« Britain urged to store nuclear waste underground | Main | Isotopes help pin down artificial testosterone »

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

Posted by on July 31, 2006
Categories: | | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.nature.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/930

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

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

Post a comment

Comments will be reviewed by staff before being published. You can be as critical or controversial as you like, but please don't get personal or offensive, and do keep it brief. Excessively long entries may be cropped. Remember this is for feedback and discussion - not for publishing papers or press releases.

We strongly encourage you to use your real, full name. Email addresses are required: this is just in case we need to discuss your comment with you privately. They won’t be published.


Please enter the numbers you see below - this helps us to cut down on spam. Note that attempting to post within 30 seconds of hitting ‘preview’ or ‘post’ can cause the system to think you are spamming the site. If you are having trouble with this system, you can instead e-mail a comment to 'inthefield at nature.com'.

Search