http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... erous-drug
Quite an amusing read.
The most dangerous drug is...
Moderator: Balou
Good one. Charlie Brooker is brilliant. I don't think I've missed any of his satirical acerbic look at the news programmes on late night BBC2 or BBC4 called Newswipe, in fact, if I'm honest, I record them to HD. It's a must much, imo.
I know some friends of some friends who dabble with meow meow, that stuff is definitely not for me, nowadays.
I know some friends of some friends who dabble with meow meow, that stuff is definitely not for me, nowadays.
MY AMSTERDAM MAP = www.amsterdamer.supanet.com
Done loads of trips years ago. Very powerful stuff. The high is amazing but that comedown was tough, at times.
Last time I did it, there were 6 of us on Weymouth beach in the summer at night. It was the most powerful trips I've ever had out of them all lasting a good 12+ hours. As I was the driver, it was hard going driving back home that night, tripping my head off with amazing visuals. One of the lads couldn't cope with it all and was freaking out a bit, which was funny stuff to the rest of us. That trip was so powerful for all of us that none of us ever touched it again, but the best ever acid trip we had was watching tons of Red Dwarf episodes, back to back, when they first came out. Absolutely fantastic funny trip that night and beyond awesome, dare I say it, very insightful and mind altering expanding in a very positive good way, where I'm glad I did all this, when I was younger. Doing acid, I think you should never trip alone and be with friends you've known for years to have fun with this psychedelic drug, which I loved, but not got time to do anymore.
Last time I did it, there were 6 of us on Weymouth beach in the summer at night. It was the most powerful trips I've ever had out of them all lasting a good 12+ hours. As I was the driver, it was hard going driving back home that night, tripping my head off with amazing visuals. One of the lads couldn't cope with it all and was freaking out a bit, which was funny stuff to the rest of us. That trip was so powerful for all of us that none of us ever touched it again, but the best ever acid trip we had was watching tons of Red Dwarf episodes, back to back, when they first came out. Absolutely fantastic funny trip that night and beyond awesome, dare I say it, very insightful and mind altering expanding in a very positive good way, where I'm glad I did all this, when I was younger. Doing acid, I think you should never trip alone and be with friends you've known for years to have fun with this psychedelic drug, which I loved, but not got time to do anymore.
MY AMSTERDAM MAP = www.amsterdamer.supanet.com
Meow Meow has got to be the single most stupid supposed name for a drug I've ever heard.
It's all relative IMO. Jumping on the sensationalist media bandwagon because it 'may' have had some influence on these guys deaths. However what isn't in the media are the reports that these guys were also experimenting with both Methadone and alchohol at the same time.
It is a bit intense, and one should definitely be careful if taking mephedrone. But it's like most things, OK in moderation. I don't think it should be banned but maybe age restricted.
It's all relative IMO. Jumping on the sensationalist media bandwagon because it 'may' have had some influence on these guys deaths. However what isn't in the media are the reports that these guys were also experimenting with both Methadone and alchohol at the same time.
It is a bit intense, and one should definitely be careful if taking mephedrone. But it's like most things, OK in moderation. I don't think it should be banned but maybe age restricted.
-
Ingwey Gooblebogger
- Posts: 440
- Joined: Sat 27th Sep 2008 10:04 pm
Of all the thousands and thousands of post mortem reports and toxicolgy reports that I have reviewed, I have rarely seen an overdose case where only one substance was detected. Usually it is a frigging shopping list of both legal and illegal substances, many of which likely contributed to the death.
In my opinion, ALCOHOL is perhaps the most dangerous drug of them all in term of the numbers of deaths due to overdose. (If people were dying in those numbers from illicit drugs, like heroin or cocaine, the papers/media would be having a field day!!!, BUT since it is "good ole" booze, the problem is largely ignored.)
In terms of all deaths (including those due to illness directly caused by the use of drugs) then the most deadly drugs are ALCOHOL and TOBACCO, without a doubt!!
In my opinion, ALCOHOL is perhaps the most dangerous drug of them all in term of the numbers of deaths due to overdose. (If people were dying in those numbers from illicit drugs, like heroin or cocaine, the papers/media would be having a field day!!!, BUT since it is "good ole" booze, the problem is largely ignored.)
In terms of all deaths (including those due to illness directly caused by the use of drugs) then the most deadly drugs are ALCOHOL and TOBACCO, without a doubt!!
-
cattales1960
- Posts: 2975
- Joined: Sun 25th Jun 2006 06:20 pm
- Location: Saint Louis MO
This drug chart puts things into perspective. It takes into account the overall social damage as well as the effect on family break up problems, cost to the NHS, etc. It includes alcohol and tobacco to give a better sense of the relative harm involved, leaving out the penalties involved if caught or dealing with such substances and focusing just on the harm levels and social consequences of certain drugs.
Note: the chart says that cannabis is class C, but has since been upgraded to class B in the UK, btw.
Note: the chart says that cannabis is class C, but has since been upgraded to class B in the UK, btw.
MY AMSTERDAM MAP = www.amsterdamer.supanet.com
-
Ingwey Gooblebogger
- Posts: 440
- Joined: Sat 27th Sep 2008 10:04 pm
Hmmmm…interesting chart, BUT……..
Graphs, and numbers for that matter, by themselves have no meaning to me. I always review the research methodology BEFORE, I even begin to analyse the data. For me, methodology is usually where studies reveal their weaknesses.
Also the caveat at the bottom about “*Mean harm rating by independent experts”..is a red-flag to me. (Maybe they could have said “carried out by George the guy who lives in the cardboard box in the alley behind the 7-11”
).
I would question what the folks who produced the graph mean by “social harms” The definitions, methodology, assumptions/approximations, and calculations of such “mean social harms” should be examined thoroughly before I would give one iota of confidence to the data.
I would pay particular attention to how they were able to separate out the “social harms” all of these the substances into values for individual substances, given that there would be a great deal of correlation/interaction between them.
As both a researcher and someone who has experience working in agencies monitoring health/deaths, I find this graph to be highly unusual in that it does not fit very well with the data and observations in my jurisdiction.
I realize that different locales might have differences in their data BUT, in these regards, I think that people in most industrialised nations are similar enough in their behaviours, in aggregate, to make these any such differences (in mean behaviours) relatively small. (i.e. a drunk/addicted cunt in the UK probably behaves similarly to another one in Canada, or the US, etc. So that the “social harms” caused by a particular drug would be, in aggregate, similar across nations. Some countries may have differences in social programs and drug laws, to mitigate some of the “social harms”, which might alter these mean values. However, then it could be argued that the costs to arrange/run/monitor those programs should be factored into the “social harm” means. I also realise that avaialbility of various substances differ by local and hence this might also affect the mean "social harm" levels, but, again, I do NOT think that the differences, by substance would be significant different across all substances. Since alcohol and tobacco are legal and readily available in all Western industrial nations, then I suspect that, their "social harm" mean levels would be similarly large, relative to other substances.)
In particular; I was very surprised by the graph’s relatively high level of the mean “social harm” due to cannabis. Other than the costs of the legal penalties, or police intervention (both due to the prohibition of cannabis and NOT due to cannabis use in and of itself) I fail to see what social harms would result from cannabis use.
Second, I would bet that the actual “social harm” due to alcohol and tobacco are being highly under-counted (or under-estimated). [i.e. consider: 1) Alcohol poisonings (i.e. overdose), alcohol’s role in 2) car accidents, 3) other accidents 4) violence, 5) mental illness, 6) reckless behavior resulting in injury and/or property damage, 7) vandalism, 8 ) alcohol-caused diseases (i.e. liver damage, cancer, etc.) 9) Absenteeism and other lost work productivity, and so on.). For tobacco, the sheer numbers of lung cancer deaths and other heart-lung disease deaths alone would pretty much outstrip every other drug combined.]
Graphs, and numbers for that matter, by themselves have no meaning to me. I always review the research methodology BEFORE, I even begin to analyse the data. For me, methodology is usually where studies reveal their weaknesses.
Also the caveat at the bottom about “*Mean harm rating by independent experts”..is a red-flag to me. (Maybe they could have said “carried out by George the guy who lives in the cardboard box in the alley behind the 7-11”
). I would question what the folks who produced the graph mean by “social harms” The definitions, methodology, assumptions/approximations, and calculations of such “mean social harms” should be examined thoroughly before I would give one iota of confidence to the data.
I would pay particular attention to how they were able to separate out the “social harms” all of these the substances into values for individual substances, given that there would be a great deal of correlation/interaction between them.
As both a researcher and someone who has experience working in agencies monitoring health/deaths, I find this graph to be highly unusual in that it does not fit very well with the data and observations in my jurisdiction.
I realize that different locales might have differences in their data BUT, in these regards, I think that people in most industrialised nations are similar enough in their behaviours, in aggregate, to make these any such differences (in mean behaviours) relatively small. (i.e. a drunk/addicted cunt in the UK probably behaves similarly to another one in Canada, or the US, etc. So that the “social harms” caused by a particular drug would be, in aggregate, similar across nations. Some countries may have differences in social programs and drug laws, to mitigate some of the “social harms”, which might alter these mean values. However, then it could be argued that the costs to arrange/run/monitor those programs should be factored into the “social harm” means. I also realise that avaialbility of various substances differ by local and hence this might also affect the mean "social harm" levels, but, again, I do NOT think that the differences, by substance would be significant different across all substances. Since alcohol and tobacco are legal and readily available in all Western industrial nations, then I suspect that, their "social harm" mean levels would be similarly large, relative to other substances.)
In particular; I was very surprised by the graph’s relatively high level of the mean “social harm” due to cannabis. Other than the costs of the legal penalties, or police intervention (both due to the prohibition of cannabis and NOT due to cannabis use in and of itself) I fail to see what social harms would result from cannabis use.
Second, I would bet that the actual “social harm” due to alcohol and tobacco are being highly under-counted (or under-estimated). [i.e. consider: 1) Alcohol poisonings (i.e. overdose), alcohol’s role in 2) car accidents, 3) other accidents 4) violence, 5) mental illness, 6) reckless behavior resulting in injury and/or property damage, 7) vandalism, 8 ) alcohol-caused diseases (i.e. liver damage, cancer, etc.) 9) Absenteeism and other lost work productivity, and so on.). For tobacco, the sheer numbers of lung cancer deaths and other heart-lung disease deaths alone would pretty much outstrip every other drug combined.]
The chart correlates to David Nutt, a psychopharmacologist at Bristol University and member of the Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) which advises ministers on drug policy.
They asked a group of 29 consultant psychiatrists who specialise in addiction to rate the drugs in nine categories. Three of these related to physical harm, three to the likelihood of addiction and three to social harms such as healthcare costs. The team also extended the analysis to another group of 16 experts spanning several fields including chemistry, pharmacology, psychiatry, forensics, police and legal services.
The rankings do take into account new evidence that specially cultivated "skunk" varieties of cannabis available now are two to three times stronger than traditional cannabis resin. I would add too that I've looked long and hard at this chart, when it was first published in my newspaper, quite a few years ago and still have discrepancies with it, myself, who doesn't?. It's a very controversial chart and these British leading drug experts demanded that the current government's arbitrary classification system, consisting of CLASS A, B, & C, be scrapped and replaced by one that more honestly reflects the harm caused by alcohol and tobacco. I personally don't agree that cannabis was reclassified in the UK from C from B, but guess this was done due to sending out the wrong message and encouraging people that it's not a harmful substance (all drugs are, lets face it). If alcohol were invented tomorrow it would be banned and in class A without hesitation and tobacco would become a class B drug according to these experts, not my opinion, just divulging this info from a UK perspective report, which obviously differs from each country.
Very good points you raised in your last paragraph regarding the harm rating of alcohol which I agree with. (takes a sip of another glass of wine this evening, oops!)
They asked a group of 29 consultant psychiatrists who specialise in addiction to rate the drugs in nine categories. Three of these related to physical harm, three to the likelihood of addiction and three to social harms such as healthcare costs. The team also extended the analysis to another group of 16 experts spanning several fields including chemistry, pharmacology, psychiatry, forensics, police and legal services.
The rankings do take into account new evidence that specially cultivated "skunk" varieties of cannabis available now are two to three times stronger than traditional cannabis resin. I would add too that I've looked long and hard at this chart, when it was first published in my newspaper, quite a few years ago and still have discrepancies with it, myself, who doesn't?. It's a very controversial chart and these British leading drug experts demanded that the current government's arbitrary classification system, consisting of CLASS A, B, & C, be scrapped and replaced by one that more honestly reflects the harm caused by alcohol and tobacco. I personally don't agree that cannabis was reclassified in the UK from C from B, but guess this was done due to sending out the wrong message and encouraging people that it's not a harmful substance (all drugs are, lets face it). If alcohol were invented tomorrow it would be banned and in class A without hesitation and tobacco would become a class B drug according to these experts, not my opinion, just divulging this info from a UK perspective report, which obviously differs from each country.
Very good points you raised in your last paragraph regarding the harm rating of alcohol which I agree with. (takes a sip of another glass of wine this evening, oops!)
MY AMSTERDAM MAP = www.amsterdamer.supanet.com
-
Ingwey Gooblebogger
- Posts: 440
- Joined: Sat 27th Sep 2008 10:04 pm
I, too, enjoy my whisky, beer, and wine. Indeed, I partake of booze far more often than I do the ganja. I know how dangerous booze is, but I make an informed decision to use it.
Professor Nutt is a well respected researcher. (It is too bad he got the sack for telling the truth about cannabis)
One problem with categorical data (i.e. non-numerical data, where often you rank items by number), is when using these rank values in calculations. For example, what does a mean value of 2.7 on a flavour scale, or a 3.4 on restaurant-appeal scale mean? AND how would this be useful in making valid comparisons?. The “social harms” variables, mentioned previously, are the obvious analogy. To make matters worse, the 3 “social harm” variables are then aggregated into one “social harm” mean, further obfuscating it meaning.
Also, how do they separate the “social harms” for the various individual substances, from the social harms due to all substances? To complicate matters further, my experience in this field indicates that many folks are cross addicted (i.e. have simultaneous addictions to multiple substances). How then do they separate the harms into the various categories of substances. This area of research is fraught with many chinks in its armour.
A) Rational arguments, where only an rational and intelligent mind is required to follow the argument and no knowledge of research methodology or statistical analysis is required of the participant..
In this vein two issues are explored:
1) Consider the, supposed, High THC levels directly
Marijuana, is, mainly, comprised of the dried cannabis flowers. The cannabinoids (what gets you high) in weed are located in the resin, which is comprised of the trichome glands. (That is, ultimately the cannabinoids are located in the trichomes, which, in turn is what comprises the resin.).
Hashish which is comprised of the resin (and a small varying degree of cannabis plant matter, depending on the method of its preparation), will always be “stronger” than marijuana, since it is a purified form, of cannabis. (It is mainly resin with little plant matter as opposed to weed which has considerably more plant matter by weight.).
(i) People have smoked/consumed hashish for thousands of years with no resulting psychosis. Thus , the “higher THC (i.e “killer skunk”) causes psychosis arguement is BUNKUM! Rather it is old-school reefer madness propaganda, once again raring it ugly head!
(ii) Now, let us consider hash oil. Even shit-grade low quality hash oil would have THC levels upwards of 70%, by weight. Hash oil, has been smoked/consumed for at least 50 years now, and again, without causing any psychosis. Hence, again, the “higher THC (i.e “killer skunk”) causes psychosis arguement is BUNKUM!
2) Dose Titration
The media always forgets about dose titration and this is a huge mistake!
Dose titration means that altering the dosage based on potency.
Spirits, (i.e whisky, rum, vodka, etc.) are typically, about 8 times more potent than beer. If you drink booze, and you drank two 12 ounce bottles of beer, then that would be equivalent to drinking 3 ounces of spirits. People account for this when drinking, and do NOT typically down 24 ounces of whisky and expect the same level of impairment as the 24 ounces of beer. (People may not consciously calculate the values they down to the liquid ounce required for the buzz they require, but they do know that they will get pretty fucked up (or die) by downing 24 ounces of spirits, but will only have a mild buzz by downing 24 ounces of beer.)
Why does the media (or other prohibitionists) think that people would NOT behave in a similar manner when consuming other substances? (My answer: for the propaganda effect (eg Reefer Madness revisited., once again. Do these people think that we are so stupid as to not alter dosages? Maybe, but I think that they publish this shit to scare less intelligent people into fearing cannabis.)
B) Arguments based on research methodology, statistical analysis, and related methods.
These arguments are many a varied, but I’ll not go into detail, because that would take forever. Anyone familiar with research methodology/statistics will understand this, but those not familiar can read books on this matter. (AND I have made these arguments countless numbers of times on this board, and other places, so I am tired of having to repeat, in minute detail, every last item.)
The so called “studies” into the “Skunk caused psychosis” all fail miserably in their study design and methodology.
1) Improperly designed experiments, poor knowledge of valid statistical method, and invalid conclusions drawn.
They do not start with randomized study samples, which control for extraneous variables, and do not follow valid research procedures. Rather they examine individuals who have experienced mental illness and then they look for a linkage between their mental illness and prior cannabis usage. (Given the above, any analytical thinker, should now be saying “YIKES!!!”…and what is worse is that these studies actually get funded and are occasionally peer reviewed……this is VERY SCARY to a statistician/researcher!)
These publications should not have been used as toilet paper let alone as research papers. )
Furthermore, they draw conclusions which are far beyond the scope of the experiment and/or otherwise inconsistent with proper methodology
NOTE: It is easy to hit a target, dead-center, every time, whilst blindfolded, provided that you draw the target AFTER you throw the object!
2) Correlation does NOT imply causation!!!
Second, and, a very important consideration is the fact that:
Correlation does NOT imply causation!!!
The above line is a cannon in statistics and any researcher who does NOT get this would/should have their work torn to shreds during the peer-review process.
One could argue that while correlation does NOT imply causation, it might give researchers some ideas as to what to investigate further. I have no problem with that argument, but then that is what study’s conclusion should state. Then the next study they do should be a well-controlled proper statistically valid experiment investigating the correlations. Unfortunately, they never go this route.
Professor Nutt is a well respected researcher. (It is too bad he got the sack for telling the truth about cannabis)
One problem with categorical data (i.e. non-numerical data, where often you rank items by number), is when using these rank values in calculations. For example, what does a mean value of 2.7 on a flavour scale, or a 3.4 on restaurant-appeal scale mean? AND how would this be useful in making valid comparisons?. The “social harms” variables, mentioned previously, are the obvious analogy. To make matters worse, the 3 “social harm” variables are then aggregated into one “social harm” mean, further obfuscating it meaning.
Also, how do they separate the “social harms” for the various individual substances, from the social harms due to all substances? To complicate matters further, my experience in this field indicates that many folks are cross addicted (i.e. have simultaneous addictions to multiple substances). How then do they separate the harms into the various categories of substances. This area of research is fraught with many chinks in its armour.
The “high THC levels causes psychosis” argument is complete BUNK. They can easily be refuted by several means, which I will outline, below. Essentially the arguments fall into two categories. A) Rational arguments, which merely require an intelligent mind and no further knowledge of research method and B) methodological/statistical arguments.The rankings do take into account new evidence that specially cultivated "skunk" varieties of cannabis available now are two to three times stronger than traditional cannabis resin.
A) Rational arguments, where only an rational and intelligent mind is required to follow the argument and no knowledge of research methodology or statistical analysis is required of the participant..
In this vein two issues are explored:
1) Consider the, supposed, High THC levels directly
Marijuana, is, mainly, comprised of the dried cannabis flowers. The cannabinoids (what gets you high) in weed are located in the resin, which is comprised of the trichome glands. (That is, ultimately the cannabinoids are located in the trichomes, which, in turn is what comprises the resin.).
Hashish which is comprised of the resin (and a small varying degree of cannabis plant matter, depending on the method of its preparation), will always be “stronger” than marijuana, since it is a purified form, of cannabis. (It is mainly resin with little plant matter as opposed to weed which has considerably more plant matter by weight.).
(i) People have smoked/consumed hashish for thousands of years with no resulting psychosis. Thus , the “higher THC (i.e “killer skunk”) causes psychosis arguement is BUNKUM! Rather it is old-school reefer madness propaganda, once again raring it ugly head!
(ii) Now, let us consider hash oil. Even shit-grade low quality hash oil would have THC levels upwards of 70%, by weight. Hash oil, has been smoked/consumed for at least 50 years now, and again, without causing any psychosis. Hence, again, the “higher THC (i.e “killer skunk”) causes psychosis arguement is BUNKUM!
2) Dose Titration
The media always forgets about dose titration and this is a huge mistake!
Dose titration means that altering the dosage based on potency.
Spirits, (i.e whisky, rum, vodka, etc.) are typically, about 8 times more potent than beer. If you drink booze, and you drank two 12 ounce bottles of beer, then that would be equivalent to drinking 3 ounces of spirits. People account for this when drinking, and do NOT typically down 24 ounces of whisky and expect the same level of impairment as the 24 ounces of beer. (People may not consciously calculate the values they down to the liquid ounce required for the buzz they require, but they do know that they will get pretty fucked up (or die) by downing 24 ounces of spirits, but will only have a mild buzz by downing 24 ounces of beer.)
Why does the media (or other prohibitionists) think that people would NOT behave in a similar manner when consuming other substances? (My answer: for the propaganda effect (eg Reefer Madness revisited., once again. Do these people think that we are so stupid as to not alter dosages? Maybe, but I think that they publish this shit to scare less intelligent people into fearing cannabis.)
B) Arguments based on research methodology, statistical analysis, and related methods.
These arguments are many a varied, but I’ll not go into detail, because that would take forever. Anyone familiar with research methodology/statistics will understand this, but those not familiar can read books on this matter. (AND I have made these arguments countless numbers of times on this board, and other places, so I am tired of having to repeat, in minute detail, every last item.)
The so called “studies” into the “Skunk caused psychosis” all fail miserably in their study design and methodology.
1) Improperly designed experiments, poor knowledge of valid statistical method, and invalid conclusions drawn.
They do not start with randomized study samples, which control for extraneous variables, and do not follow valid research procedures. Rather they examine individuals who have experienced mental illness and then they look for a linkage between their mental illness and prior cannabis usage. (Given the above, any analytical thinker, should now be saying “YIKES!!!”…and what is worse is that these studies actually get funded and are occasionally peer reviewed……this is VERY SCARY to a statistician/researcher!)
These publications should not have been used as toilet paper let alone as research papers. )
Furthermore, they draw conclusions which are far beyond the scope of the experiment and/or otherwise inconsistent with proper methodology
NOTE: It is easy to hit a target, dead-center, every time, whilst blindfolded, provided that you draw the target AFTER you throw the object!
2) Correlation does NOT imply causation!!!
Second, and, a very important consideration is the fact that:
Correlation does NOT imply causation!!!
The above line is a cannon in statistics and any researcher who does NOT get this would/should have their work torn to shreds during the peer-review process.
One could argue that while correlation does NOT imply causation, it might give researchers some ideas as to what to investigate further. I have no problem with that argument, but then that is what study’s conclusion should state. Then the next study they do should be a well-controlled proper statistically valid experiment investigating the correlations. Unfortunately, they never go this route.
Fucking hell mate, not got time to read all that and discuss. Just got back from a good night out at the pub. I will get back to you, just not this minute.
Had a wonderful weekend, how about you?
EDIT
Now had time to read it.
Had a wonderful weekend, how about you?
EDIT
Now had time to read it.
I agree, I never said otherwise. This myth that cannabis is stronger today than years ago is in their report and drug chart, not mine. I also stated that I completely disagree that cannabis was raised from class C to class B in the UK regarding this myth. It seriously annoys me when I read English newspapers with yet another hysterical story that cannabis has caused a problem somewhere with an individual who has spun out in some sort of way, with reports regarding alcohol related problems, never to be seen. The whole cannabis debate bores me rigid, always will, where the subject needs a new rational debate of the true damage caused be illegal drugs, compared to the havoc wreaked by legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, which without there's no chance of developing a sensible drug policy, where prohibition fails and legalisation is the least bad solution. Apart from that, taxing drugs would provide big revenues and far more cost effective than banning them that costs tax payers more.Ingwey Gooblebogger wrote:The “high THC levels causes psychosis” argument is complete BUNK.
MY AMSTERDAM MAP = www.amsterdamer.supanet.com
