Nutt on drugs classification - alcohol worse than heroin
01 November 2010, 08:53 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nutt on drugs classification - alcohol worse than heroin
Professor Nutt takes the lid off the Government's drugs classification system looking at a broad range of measures.
Alcohol comes out badly.
Drugs
Alcohol comes out badly.
Drugs
01 November 2010, 09:03 AM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dull White BMW
Posts: 5,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've always been of the opinion that alcohol was far worse than the 'soft' drugs.
When have you seen a load of stoned people having a fight in a kebab shop or vomiting over a war memorial?
Steve
When have you seen a load of stoned people having a fight in a kebab shop or vomiting over a war memorial?
Steve
01 November 2010, 10:33 AM
#4
Stupidity in supposedly trying to "tax smoking and drinking out of existence" has led to governments being in a cleft stick of their own making.
They WANT less people to smoke and drink, they want people to drink less, but in reality they need the revenue from both to continue at it's present high level.
They WANT less people to smoke and drink, they want people to drink less, but in reality they need the revenue from both to continue at it's present high level.
01 November 2010, 11:48 AM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which is the most likely to get hooked on or the most difficult to give up?
Why was he sacked by the Government, was he saying things that they did not want to hear. Maybe lucky his name was not Kelly!
Les
Why was he sacked by the Government, was he saying things that they did not want to hear. Maybe lucky his name was not Kelly!
Les
01 November 2010, 12:17 PM
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
It shows what a bunch of utter morons these 'experts' are when they come out with alcohol is worse than heroin.
If I have one pint of lager, there is minimal after effect. If I have 5 pints I may at worst have a lack of balance and judging distances and delayed reaction times. If I was to take one shot of heroin i'd be totally wasted, if I took 5 i'd be dead.
How they hell can these idiots get away with coming out with such rubbish.
If I have one pint of lager, there is minimal after effect. If I have 5 pints I may at worst have a lack of balance and judging distances and delayed reaction times. If I was to take one shot of heroin i'd be totally wasted, if I took 5 i'd be dead.
How they hell can these idiots get away with coming out with such rubbish.
Trending Topics
01 November 2010, 12:24 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Bring back infractions!
Posts: 4,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It shows what a bunch of utter morons these 'experts' are when they come out with alcohol is worse than heroin.
If I have one pint of lager, there is minimal after effect. If I have 5 pints I may at worst have a lack of balance and judging distances and delayed reaction times. If I was to take one shot of heroin i'd be totally wasted, if I took 5 i'd be dead.
How they hell can these idiots get away with coming out with such rubbish.
If I have one pint of lager, there is minimal after effect. If I have 5 pints I may at worst have a lack of balance and judging distances and delayed reaction times. If I was to take one shot of heroin i'd be totally wasted, if I took 5 i'd be dead.
How they hell can these idiots get away with coming out with such rubbish.
If you had a supply of pure heroin, clean needles and your dosage was controlled for you then you could take it for years without causing anywhere near the amount of damage to you internal organs that alcohol would cause. If you came off it then you should return to being somewhere near normal.
Problem with heroin or crack is it's a bit more'ish
01 November 2010, 01:38 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: My turbo blows, air lots of it!!
Posts: 9,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01 November 2010, 02:21 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think most realists accept that heroin is so addictive that it is more harmful to the person taking it than any other drug. As I walked home from the pub saturday and watched one of the fights outside one of my local pubs escalate into some huge drama involving the police and about thirty other people it is pretty obvious how bad alcohol is for causing trouble. I live in a nice place but there is still some violence every saturday night and while mostly its not serious the man who was left in a coma after being hit in the back of the head with a hammer 100 yards from my house is probably well aware of the dangers that alcohol brings. As a nation we are prone to drinking and casual violence and have been for hundreds of years, a good way to temper that violence would be to legalise marijuana but wether that causes more harm than good remains to be seen.
01 November 2010, 02:46 PM
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's just another supposedly *authoritative* report from the liberals in this country to try and get drugs legalised. Means they don't have to bother arresting people for possessing them and other stuff they don't like. Plus the gov. will probably tax them anyway.
So, instead of criminals supplying drugs to addicts needing to rob and burgle to fund their habit, just replace 'criminal' with 'government' ..... cynical? Moi? Oh yes!
Dave
So, instead of criminals supplying drugs to addicts needing to rob and burgle to fund their habit, just replace 'criminal' with 'government' ..... cynical? Moi? Oh yes!
Dave
01 November 2010, 02:53 PM
#15
End of the day, they are all 'drugs', all are deadly and habit forming if abused, psychologically or physically.
Imho, 'drugs' are only as damaging as the person taking them. Alcohol will give you a slow, long possibly painful death, where as a heroin O/D will be quick and comparitivly painless.
To say one is better than the other is absolutly absurd.
Imho, 'drugs' are only as damaging as the person taking them. Alcohol will give you a slow, long possibly painful death, where as a heroin O/D will be quick and comparitivly painless.
To say one is better than the other is absolutly absurd.
01 November 2010, 03:12 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01 November 2010, 03:20 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes all those things are bad for you in excess of course. So are doughnuts!
I think it may boil down to how easy it is to get hooked on one in relation to another. As I understand it, Crack can get you in one go, and most of the class A drugs seem to be highly addictive such that you can soon lose control of the craving.
I know only too well that tobacco and alcohol can hook you strongly as well, is it easier to stop use of those two than hard drugs though? They are both bad for you too of course.
Probably down to how well people can control their needs, and as ever, some are better at it than others.
Les
I think it may boil down to how easy it is to get hooked on one in relation to another. As I understand it, Crack can get you in one go, and most of the class A drugs seem to be highly addictive such that you can soon lose control of the craving.
I know only too well that tobacco and alcohol can hook you strongly as well, is it easier to stop use of those two than hard drugs though? They are both bad for you too of course.
Probably down to how well people can control their needs, and as ever, some are better at it than others.
Les
01 November 2010, 03:21 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's just another supposedly *authoritative* report from the liberals in this country to try and get drugs legalised. Means they don't have to bother arresting people for possessing them and other stuff they don't like. Plus the gov. will probably tax them anyway.
So, instead of criminals supplying drugs to addicts needing to rob and burgle to fund their habit, just replace 'criminal' with 'government' ..... cynical? Moi? Oh yes!
Dave
So, instead of criminals supplying drugs to addicts needing to rob and burgle to fund their habit, just replace 'criminal' with 'government' ..... cynical? Moi? Oh yes!
Dave
...if HM Gov was not in the business of licensing two of the most dangerous, freely available recreational drugs that are there - alcohol and nicotine.
Anybody who has a view on this thread criticising the various stances on drug use, and yet drinks alcohol or smokes hasn't got a leg to stand on (probably because they have fallen over due to drinking too much
)
01 November 2010, 03:32 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 3,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disagree Trout. Well maybe give you the point on tabs.
As already said, everything in excess is silly. That's why Supersize Me was such a pointless exercise. If i ate nothing but lettuce for a week I'm pretty sure I'd be in a worse nutritional state than if I'd had McD's for a week.
Regarding this report, yes more people drink, yes it costs a lot of lives and yes it is expensive but you could also say that about cars. Should we just ban them?
Number of alcoholics (addicts) v number of people who enjoy a pint as a percentage will be very small. Number of people who enjoy the occasional bit of smack? Minimal. If you are taking it you are likely to be an addict. And yes, if you have a good job you might get away with it for a while without having to rob grannies or do handjobs in phone booths (for the ladies) but to be honest, would you keep employing anyone that was basically pie eyed every single day?
Pointless report and a waste of cash.
Government should take the next lot they hijack, put rat poison in it and send it back onto the streets.
5t.
As already said, everything in excess is silly. That's why Supersize Me was such a pointless exercise. If i ate nothing but lettuce for a week I'm pretty sure I'd be in a worse nutritional state than if I'd had McD's for a week.
Regarding this report, yes more people drink, yes it costs a lot of lives and yes it is expensive but you could also say that about cars. Should we just ban them?
Number of alcoholics (addicts) v number of people who enjoy a pint as a percentage will be very small. Number of people who enjoy the occasional bit of smack? Minimal. If you are taking it you are likely to be an addict. And yes, if you have a good job you might get away with it for a while without having to rob grannies or do handjobs in phone booths (for the ladies) but to be honest, would you keep employing anyone that was basically pie eyed every single day?
Pointless report and a waste of cash.
Government should take the next lot they hijack, put rat poison in it and send it back onto the streets.
5t.
01 November 2010, 03:37 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
01 November 2010, 03:52 PM
#21
01 November 2010, 04:53 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alcohol in moderation is fine what has gone by the by is peoples responsibility for their actions. Some people behave violently when they drink - perhaps they should take responsibility for themselves and not drink
A majority of people happily drink in moderation and remain social and amicable and not a drain the the emergency services on one way shape or form.
As for alcohol being as bad as Heroin - a stupid, ill thought out sound bite designed to grab the attention of the media.
Heroin often addicts steal and rob to get money for their fixes they break into cars houses etc and create a lot of crime.
Drunks on the other hand can tend to cause trouble by fighting and bad behaviour few steal and rob to feed their 'habit'
Both are addictive heroin more so i believe but the main problems are people need to want to get off of their drug of choice and few do or at least seem to want to give up.
Pricing drink out of peoples reach will not work, increasing opening hours was madness - it is education,, respect, responsibility and finally punishment if all else fails targeted at those who cause problems not a shotgun approach to it.
A majority of people happily drink in moderation and remain social and amicable and not a drain the the emergency services on one way shape or form.
As for alcohol being as bad as Heroin - a stupid, ill thought out sound bite designed to grab the attention of the media.
Heroin often addicts steal and rob to get money for their fixes they break into cars houses etc and create a lot of crime.
Drunks on the other hand can tend to cause trouble by fighting and bad behaviour few steal and rob to feed their 'habit'
Both are addictive heroin more so i believe but the main problems are people need to want to get off of their drug of choice and few do or at least seem to want to give up.
Pricing drink out of peoples reach will not work, increasing opening hours was madness - it is education,, respect, responsibility and finally punishment if all else fails targeted at those who cause problems not a shotgun approach to it.
01 November 2010, 04:55 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have taken class A,B and C drugs with no addiction problems. (not heroin though. But i am at this time taking 300mg of opiates per day for pain relief). So yes, imho abuse/addiction is more down to the individual than the substance.[/QUOTE]
Very true people with addictive personalities should stay away take so responsibility!
Very true people with addictive personalities should stay away take so responsibility!
01 November 2010, 05:19 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't speak with any authority as I've only ever had the legal drugs of alcohol and **** - aside from a fairly good quantity of the old style marriagewana when I lived in USA years ago. I was too frightened to try any of the harder stuff especially after a flatmate overdosed on heroin.
However I would assume that in this country if as many people took heroin as those that drank slightly too much then the county would be in a real mess.
And if as many people took crystal meths as smoked **** then the country would be totally f,ucked.
Then of course there is the Portuguese experiment which has been mentioned before on similar threads.
On balance I think Nutt should keep his powder dry as he is only stating what we know but not very well.
dl
However I would assume that in this country if as many people took heroin as those that drank slightly too much then the county would be in a real mess.
And if as many people took crystal meths as smoked **** then the country would be totally f,ucked.
Then of course there is the Portuguese experiment which has been mentioned before on similar threads.
On balance I think Nutt should keep his powder dry as he is only stating what we know but not very well.
dl
01 November 2010, 05:48 PM
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
As I said above, it's all b*llux this report. Another way of *dressing* up the figures so the authors come up with the right message for their social engineering wants. See ... http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/206300.php ...
"... The harms that are caused by drugs need to be comprehensively assessed so that policy makers can be properly advised regarding health, social care and policing, the authors write; not an easy undertaking because drugs can cause damage in so many different ways.
Professor Nutt and colleagues had previously tried to do this (Lancet 2007) by asking experts to give each drug a score according to nine criteria of harm, which included the drug's intrinsic harms as well as the social and health care burdens. The report triggered widespread debate and interest. However, there were doubts regarding the differential weights of each criterion used.
In this latest report, Nutt and colleagues say they have addressed these concerns by using a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) when reviewing drug harms. MCDA technologies have been effectively used to help decision making in areas where factors, features and characteristics are complex and often conflicting, as may be the case when deciding policy on nuclear waste disposal.
Nine criteria related to harm to an individual from a drug, while six looked at harm to others - both in the United Kingdom and other countries. The harms were gathered into five subgroups that covered social, psychological and physical harms. Scoring was done with points up to 100, with 100 being the most damaging and zero no damage. Weighting then compared the impact a score of 100 had on all the other criteria, thus identifying the 100-points-scoring-drugs which were more harmful than other 100-points-scoring-drugs. ..."
As I said, all b*llux! Especially when you read from the abstract that's linked to on that page:
"... Methods Members of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs, including two invited specialists, met in a 1-day interactive workshop to score 20 drugs on 16 criteria: ..."
Damp finger in the air time .....
Dave
"... The harms that are caused by drugs need to be comprehensively assessed so that policy makers can be properly advised regarding health, social care and policing, the authors write; not an easy undertaking because drugs can cause damage in so many different ways.
Professor Nutt and colleagues had previously tried to do this (Lancet 2007) by asking experts to give each drug a score according to nine criteria of harm, which included the drug's intrinsic harms as well as the social and health care burdens. The report triggered widespread debate and interest. However, there were doubts regarding the differential weights of each criterion used.
In this latest report, Nutt and colleagues say they have addressed these concerns by using a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) when reviewing drug harms. MCDA technologies have been effectively used to help decision making in areas where factors, features and characteristics are complex and often conflicting, as may be the case when deciding policy on nuclear waste disposal.
Nine criteria related to harm to an individual from a drug, while six looked at harm to others - both in the United Kingdom and other countries. The harms were gathered into five subgroups that covered social, psychological and physical harms. Scoring was done with points up to 100, with 100 being the most damaging and zero no damage. Weighting then compared the impact a score of 100 had on all the other criteria, thus identifying the 100-points-scoring-drugs which were more harmful than other 100-points-scoring-drugs. ..."
As I said, all b*llux! Especially when you read from the abstract that's linked to on that page:
"... Methods Members of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs, including two invited specialists, met in a 1-day interactive workshop to score 20 drugs on 16 criteria: ..."
Damp finger in the air time .....
Dave
01 November 2010, 06:01 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wanting the English to come first in England for a change!
Posts: 2,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It shows what a bunch of utter morons these 'experts' are when they come out with alcohol is worse than heroin.
If I have one pint of lager, there is minimal after effect. If I have 5 pints I may at worst have a lack of balance and judging distances and delayed reaction times. If I was to take one shot of heroin i'd be totally wasted, if I took 5 i'd be dead.
How they hell can these idiots get away with coming out with such rubbish.
If I have one pint of lager, there is minimal after effect. If I have 5 pints I may at worst have a lack of balance and judging distances and delayed reaction times. If I was to take one shot of heroin i'd be totally wasted, if I took 5 i'd be dead.
How they hell can these idiots get away with coming out with such rubbish.
01 November 2010, 06:03 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wanting the English to come first in England for a change!
Posts: 2,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes all those things are bad for you in excess of course. So are doughnuts!
I think it may boil down to how easy it is to get hooked on one in relation to another. As I understand it, Crack can get you in one go, and most of the class A drugs seem to be highly addictive such that you can soon lose control of the craving.
I know only too well that tobacco and alcohol can hook you strongly as well, is it easier to stop use of those two than hard drugs though? They are both bad for you too of course.
Probably down to how well people can control their needs, and as ever, some are better at it than others.
Les
I think it may boil down to how easy it is to get hooked on one in relation to another. As I understand it, Crack can get you in one go, and most of the class A drugs seem to be highly addictive such that you can soon lose control of the craving.
I know only too well that tobacco and alcohol can hook you strongly as well, is it easier to stop use of those two than hard drugs though? They are both bad for you too of course.
Probably down to how well people can control their needs, and as ever, some are better at it than others.
Les
01 November 2010, 06:07 PM
#29
I can't speak with any authority as I've only ever had the legal drugs of alcohol and **** - aside from a fairly good quantity of the old style marriagewana when I lived in USA years ago. I was too frightened to try any of the harder stuff especially after a flatmate overdosed on heroin.
However I would assume that in this country if as many people took heroin as those that drank slightly too much then the county would be in a real mess.
And if as many people took crystal meths as smoked **** then the country would be totally f,ucked.
Then of course there is the Portuguese experiment which has been mentioned before on similar threads.
On balance I think Nutt should keep his powder dry as he is only stating what we know but not very well.
dl
However I would assume that in this country if as many people took heroin as those that drank slightly too much then the county would be in a real mess.
And if as many people took crystal meths as smoked **** then the country would be totally f,ucked.
Then of course there is the Portuguese experiment which has been mentioned before on similar threads.
On balance I think Nutt should keep his powder dry as he is only stating what we know but not very well.
dl
As I said above, it's all b*llux this report. Another way of *dressing* up the figures so the authors come up with the right message for their social engineering wants. See ... http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/206300.php ...
"... The harms that are caused by drugs need to be comprehensively assessed so that policy makers can be properly advised regarding health, social care and policing, the authors write; not an easy undertaking because drugs can cause damage in so many different ways.
Professor Nutt and colleagues had previously tried to do this (Lancet 2007) by asking experts to give each drug a score according to nine criteria of harm, which included the drug's intrinsic harms as well as the social and health care burdens. The report triggered widespread debate and interest. However, there were doubts regarding the differential weights of each criterion used.
In this latest report, Nutt and colleagues say they have addressed these concerns by using a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) when reviewing drug harms. MCDA technologies have been effectively used to help decision making in areas where factors, features and characteristics are complex and often conflicting, as may be the case when deciding policy on nuclear waste disposal.
Nine criteria related to harm to an individual from a drug, while six looked at harm to others - both in the United Kingdom and other countries. The harms were gathered into five subgroups that covered social, psychological and physical harms. Scoring was done with points up to 100, with 100 being the most damaging and zero no damage. Weighting then compared the impact a score of 100 had on all the other criteria, thus identifying the 100-points-scoring-drugs which were more harmful than other 100-points-scoring-drugs. ..."
As I said, all b*llux! Especially when you read from the abstract that's linked to on that page:
"... Methods Members of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs, including two invited specialists, met in a 1-day interactive workshop to score 20 drugs on 16 criteria: ..."
Damp finger in the air time .....
Dave
"... The harms that are caused by drugs need to be comprehensively assessed so that policy makers can be properly advised regarding health, social care and policing, the authors write; not an easy undertaking because drugs can cause damage in so many different ways.
Professor Nutt and colleagues had previously tried to do this (Lancet 2007) by asking experts to give each drug a score according to nine criteria of harm, which included the drug's intrinsic harms as well as the social and health care burdens. The report triggered widespread debate and interest. However, there were doubts regarding the differential weights of each criterion used.
In this latest report, Nutt and colleagues say they have addressed these concerns by using a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) when reviewing drug harms. MCDA technologies have been effectively used to help decision making in areas where factors, features and characteristics are complex and often conflicting, as may be the case when deciding policy on nuclear waste disposal.
Nine criteria related to harm to an individual from a drug, while six looked at harm to others - both in the United Kingdom and other countries. The harms were gathered into five subgroups that covered social, psychological and physical harms. Scoring was done with points up to 100, with 100 being the most damaging and zero no damage. Weighting then compared the impact a score of 100 had on all the other criteria, thus identifying the 100-points-scoring-drugs which were more harmful than other 100-points-scoring-drugs. ..."
As I said, all b*llux! Especially when you read from the abstract that's linked to on that page:
"... Methods Members of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs, including two invited specialists, met in a 1-day interactive workshop to score 20 drugs on 16 criteria: ..."
Damp finger in the air time .....
Dave
Lmwao @ "thus identifying the 100-points-scoring-drugs which were more harmful than other 100-points-scoring-drugs. ..."
Surely they would be 99 point-scoring drugs.
On a slight tangent. What would you imagine the increase of heroin users would be, if it was legalised for over 25's only.
01 November 2010, 06:19 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wanting the English to come first in England for a change!
Posts: 2,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meanwhile people like me cant have a smoke at night or a few cheeky lines at weekend cos the police are all over the drugs scene at the moment and feel the need to go raiding pubs at 11.30 at night with sniffer dogs to catch out innocent people just winding down after a hard weeks work with a cheeky line or spliff, thats wrong in my opinion. Go after the dealers but why harrass the end user, the business man who buys half a gram of coke for his sat night out is a regular round here, doesnt make him a loser or a criminal, its just his way of relaxing.
all while 15 year olds are in parks getting trashed on special brew and causing chaos and the regular alkies are kicking off as usual in takeaways across the land!
if heroin was free (and pure) smack heads would just sit ina darkened room off their heads, no need to go robbing to pay for the habbit.
Alcohol turns the nicest people into tw@s, and is responsible for more fights than all class a put together and if it was just invented it would be a class a drug!