Drug ranking, which one is the most dangerous ?

[TheeLord!]

The study "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse" from UK-researcher David Nutt (Bristol University) got published at March 22 at the magacine "The Lancet" (Vol 369, p. 1047-1053, DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4).

It's highly interesting and can be read: here
Needs (free) registration, because I hate registration I've pdf'ed (quick and dirty, rather bad quality, sorry) and attached it here for your convience ;-)

 

[Meduzz]

thanks, this is the key to convincing my parents that cannabis isn't that harmfull. :twisted:

 

[Meduzz]

you could have included the pdf on the site of the lancet, which is way better with lay-out :wink:

 

[TheeLord!]

Uups, oversight, thx

 

[Voldemort]

Well, The Lancet article is interesting. I had always suspected that Tobacco was among the worst drugs out there. But I think that there's some refinedments that need to be taken into account in order to make real decisions about the comparitive harm of drugs.

The March of science has brought more powerful drugs, and the effects of these have been both beneficial and harmful. For instance, the invention of distillation made it possible to have alcohol available at much higher concentrations than in the past, making the problems that some people have with it more serious. What I mean is: When a beverage was only 1% alcohol, it would be difficult to drink enough of it to become drunk and/or violdent, and it would be difficult to obtain such a large amount frequently enough to become addicted to it. Yet now, it is possible for people to drop dead from drinking 75% alcohol, and they don't even need to drink very much of it for it to be harmful - it is the concentration, not the drug, that is the problem.

This is again illustrated in opiates. Man has used the poppy medicinally and recreactionally for mellenia, without much in the way of problems. Yet, once Morphine is extracted from opium in the early 19th century, and used as an aenesthetic, it did help cure pain but also brought much addiction. The invention of Heroin didn't help, it only made things worse. Aside from the tendancy to be addictive, what's so bad about Morphine and Heroin? well, they depress the nervous system to the point where, in the overdose, breathing stops. Interestingly, opium, as a max of several major and many minor alkaloids, contains significant amounts of Thebaine, which is a stimulant - it acts to counter the effects of the morphine. The mixture of Thebaine, Codeine, and Morphine in opium makes it far less of a dangerous drug than Morphine (and Heroin), while providing much of the same high that users of morphine and heroin are chasing. But while it doesn't get one quite as high, it does it safely and for a longer period of time.

Heroin and Morphine scare me, while Opium does not. Opium is wine to Morphine's Whiskey and Heroin's Everclear. It's harder to make a mess of oneself on opium or wine. Still possible, though.

How about the THC world? Ditch-weed, grown in the backwoods of places like New York State, is generally low in THC. You have to smoke quite a bit to get high, which means it's a lot harder to smoke too much. But THC is unlike the earlier examples of Alcohol and Morphine in that I am not sure that one can physically die of a THC overdose. Nonetheless, scientific progress has brought us some very high THC strains and maybe these are a bit too much for some of the amateurs out there, who would be better off starting with some ditch weed and learning how to handle themselves while just a bit stoned before going round the bend with that Saskatchewan Indica.

But who out there is to decide who gets what, at what age, after what training? In the USA, drug education can be summed up as "just say no", and "D.A.R.E.", which are stupid. People want to get high. People want to cut loose, both alone and in groups, and while not everyone needs chemical help most of us can make good use of it. There needs to be some sort of drug education which is factual and real, and some sort of drug social policy which seeks Harm Reduction. I am preaching to the choir here when I say that The Drug War is double-plus stupid, but there needs to be some sort of guidance when using all these very potent and potentially dangerous chemicals.

I don't have kids yet, but I want to. When it comes time for these kids to know about drugs, I want to be able to explain it all with a straight face and not have to worry about what's going to happen to them, either medically, socially, or legally. I can't do much about the law, but it strikes me that it is possible to come up with some rational system for kids to understand drugs for real.

 

[buffachino]

My view is that the element of society being harmed or killed by substance abuse are simply that, abusers. They neither respect nor do they know anything about the substance they are taking; they just want to get high, whatever that entails, and lack the brainpower & foresight to be able to minimise the risk and maximise the benifits of using any psychoactive.

It is these people who destroy public opinion and give both the media and politicians something viable to run with when naievly outlawing and overgeneralising all 'drugs'.

Just like people are viewed as numbers these days, all subtances are viewed on their gross public image and not the factrs that reside in the real world or psychonautics.

It's sad that an illinformed few ruin everyone elses fun and experiences with their neglegance.

 

[Pinealjerker]

Nonetheless, scientific progress has brought us some very high THC strains and maybe these are a bit too much for some of the amateurs out there

I don't think it works that way: when the weed is stronger, the amateur will simply smoke less to reach a satisfactory level of highness. And the phase of being an amateur is quite short for most people. Smoking cannabis is easy!

 

[Dantediv86]

abusers. They neither respect nor do they know anything about the substance they are taking; they just want to get high, whatever that entails, and lack the brainpower & foresight to be able to minimise the risk and maximise the benifits of using any psychoactive.

well said

 

[Helix]

I came across this report by the lancet a month or so ago and found it completely absurd in the way that they represented their final graph summary.. Physical harm is the only thing that i think should be categorized on their charts since dependence and social harm is completely subjective based on the scientists views, and differ completely from person to person. As i'm sure many of the people on this forum could vouch for, willpower can completely overcome almost every substance on this list as only a few of the following induce physical cravings and withdrawals. The whole idea of charting dependence and social harm seems ridiculous. [Putting LSD 7th from the bottom was really pissing me off, seeing how multiple studies have shown absolutely no physical damage : )]

 

[GOD]

For me there is a big difference between physicaly harmfull substances and mentaly harmfull substances . Plus its not what you do but the way that you do it = drugs arent dangerous people are . MDA is supposed to be toxic for your brain , wich i can say from my experience is true . The mental problems that can be caused by abusing extacy are often long term . It took me about 5 years to get back to normal emotionaly . Datura can be the worst , the negative effects can last a lifetime . It opens pandoras box , and once opened pandoras box can not be closed again . It breaks down the borders between the conscious mind and the subconscious . It was used as a model to describe what a psychosis is . It can also cause ireparable damage to the memory wich make the short term memory loss as with canabis look stupid .

 

[spice]

Well. what Vildemort was saying about science and the advent of distillation, etc., is what Terence refers to when he uses the term 'dominator' drug. It is an addictive drug, made more addictive, potent, and dangerous by purification. Each step of purification removing it all the more from the natural world.

Terence used the examples of sugar and of rum as being two dominator drugs which defy normal categorization as dominator drugs, per se, to illustrate the tie-in between empire-building and dominator drugs.

I believe that the way our culture classifies drugs should be re-examined. Instead of them all being lumped into the same category, we should break recreational drugs into 'mindexpanding' and 'mindnarrowing'.....any drug that addicts you physically, by definition is a dominator drug.

Since addiction is the best way to get repeat business, its easy to see why fortunes are easily built this way.

The shameless way our supposed 'representative' government coddles and protects big tobacco and alcohol should be used as an example of how NOT to do it for future generations.

The most dangerous drug?

That's easy.

Television.

 

[buffachino]

Spice said: Instead of them all being lumped into the same category, we should break recreational drugs into 'mind-expanding' and 'mind narrowing'.....any drug that addicts you physically, by definition is a dominator drug.

Aren’t you just categorising matter in the same closed minded way the Media and establishment do? I agree with the sentiment of complete dissolution from generalising anything, especially something as subjective as a psychoactive substance. However, I do recognise the need to define which substances act in what area of the consciousness and thus determine the effects, both immediate and unperceived on the person.
There are those substances such as cocaine, meth, speed ect; mostly the synthetics, which rather than expand the sentient mind into new and alien realms from which one can learn infinite knowledge (like the Ergolines, Tryptamines, Phenethylamines ect.), further enhance the ego rather than dissolving it and clouds judgment whilst building further walls within your mind rather than smashing the rule system that has come to exist out of the drudgery of daily human routine. In this, one can see the noble face of substances themselves such as cocaine which were used harmoniously in a natural environment by natives who chewed quids of leaves for energy. This is another example of western society’s perversion of what a substance or ‘drug’ is. A purified extract will completely destroy the initial meaning in the use of cocaine, as alcohol has been (think wine, then think moonshine). By no means is purifying or extracting active constituents wrong; but it does cloud the nature and meaning behind the journey that the substance induces, no matter how benign or depressive. By giving it a name and marketing value, the knowledge of the nature of the substance has been lost to time forever in the eyes of a naive and contorted public view, which eventually dominates all our lives in its invisible regime of unconditional servitude to the majority group’s values. It should be freely available in its most natural form, and for the person involved, becoming worthy of taking that substance, they must first learn all there is to know about it, and its initial extraction. That way, the user is making up there own view of the ‘drug’ at hand and is less likely to become a mindless addict or dissolve into a violent and murderous underworld that the yolk of society attempts to portray our way of life as on a consistent basis.

The truth is they need the junkies and dealers and addicts, for without them, who will scare the public under their tables? Who will portray their view of a user than the abusers we see on cops and our local currant affairs program on occasion. They need to maintain the air of terror within our society towards all things that challenge their basis of reality; and what more destructive to that contorted view than psychedelics? It’s a lot easier to get a poll result in your favour if you portray the outcome of your competitions campaign (towards more leniencies perhaps) with a meth addict’s mug shot. When you get friend of yours who aren’t involved in the psychonaut way of life proclaiming the dangers of said substances and lumping say acid and the consumption of turpentine together, you know something is terribly wrong with our mainstream views and the way in which people are educated, or should I say ‘brainwashed’ into conforming to the status quo. 0 tolerance to ‘drugs’ (but everything you consume could be perceived as a ‘drug’).
None of us are free, until we are all free.

Peace.

 

[spice]

buffachino- I don't consider it closed minded to classify a recreational drug as poison if it's clearly demonstrated to me that it is such. That is my prerogative as a thinking being. Since most people seem to have problems making the finer distinction between a drug that may help you change your life for the better, and one that may ruin it, it may not be time to transcend labels just yet.

I don't see how you can keep from generalizing with a subject such as this. If you don't generalize, then things automatically revert to the
realm of ancient mystery because it's not discussed. It's a lot like discussing love. Every description I could come up with, based on my experiences, are subjective....therefore to discuss it at all, I'd need to generalize, especially in explaining the way it made me feel...because ultimately feelings are subjective.

To classify something as I said, is merely a step in the direction of shifting everyone subtly in their thinking. Instead of the 'a drug is a drug is a drug' mentality, its only natural that shades of grey begin to express themselves. But greys can only manifest once black and white are defined.

Generalization is a necessary evil which must exist until the ignorant are educated.

 

[Dantediv86]

You guys forgot to mention that this status of druggies and dealers and fear of the underground is one of the big "lumps" that ensure the businness to any mafia like association. addictive drugs such as morphine heroin cocaine...etc...are needed to feed the masses of people asking for them. it doesn't surprise me when polititians don't wan't to legalize the use and therefore spread of real information about said drugs. because all of them even the most radical polititian who got a small place in the parliament or whatever structure of government there is are involved, payed and/or dependent on a kind of mafia and it soesn't matter weather they appear to us as badass antidrug warriors or really pro decriminalization because in reality that is just a facade to get votes and behind their back they all have a gun pointed at the head to remind them that the way things are now is how they are supposed to be to ensure businness and that is not only for drugs.

i agree on TV being the most dangerous drug

PS did you know that the camorra (how mafia is called in Napoli) ships tons of heroin in italy? did you know that at the same time they synthetise it? did you know that to test the quality they leave needles and all in a park where junkies are? and that they stay at a distance to see how many die to determine how good it is? did you know what do they call the junkies? zombies...and that they consider them less than shit? and that it doesn't matter to them how many die cause they are sure to get new addicts every day?

 

[buffachino]

Spice said -
"I don't see how you can keep from generalizing with a subject such as this"

Well, I see your point in that allot of topics are hard to describe without generalising so as that the person who you are communicating with will have some point of reference to what your trying to express. Yet this is also my point.
By defining a feeling or a sensation, you are debasing the very essence of that felt experience by doing so. Of course all present communication relies on these brazen generalisations to instil an image of the notion inside the imagination of the subject; This, I believe is the reason for the breakdown of our connection with and respect for nature and the self torture the human race inflicts.
Doesn’t McKenna say that the biggest challenge for us is to evolve our communication?
In order to portray any such experience to another, one must pervert the notion into a more simplified and meaningless label from which the other can draw meaning; however desecrated that meaning is by the time of its portrayal. In doing this, one is basically accumulating a plethora of pain, love and excitement that makes up your every day and then cram it into a box labelled ‘Life’. It can’t be done; the experiences that entail the description are so wide and varied that no actual explanation of what 'love' or ‘life’ is can ever be achieved. Yet one can still attempt to portray these feelings through other means but will never come close to the entirety of felt emotion that the simple word comes to express.
This applies for substance use and the description of that use also; we can try to explain to each other what the visions and experiences we have felt and lived through mean but we will never pinpoint an exact explanation that correlates to all psychedelic experiences, of the effects or the basis of the journey, because as you said, they are subjective. Yet, as I said in my last post, the best way to analyse this is as a suggestion from which you can build your own conclusion out of a tower of other peoples and possibly your own, experiences. Besides, isn’t the plethora of experience and the discussion that follows worth a lot more than the description or demonstration of them? This is another value that further separates the users and the abusers, the open and closed minded.

"To classify something as I said, is merely a step in the direction of shifting everyone subtly in their thinking. Instead of the 'a drug is a drug is a drug' mentality, its only natural that shades of grey begin to express themselves. But greys can only manifest once black and white are defined."

By manipulating the thinking path of an entire society in order to gain personal prowess over another faction is exactly the path that organised and 'representative' governments around the western world are utilising at this very moment to control our values. It should be clear to those who use psychedelics that there is a distinction between mind expanding and narrowing substances, and it usually depends on the personality as to which of these two mainstreams of mind exploration (or lack thereof) the person chooses to take.

On a wider note; how can you have grey or white or black? Think of a colour line, one beginning with black and ending in white; the middle is a dissection of greys. Now imagine that the line is infinite, no mere line segment; what comes before black and after white? Just because we can’t perceive that such places exist doesn’t mean that they do not. All you are advocating is the choice of reference in order to place you and your destination in a visible plane from which one can devise some rout to freedom or success. Is anything really attained at the end of a road or does the road just take another turn and continue along a different path?
Yet in 'reality' there are no lines, there are no borders or numbers or start or finish; there just IS and that’s all you or I or anyone else can know. This applies for all things, not just the overcomplicated and unjust restrictions on personal freedom that we struggle against. All fabricated matter is just a name, a word; what matters is what the word implies. People get caught up in the hype and red tape just because it has a face or a physical parameter from which you can connect; but in the end only more complex questions can be drawn from all of this labelled mass; which essentially is just a huge clump of sub atomic particles, which no doubt consist of even smaller and less complicated pieces.

Thinking about things in this way, the only thing you gain out of the belief in a symbol is more trust in the one that created it; and by doing this you decrease trust in yourself.

Peace.

 

[BrainEater]

Amazing! I agree! Fascinating how clear you state your opinions.
Anyway what I would say about it: it may be ignorant or stupid to confuse ignorance and stupidty, though the border between the two might be very thin indeed.... sorry for harsh words, but i hope you'll catch my meaning.

I think most of the discussed attitudes testify for the current levels of stupidity and ignorance of the "leaders" of our time or whatever you like to call it and of course for the derived mass "opinions" or attitudes of people as well...


PS: buffachino your last post is so good! I can't relate to it now, because of a lack of ideas. But i see it the same.... It's a vicious circle ... (if you call it like that in english)


Greetings

 

[Goran.Hrsak]

I do not have time for long post and hate them(sorry for all of you who wrote long post).

For human being the most poisoned drug witch destroyes body and soul is CRYSTAL METHAMPHETAMINE, worse than coke and heroin together!!

For society drowning drug is alcohol- destroyer of family, killer on road!

And at least material hunger and money/power is third killer for sooo much people! One rich on 1000 hungry one's or family witch are connecting one part with another! This last is really sad!

4-WAR

 

[buffachino]

Spot on! Who needs long posts when its all this simple?

But remember; the personal judgment of the person and the choices they make based off misinformation or a tendency for ignorance are the biggest killers. No one can blame an inane substance for their problems, no matter how relatively toxic it may be. It’s the individuals own choice to follow a path to their own destruction. Whatever this may be based upon.

Peace.

 

[Goran.Hrsak]

OK, I respect what you have sad! But my answer was objective one not subjective. Like substance vs host! And I believe that you are wrong in one thing. People it self are their own killers but if someone who have tendencies for crystal or crack would not use it if this is never offered to them! Substance have in my opinion higher percentage of all together sum of auto-destructive behave in some people. Some 20 years ago from now Croatia was part of Yugoslavia social federate republic and than only drugs were drugs that were from our land-soil. Maybe only 15% of heroin(Macedonian which is very famous in Europe now!) users and 25% of cannabis users equilibrating them with 85% more heroin users and 75% more THC users! :shock: Synthetics and coke were only available for tiny percentage of people! Meaning that little drug users were using coke and synthetics (ACID and ECSTASY ONLY!)

So I would give at the end more responsible part in addicting behaviour to the drugs and lesser to the people who use them now. :wink:

WHAT YOU THINK BOUT MY THEORY :?:

 

[buffachino]

Well this is true to an extent, but humans as we are will always get addicted or feel the need for repetition to whatever we are consuming or enacting on a regular basis; for some means or another.

It’s the physical routine, coupled with misinformation along with ignorance after the fact that causes the perceived problematic scenarios to which the ruling body uses to contort reality.
So, to blame a substance that has existed 'naturally' or as a possible physical protocol for synthesis is to regulate what we experience in a contorted and holistic way. It’s another control mechanism built out of a need for manufacturing new ways to both keep people occupied, consuming and more importantly, paying revenue to the overlords of that society.
These are where the problems spawned from; a means of control for both perpetuations of the ignorance and the problem itself and also to enforce the system of prohibition. Divide and conquer.
No education other than twisted faith and falsified absolutism.

Again, to blame anything other than a conscious being who has the ability to manipulate a situation is to deny yourself the truth of existence. There will always be those who want to escape through both chemical and other physical means away from their constriction. And in doing this will inevitably find ways to both reassure their position of recurrent use of any substance, ‘drug’ or not, and also to find ways to which that or other perceived courses of action are inferior or wrong.
Snowballing the problem.

So in this, you can see that the ‘being’ is wholly responsible for their own actions; be this based off the misinformation culminated from themselves, the social group or the attitude of the socialistic whole. There too will be a need to rebel against perceived standard, no matter how simplistic or enforcing.

It is the process of learning, the assimilation of information. This really is what life is all about; and yet this is twisted and malformed into a self perpetuating pathway into oblivion.

It's when these aspects are ignored or contorted through a means of control or ignorance that anything, not only substance abuse, becomes a problem. This is why prohibition only makes things worse for all parties involved; all but the ones making a profit from the others misfortune and trust in falsities of perception.

Simply put, it’s the abusers which keep the system going. But it’s the users who feel the consequences of the abusers lack of respect, insight and attitude towards the subject. Wanting to get higher and higher at the cost of both your livelihood and wellbeing whilst ignoring the means, actions and consequences of that high in the first place.

Peace.