you, they can have horrific effects on your body. Like men growing tits and developing breast cancer, or driving your blood pressure so high you die from a heart attack at 35...
Maybe if a doctor administers clean steroids then you might have less health problems - but they're illegal and so most people get cheap steroids from Eastern Europe and shoot them themselves.
And what is the scale of that chart anyways? I think it's made flat (I mean going from 1 to 3, not from 1 to 100 or whatever) so that all drugs look really dangerous, with only slight differences.
Like Churchill said: "Do not trust any statistics you did not fake yourself."
Maybe if a doctor administers clean steroids then you might have less health problems - but they're illegal and so most people get cheap steroids from Eastern Europe and shoot them themselves.
And what is the scale of that chart anyways? I think it's made flat (I mean going from 1 to 3, not from 1 to 100 or whatever) so that all drugs look really dangerous, with only slight differences.
Like Churchill said: "Do not trust any statistics you did not fake yourself."