i just checked out that BBC documentary/report called "Is Alcohol Worse Than Ecstasy?" as many of you probably have seen already. here's the link to watch it: http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=6108672696241807159 here is their ranking of harm: The way anyone can define harm can be different with who it's affecting, how it's affecting, if it's addicting, and others. They ranked alcohol higher taking into account drunk driving. For me, that's only half-legitimate because there are many statistics on drunk driving accidents and such because it's legal and widespread. Doing psyches like acid while driving is probably much worse to drive on, so all these statistics, ranks, and facts all seem so jumbled together as if they're opinion. So in your opinion.. Rank some drugs based on medical harm. Rank some drugs based on a personal precaution level. Rank some drugs based on society use.
I find it hard to believe that cannabis is more harmful to your health than solvents and anabolic steroids...
I saw the whole BBC special on youtube. There are some drugs like ghb that I think should be higher but overall its a good list. Bogus, the fact is alot of psychedelic users don't drive and get into car accidents, annual death tolls is taken into account, so your hypothetical driving on psychs is more dangerous than alcohol has no merit. Its not flawless data but it is surprisingly objective.
yeah but i dont think how many people use the drug should affect how harmful the drug is recorded basically. If one drug is taking a variable into account, all of the others should too.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Bars and pubs are usually concentrated in cities thus pose more of a harm risk for a drunk person than someone trippin on LSD at their house or out camping. There are far less heroin users than alcoholic users and heroin is still ranked higher, so its not simply based on how many people use the drug.
yeah and the heroin basis is on everything except driving on it. It makes a ton more sense to compare harm from drugs when the same variables and environment are put around it and when there's both comparing and contrasting going on. Like if we were trying to pick the 'best' fruit. pears have a cool shape, oranges are acidic, coconuts are hard, grapes are purple. which one is the best? grapes cuz they're purple. no it doesn't make sense. To have a rank of drugs, it needs to hold a basis and not multiple ones. If lsd was taken as normally as alcohol, it could be more or less detrimental, but some stuff we don't still don't know yet. If the drugs were to be ranked on a bodily destruction basis, alcohol shouldn't be ranked higher up because there are a lot of drunk driving accidents. Now if there were to an attempt at an overall drug harm ranking (especially on the questions its based on: "Is alcohol worse than ecstasy"), taking into account bodily destruction and psychologic whackness, I really don't agree on putting alcohol further up because drunk driving accidents happen, because more people drive drunk because alcohol is legal. that was wordy but see what i mean?
You will be left just comparing alcohol and tobacco because their both legal? There are way to many variables between drugs to do something like that. People who do these studies have a limited amount of funding and time and need to provide some worthwhile info. Not to mention many of these substances are class a and class b. Like I said its not a flawless study but it does provide some good balanced information.
In terms of sheer #s morbidity and mortality, tobacco is the most dangerous drug. The drugs causing the greatest harm to greatest #s users must surely be cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine (heroin's problems due primarily to its illegality). In terms of harm to society, alcohol ranks high - fucking drunk drivers, abusers and other shit. Overall, the scale posted by Kyle isn't all that totally off.
This is ridiculous. how on earth is MDMA safer than cannabis? I've smoked weed 3x a day for weeks on end, retaining my full mental capacity; yet if you were to do MDMA at that amount your brain would be fried - literally. Same thing goes for solvents.
If you are predisposed to mental illness, then yes perhaps this makes sense. But someone has to make a chart at some point. It's just funny seeing class A drugs at the bottom of the list and having a few class c and unclassified nearer the top end
You just answered your own question. The vast majority of people who do ecstasy don't do it every other day, a very large portion of people who smoke weed do it on a daily, often hourly basis. Honestly I'd say weed becomes more addictive to people then MDMA does in most cases. Use patterns make up a large part of drug harm, same with alcohol. Alcohol in small doses can actually be beneficial to your health in some ways, but this is not how most people drink.
