Drug laws and... science?

[Stoneburg]

A report was published in The Lancet by a team of medical experts suggesting a revamp of the English system for classifying illegal drugs. Basically the team studied and compared drugs in three areas of ‘harm’. Physical, Social and Dependence. Each drug was ranked in a total of 9 sub categories and the numbers were then compared. The result was interesting to say the least.

In addition to the 15 illegal drugs compared 5 legal or uncontrolled substances were also ranked. Alcohol, tobacco, Ketamine, Poppers and Khat.

Not surprisingly Heroin scored the highest. Maxing out in the Dependence category and scoring highest in the other two as well. Cocain came in second but much more surprising (to me at least) was that Alcohol scored higher than both Amphetamines, LSD and Ecstasy among others. In fact, Alcohol came 5:th, only surpassed by Barbiturates and street methadone (as well as the coce and smack previously mentioned).

Also interesting, and damning, is that tobacco and alcohol are responsible for about 90% of drug related deaths in the UK.
The most interesting graph is this one:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/images?imageId=gr1&sectionType=green

This reports indicates that the current judicial classification of drugs is arbitrary at best and does not correlate to evidence based science. I imagine that the UK classification is pretty simmilar to the one in most western countries.

In Sweden Khat, which is almost exclusively used by somalians, is illegal and possession can result in serious jailtime for large quantities. Somalis are probably (next to romanis) the most disenfrenchised group in Sweden, and since the effects of khat seem pretty harmless (it’s legal in a lot of countries) it would indicate that there is some structural racism at play here. A simmilar scenario seem to have occured with Cannabis in the US, which was mainly used by Mexican immigrants when criminalized. Compare this with Cocain which was mainly used by whites and although being one of the most harmful drugs wasn’t criminalized until the 70’s.
It’s hard to say which drug is the most or least harmful, to society or individuals. The ranking provided is based on the mean scores of each drug in 9 sub categories and depending on how you would weight the different scores you’d get a somewhat different result. If you emphasise acute physical harm instead of chronic damages, or if you put more weight on social costs than physical dependence, you will get a different ranking. However, it is intersting that Cannabis scores lower in every single category than both Alcohol and Tobacco, and that LSD which is widely classified as an extremely dangerous drug is in the bottom third of the table. In fact, LSD, Ecstasy and Alkyl nitrates which are all associated with certain subcultures (hippies, clubbing youths and homosexuals) seem to be much less harmful than what the judicial system would have us believe.

This is just one study, but the research and method seem solid and it is peer reviewed. And although it doesn’t prove anything beyond the elusive reasonable doubt it sure presents some questions about how we and society view drugs and the people that use them.
Cite
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext (needs (free) registration)

[kidchameleon]

@Stoneburg

Compare this with Cocain which was mainly used by whites and although being one of the most harmful drugs wasn’t criminalized until the 70’s.

That really isn’t true. While it wasn’t added as a controlled substance until 1970, the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act prohibited the sale and distribution of cocaine in 1914. It was associated with the black populace, not whites.

@Dr. Christopher Koch

“Most of the attacks upon the white women of the South are the direct result of a cocaine-crazed Negro brain.”

[Kobal2]

@kidchameleon

That really isn’t true. While it wasn’t added as a controlled substance until 1970, the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act prohibited the sale and distribution of cocaine in 1914. It was associated with the black populace, not whites.

From my crackedy-ass cracker perspective, there are two cocaines : there’s powder cocaine, and crack. Crack is (ha !) cracked down upon and folklore is full of stories and legends on how it makes you ka-rayzee, violent and whatnot. But every artist, fashion model, media PR guy, stock broker and med student (so, upper class whites) snorts snow, because it keeps you awake and energized, like coffee Mk.2.

Which is what my perception of drug laws is, really : I’m aware that they’re arbitrary and mostly stem from misinformation, however it seems to me there’s also an underlying “social logic” to them : the ones that are outlawed seem to be the ones you can’t function on. You can’t put in a day’s work on LSD*, but smoking’ll get you through a stressful day. Alcohol will make one more prone to violence or carelessness on the job, but marijuana will make one go “heh ? What’s the point of going to work, really ? Oooh, cookies !”

So it may be there’s that.
However, I’m fairly strongly against regulating drugs myself, when all is said and done. It should be a personnal decision.

*anecdote : I once read a fascinating article written by a gal who was a nurse at Woodstock. Apparently, she had to learn how to treat eye burns doublequick, because many tripping hippies would stare at the Sun for hours on end. That’ll squeegee your third eye allright.

[Lumpy]

One thing I’ve always thought questionable was the use of the catchall phrase “narcotics” (which parsed literally would mean “stuff that puts you to sleep”.) So you have opiates, cocaine and hemp derivitives all held to be effectively the same, despite their widely differing characteristics. Really, scientifically there’s no such thing as a “narcotic” any more than there’s one type of firearm called an “assault weapon”, and the laws ought to be changed to reflect this.

[Rhythmdvl]

I’m sorry I don’t have time at the moment to digest the report – can anyone tell me why cannabis, LSD, and solvents all reach the same basic height on the linked graph?

[PatriotGrrrl]

@Kobal2

marijuana will make one go “heh ? What’s the point of going to work, really ? Oooh, cookies !”

Speak for yourself. I’ve worked with plenty of people who put in a good day’s work despite taking a little afternoon smoke break.

[Rhythmdvl]

@Kobal2

*anecdote : I once read a fascinating article written by a gal who was a nurse at Woodstock. Apparently, she had to learn how to treat eye burns doublequick, because many tripping hippies would stare at the Sun for hours on end. That’ll squeegee your third eye allright.

Snopesis your friend:

**Claim: **Several students tripping on LSD stared at the sun until blinded.

Status: False.

**Origins: **This Sun legend, one the 1960s’ most ubiquitous pieces of drug scarelore (along with “teenager on acid trip thinks he can fly and jumps out window”) was nothing but pure hoax. Nonetheless, the national print media fell for it twice.

You may also want to know that “Excessive LSD use left a young man in a psychiatric hospital, believing himself to be a glass of orange juice.” is listed as a legend.

[Little_Nemo]

I’m surprised heroin came in number one for addictive properties. I’ve always heard that crack, meth, and nicotine are more physically addictive than heroin.

I’m also curious about the Social Harm values. How can you objectively define how much social harm is inherent in a drug?

[Kobal2]

@Rhythmdvl

Snopesis your friend:
You may also want to know that “Excessive LSD use left a young man in a psychiatric hospital, believing himself to be a glass of orange juice.” is listed as a legend.

Look what you did : made me google my sources and citeand whatnot. Hope you’re ashamed of yourself, putting a decent slothful person through some effort !

[chorpler]

@Little_Nemo

I’m surprised heroin came in number one for addictive properties. I’ve always heard that crack, meth, and nicotine are more physically addictive than heroin.

I suspect it depends on what they mean by “addictive.” I haven’t read the report, but people use “addictive” in several different ways:

1. Once you take the drug, even the first or second time, you immediately crave it again

2. If you’ve been taking the drug for a while, you become psychologically dependent on it and feel like you need it to live life

3. If you’ve been taking the drug for a while, you become physically dependent on it and feel withdrawal symptoms if you stop taking it

And it’s really difficult to generalize about most drugs, because there is a wide variance in how people react to a particular drug, and it also varies depending on how you take the drug. Some people are more predisposed to becoming addicted to opiates like heroin than stimulants like cocaine or amphetaines; others are more disposed to become addicted to alcohol, etc. Similarly, taking a drug in a method that gets a larger dose to the brain faster is more likely to result in addiction than other methods.

Nicotine is definitely quite addictive by most measures; a study quoted in the Consumers Union report Licit and Illicit Drugs reported that 75% of people who smoked more than one cigarette in their teenage years were regular smokers for decades thereafter. (The report came out in the early 70’s, though; the widespread availability of nicotine replacement therapies in more recent years has probably helped more people quite smoking.) And people can get pretty desperate for a nicotine fix; there was reported widespread theft, prostitution, and trading of food and rationing coupons in areas where cigarettes were hard to come by during World War II.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Kobal2

Look what you did : made me google my sources and citeand whatnot. Hope you’re ashamed of yourself, putting a decent slothful person through some effort !

Dude, nowhere on that page does it say that the nurse treated people for burned eyeballs because they stared at the sun while tripping. I even looked at the next couple of pages, but never saw a reference to what you described.

I did find this, tho:

Woodstock’s medical director, Dr. William “Rock Doc” Abruzzi, went on to specialize in the medicine of drug abuse. Drugs brought Abruzzi prominence, but they also provided the means for his downfall. He was charged in 1974 with anesthetizing female patients and molesting them while they were unconscious. Two years later, minutes before he was to go to trial, he pleaded guilty to sexual abuse. Abruzzi’s saga didn’t end there. The state’s highest court ruled that a police officer violated Abruzzi’s rights when he watched the doctor abuse his patients through an examination window. Abruzzi never served his prison sentence, but he did lose his license to practice medicine in New York. He has since dropped out of sight and can not be located. To this day, Abruzzi has his supporters, including Nurse Sanderson. “He was framed,” said the nurse, who retired in 1980 and left Middletown.

Interesting side note, eh.

[Kobal2]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Dude, nowhere on that page does it say that the nurse treated people for burned eyeballs because they stared at the sun while tripping. I even looked at the next couple of pages, but never saw a reference to what you described.

Read again.

“SPI-DERS!” the guy was screaming. The Freak-Out Tent had its first patient. Nurse Sanderson wasn’t sure what to do about psychic spider infestations. The Hog Farmers treated bad acid trips with physical stroking and soft words. She decided to do the same. “You learned in a gosh-darn fast way,” she said. “You have to give them some touch with reality. You had to speak softly.” Mrs. Sanderson wanted to work the festival to learn how to treat the new sicknesses associated with the drug culture. Woodstock Ventures had offered to help train medical personnel, and Ventures was offering big bucks - $50 a day - for nurses. But there weren’t many takers. Local people in medicine were skittish about being associated with the controversial event, Mrs. Sanderson said.

The medics had brought a bottle of Thorazine, an anti-psychotic drug, to chemically counteract bad trips. But the tripsters reported that Thorazine would send a drug user crashing immediately, leading to long-term psychological problems. The consensus at the Hog Farm was that Thorazine was a very bad trip indeed. “We stuck the Thorazine under the table, and I think somebody stole it,” Mrs. Sanderson said. She divided the circus tent into three wards to cover the incoming casualties. The most famous was the ward for those experiencing the imaginary symptoms of bad trips. A second, the largest, was for people with cut feet. Broken glass and pop-tops slashed hundreds. “Their feet were cut to ribbons,” she said. “We sat them down, put their feet in a bowl of clean water and disinfectant.” The third area was for people with a malady peculiar to Woodstock. “They had burned their eyes staring at the sun,” Mrs. Sanderson said. "If they were tripping, they’d lie down on their backs and just stare. There were five or six or seven at a time. That was something."

(emphasis mine)

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Kobal2

Read again.

(emphasis mine)

Ah, ok. My bad. Not sure how I missed it. Still, that hardly rises to the level of “fact” based on 1 person’s 20+ year old recollection. Anecdotal evidence at best. Thanks for pointing out the part I missed, tho.

[Kobal2]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Ah, ok. My bad. Not sure how I missed it. Still, that hardly rises to the level of “fact” based on 1 person’s 20+ year old recollection. Anecdotal evidence at best. Thanks for pointing out the part I missed, tho.

Which is why I originally prefaced it with “anecdote :” :). I know this is an extreme example, and quite possibly apocryphal anyway - but the point is, there’s no denying that when you’re tripping on LSD, 'shrooms or peyotl, you cannot do anything remotely constructive. Except maybe subcontracting your breathing to a guy in Denver (gosh, that post never gets old, does it ? :))

[Stoneburg]

I don’t think the purpose of most recreational drugs is to increase your productivity, so I’m not sure that is a very strong argument against them.

Some of the replies to the thread tend to illustrate what is infered by the article, that the judicial system is based on other thing than evidence based science. Peoples knowledge of different drugs seem to be anecdote based or prejudice in one shape or another. This is true for me as well. I was quite stunned when I read the report since it contradicts a lot of my previous ‘knowledge’ about drugs. Of course I knew that Heroin is really dangerous and addictive, but I had no idea that Ecstacy is practically ‘safe’ (as far as any drug can be safe) or that Amphetamines are less addictive than alcohol. Or that when you smoke a join, the tobacco you use to mix the weed with is more dangerous than the cannabis.

The graph also shows how inconsistent the current drug laws are. Where one of the least dangerous drugs (Ecstacy) is classified as a class A narcotic, while one of the most dangerous (Alcohol) is available over the counter.

[Happy_Poster]

Drug laws have never been based on science and I’m amazed anyone has ever thought they were. Politics is applied philosophy. In this case, the philosophy of the nanny state, which is why you would think they would be popular with the left wing and unpopular with the right wing, although curiously the opposite seems to be true.

Oh well.

[erleichda]

@Stoneburg

I don’t think the purpose of most recreational drugs is to increase your productivity, so I’m not sure that is a very strong argument against them.

Some of the replies to the thread tend to illustrate what is infered by the article, that the judicial system is based on other thing than evidence based science. Peoples knowledge of different drugs seem to be anecdote based or prejudice in one shape or another. This is true for me as well. I was quite stunned when I read the report since it contradicts a lot of my previous ‘knowledge’ about drugs. Of course I knew that Heroin is really dangerous and addictive, but I had no idea that Ecstacy is practically ‘safe’ (as far as any drug can be safe) or that Amphetamines are less addictive than alcohol. Or that when you smoke a join, the tobacco you use to mix the weed with is more dangerous than the cannabis.

The graph also shows how inconsistent the current drug laws are. Where one of the least dangerous drugs (Ecstacy) is classified as a class A narcotic, while one of the most dangerous (Alcohol) is available over the counter.

I think you mean joint, and they are not made by mixing tobacco and weed.

[matt_mcl]

@Stoneburg

AA simmilar scenario seem to have occured with Cannabis in the US, which was mainly used by Mexican immigrants when criminalized.

In Canada, the same thing happened: marijuana was linked to the scary heathen Chinee who were coming to corrupt all of Her Majesty’s upstanding white subjects. Homosexuality, too. (I have no idea to what extent Chinese people actually were smoking marijuana.)

The pamphlets are just hilarious in tone until you remember they were taken very seriously and reflected a really brutal racism against Chinese immigrants.

I think you mean joint, and they are not made by mixing tobacco and weed.

It depends where you are. Around here people frequently mix tobacco and weed in a joint. Or so I heard.

[Stoneburg]

@erleichda

I think you mean joint, and they are not made by mixing tobacco and weed.

Actually it is interesting that you would say that because it brings up a question I’ve had for a long time…

I’ve never smoked a joint in the US, so my only information regarding it is from TV shows and movies. And they would seem to support your statement. For example, in “Breaking Bad” the main character (a teacher with no previous experience of drugs) makes himself a joint (ciggarette size) made purely from buds then smokes it. A while later he has a coherent conversation with his companion but seems a bit ‘soft’ or laid back.

Now if I (hypothetically) would buy some weed from a (hypothetical) friend of mine and roll a joint of that size with only buds, this hypothetical me would be on the floor for the next hour and not capable of intelligent communication in any form. In fact, this hypothetical self would probably use about half a bud and smoke it mixed with tobacco.
Now… does this mean that the hypothetical weed in Sweden is about 5 times stronger than imaginary weed on TV, or are characters on TV shows much more resistant than hypothetical sweeds of average height and weight?

[ivan_astikov]

You might be able to make a joint without using a cigarette if you are smoking ‘greenery’(skunk, bush, grass, whatever.), but you can’t make a joint just using resin(Lebanese, Moroccan, etc.).