Study: Alcohol, Tobacco Worse Than Drugs...duh
- 03-23-2007, 07:42 PM
Study: Alcohol, Tobacco Worse Than Drugs...duh
As if we haven't been saying this for AGES!!
Study: Alcohol, Tobacco Worse Than Drugs
By MARIA CHENG
The Associated Press
Friday, March 23, 2007; 3:41 AM
LONDON -- New "landmark" research finds that alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than some illegal drugs like marijuana or Ecstasy and should be classified as such in legal systems, according to a new British study.
In research published Friday in The Lancet magazine, Professor David Nutt of Britain's Bristol University and colleagues proposed a new framework for the classification of harmful substances, based on the actual risks posed to society. Their ranking listed alcohol and tobacco among the top 10 most dangerous substances.
Nutt and colleagues used three factors to determine the harm associated with any drug: the physical harm to the user, the drug's potential for addiction, and the impact on society of drug use. The researchers asked two groups of experts _ psychiatrists specializing in addiction and legal or police officials with scientific or medical expertise _ to assign scores to 20 different drugs, including heroin, cocaine, Ecstasy, amphetamines, and LSD.
Nutt and his colleagues then calculated the drugs' overall rankings. In the end, the experts agreed with each other _ but not with the existing British classification of dangerous substances.
Heroin and cocaine were ranked most dangerous, followed by barbiturates and street methadone. Alcohol was the fifth-most harmful drug and tobacco the ninth most harmful. Cannabis came in 11th, and near the bottom of the list was Ecstasy.
According to existing British and U.S. drug policy, alcohol and tobacco are legal, while cannabis and Ecstasy are both illegal. Previous reports, including a study from a parliamentary committee last year, have questioned the scientific rationale for Britain's drug classification system.
"The current drug system is ill thought-out and arbitrary," said Nutt, referring to the United Kingdom's practice of assigning drugs to three distinct divisions, ostensibly based on the drugs' potential for harm. "The exclusion of alcohol and tobacco from the Misuse of Drugs Act is, from a scientific perspective, arbitrary," write Nutt and his colleagues in The Lancet.
Tobacco causes 40 percent of all hospital illnesses, while alcohol is blamed for more than half of all visits to hospital emergency rooms. The substances also harm society in other ways, damaging families and occupying police services.
Nutt hopes that the research will provoke debate within the UK and beyond about how drugs _ including socially acceptable drugs such as alcohol _ should be regulated. While different countries use different markers to classify dangerous drugs, none use a system like the one proposed by Nutt's study, which he hopes could serve as a framework for international authorities.
"This is a landmark paper," said Dr. Leslie Iversen, professor of pharmacology at Oxford University. Iversen was not connected to the research. "It is the first real step towards an evidence-based classification of drugs." He added that based on the paper's results, alcohol and tobacco could not reasonably be excluded.
"The rankings also suggest the need for better regulation of the more harmful drugs that are currently legal, i.e. tobacco and alcohol," wrote Wayne Hall, of the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, in an accompanying Lancet commentary. Hall was not involved with Nutt's paper.
While experts agreed that criminalizing alcohol and tobacco would be challenging, they said that governments should review the penalties imposed for drug abuse and try to make them more reflective of the actual risks and damages involved.
Nutt called for more education so that people were aware of the risks of various drugs. "All drugs are dangerous," he said. "Even the ones people know and love and use every day."
- 03-24-2007, 01:32 PM
03-24-2007, 01:37 PM
03-24-2007, 06:02 PM
03-24-2007, 09:54 PM
I've become so cynical I can hardly stand to watch TV and see our smug little national level politicians walking all over us.
Legality is entirely subject to votes and money. Politicians need a boogie man and a pocket liner, and sometimes you can have two different things that are essentially the same (say, alcohol and marijuana for example) being portrayed as opposites.
I'll never forget how our politicians forced the banning of DDT as a mosquito borne malaria control (almost) worldwide which resulted in millions of unnecessary deaths every year in third world countries regardless of no scientific data to back its dangers. And why? Because politicians found something to get them votes. Luckily, a few months back the WHO got smart and reinitiated use of DDT for malaria control in south africa after 30 years of millions of people dying as a result of political BS.
I'm starting to think "human induced" Global warming is the #1 boogie man of today, and somewhere in the top 10 are marijuana (which I don't smoke) and steroids, and some other relatively harmless things.
If something isn't lining a politicians pocket and can either be made to do so, or to get votes, it'll be taken advantage of at any cost. If a politician can make enough money off of a certain industry they can overlook all of the harm it does and "let people make their own decisions" (which I'm all for--I just wish they'd be consistent about it).
03-25-2007, 12:38 AM
03-25-2007, 09:37 PM
i feel bonus points when i turn this into my drugs, alch and tabacco professor tomorrow...
thanks for the post LakeMount!
\\ USPlabs Alpha Ginger //
03-26-2007, 02:01 AM
03-26-2007, 03:31 PM
But, human induced? Care to take me to task on that?
The IPCC is probably the most corrupt "scientific organization" on the planet. Hell, they're even forging signatures that scientists have had to sue before they would take them off of their report. Scientists who disagreed with their findings.
Forum: Warming points sunward - Commentary - The Washington Times, America's Newspaper
Just read this, and then search the IPCC report for answers to the main points here--you wont find them.
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Global Warming Petition Project
Here is a list of signatures (look at the number of Ph.D, MD, MD/Ph.D, MS, etc) supporting that paper which argues against humans being the major cause of global warming.
Anti-Global Warming Petition Names by State
They're not all going to be climatologists, but neither are the people who peer review climatologists work. Scientific peer review process is done to make sure the data analysis and presentation are acceptable. And you don't necessarily have to be a specialist in a certain field to see that.
And, why do humans insist that every temperature anamoly that takes place is our fault? They pinned the much feared "Global Cooling" of the 1970's on us, too. Global cooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, are we responsible for Mars' ice caps melting, too? Mars is Melting
What about the huge new developing on Jupiter? Are we responsible for Jupiters climate change (warming change to be more precise)? USATODAY.com - New storm on Jupiter hints at climate change
As much as a 10 degree farenheit change temperatures in parts of Jupiter--wow. We're really fwcking up the solar system aren't we?
Don Singleton: New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change
Mars, Jupiter, Earth? Who else can possibly be warming due to our global CO2 emissions...jesus. Wait? There is more? Pluto and Neptunes moon are warming as well? Wow. We're hideous. Breaking: Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say
Jupiter, Triton (Neptun’s largest moon), Ecaladus (one of Saturn’s moons), Saturn itself, Pluto, Mars, and Earth. This is the “complete list”.
(Seems the one common factor these bodies all share is the sun...coincidence?)
I bet you thought DDT was going to kill everyone, too, right? The bastards who capitalized off of that are probably responsible for 20-40 million deaths in the most poor countries in the world because of their political agenda. Things like that keep a person skeptical--and right now, I've seen no convincing evidence that humans are responsible for the warming trend.
I have no vested interest in proving Human Induced Global Warming theory wrong. I just think that before huge industrial haul-overs on the world are going to be forced on us, which would cause world wide instability and even greater poverty, we better have some damn good evidence. Not just a bunch of journalists who claim that there is a scientific consensus on global warming when there is clearly nothing close to that.
The sad fact is that fear is a great tool for money making entities such as the press, and politicians who can capitalize off of "saving future generations". And, do we trust either the media or politicians? I sure hope not. They're not doing too much in our best interests lately.
03-27-2007, 01:44 AM
Ok let me rerphrase. Global warming is not human induced, however human activity on earth is making it exponentionally worse. THis is not the thread for arguing this though, so I'll leave it there.
03-27-2007, 02:26 AM
03-27-2007, 09:10 AM
My only problem with this is the argument within this that's going on. People here are using this study to confirm their beliefs that exisited before hand. It didn't change anyone's mind here. However, the recent study that said Global warming is real and humans are helping it along by a good deal is ignored as bunk by those who thought it was bunk before hand.
This is almost always the case and it bugs me nearly as much as the political machine. People can't change their own views and beliefs and expect politicians and religious leaders to do what they can't do themselves.
03-27-2007, 03:55 PM
I actually use to believe in human induced global warming, not that long ago in fact. Then I got my ass handed to my right here on this forum. I did some more research and found out that our politicians have a long history of using scare tactics (at the expense of many) to get votes--like my DDT example for one. You can probably search that one up, lol.
IPCC fails to address some key arguments against its position, and then has the nuts to totally bastardize the peer review process making changes (inclusions, deletions, rewordings, etc) after the paper has been approved, and include names of scientists who didn't agree with their results as supporting names in their papers.
I can't believe how everyone just throws out the window the fact that our whole damn solar system is heating up at the moment--its amazing to me. Then the only argument against the sun being the major factor of global warming is that the correlation between solar output and global warming isn't in stride--well, if the people knew what they were talking about they would know that the effect of solar output on our planet (and all planets in our solar system) is a delayed process, similar to eating a ****load of fatass food. Eat today, get fat tomorrow. Same goes with energy from the sun. The earth gets nailed with it today, and the heating process follows--hell, there was even a paper (which I don't have off of the top of my head) that modeled this process mathematically recently.
03-27-2007, 10:21 PM
Honestly, the sciences involved are above my level of education so I have to basically go with what I can read/understand as well as what makes the most sense to me based on my personal experiences. This doesn't mean it's right but it is what I can accept, for the time being.
03-28-2007, 02:51 PM
Global Warming IS REAL!!!! OMG all this time I thought it was a joke, and someone said that we are causing the ****ING planet to HEAT UP? BHAHAHAHAHAHA What a fing joke, how full of ourselfs are we to think that we could cause a fing planet to heat up? Lets see what is in the center of the earth? Hell just think about how old this planet is and how many millions of billions of times its changed? Did we cause all those changes? What a LOAD OF ****. Ill believe that we are causing global warming when me **** turns purple and taste like rainbow sherbert! This is all about making money, lets see how many ****s we can get to buy cars that use a lawn mower battery, it only goes 20miles an hour but hey its not causing "Global Warming"!!
03-28-2007, 03:29 PM
03-29-2007, 07:54 AM
03-29-2007, 02:25 PM
It isn't like we're saying people will destroy the Earth. It's just that we can make it uninhabitable to humans. We do in fact have an effect on weather. Just walk into downtown NY city or DC on a hot summer day and you can see for yourself. Whether or not our effect on the Earth is as easily changed on a larger scale is the question but i'd rather take the cautious approach. If my belief is wrong no one is harmed and if yours is wrong then many are negatively effected.
03-29-2007, 02:57 PM
If there were no harm involved with drastically reducing CO2 then why the hell would I care, ya know?
Similar Forum Threads
- By rockyt in forum Cycle InfoReplies: 11Last Post: 12-27-2007, 07:35 PM
- By json75 in forum SupplementsReplies: 9Last Post: 08-03-2007, 02:47 AM
- By EasyEJL in forum SupplementsReplies: 32Last Post: 06-16-2007, 12:05 PM