Tobacco and alcohol 'are more dangerous than LSD'

Tobacco and alcohol 'are more dangerous than '___''

news.independent.co.uk

Alcohol and tobacco are more harmful than many illegal drugs including the hallucinogen '___' and the dance drug ecstasy, according to a new scale for assessing the dangers posed by recreational substances.

Drug specialists say the current system for ranking drugs - class A for the most dangerous to class C for the least dangerous, as set out in the Misuse of Drugs Act - is irrational, arbitrary and "lacking in transparency".

Scientific evidence shows that heroin and coc aine are correctly ranked as class A drugs as they do cause the most harm. But '___' and ecstasy come close to bottom of the league in terms of harm caused, yet they are also labelled as class A.

Alcohol is legal and widely used but comes fifth in the "harm" table, ahead of amphetamines and cannabis, which are ranked as class B and class C respectively. Tobacco is also ranked as more harmful than cannabis.

The league table of 20 drugs drawn up by drugs specialists is intended to provide a scientifically based model for policy makers of the harm they cause. It shows that the dangers they pose bear little relationship to the official classification, on which the penalties for drug use are based. The eight drugs ranked as most dangerous include two that are unclassified while the eight judged least dangerous include two class A drugs.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.theaustralian.news.com.au
www.thelancet.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
www.abovepolitics.com...
www.abovepolitics.com...
Truck-load of Marijuana Abandoned on California Highway

Finally -- a respected study on the rating of how dangerous various drugs are.

Not surprisingly both alcohol and tobacco are rated more dangerous than cannabis. That it again is rated above extasy I find dubious ...but I have no experience with that particular drug, so...

From The lancet, the source for this news (needs registration to access):

Drug misuse and abuse are major health problems. Harmful drugs are regulated according to classification systems that purport to relate to the harms and risks of each drug. However, the methodology and processes underlying classification systems are generally neither specified nor transparent, which reduces confidence in their accuracy and undermines health education messages. We developed and explored the feasibility of the use of a nine-category matrix of harm, with an expert delphic procedure, to assess the harms of a range of illicit drugs in an evidence-based fashion. We also included five legal drugs of misuse (alcohol, khat, solvents, alkyl nitrites, and tobacco) and one that has since been classified (ketamine) for reference. The process proved practicable, and yielded roughly similar scores and rankings of drug harm when used by two separate groups of experts. The ranking of drugs produced by our assessment of harm differed from those used by current regulatory systems. Our methodology offers a systematic framework and process that could be used by national and international regulatory bodies to assess the harm of current and future drugs of abuse.

Let us hope this can be a breakthrough for altering legislation to fit reality and the actual dangers of various drugs.

news.independent.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

In September of 2000 I checked into a psychiatric hospital because I wanted to kill myself.

A few weeks prior I decided I was doing too many drugs, and stopped. For a mere ten months I had a regular '___' and ecstasy habit. Usually two or three rolls (hits of ecstasy) every weekend with a few drops of acid here and there (PLUR maaan!).

I decided to quit using because the damage was becoming very apparent. I was having problems talking. I couldn't remember conversations I had just had. Sometimes I would forget entire days. I had constant tracers (if you don't know what these are, turn on mouse cursor trails. Imagine that on anything that moves). If I looked at a patterned surface it would immediately start to melt.

In the hospital I was diagnosed major bipolar depressive with psychotic attributes. The depression was a result of the ecstasy. When you fry your synapses by dumping too much seratonin in them, they tend to react negatively. The constant hallucinations (psychosis) were a result of the acid. To this day I still see things. I expect this to last a long, long time.

I stopped all psychiatric medications some time late in 2001. I decided I was in control of my mind, and any damage I did to my brain I could work through without the pills. I've never looked back.

To say these two drugs minimally harm the user is a blatant lie. If these "studies" are taken seriously by legislators, I cringe at the scale of destruction that may follow.


[edit on 24-3-2007 by apc]

The drugs the study evaluated.


Figure 1. Mean harm scores for 20 substances
Classification under the Misuse of Drugs Act, where appropriate, is shown by the colour of each bar. (The Lancet)

A wealth of graphs assist the study. Big and tricky to upload, in an "unknown fileformat", so I cannot link them direct.

I can only recommand you sign up for Lancet, it is free and painless.

Thanks for sharing your story apc. I understand your concern. I myself were surprised to see the nine drugs rated less harmful than cannabis include such ones as '___', ecstasy, solvents and anabolic steroids. Personally I definitely don't think so. Also I have knowledge of insanity among friends caused by extensive use of '___'. It's definitely not a drug to go easy with.

The approach of the study however suggests that only the physical harm have been taking into consideration.

From The lancet article

There are three main factors that together determine the harm associated with any drug of potential abuse: the physical harm to the individual user caused by the drug; the tendency of the drug to induce dependence; and the effect of drug use on families, communities, and society.

The psychological effects I suspect are under the social harm factor.

Furthermore the article tells the study used 9-layer assessment parameter as shown below.
_____________________________
Physical harm . . 1 . . . Acute
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . Chronic
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . Intravenous harm
Dependence. . . 4 . . . Intensy of pleasure
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . Psychological dependence
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . Physical dependence
Social harm. . . . 7 . . . Intoxination
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . . Other social harms
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . Health-care costs
____________________________
Table 1. Assessment parameters

Anyway I think it is a great step forward the legal substances alcohol and tobacco have been included. For the psychedelic drugs a psychiatric studies should be included in the evaluation.



[edit on 24-3-2007 by khunmoon]

Originally posted by apc
I was doing too many drugs...

well, there is a difference between moderate and extensive use...

especially when using more then one in the same time...

it is called abuse

It's not so much a psychological issue as it is an alteration of brain chemistry and synapse damage. The damage caused to the brain by MDMA (ecstasy) is well documented and irrefutable.

'___' use leads to a condition called Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder, which is what I had and still experience symptoms of. Otherwise known as flashbacks. You don't really "flash back" to a previous time, you just have an onset of the effects of the drug without actually taking anything.

That this study apparently ignored so much data strongly suggests an agenda.

Originally posted by untilted
well, there is a difference between moderate and extensive use...

especially when using more then one in the same time...

it is called abuse

Are those cannabis trichomes in your avatar?

The damage was noticeable well before I got the level one would consider abuse. In November of '99 I first started experiencing HPPD after only three uses.

Ecstasy is very easy to abuse because initially it has no negative aftereffects. You feel perfectly fine the next day. But after a little while you start to feel like crap the next day. A period which came to be known as "Cracked Out Sunday".

When I was using I too thought, "Nah, I'll be fine. I don't use it that much. There's no proof [yet] that it causes any damage." Ignorance is bliss.

Originally posted by apc
To say these two drugs minimally harm the user is a blatant lie. If these "studies" are taken seriously by legislators, I cringe at the scale of destruction that may follow.

[edit on 24-3-2007 by apc]

Perhaps we should mandate therapy for anyone that abuses these drugs, but keeping them illegal only prevents people from coming forth and admitting to their problem for fear of jailtime and/or fines.

The real answer is regulation. We've had far more success at keeping tobacco and alcohol problems under control than we've had with the black market. With the drugs being on the semi-open market, we can tax the hell out of them, and require sellers to adhere to certain policies (e.g. hours during which a drug can't be sold, limits of serving to any one person, age limits for buyers, etc.)

PS Everybody thinks that thetruth campaign and commercials are trying to get people to quit smoking. They're not. They're trying to expose the ugliness of the tobacco industry.

Well considering what they put in cigarettes anymore, it does'nt sur-
prise me that they are worse for you than most drugs.

Alcohol though, well if you abuse it, yes, but I don't think having a
single beer is worse for you than a cigarette.

I don't really know alot about alot of those drugs, so I can't really say
if Alcohol should really be ahead of them, but I do agree it is worse
than cannabis, and that is simply because cannabis has positive benefits.


I would'nt be surprised if '___' and E were'nt as bad for you as the other
things, if the situation is you taking a moderate amount once, but, like
everything, you have to do things in moderation, and when you start
abusing them by taking alot of it alot of the time, than it really does
become bad for you.

The problem with regulation, or legalization if you will, is that there is no doubt the number of children experimenting will increase. Adolescent brains are still developing and any damage done has long lasting effects, many of which don't present until years later.

Ecstasy for example leaves brain incapable of producing sufficient amounts of serotonin, needed for positive emotion and suppression of our natural violent tendencies. Take that away from a teenager, and normal teenage depression seems like a day at Disneyland.

>

I would'nt be surprised if '___' and E were'nt as bad for you as the other
things, if the situation is you taking a moderate amount once, but, like
everything, you have to do things in moderation, and when you start
abusing them by taking alot of it alot of the time, than it really does
become bad for you.

Assuming that one time doesn't kill you. Not very likely with '___', unless they tried to drive, or dose too much and commit suicide (I've known people that did). MDMA is well known for sending people to the emergency room their very first time. Being inexperienced they don't notice their raised body temperature, don't drink enough water, and easily have a heat stroke.

[edit on 24-3-2007 by apc]

I just wanted to add that many in the medical community have found it profoundly ironic that alcohol and tobacco are legal, and yet cannabis, which is well known to be less dangerous, isn't. A number of those same people think that it should be completely legal--beyond just medical uses. They feel that as long as people use it in moderation, and it's regulated in a way similar to alcohol (i.e. can't drive after toking), then there should be no problems.

Regarding other drugs, however, they're much more hesitant towards legalizing.

apc,
I appreciate your candor and congratulate you on walking away from such a dangerous lifestyle.
I've worked as an ICU nurse for 26 years and I used to joke that if it weren't for alcohol and drugs, there'd be no need for an ICU. Even the things that weren't directly alcohol or drug diagnoses were usually due to them at some point. Getting shot?....drug deal gone bad. Hepatitis/liver damage?....IV drug use or drinking your liver into the pickled stage. Car accident?.....drunk driving. The list goes on but you get the idea. Occasionally we get the 90 year old emphysema or lung cancer patient but at 90 years old, something's gonna get ya. I work at a mental health unit now and most of these (youngish) people have permanently fried their brains and are considered psychotic/delusional or schizophrenic or impulsively violent. It is often drug induced: the damage irrevocable. This includes those who never smoked a cigarette. I've seen psychotic people who smoked but they were psychotic before they started and having them quit didn't change that. Even pot (which has 10 times more tar than tobacco) tends to emotionally stunt the user to the chronological age that they began using it. I agree it does have medicinal benefits and should definitely be allowed for that but we don't need ANY more mind-altering substances out there. People are being permanently, irrevocably damaged in the prime of their life to the point where they are unable to function, hold down jobs, stay out of jail, form lasting relationships, etc.
I saw/took care of an 18 year old girl who died of a heart attack from snorting coc aine. It was heart-breaking to have to go out and tell her parents that their 18 year old daughter died of a disease the parents weren't even old enough to worry about for themselves yet.
By far, the worst disease with the most complications and the hardest to treat is.......drum roll please......obesity. We take care of more fat people who are hospitalized for obesity-related problems than for anything else we treat. Heart attacks, strokes, impaired mobility, falls, fractures, suicidal depression, pulmonary emboli, athrosclerosis, diabetes, etc. All improved or health risk eliminated by shedding extra weight.
Moral of the story? Legalize drugs and outlaw junk food. Druggies will kill themselves a lot quicker than obese people and will be less of a financial drain on the healthcare system than obese people. Before you get your panties in a knot...I'm being sarcastic, of course. Any chemical you put into your body, even legally prescribed, FDA approved ones should only be taken if no alternative to your problem exists. They're all dangerous. *steps off soapbox*

Reguardless of how dangerous certain substances are, its not the governments job to regulate our own personal morals. It is up to each and every individual to decide for themselves whether or not they want to use certain substances or not. The Government is not here to protect us from ourselves. Just my 2 cents.

well duh. it has been proven in several certified university studies that '___'25 has 0.0001% bodily toxicity as most alcohol and tobacco products are nearly 100% toxic substances. Actually, it's also been shown that a regular 12oz can of Coke is nearly 100 times more toxic to the human body than '___' and 10 times more than a single dose of heroin! the only thing possibly toxic in this situation is the brain on the '___' and THAT must be monitored with the strictest regulation.


[edit on 24-3-2007 by kronos11]

Originally posted by apc
'___' use leads to a condition called Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder, which is what I had and still experience symptoms of. Otherwise known as flashbacks. You don't really "flash back" to a previous time, you just have an onset of the effects of the drug without actually taking anything.

True... many see this is a bad side effect but in native cultures this person would be gifted with "sight". '___' is a very similar chemically to most psychadelic substances used by many shamans in the most fertile of earth's "native" civilizations such as psylocibe(mexico), ibogaine(africa), amanita(india), ayahuasca(brazil)... forgive my spelling. IMO we moderns have a lot to learn from the old ways of connecting.

In more "connected" areas of the globe where shamans exude their influence have there been any great works of art, architecture, technology? Has there been any progress or are the "dropped out, tuned-in" bunch still sitting around in loin cloths contemplating the wonders of tree bark?

It is not the governments job or business to tell us how to regulate our bodies or keep ourselves safe or sane but there are certain behaviors that are not conducive to an orderly society and drug use is one of them.

Sodium fluoride in our toothpaste and drinking water is the active ingredient in rat poison. In fact 0.001% is all that is needed. Since people began to be aware of this, rat poison is now mostly made from some other toxic substance but for years over 99% of the rat poison bottle was "filler" and the rest was the same stuff I brushed my teeth with. Let governments regulate our safety and they'll regulate on the side of the poisoners who are paying them more. Don't believe me, read up on the history of fluoride and how it went from being rat poison to being "good for us" with congressional knowledge and approval.

Originally posted by supercheetah
The real answer is regulation. We've had far more success at keeping tobacco and alcohol problems under control than we've had with the black market.

Really? Tobacco and alcohol problems are under control??? Those 2 substances are legal in the US and cause a thousand times more death and destruction than all black market illegal drugs combined. The WORST idea imaginable would be to add to the list of legal drugs. If people want to poison their minds and bodies there are plenty of legal options available.

Originally posted by whitewave
In more "connected" areas of the globe where shamans exude their influence have there been any great works of art, architecture, technology? Has there been any progress or are the "dropped out, tuned-in" bunch still sitting around in loin cloths contemplating the wonders of tree bark?

So then, tell me what beyond massaging our animal instincts does our art, architecture and technology do for us?? Most technology that does offer promise such as modern medicine are really just active responses to the ills brought on by modern living. Actually I would say much more harm than good. There's more than meets the eye with the native shaman cultures than our system of understanding can even fathom - nearly zero incidents of mental illness, crime or disease - they remained this way until they came in contact with modern ways. Natives understood the eternal transience of the 3rd dimension so that is why they take little stock in material objects, ie. art, architecture or technology. All of their perception was in a realm hidden to most on a modern diet of non-food and pharmaceutical crutches. Also, I am not saying that one is better than the other - I actually believe that there is a possible synthesis of the two that may come in the future to assist man out of this hole we're in.

[edit on 24-3-2007 by kronos11]

Originally posted by apc
In September of 2000 I checked into a psychiatric hospital because I wanted to kill myself.

A few weeks prior I decided I was doing too many drugs, and stopped. For a mere ten months I had a regular '___' and ecstasy habit. Usually two or three rolls (hits of ecstasy) every weekend with a few drops of acid here and there (PLUR maaan!).

I decided to quit using because the damage was becoming very apparent. I was having problems talking. I couldn't remember conversations I had just had. Sometimes I would forget entire days. I had constant tracers (if you don't know what these are, turn on mouse cursor trails. Imagine that on anything that moves). If I looked at a patterned surface it would immediately start to melt.

In the hospital I was diagnosed major bipolar depressive with psychotic attributes. The depression was a result of the ecstasy. When you fry your synapses by dumping too much seratonin in them, they tend to react negatively. The constant hallucinations (psychosis) were a result of the acid. To this day I still see things. I expect this to last a long, long time.

I stopped all psychiatric medications some time late in 2001. I decided I was in control of my mind, and any damage I did to my brain I could work through without the pills. I've never looked back.

To say these two drugs minimally harm the user is a blatant lie. If these "studies" are taken seriously by legislators, I cringe at the scale of destruction that may follow.


[edit on 24-3-2007 by apc]

I second that. For me it was casual '___' usage for several years, usually on a weekly basis, sometimes more often. When I quit, I was diagnosed with depression and anxiety disorder. It's been about 7 years since I last used '___' and I still have the visual side effects that your describing. They've definitely gotten less severe over the years, but they're still there.

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
I second that. For me it was casual '___' usage for several years, usually on a weekly basis, sometimes more often. When I quit, I was diagnosed with depression and anxiety disorder. It's been about 7 years since I last used '___' and I still have the visual side effects that your describing. They've definitely gotten less severe over the years, but they're still there.

For certain... these substances are considered sacraments by native cutures that use them and must be monitored with the most care. If the persond ingesting the substance has any mental cracks, deficiencies or even an immature ego structure(pride, avarice, greed, lust) then the '___' would in most cases actually cause more damage.