Alcohol, tobacco worse than pot, ecstasy: study

[otterinbham 0]

Last Updated: Friday, March 23, 2007 | 11:45 AM ET

The Associated Press

New landmark research concludes that alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than some illegal drugs like marijuana or ecstasy and should be classified as such in legal systems, according to a new British study.

In research published Friday in The Lancet, Professor David Nutt of Britain's Bristol University and colleagues proposed a new framework for the classification of harmful substances, based on the actual risks posed to society. Their ranking listed alcohol and tobacco among the top 10 most dangerous substances.

'The exclusion of alcohol and tobacco from the Misuse of Drugs Act is, from a scientific perspective, arbitrary.'— Study's authors

Nutt and colleagues used three factors to determine the harm associated with any drug: the physical harm to the user, the drug's potential for addiction, and the impact on society of the drug's use.

The researchers asked two groups of experts — psychiatrists specializing in addiction and legal or police officials with scientific or medical expertise — to assign scores to 20 different drugs, including heroin, cocaine, ecstasy, amphetamines, and LSD.

Nutt and his colleagues then calculated the drugs' overall rankings. In the end, the experts agreed with each other, but not with the existing British classification of dangerous substances.

Heroin and cocaine were ranked most dangerous, followed by barbiturates and street methadone. Alcohol was the fifth-most harmful drug and tobacco the ninth most harmful. Cannabis came in 11th, and near the bottom of the list was ecstasy.

According to existing British and U.S. drug policy, alcohol and tobacco are legal, while cannabis and ecstasy are both illegal. Previous reports, including a study from a British parliamentary committee last year, have questioned the scientific rationale for Britain's drug classification system.

"The current drug system is ill thought-out and arbitrary," said Nutt, referring to the United Kingdom's practice of assigning drugs to three distinct divisions, ostensibly based on the drugs' potential for harm. "The exclusion of alcohol and tobacco from the Misuse of Drugs Act is, from a scientific perspective, arbitrary," write Nutt and his colleagues in The Lancet.

Classification debate

Tobacco causes 40 per cent of all hospital illnesses, while alcohol is blamed for more than half of all visits to hospital emergency rooms. The substances also harm society in other ways, damaging families and occupying police services.

Nutt hopes that the research will provoke debate within the U.K. and beyond about how drugs — including socially acceptable drugs such as alcohol — should be regulated. While different countries use different markers to classify dangerous drugs, none use a system like the one proposed by Nutt's study, which he hopes could serve as a framework for international authorities.

"This is a landmark paper," said Dr. Leslie Iversen, professor of pharmacology at Oxford University. Iversen was not connected to the research. "It is the first real step towards an evidence-based classification of drugs."

He added that, based on the paper's results, alcohol and tobacco could not reasonably be excluded.

"The rankings also suggest the need for better regulation of the more harmful drugs that are currently legal, i.e. tobacco and alcohol," wrote Wayne Hall, of the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, in an accompanying Lancet commentary. Hall was not involved with Nutt's paper.

While experts agreed that criminalizing alcohol and tobacco would be challenging, they said that governments should review the penalties imposed for drug abuse and try to make them more reflective of the actual risks and damages involved.

Nutt called for more education so that people were aware of the risks of various drugs. "All drugs are dangerous," he said. "Even the ones people know and love and use every day."

[AUslug 1]

How can you regulate alcohol and tobacco anymore? We all know that marijuana is not a harmful drug to the body, the only reason it is illegal is because the government can't tax it and someone called it the "gateway drug" which is total bs. Also what is the Misuse of Drugs Act in Britian? Duh if you misuse drugs then the outcome is going to be bad. What drugs are the most abused in America, prescription meds so I say we waste money on a study about them.

[bigsixfive 336]

We all know that marijuana is not a harmful drug to the body

I bet your lungs disagree...

Ecstasy is a pretty serious drug that's often taken lightly. Not only can it contribute to SERIOUS depression, it literally eats holes in your brain, effectively aging it. I saw a special a few years ago following this girl that took E on a routine basis. She went to the doctor, and he scanned her head. He showed her the pictures of a normal brain next to her swiss cheese brain and told her that her brain was comparable to that of someone in their 70s. She wasn't even 25 years old.

Keep in mind all the studies that are routinely done and presented as cold hard fact. Remember studies showing "beer makes you smarter", or the popular "studies" proving global warming? You can have a beer a day for your entire life and show adverse affects. Smoke weed or take a hit of E every day and I doubt you'll be bragging on your quality of life in a few years. This study is a joke.

[otterinbham 0]

We all know that marijuana is not a harmful drug to the body

I bet your lungs disagree...

Ecstasy is a pretty serious drug that's often taken lightly. Not only can it contribute to SERIOUS depression, it literally eats holes in your brain, effectively aging it. I saw a special a few years ago following this girl that took E on a routine basis. She went to the doctor, and he scanned her head. He showed her the pictures of a normal brain next to her swiss cheese brain and told her that her brain was comparable to that of someone in their 70s. She wasn't even 25 years old.

Keep in mind all the studies that are routinely done and presented as cold hard fact. Remember studies showing "beer makes you smarter", or the popular "studies" proving global warming? You can have a beer a day for your entire life and show adverse affects. Smoke weed or take a hit of E every day and I doubt you'll be bragging on your quality of life in a few years. This study is a joke.

I would disagree. It's nothing more than an analysis of relative toxicity. More importantly, it shows the total lack of proportion between a drug's legality and a drug's immediate danger.

I think the point of all this is a simple one--Today's drug laws have no rationality behind them. Further, if you really take the concept of individual human freedom seriously, then you realize that government has zero business telling people how to live our lives.

Mind you, this is somebody who does not do drugs. However, I think the fight against drugs has actually caused more damage to society than the drugs themselves.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Today's drug laws fit in this simple context: If normal consumption of the drug can't kill you instantly, and the government can make money off of it, it's legal. Otherwise...it is illegal.

I've never smoked pot, nor have I ever smoked a cig. But to say that weed should be illegal while cigarettes aren't is asinine. To allow people to drink alcohol in MASSIVE quantities and kill thousands of people every year with drunk driving...but say pot should be illegal...is a joke.

I think cigarettes should be illegal. They are far more addictive than weed. (though I will argue with many of my friends who say pot isnt addictive). Also, smoking cigs has the chance of offending EVERYONE. Why in the world is it LEGAL for someone to expose other people to a carcinogen? Actually...they SHOULDNT be illegal. It should just be illegal to smoke in public. That'd be fine with me.

Also, the problem with E, IMO...is that its not regulated. So you don't know who cooked it up, or how they made it. And if you get the wrong mix, or someone cut their E with rat poison to save a buck...it could kill you instantly. Cigs, weed, and beer won't do that.

See, it's not reasonable (nor cost effective) for people to grow and farm tobacco for personal use. But people COULD do that with pot. Gvmt cant make a dime off of it. So they make it illegal.

I think it should be illegal to smoke weed or pot in a public place (but they could be legal). And Alcohol should be legal. Everything else, too rough and impossible to regulate. I also think lawsuits against big tobacco should be outlawed. If you are going to smoke...you KNOW you are killing yourself. Deal with it.

[bigsixfive 336]

I've never smoked pot, nor have I ever smoked a cig. But to say that weed should be illegal while cigarettes aren't is asinine. To allow people to drink alcohol in MASSIVE quantities and kill thousands of people every year with drunk driving...but say pot should be illegal...is a joke.

To offer a counter point... You have a beer or smoke a cigarette, and you are still capable of functioning at a high level. Smoke a joint, and you aren't. There's a pretty drastic difference in the level of intoxication one seeks when choosing to smoke pot vs. a cigarette or beer.

I'm with you on banning smoking in public. I would think my right to not be exposed to carcinogenic smoke would trump their right to smoke. They have a choice, I don't. However, someone fell off the logic train a long time ago, so now I have to breathe in a lung full anytime I walk in a building here on campus because everyone parks it right by the door and lights up.

[AUslug 1]

I don't smoke and I never will, but I feel that smokers get pushed around too much. People that complain about smoke in a bar or at a private home should leave, I'm sorry but if you walked into the cloud of smoke then you can walk right back out of it. Smoking is a personal choice and it may give you cancer but so will going to a tanning booth on a regular basis but I don't see people trying to ban those. I think that smoking has been pretty much banned in public places to apease everyone.

[BamaGrad03 0]

I don't smoke and I never will, but I feel that smokers get pushed around too much. People that complain about smoke in a bar or at a private home should leave, I'm sorry but if you walked into the cloud of smoke then you can walk right back out of it. Smoking is a personal choice and it may give you cancer but so will going to a tanning booth on a regular basis but I don't see people trying to ban those. I think that smoking has been pretty much banned in public places to apease everyone.

Why? Why should non smokers have to be subjected to carcinogens blown all over them...OR never get to enjoy going to a bar ever again? That doesn't seem fair to me. That's like saying I have a nasty habit of wanting to breathe clean air.

ESPECIALLY when a smoking habit can be satisfied by a few trips to a smoking area while in a public place. There's nothing wrong with having a side area outside for people to take a quick smoke.

I hate nothing more than going to enjoy a few beers and having jacked up sinuses the next day...and have everything I wore the night before smell like smoke.

I didn't CHOSE to pickup the nasty killer habit. So why should THEY be the ones to get the benefit of the doubt instead of me?

I think non smokers get pushed around too much. How dare a smoker say its ok for them to breathe smoke on me. Would they be happy if i poured my beer all over them?

[keoson7 28]

Big 65, dude, to say after smoking a joint a person can't function at a high level is soooooo assinine. I have been getting a buzz and working my arse off for over 20 years. My work is always of high quality. To stereotype weed users, without being one, is giving a very uninformed opinion. As far as my driving after my to work hoot, I'm way more careful than somebody going down the road putting on makeup, or yakking on a cell phone. because I don't wanna get busted, and hit up for $thousands for a roach OR a pack of papers. Weed is the court systems cash cow, and they like it like that. And if they could tax the weed, it would be legal

[CCTAU 3,369]

Big 65, dude, to say after smoking a joint a person can't function at a high level is soooooo assinine. I have been getting a buzz and working my arse off for over 20 years. My work is always of high quality. To stereotype weed users, without being one, is giving a very uninformed opinion. As far as my driving after my to work hoot, I'm way more careful than somebody going down the road putting on makeup, or yakking on a cell phone. because I don't wanna get busted, and hit up for $thousands for a roach OR a pack of papers. Weed is the court systems cash cow, and they like it like that. And if they could tax the weed, it would be legal

I don't believe I'da said all that.........

[bigsixfive 336]

Big 65, dude, to say after smoking a joint a person can't function at a high level is soooooo assinine. I have been getting a buzz and working my arse off for over 20 years. My work is always of high quality. To stereotype weed users, without being one, is giving a very uninformed opinion. As far as my driving after my to work hoot, I'm way more careful than somebody going down the road putting on makeup, or yakking on a cell phone. because I don't wanna get busted, and hit up for $thousands for a roach OR a pack of papers. Weed is the court systems cash cow, and they like it like that. And if they could tax the weed, it would be legal

So you're telling me there wouldn't be a difference in workmanship between someone who is thinking with a clear mind and someone who is buzzing?

You're right, cell phone users and women (or men... don't want to leave anyone out) putting on makeup are dangerous. Your stance is that, although you're driving impared, you're still able to pay more attention than those people, so its ok. Because your wrong might be less wrong than what others are doing, doesn't make your wrong a right. Whats the difference between driving stoned and driving with a beer buzz?

No, I'm not a weed user. I've seen its effects though. A former friend of mine, the salutatorian of my graduating class, smoked himself out of college. No, he didn't flunk out, he dropped out near the end of his sophomore year - with a high GPA in Mechanical Engineering. Got tired of going. His attitude severely changed, he was interested in nothing but getting high, and would brag about it constantly. A couple of guys I played football with are dead now - car accidents (seperate) while impared.

[BamaGrad03 0]

I think you can look at it like people who drink. If you have a couple of beers, you can legally still drive and the government doesnt see you as being too impaired to drive.

Most people who smoke weed get really buzzed because they smoke a lot when they do. But if you smoked a little weed and drove a car, I don't see it any different than drinking a couple of beers.

[bigsixfive 336]

I think you can look at it like people who drink. If you have a couple of beers, you can legally still drive and the government doesnt see you as being too impaired to drive.

Most people who smoke weed get really buzzed because they smoke a lot when they do. But if you smoked a little weed and drove a car, I don't see it any different than drinking a couple of beers.

Maybe... I've just never seen or heard of someone who used recreationally smoke just a "little". Everyone I encountered would endure burning fingers just to get the last puff of smoke, or would scrape ash trays to get a few scraps - tell me that's not a form of addiction.

[keoson7 28]

burnt fingers? get a clip.......

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I don't smoke and I never will, but I feel that smokers get pushed around too much. People that complain about smoke in a bar or at a private home should leave, I'm sorry but if you walked into the cloud of smoke then you can walk right back out of it. Smoking is a personal choice and it may give you cancer but so will going to a tanning booth on a regular basis but I don't see people trying to ban those. I think that smoking has been pretty much banned in public places to apease everyone.

Why? Why should non smokers have to be subjected to carcinogens blown all over them...OR never get to enjoy going to a bar ever again? That doesn't seem fair to me. That's like saying I have a nasty habit of wanting to breathe clean air.

ESPECIALLY when a smoking habit can be satisfied by a few trips to a smoking area while in a public place. There's nothing wrong with having a side area outside for people to take a quick smoke.

I hate nothing more than going to enjoy a few beers and having jacked up sinuses the next day...and have everything I wore the night before smell like smoke.

I didn't CHOSE to pickup the nasty killer habit. So why should THEY be the ones to get the benefit of the doubt instead of me?

I think non smokers get pushed around too much. How dare a smoker say its ok for them to breathe smoke on me. Would they be happy if i poured my beer all over them?

What he said.

[otterinbham 0]

Man, 65, I just can't work when I'm stoned. I tried it about 20 years ago.

This buddy and I were at work late, working on an ad campaign. We were stuck, so we fired up a doobie on the boss's balcony. After 30 minutes of hanging out, inspiration struck, and we dashed back to the computer.

In one feverish hour, we knocked out the most brilliant advertising campaign ever. Boy, were we jacked.

So the next morning, we get in, and the Creative Director wants to see the progress we made. Dave and I print out the stuff and start reading it. We had headlines such as "I snort the nose" and "Banana! Banana!" I swear I'm not making this up.

So we tell the creative director that the headlines didn't look nearly as good in the light of day as they did at 11 the previous night, and begged for three more hours.

Man, to this day, I'm glad we never handed the work in that night.

[AUslug 1]

I don't smoke and I never will, but I feel that smokers get pushed around too much. People that complain about smoke in a bar or at a private home should leave, I'm sorry but if you walked into the cloud of smoke then you can walk right back out of it. Smoking is a personal choice and it may give you cancer but so will going to a tanning booth on a regular basis but I don't see people trying to ban those. I think that smoking has been pretty much banned in public places to apease everyone.

Why? Why should non smokers have to be subjected to carcinogens blown all over them...OR never get to enjoy going to a bar ever again? That doesn't seem fair to me. That's like saying I have a nasty habit of wanting to breathe clean air.

ESPECIALLY when a smoking habit can be satisfied by a few trips to a smoking area while in a public place. There's nothing wrong with having a side area outside for people to take a quick smoke.

I hate nothing more than going to enjoy a few beers and having jacked up sinuses the next day...and have everything I wore the night before smell like smoke.

I didn't CHOSE to pickup the nasty killer habit. So why should THEY be the ones to get the benefit of the doubt instead of me?

I think non smokers get pushed around too much. How dare a smoker say its ok for them to breathe smoke on me. Would they be happy if i poured my beer all over them?

Good grief, I doubt going to a bar everyonce in a while and breathing in smoke is going to give you cancer. Smoking in bars is pretty much the last refuge of smokers, and I'm not going to say "No, you can't smoke while having a beer because my clothes will smell bad the next day". So you are saying that every smoker just blows it right in your face?

[BamaGrad03 0]

Good grief, I doubt going to a bar everyonce in a while and breathing in smoke is going to give you cancer. Smoking in bars is pretty much the last refuge of smokers, and I'm not going to say "No, you can't smoke while having a beer because my clothes will smell bad the next day". So you are saying that every smoker just blows it right in your face?

No, it wont give me cancer...but it WILL kickstart a sinus infection for me EVERY SINGLE TIME. And it will make my clothes smell awful every single time. So why should I have to endure that everytime i want to go have a beer?

Smokers shouldn't have a refuge AT ALL if it infringes on my right to breathe clean air.

And no they, don't blow it in my face. They don't have to. They fill the bar with it.

I'm amazed at people who don't see what a vast imposition smoking in public is. What's more normal? Me wanting to breathe clean air? Or you getting to make me sick and make my clothes smell bad, just because you can't go to a designated smoking area...and you can't control your nasty NASTY habit...

[otterinbham 0]

I don't smoke and I never will, but I feel that smokers get pushed around too much. People that complain about smoke in a bar or at a private home should leave, I'm sorry but if you walked into the cloud of smoke then you can walk right back out of it. Smoking is a personal choice and it may give you cancer but so will going to a tanning booth on a regular basis but I don't see people trying to ban those. I think that smoking has been pretty much banned in public places to apease everyone.

Why? Why should non smokers have to be subjected to carcinogens blown all over them...OR never get to enjoy going to a bar ever again? That doesn't seem fair to me. That's like saying I have a nasty habit of wanting to breathe clean air.

ESPECIALLY when a smoking habit can be satisfied by a few trips to a smoking area while in a public place. There's nothing wrong with having a side area outside for people to take a quick smoke.

I hate nothing more than going to enjoy a few beers and having jacked up sinuses the next day...and have everything I wore the night before smell like smoke.

I didn't CHOSE to pickup the nasty killer habit. So why should THEY be the ones to get the benefit of the doubt instead of me?

I think non smokers get pushed around too much. How dare a smoker say its ok for them to breathe smoke on me. Would they be happy if i poured my beer all over them?

Good grief, I doubt going to a bar everyonce in a while and breathing in smoke is going to give you cancer. Smoking in bars is pretty much the last refuge of smokers, and I'm not going to say "No, you can't smoke while having a beer because my clothes will smell bad the next day". So you are saying that every smoker just blows it right in your face?

Well, I don't think smokers realize how much odor they put in the air. Cigarette was particularly bad in restaurants where it ruins the taste of the food. So smoking in a restaurant is the same thing as standing up and yelling in a movie theatre.