Scientists want new drug rankings

[Tom Servo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6474053.stm

The drug classification system in the UK is not "fit for purpose" and should be scrapped, scientists have said.
They have drawn up an alternative system which they argue more accurately reflects the harm that drugs do.

The new ranking system places alcohol and tobacco in the upper half of the league table, ahead of cannabis and several Class A drugs such as ecstasy.

The study, published in The Lancet, has been welcomed by a team reviewing drug research for the government.

The Academy of Medical Sciences group plans to put its recommendations to ministers in the autumn.

A new commission is also due to undertake a three-year review of general government drug policy.

The new system has been developed by a team led by Professor David Nutt, from the University of Bristol, and Professor Colin Blakemore, chief executive of the Medical Research Council.

It assesses drugs on the harm they do to the individual, to society and whether or not they induce dependence.

A panel of experts were asked to rate 20 different drugs on nine individual categories, which were combined to produce an overall estimate of harm.

In order to provide familiar benchmarks, five legal drugs, including tobacco and alcohol were included in the assessment. Alcohol was rated the fifth most dangerous substance, and tobacco ninth.

Heroin was rated as the most dangerous drug, followed by cocaine and barbiturates. Ecstasy, however, rated only 18th, while cannabis was 11th.

The researchers said the current ABC system was too arbitrary, and failed to give specific information about the relative risks of each drug.

It also gave too much importance to unusual reactions, which would only affect a tiny number of users.

Professor Nutt said people were not deterred by scare messages, which simply served to undermine trust in warnings about the danger of drugs.

He said: "The current system is not fit for purpose. Let's treat people as adults. We should have a much more considered debate how we deal with dangerous drugs."

He highlighted the fact that one person a week in the UK dies from alcohol poisoning, while less than 10 deaths a year are linked to ecstasy use.

Professor Blakemore said it was clear that current drugs' policies were not working.

"We face a huge problem. Illegal substances have never been more easily available, or more widely abused."

He said the beauty of the new system, unlike the current version, was that it could easily be updated to reflect new research.

Professor Leslie Iversen, a member of the Academy of Medical Sciences group considering drug policy, said the new system was a "landmark paper".

He said: "It is a real step towards evidence-based classification of drugs."

Professor Iversen said the fact that 500,000 young people routinely took ecstasy every weekend proved that current drug policy was in need of reform.

Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker said: "We have no intention of reviewing the drug classification system.

"Our priority is harm reduction and to achieve this we focus on enforcement, education and treatment."

He said there had been "unparalleled investment" of £7.5 billion since 1998, which had contributed to a 21% reduction in overall drug misuse in the last nine years and a fall of 20% in drug related crime since 2004.

But he added: "The government is not complacent and will continue to work with all of our partners to build on this progress."

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42718000/gif/_42718419_drugs_graph2_416.gif

I think that this topic has been brought up by scientists is a good thing but the report itself could be misconstrued so that folk will drop a few tabs of LSD willynilly, without thought, in the same manner someone takes a drag on a cigarette - which is only asking for trouble. To me, all drugs have their use but it is a situational (set and setting) thing and cannot be easily plotted on a graph.

[HSaabedra]

Ever heard of Salvia Divinorum? Much more potent than cannabis and legal. Ketamine and Khet are one and the same, but the rest of the list is pretty spot on.

[CrossboneGundam]

England doesn't have methamphetamine?

[Haro!]

England doesn't have methamphetamine?

Too lowly for them maybe.

This is not on-topic but the only reason I knew they had a drug ranking system was thanks to Ali G.

[Bernard_Monsha]

http://patrick.net/wp/wp-content/Ingsoc.jpg

Take your Victory gin and Soma brother.

[sailornyanko]

I think it's a better system than basing them on illegalness, but it carries some problems.

1, it doesn't have enough drugs to list. There's far more drugs in the world than just that. The only opiacates they list are Heroin and Street Meth. They don't list Morphine which is highly addictive, Phentanil (which curiously in Mexico is pretty easy to get... as if getting prescribed meds without a prescription wasn't easy enough) and pure opium which is smoked. It does seem to list something called Buprenorphine, maybe some subtype of Morphine?
They should also add caffeine in the list. And what the heck is knat??!! O_o'

2, it's very basic in the sense that it doesn't list varying dangers and degrees of potency of different drugs if administered differently. It's not the same to smoke crack which is easily the most addictive form of cocaine than to inhale it or inject it. No coca leaves? Lose! Colombia's official coca leaf soda drink will stomp you in the face! :lol:
With a hooka, you can smoke alcohol. I've done it with vodka and it gets you drunk VERY easily since it doesn't pass time in the stomach to start kicking effect. They even published a pretty interesting report this week on yahoo that smoked tobacco with a type of hooka found commonly in Egypt is even more dangerous than normal cigs since it adds up the carbon used to light the hooka.

3, The graph system it uses seems making a sumatory of drugs combinations a bit unreasonable. It's not a same thing to take a couple Valiums with a burger and a soda than to take just 1 or two of them with a 6 pack.
It's not the same to take 1 amphetamine pill alone than to mix it will a Red Bull.
And it's DEFINITETIVELY and ABSOLUTATIVELY (I spelled them wrong on purpose for emphasis BTW) not the same to take 1 ecstasy pill with a coke than with a "Smart Drink" which is filled with yummy aminoacids that can give you a serotonin syndrome that will kill you no matter what is done to restabilize you.
Anabolic steroids are safe if given to the right person. If you're male, have normal blood pressure, normal EKG and have a normal specific prostate antigen level, you can inject them into your arm like candies for all I care. Just get regular medical revisions and I'm quite you'll probably die from something that has nothing to do with using them. Heck, I'd give you a 10 to 1 chance you'll die from dehydration jogging in the sun than from the steroids if the early criteria are met. Oh, and... I'd have second thought using steroids a lot, you could get boobs. :lol: Women shouldn't use them though, especially after menopause, you will get a heart attack.

I'd like to see their reports on why rate pot so high on the list. The health effects from PCP and paint thinner sounds far more dangerous than seeing a really heavy pot smoker who does nothing all day but gets anxiety attacks a few times a year. I think an anxiety attack sounds far more easy to treat than asphixiation from putting Raid in a plastic bag and putting it on top of your head. Yes, people do do that.

The list could also add in occupation health hazards that add up bad health effects with some drugs. It's not the same to be a guy in an office who smokes than to be a guy who works in a coal mine who smokes.

However, the idea of modernizing a list system using common health effects than uber rare ones (my phsiquiatry teacher has never seen a pot smoker who has had a psychotic attack without really being a schizophrenic that is untreated) isn't bad. It could be educational for programs about drug use that are proven with scientific facts and not myths.

[Crusader986]

I think that tobacco should be higher on the list. It does kill more people than any other drug and is extremely addicting.

[rosie-kun]

Drugs are good..........

[GreatNekoKoneko]

...uh, drugs are bad, m'kay?

[Haro!]

So with this drug ranking, the higher they rank the better they are?

[RPGQueen]

Meth is really bad so is e (I hate e-tards). Heroin is suprising, sure it can kill you and highly addictive but if you can manage to stop using it it doesn't affact you brain as much as other drugs. as for mary jane not being that bad, not suprising at all.

[Tom Servo]

Ever heard of Salvia Divinorum? Much more potent than cannabis and legal. Ketamine and Khet are one and the same, but the rest of the list is pretty spot on.
Yep, I've come across the extracts of salvia - even though I help out on erowid and other psychedelia sites I have never come across the term khat before, I thought it might be some derivative of ketamine too at first, but it turns out to be a popular mild stimulant in africa and the middle east (thinking about it, I have heard of khat before, but only in news reports - not firsthand).

I was surprised, as other folk here have said, that meth wasn't down on that graph (or dxm) - both of those drugs seem to be in use moreso in america than in the uk.

[Neo0tak0n]

why isn't catnip on the list????

[Bernard_Monsha]

I think that tobacco should be higher on the list. It does kill more people than any other drug and is extremely addicting.

That is because more people smoke then toke a reefer. Smokeing also does not impair your judgement the way alcohol or marajuana will. Nor does it increase the chances of someone becomeing a nuerotic.

[Crusader986]

That is because more people smoke then toke a reefer. Smokeing also does not impair your judgement the way alcohol or marajuana will. Nor does it increase the chances of someone becomeing a nuerotic.

Even though smoking doesn't impair your judgement, it does kill over 400,000 people a year. A lot more than all the other drugs combined. Marijuana kills 0 people a year.

[GreatNekoKoneko]

Even though smoking doesn't impair your judgement, it does kill over 400,000 people a year. A lot more than all the other drugs combined. Marijuana kills 0 people a year.

... this doesn't include the number of people killed under the influence. your rebuttal?

[VidelCoolGirl]

... this doesn't include the number of people killed under the influence. your rebuttal?

I think he means from long term/actual medical effects, like lung cancer, ect.

[GreatNekoKoneko]

...well. we all gotta die of something.

[VidelCoolGirl]

I actually agree with him though. More people are sure to die being under the influence, not actually taking the drug. Most drunk drivers are probably good drivers, but once under the influence of alcohol, get in an accident. Most die I'm sure from the effects, not the actual said "drug." I haven't heard of many deaths due to "Mary Jane."

[Bernard_Monsha]

I think he means from long term/actual medical effects, like lung cancer, ect.

What like suicide, mental illness, respiratory problems, traffic deaths? You also have to understand that 3-4 joints = 20-30 cigarrettes. The "Dave's not here man!" people will obfuscate this issue by makeing claims that no one is killed by Marijuana which the same claim can be made of any tobacco products.

[VidelCoolGirl]

What like suicide, mental illness, respiratory problems, traffic deaths? You also have to understand that 3-4 joints = 20-30 cigarrettes. The "Dave's not here man!" people will obfuscate this issue by makeing claims that no one is killed by Marijuana which the same claim can be made of any tobacco products.

Ah. Point taken.

[tenshi_a]

England doesn't have methamphetamine?
We do... and it was recently reclassified to class A (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6273215.stm).

And yeah... I'm not a fan of any drug use. I only do paracetamol when I'm dying, y'know? (actually, I'm permanently failing to give up alcohol)

I hate it when people call cannibis "harmless". It certainly isn't. I've seen it warp people through use from their normal state to being excessively paranoid, snapping all the time, while losing their focus, their drive... and then everything has to be *everyone else's* fault!! it has terrible effects on the mind. And that impacts everyone around a person. I really dislike the fact it's in such widespread use.

[Crusader986]

... this doesn't include the number of people killed under the influence. your rebuttal?

I don't know how many people are killed while under the influence of marijuana. I've only heard about people getting killed while they were drunk.

[rosie-kun]

...uh, drugs are bad, m'kay?

nah.......drugs are good.................

[Crusader986]

What like suicide, mental illness, respiratory problems, traffic deaths? You also have to understand that 3-4 joints = 20-30 cigarrettes. The "Dave's not here man!" people will obfuscate this issue by makeing claims that no one is killed by Marijuana which the same claim can be made of any tobacco products.

How does 3-4 joints = 20-30 cigarettes?

[Bernard_Monsha]

How does 3-4 joints = 20-30 cigarettes?

The amount of carcinogens in cannabis are 8-12 times greater than in tobacco, studies includeing a recent one by UCLA have found that the level of concer causeing agents and the number of them are much much greater in cannabis than processed tobacco. Add to that cannabis has a nasty trait were it picks ups heavy metal in the soil so you are literaly smokeing mercury, have fun.

[Crusader986]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana#Health_issues_and_the_effects_ of_cannabis

There's no evidence that Marijuana causes cancer.

[sailornyanko]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana#Health_issues_and_the_effects_ of_cannabis

There's no evidence that Marijuana causes cancer.

I'd have to go with this line as well. My pathology teacher who is a major whaff a buff know-it-all who gets to do autopsies of people dying the wierdest deaths you'd ever imagine everyday (and working in a public 3rd grade hospital in the capital only allows her to get access to the wierder cases) has never found cadavers that secondairly died from cancer caused by pot.

The current edition of the Robbins & Cotard Pathology book which is one of the bibles of Medicine does't state marijuana causes lung cancer (or any cancer perhaps) and the last edition was published just 2 years ago. The book does a good job in avoiding to add floosey woosey stuides that contradict eachother (unless it adds a short comment that a particular thing about cancer, etc.. is still unknown). Nope, no mention of pot as a cancer risk, but chewable tobacco does give you mouth cancer.

The book is now getting out dated (still cays escamus esophagus carcinoma is more common than adeno just to give you an idea) even though it was published 4 years ago, but my onchology textbook (god, can't remember the bloody name and my damn cat is on top of my lap again ¬¬) says zip n nip about pot causing cancer either. Curiously tobacco and alcohol cause half of all cancers. I'd find it funny if anyone ever got anus cancer from smoking, but it can happen. We saw lung cancer by a neumologist-onchologist who works at this same 3rd level hospital who grabs unusual cases of tons of diseases you won't see anywhere else from all over the country and she never mentioned nothing. Even if books can get outdated fast, the teachers usually mention new data for class.

It's more likely you'll get cancer from eating that jerky and those pickles. HUGE risk factor for esophagus cancer. Still doesn't stop me from eating olives though. :wub: Heck, hot drinks give you esophagus and stomach cancer.

I can see the possibility of *possible* carcinogens in smoking pot in large amounts because it's unfiltered, but cancer is not just: get exposed, auto die. No, it's more complex, like MUCH MORE. And even really bad cancers are curable if the affected organ is removed early. A man could still survive a coriocarcinoma if he got his ball and half his scrotum removed on time.

We'd have to view the people that smoke pot as: do they have the genetic makeup that allows them to have the right mutations to iniciate or progress a cell displasia? We'd have to know whether the carcinogens of smoking pot (if they can be seriously proven over and over again to appear) are iniciators or promotors. I'd probably think they'd act as promotors but I can't say for sure. If so, you'd have to have a cellular mutation in the right tissue (mouth, larynx, lung) of the exact right kind and then get exposed long enough to a promotor to create displasia. If the immune system kicks in and destroys the altered cells, you'd have to wait for another displasia and see if it can progress to become cancerous before the immune system kicks in. Plus the amount of years it takes to create a full-fledged cancerous cell culture out of nowhere, not probable to occur in 24 hours. Once the cells is cancertous, it grows fast depending on the tpe, but it doesn't pop up instantly out of good cells.

I'd agree it can cause paranoia, but only on heavy smokers and people who already have a genetic predisposition for schizophrenic/anxiety diseases. It can act as a sort of promotor that unveils these diseases which remained dormant. If they didn't smoke pot, they might of ended up unveiling these diseases anyways but later on in life.

[Neo0tak0n]

The amount of carcinogens in cannabis are 8-12 times greater than in tobacco, studies includeing a recent one by UCLA have found that the level of concer causeing agents and the number of them are much much greater in cannabis than processed tobacco. Add to that cannabis has a nasty trait were it picks ups heavy metal in the soil so you are literaly smokeing mercury, have fun.

Haha you're funny, although misguided and badly misinformed.

Marijuana doesn't cause cancer. Literally smoking mercury? Wow. Just wow.

[Bernard_Monsha]

^^

Your pathology teacher is FOS. There has ben no study on marijuana and trends in cancer but there are several on it's cardio pulminory, respiratory, prenatal and nuerological issues you get with it. In fact it is the actual burning of the plant in both cases that cause the issue and what type of enviroment they like to grow in. It simply has a higher concentration of low burning alchaloids as well heavy metals like mercury due to it's preference of habitat. It is not an actual issue of cases caused vs raiseing the likelyhood of causeing some illness. I would ask your professor if me carrying a piece of plutonium in my pocket would increase my chances for testicular cancer and see if he gives you a yes or no answer.


You also have to remeber there is a large well funded disinformation campaign on behalf of the "Dave's not here man!" crowd that try to say most of the actual evidence is false because Cheech and Chongs Correspondence School of Hystoronomy and THC Enlightenment says so. They simply cannot produce evidence to the contrary so they obfuscate useing eoither arguments from ignorence, stateing something that is unverifiable, or attacking the report itself rather than the conclusion (conspiracy theory).


EDIT: There was an extensive study published by the WHO and a lengthy paper written in Bioscience (called simply enough Mercury in Marijuana) that found that smokeing is the perfect conduit in introduction of heavy metals into the blood stream. Normal injestion is not a problem as it will not be asorbed in any great fashion.

Oh, they have a more recent study on the same thing from pakistan of all places

http://www.pjbs.org/pjnonline/fin356.pdf