firecross
Board Supporter
- Awards
- 0
[This idea of substituting science for politics and experts for gasbags in the measure of substance harm is making the rounds again and could spread to sensible nations throughout Europe.
"We believe that a system of classification like ours, based on the scoring of harms by experts, on the basis of scientific evidence, has much to commend it. It is rigorous, and involves a formal, quantitative evaluation of several aspects of harm. And it can easily be reapplied, as knowledge advances."]
A new study published today in the Lancet proposes that drugs should be classified by the amount of harm that they do, rather than the sharp A, B, and C divisions in the UK Misuse of Drugs Act.
Professor David Nutt from the University of Bristol, Professor Colin Blakemore, Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council, and colleagues, identified three main factors that together determine the harm associated with any drug of potential abuse:
The scientists identified three main factors that together determined the harmfulness of a controlled substance.
These were: the physical harm to the individual user caused by the drug, the tendency of the drug to induce dependence, and the effect of the drug's use on families, communities and society.
Each of these categories was split into three sub-components, providing nine parameters of risk.
Scores were combined to produce estimates of harm for each of 20 different drugs.
Unsurprisingly, the results placed heroin at the head of the table with an overall "harm score" of 2.7, followed by cocaine which scored 2.3.
But more controversially, alcohol is ranked as the fifth most dangerous drug, scoring just under 2 on the table.
Tobacco is in ninth position, with a score of 1.7. Ecstasy is listed at number 18 and scores just over 1.1.
[Anabolic steroids came in at 16th with a physical harm rating equal to alcohol, the second lowest dependence score, and 15th in social harm.]
Previous research is available from the House of Commons found by googling "A RATIONAL SCALE FOR ASSESSING THE RISKS OF DRUGS OF POTENTIAL MISUSE"
"We believe that a system of classification like ours, based on the scoring of harms by experts, on the basis of scientific evidence, has much to commend it. It is rigorous, and involves a formal, quantitative evaluation of several aspects of harm. And it can easily be reapplied, as knowledge advances."]
A new study published today in the Lancet proposes that drugs should be classified by the amount of harm that they do, rather than the sharp A, B, and C divisions in the UK Misuse of Drugs Act.
Professor David Nutt from the University of Bristol, Professor Colin Blakemore, Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council, and colleagues, identified three main factors that together determine the harm associated with any drug of potential abuse:
The scientists identified three main factors that together determined the harmfulness of a controlled substance.
These were: the physical harm to the individual user caused by the drug, the tendency of the drug to induce dependence, and the effect of the drug's use on families, communities and society.
Each of these categories was split into three sub-components, providing nine parameters of risk.
Scores were combined to produce estimates of harm for each of 20 different drugs.
Unsurprisingly, the results placed heroin at the head of the table with an overall "harm score" of 2.7, followed by cocaine which scored 2.3.
But more controversially, alcohol is ranked as the fifth most dangerous drug, scoring just under 2 on the table.
Tobacco is in ninth position, with a score of 1.7. Ecstasy is listed at number 18 and scores just over 1.1.
[Anabolic steroids came in at 16th with a physical harm rating equal to alcohol, the second lowest dependence score, and 15th in social harm.]
Previous research is available from the House of Commons found by googling "A RATIONAL SCALE FOR ASSESSING THE RISKS OF DRUGS OF POTENTIAL MISUSE"
