Another thread about drugs

[Taraz]

I just saw a study that was published in The Lancet, one of the oldest peer-reviewed medical journal, about the harmfulness of drugs that are commonly misused. They used nine different measures in three major categories of harm: physical harm, dependence, and social harm. Two separate groups of experts were used to score the drugs. The first was a group of psychiatrists who specialize in addiction and the second was a broad group of chemists, pharmacologists, legal and police experts, and others who deal with addiction.

Here is their ranking of all the drugs based on their mean score of harmfulness. I wasn't particularly shocked to see that cannabis is lower than both alcohol and tobacco, but I was surprised that LSD and ecstasy were so low.

http://images.journals.elsevierhealth.com/images/journalimages/0140-6736/PIIS0140673607604644.gr1.lrg.gif

[flatline]

So where can I get some Khat? Maybe a Somali market or something?

[Justin A]

I think many of these can differ greatly on an individual basis. Alcohol is the one that jumps out at me. It can be life ruining for some, while for others it can improve the quality of life.

[kingofmirrors]

Supposedly LSD isn't bad for you if you use it responsibly. A lot of the problem comes from people seriously harming themselves while under the influence because of messed up perception/paranoia and all that, but if you have a trip sitter I've read it's basically harmless (if you don't mind flashbacks). Ecstacy on the other hand I'm surprised about, the general consensus seems to be that ecastacy can mess you up pretty good but now I'm curious and going to do some reasearch.

[tshort]

There has been a thread on this somewhere a while back. It might have been in OOT.

[Taraz]

Here are the individual scores for each drug in each category.

http://images.journals.elsevierhealth.com/images/journalimages/0140-6736/PIIS0140673607604644.si3.lrg.gif

[Bill Haywood]

Cannabis is on par with solvents???? I thought glue sniffing was the dregs.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Here are the individual scores for each drug in each category.

http://images.journals.elsevierhealth.com/images/journalimages/0140-6736/PIIS0140673607604644.si3.lrg.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the dumbest load of garbage I have ever seen, and lacks any remote resemblance of scientific integrity. There is an entire row just dedicated to intravenous complications that drops the average for non-intravenous drugs. Luckily, it has the decency to factor in all those times you shoot cocaine and ritalin (!?!?!?!). And how the hell is LSD on that list?

How the hell does ecstacy get one of the lowest ratings on "pleasure" and average on acute/chronic harm?

Oh well. When you see that THC is more harmful than huffing glue and doing ecstacy, you know this is crap.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

This is the dumbest load of garbage I have ever seen, and lacks any remote resemblance of scientific integrity. There is an entire row just dedicated to intravenous complications that drops the average for non-intravenous drugs. Luckily, it has the decency to factor in all those times you shoot cocaine and ritalin (!?!?!?!). And how the hell is LSD on that list?

How the hell does ecstacy get one of the lowest ratings on "pleasure" and average on acute/chronic harm?

Oh well. When you see that THC is more harmful than huffing glue and doing ecstacy, you know this is crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you might be misreading the table a little. The study was designed to look at the overall harm of the drugs relative to drug laws in the UK. It was simply trying to see if there was a good correlation between the ABC rating scale that is used and how "harmful" to society the drug actually is.

The pleasure rating has to do with how addictive that high is and that's why it's under dependence.

I don't think the study is saying that solvents are less harmful than weed in terms of health strictly. I mean, it says that they are much more harmful in the acute sense. Pot is more addictive, that is the only real way that it is worse.

And like I said, I was shocked about the ecstasy, but apparently it's not all that bad for you. I researched it a little bit and the one study that I recalled saying how bad E was for you was retracted.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]

And like I said, I was shocked about the ecstasy, but apparently it's not all that bad for you. I researched it a little bit and the one study that I recalled saying how bad E was for you was retracted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Source?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And like I said, I was shocked about the ecstasy, but apparently it's not all that bad for you. I researched it a little bit and the one study that I recalled saying how bad E was for you was retracted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Source?

[/ QUOTE ]

When I say, "it's not all that bad" I don't mean that it's safe. But there isn't much evidence to show that it is that bad. It seems that low doses in isolation don't do neurological damage in humans. Most studies that have shown major acute problems with use are more due to drug interactions and activities that people do when they are using the drug.

There is, however, evidence that high dosage and long-term is associated with neutoxicity and could really mess up neurological functioning. It's kind of unclear in humans, but it doesn't seem as bad as I had thought previously.

There was an overview of a symposium on MDMA that was published in the journal Neuropsychobiology. Link (http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?typ=pdf&doi=26669) .

There is also an ongoing review of the literature on MDMA on the Maps website link (http://www.maps.org/research/mdma/) . I have to say that I'm not sure how much to trust this site since their mission is to "assist scientists to design, obtain approval for, fund, conduct and report on research into the healing and spiritual potentials of psychedelics and marijuana". They could have a hidden agenda, but they seem pretty honest. At the very least they can point me to other research that has been done.

Here is a link (http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2003/09/60328) to the study I was talking about that was retracted.