Is Alcohol Worse Than Ecstasy?

[Ace]

As posted in another thread recently, I recently watched 'Is Alcohol Worse Than Ecstasy?' by BBC's Horizon. Quite interesting in that it shows the faults in the UK's current drug classification system by classifying the 'Top 20 Most Dangerous Drugs in the UK' and show what is Britain's most dangerous drug. It can be found via torrent if one searches or is possibly online elsewhere.

The 3 criteria used in creating the list were*:

1. Danger to the person using it

2. How addictive it is

3. Consequence to society

*(Note: the doco stated that the criteria were based on the most current research and the doco looks to have been created, or at least released in, 2008. Also note that the film is based on use in the UK, so it could be different in Aus.)

For your info, here's the list given in the doco (from most dangerous to least):

1. Heroin

2. Cocaine

3. Barbiturates

4. Street Methadone

5. Alcohol

6. Ketamine

7. Benzodiazepine

8. Amphetamine

9. Tobacco

10. Buprenorphine

11. Cannabis

12. Solvents

13. 4MTA

14. LSD

15. Methylphenidate

16. Anabolic Steroids

17. GHB

18. Ecstasy

19. Alkyl Nitrite

20. Khat

Curious as to people's thoughts on that list and the doco in general. Does anyone think that list would be a good reference tool for rescheduling illicit/licit substances? Any other opinions/thoughts/comments?

[baphomet]

I have this doco, they even say at the begining that some people will have issues with their list, (which I do!) They were trying to be controversial and just stir people up a bit, wouldn't take it as gospel but it is still worth watching.

[Μορφέας]

interesting

[Ace]

Thanks for the reply Baph - I was actually quite interested to hear your views on this. Do you mind expanding on your issues with it? I certainly wouldn't take it for gospel and dont like the fact that they based the doco on so few criteria, but at the same time I think the list sits about right as far as harm to oneself and others is concerned (at least from my fairly drug-nieve POV). Would love to hear opinions

[MindExpansion]

I have to say I'm fairly happy with that list.

Only problem is perhaps their assessment of 'consequences to society'. Financially tobacco would be number one, followed by alcohol. Health wise I'd imagine an identical trend, crime wise I think the opiates and amphetamines would be battling it out with alcohol (but this claim is based on not a whole lot so I can't say how it would actually be. I would like to see how they made the list. Might have to read the original paper, I think reference was posted in the 'legalising sally d' thread.

I'm also interested in what you're issue is with that list baphomet.

Peace,

Mind

[t st tantra]

heroin is considered a very safe drug......a junky lifestyle is something else.

crack at no 1 ? and separate from cocaine which should be around the middle.

barbs not seen much here? but yes about right.

what is street methadone?

dont really know about ketamine,would have thought most users knew what they were doing?

amphetamine is not the same as methamphetamine and would be lower on my list.

meth though?low for many people,higher if problematic.this is prob true for most things.

solvents would be higher on my list ,they can fuck peoples heads up short term and long term....but largely used by those without better options?

4mta?

steroids should be high on the list,certainly higher than meth.....seen a mate on it for a medical condition....scary,and now hes got titties!

ecstacy seems quite safe but is quite often used too much at some stage.

khat seems fairly benign esp if used similar to original social context.

yes,alcohol would be high on the list for the loss of self control it causes.it just takes some people over and most people who drink at some stage.a very strong drug with a high loose it value and very addictive with nasty withdrawals.

commercial tobacco is garbage,addiction is usually not good,but tobacco has much to offer!

i've stuck my neck out ......be gentle.........

t s t .

[MindExpansion]

street methadone may just be methadone sold on the street...I've no experience with opioids so maybe someone else can chime in?

As far as people who use ketamine knowing what they are doing... before coming to sydney I'd never heart of K getting around, got down here and apparently its very very easy to get, and quite common, and have heard that it is quite addictive, and know that with alcohol particularly, it is quite dangerous.

What you say about heroine being a safe drug may be true, but they are probably taking into account variations in potency/purity, and also remember that they are including 'social consequences' so what you say about the junkie lifestyle does come into play in the study (or so it would seem, like I have to say, still need to read the original).

I've never before heard of 4mta, but hey, must be fairly popular over there?

100% agree that meth and amphetamine need to be separated.

Peace

Edit: Is it possible at all that they are talking about methcathinone when they say 'khat'?

Edited September 11, 2008 by MindExpansion

[indigo264nm]

In regards to the amphetamine\methamphetamine seperation... since its a BBC doco and they're talking in context to the UK, meth doesn't circulate much around the UK as I've been led to believe.

I'd make a few alterations... I'd put GHB a bit higher since its so fuckn easy to OD on not to mention danger to society in regards to drink spiking and I'd put tobacco and alcohol right at the top in that order. Tobacco because it does more damage than most of those substances, and alcohol because the ammount of violence that results from people drinking in my opinion outways the ones at the top.

Edited September 16, 2008 by -=IndigoSunrise=-

[MindExpansion]

Yeh, and apparently a GHB OD is something you don't want to experience, the way I heard it was that the sufferer appears to have just had a shower, eyes roll, and they drop, where they just keep sweating profusely...doesn't sound to great.

Peace

[t st tantra]

medical authorities usually stress if you od on ghb you need to be hooked up to a machine to survive.but ghb ods are often in clusters and the number of people you can treat equals the number of machines you have.

t s t .

[mark80]

medical authorities usually stress if you od on ghb you need to be hooked up to a machine to survive.but ghb ods are often in clusters and the number of people you can treat equals the number of machines you have.

t s t .

GHB supreses the cns, and you stop breathing so they just need to keep you on a ventalaitor till you get back to couscniess.

Apparently there is an adelaide docotor iirc who has a chemcial means to "ressuricate" the GHB OD. Irt was abonded before but with betetr techniques its coming back.

[Yeti101]

Here's the original article from The Lancet if anyone is interested. Definitely worth a read.

Rational_Scale.pdf

Rational_Scale.pdf

Rational_Scale.pdf

[MindExpansion]

Thanks for that Yeti, bit disappointing not to see more downloads, it really is worth it for anyone with interest in public health or the social aspect of drugs.

I'll UL it in the legislation articles thread too.

I like the way they did it, with the delphic method they used, rather than trying to statically slot drugs into a fixed criteria.

A few important things to note, one of the most important IMO being that the assessment is all based on drugs in their current legal status, so there is no differentiation of the harms that are intrinsic to the drug, and the harms that come with the legislation of that drug. A good example here is probably heroin, where purity and other issues like that need to be taken into account, the same can be said for ecstacy, so while they assessed MDMA, that is not necessarily the same as a pill, which one may often expect to be a little higher on the list due to the adulterants.

They also mention that they couldn't adjust for polydrug use, both people using multiple drugs like pills+alcohol+speed, and in situations where one drug is very commonly (and in this example quite unfortunately) used with something else, such as cannabis, often being spun with tobacco. They concede that this probably raised the values given to the addictiveness and other harms given for cannabis.

Also, interesting but certainly not surprising, is the conclusion they reach regarding the correctness of the current UK system, being that it is very skewed. They draw the conclusion that 3 of the currently class A drugs (4-MTA, LSD and MDMA) should actually be class C, and that alcohol should really be class A. They reach these conclusions, while also criticising the efficacy of any system that sharply demarcates a boundry between groups of drugs.

Their findings lead them to conclude that the current system is arbitrary and not based on science or evidence.

Another thing is that some of the values we would see here are different to the ones they see. I use the particular example of the ratings they give to health care costs for heroin and tobacco. Heroin is given a 3.0 (the highest) and tobacco a 2.4. Here however, tobacco costs the nation almost 3x what all other illicit drugs combine costs (including health, law enforcement, and ALL other costs). I mean, I don't really KNOW that this means the HEALTH costs of tobacco are higher than for heroin, but I certainly would assert that this be the case. I base this not only on the staggering difference in costs between all illicit drugs and tobacco (where illicit drugs cost more for law enforcement), but also on the figures we know that 50% of smokers will die of a smoking related illness, and the figure given by their report (a figure which may be different here, but I think it is safe to assume enough similarity for me to make my assertion) that tobacco accounts for 40% of all hospital illnesses, and 60% of all drug related fatalities.

Hence how they decided that tobacco costs the health care system less than heroin I cannot work out.

Another thing is that LSD has a 0.3 intravenous risk... I guess some people must shoot up their acid, but MDMA has a 0, and so does GHB, surely if people are injecting their acid, they are injecting the aforementioned substances also, but then again, perhaps not.

I could go on and on but then I'm basically just re-writing stuff you will pick up if you read the report... which is exactly what you should do.

Peace,

Mind

[Ace]

Thanks for posting that Yeti - I hadn't seen that article before (I think you had tried to post it previously but I dont think I saw it). Very, very interesting stats. It'd be great if they'd do something similar in Aus (with the same style/depth). ME picked up a few good points and there are plenty more when one delves through. Cant really avoid them though I suppose, especially when you are trying to cover so many huge areas.