I saw an interesting article on MSN today. Some scientists (British, I assume) have published an article in the Lancet medical journal, grading drugs by the harm they do as a suggested replacement for the current drug classification system used by the government. I wondered if you had any thoughts on this?
I believe that I've missed one thing in that classification system, and that is what harm the user can come to when having used the drug. Most cases of drug-related deaths aren't OD's but rather throwing yourself of a cliff because you belive that you can fly (or that you're superman or a bird or a bat or something) Because I think that is one of the great dangers of drugs, especially haluciontic (sp?) drugs. Ever seen a person do CPR on a carpet because he believed it to be dying?
Do you have statistics of this, you know, like actual figures on how many drug deaths are by cliffthrowing, how many are by vomit choking and how many are from overdoses? Would be interesting to see. No sarcasm intended (although your statement would benefit from a stated source :wink: ) Alcohol being rated higher than weed doesn't surprise me. The main reason I use the first and not the second is that the social impact on being charged with possession is too big for me. In Sweden, getting high is not generally socially accepted.
I doesn't look like they take psychological damage into account (to the individual I mean)? I know a couple of totally fucked up people who are the way they are because they took LSD when they were like 11 years old, stuff that messes with your mind, really does. Also, saying that cannabis is less harmful than tobacco is a little misleading as most people smoke cannabis with tobacco anyway, in the UK at least. Cannabis also burns a lot hotter than tobacco and can do serious damage to your throat over a length of time. They all mess you up one way or another. Even ecstasy, which many view as pretty harmless, messes people up in residual ways - such as making you stay awake far longer than you should and leading, sometimes, to paranoid delussions through lack of sleep. Most amphetamine-based leisure drugs (the ones that keep you awake) have a similar effect when used in excess. Alcohol is probably the most physically damaging; either directly through liver damage or brain damage, or indirectly thorough car accidents, drunken foolishness from great heights or physical attacks on/from other people. I think studies, governments and laws often focus too much on the chemicals involved, their biological effects, rather than the bigger picture of the lives affected by the drugs. I also think that alcohol should sit nicely under the umbrella term "drugs" with all the other nasties. "Drugs and Alcohol" is misleading people into thinking alcoholics aren't drug addicts, and that alcohol isn't so bad. I do also think that making some substances illegal and some not is all very patronising, people should be able to make up their own minds as to how they want to slowly kill themselves - smoking, drinking or staying up for 3 days on an LSD bender - without some "higher authority" telling them they can't because "they" know best. I think there should be much more amphasis on education, prevention through agreement, than law enforcement.
Unfortunately I've lost the source (that even though it was a few years old, from 2003 I think). I was attending a seminar on drugs as a part of a course I took in highschool/college. And no, not all of them threw themselves of of cliffs, the general term was 'deaths due to accidents caused by drugs' effect on the brain' or something like that.
I don't think alcohol should be as socially acceptable as it is. I know more people whose lives (or those of their families) have been messed up by alcohol than any other drug. My nearest town has quite a lot of drug use (as I guess most towns do), but it seems that most overdoses happen when the person has been drinking, then takes something else. I think that in this country we have a problem with knowing what our limits are. Whatever people do, they seem to do it too much. Perhaps people just need to learn a bit of moderation and self-control. It should also be easier for people to get help when they begin to run into trouble - whatever their poison.
As all studies based on historical data have biases this one fails to recognised the problem of Ice because it is relatively new. They think its worse than heroine but they don't have the long-term data to test it. I also could access the article but as I can't seem to get it to upload to the server I can't post a link to it... I'll see what I can do.
I feel like a bit of a hypocrite for having said this, as alcohol is the only drug I use. I do, however still beleive that it messes up more people's lives that any other drug, but that is probably because it's more readily available than others. I do think there is some sense in grading drugs by the damage they do.
I still don't really know what I think about this. I do know that of the many drugs Garner (and his family) have been involved with over the years, alcohol has done the most (and the most lasting) damage. Edit to add: Thanks for the article, Spiky, I'll try to get time to read the whole thing later.
