Which is worse: ecstasy or alcohol?
British government committee suggests ‘league table of harm’ for drugs.
Which is the most harmful: ecstasy, alcohol or tobacco? Ecstasy features in the highest class of most countries’ drug legislation, but a report released today by British parliamentarians says that the current system for classifying drugs is based more on policy considerations than on science.
Read more here
Comments
This is certainly a subjective scale of harm. Political considerations don't allow the committee responsible for the scale to explicitly factor in the effects of prohibition on drug harms. How would we factor in the violence of drug trafficking?; seen not just at home but especially in Mexico, Columbia and Afghanistan.
Posted by: Mark Pawelek | August 1, 2006 06:38 AM
I think it is high time that some rationality was injected into this debate. Well done! The present attitudes to drugs are pre-historic and based purely on prejudice and ignorance. The proposed new system should be suppported by all as a triumph of common sense.
Posted by: Stuart Taylor | August 1, 2006 09:39 AM
Experienced Psychonauts have known for years that Schedule A classification is abused by those whose agendas are set by ignorant, narrow minded, chemically challenged, fear-driven people whose warped, control-oriented decision making is doing great harm to world society.
There simply is no rational basis for placing most traditional & synthetic materials on Schedule A.
Awareness & consciousness are chemistry-based. Legalisation, regulation & research, in a truly open atmosphere of freedom & the pursuit of happiness, are the only policies that make constructive sense.
End the Drug Wars. Re-educate the masses. Free the incarcerated. Reconciliate & compensate the damaged & heal the wounds.
Posted by: Richard Wheeler | August 2, 2006 06:33 PM
HEY what happened to the article on Ketamine & depression? AND what happened to the commentary section, to which I sent a contribution???
WHO IS RUNNING THE SHIP???
[Editor here: the ketamine and depression story is here http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060807/full/060807-1.html and the newsblog link is here http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2006/08/club_drug_finds_use_as_antidep.html. Apologies if any of your comments have not been published - we have a rather over-active spam filter that is a bit of a challenge to overcome. I endeavor to pull out all the legitimate comments and do publish them as soon as I can. Nicola.]
Posted by: Richard Wheeler | August 11, 2006 05:01 PM
Having never been part of the "mind-freeing" drugs culture and as someone who views ANY "Recreational" chemical which becomes very addictive with severe suspicion, I have to say re. this new approach ABOUT BL*** TIME!! As a long-time smoker and drinker I KNOW tha alcohol and tobacco are incredibly nasty substances - witness the cyanoids in tobacco smoke - and should NOT be treated as casually as they are - only the enormous tax revenue and the profits available keeps them so
Posted by: Keith Stevenson | August 15, 2006 12:02 AM
Governments (at least the US gov't) doesn't seem to have any real interest in understanding the beneficial possibilities of different "recreational" chemicals or entheogens. This is probably, among other reasons, because 1) it doesn't immediately appear to help their bottom line, i.e., the economy/economic output, 2)they often cause people to think for themselves/differently from what gov'ts want them to think, so they are seen as "uncontrollable", 3) people who get into gov't aren't usually given to consciousness development, and 4) religion plays a huge part in politics (in the US, in this case), and Christianity/Judiasm/Islam, in popular interpretation, don't want you to think for yourself. Until these factors change or are superceeded, things might not change that much as far as openness to chemiconsciousness understanding.
Posted by: Daniel Obarski | August 16, 2006 05:03 PM
Governments (at least the US gov't) doesn't seem to have any real interest in understanding the beneficial possibilities of different "recreational" chemicals or entheogens. This is probably, among other reasons, because 1) it doesn't immediately appear to help their bottom line, i.e., the economy/economic output, 2)they often cause people to think for themselves/differently from what gov'ts want them to think, so they are seen as "uncontrollable", 3) people who get into gov't aren't usually given to consciousness development, and 4) religion plays a huge part in politics (in the US, in this case), and Christianity/Judiasm/Islam, in popular interpretation, don't want you to think for yourself. Until these factors change or are superceeded, things might not change that much as far as openness to chemiconsciousness understanding.
Posted by: Daniel Obarski | August 16, 2006 09:14 PM
Long time use of each of them are very harmful. the-long term effects of alcohol and tobacco have been demonstrated. Maybe ecstasy is less harmful than the other two. But it is a highly chemical substance and I can't even think what it may cause in long-term, regular use, like alcohol or tobacco.
Posted by: www.r10.net küresel seo yarışması | December 11, 2007 08:39 PM