4 ms·

Some objective research is useful here. Lancet did an evaluation across multiple spectrums, harm to self, harm to environment, harm to society, harm to others,

Some objective research is useful here. Lancet did an evaluation across multiple spectrums, harm to self, harm to environment, harm to society, harm to others, crime, etc... (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47635105_Nutt_DJ_King_LA_Phillips_LD_Drug_harms_in_the_UK_a_multicriteria_decision_analysis_Lancet_376_1558-1565 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47635105_Nutt_DJ_Ki...) - in particular, check out the graph down the page. Alcohol is unquestionably the more destructive of substances, LSD ranks far lower in this scale. Importantly, Alcohol results in a lot of harm to other people (violence, drunk driving, etc...).

tigershark 10y ago
Let's give anyone that wants a glass of wine a shot of heroin then, we'll save the world because we are giving them a chance to use a less dangerous drugs. I'll be quite curious to see how it goes, as you say only 25% of heroin users might become addicted. And of course more than 1/4 of the people that drinks a glass of wine is an addict, as you can see around you. :)
- Nursie 10y ago
  Where did you read that heroin was less harmful than alcohol? The post you reply to compares alcohol and LSD. The abstract of the linked paper says that heroin is one of the most harmful drugs, more so than alcohol to the user, but grouped with alcohol in terms of harm to others.
  - kgwgk 10y ago
    > Where did you read that heroin was less harmful than alcohol? Maybe he read it in the message he was replying to? "Alcohol is unquestionably the more destructive of substances"
    - Nursie 10y ago
      Then his (and your) grasp of grammar is a little off. The conversation until then had been contrasting LSD and booze. Alcohol is most definitely the more destructive of those two.
      - kgwgk 10y ago
        ghshephard changed the conversation talking about the position of alcohol in the ranking "of substances" by destructiveness. You might think that he meant "of substances that are either alcohol or LSD," but given that he can't think of any reason why a heroin addict would be harmful to others I think he had a wider interpretation in mind.
        Nursie 10y ago
        Looking at the sentence structure I'm afraid it's obvioua toe he was still talking about the comparison of the two, he mentions both in the post, and the context of talking about the comparison is there. Regardless, his/her interlocutor has hopefully had their eyes opened by the conversation, in which they said that even making the comparison was offensive.
        ghshephard 10y ago
        It's true - I was originally referring to Alcohol versus LSD (as that was what the parent was trying to compare, and couldn't believe that LSD wasn't terribly dangerous). But, I was prepared to also discuss the relevant merits of Alcoholic abusers and Heroin Abusers (and users) as well. I think, much like people get used to the death rate from Car Accidents, and don't think of Cars as dangerous, people have gotten used to Alcohol issues in society, and don't think of it as dangerous, when it very much is. (Front page of New York Times is discussing an Alcohol related sexual also case in Palo Alto that almost certainly wouldn't have happened if the two parties had been sober).
        kgwgk 10y ago
        According to the author of the comment your interpretation is correct, but it's far from obvious. "Alcohol is unquestionably the more destructive of substances, LSD ranks far lower in this scale." - The sentence comes right after he points to the chart of 20 drugs ordered by "harm score", where alcohol is #1 and LSD is #18. - He says "of substances" without any qualification like "of those substances" or "of both substances". - He mentions that LSD ranks much lower. However, both interpretations 1) "alcohol is unquestionably the more destructive of alcohol and LSD, because LSD ranks much lower than alcohol in the scale of harm" and 2) "alcohol is unquestionably the more destructive of all substances because it's #1, and LSD ranks much lower in the scale" are possible. Anyway, I was wrong.
  - mcguire 10y ago
    The Lancet paper. The graph shows tobacco as less harmful than cocaine, metamphetamine, and heroin, as well as alcohol.
kgwgk 10y ago
> Alcohol is unquestionably the more destructive of substances Because it is the most popular one. The "harm to others" part of the score is not per user. At the margin, one typical heroin or crack consumer creates more costs to society than one typical alcohol consumer.
- ghshephard 10y ago
  Is that really the case? I can't think of any reason why a heroin addict would be harmful to others, whereas people who drink alcohol tend to drive and kill/injure others. Indeed, if a heroin addict has clean needles, safe place to inject, and a safe supply of heroin, (close to zero mortality in Vancouver Safe Injection sites) then it's relatively benign substance, other than addictive component. I bet if you put one alcoholic against one heroin addict, more damage across almost every spectrum than the heroin addict.
  - kgwgk 10y ago
    In the very paper that you cited to support your position they claim that the "community", "economic" and "family" harm is about three to five times larger for alcohol than for heroin. Which, given that there are more than two orders of magnitude of difference in the prevalence of alcohol and heroin usage, suggest that somehow heroin users are not as harmless as you paint them. The score for "crime" ("beyond the use-of-drug act") is actually higher for heroin than for alcohol.
mcguire 10y ago
The methods on that paper are hilarious. It's scores provided by a committee.

tigershark 10y ago

Let's give anyone that wants a glass of wine a shot of heroin then, we'll save the world because we are giving them a chance to use a less dangerous drugs. I'll be quite curious to see how it goes, as you say only 25% of heroin users might become addicted. And of course more than 1/4 of the people that drinks a glass of wine is an addict, as you can see around you. :)

Nursie 10y ago
Where did you read that heroin was less harmful than alcohol? The post you reply to compares alcohol and LSD. The abstract of the linked paper says that heroin is one of the most harmful drugs, more so than alcohol to the user, but grouped with alcohol in terms of harm to others.
- kgwgk 10y ago
  > Where did you read that heroin was less harmful than alcohol? Maybe he read it in the message he was replying to? "Alcohol is unquestionably the more destructive of substances"
  - Nursie 10y ago
    Then his (and your) grasp of grammar is a little off. The conversation until then had been contrasting LSD and booze. Alcohol is most definitely the more destructive of those two.
    - kgwgk 10y ago
      ghshephard changed the conversation talking about the position of alcohol in the ranking "of substances" by destructiveness. You might think that he meant "of substances that are either alcohol or LSD," but given that he can't think of any reason why a heroin addict would be harmful to others I think he had a wider interpretation in mind.
      - Nursie 10y ago
        Looking at the sentence structure I'm afraid it's obvioua toe he was still talking about the comparison of the two, he mentions both in the post, and the context of talking about the comparison is there. Regardless, his/her interlocutor has hopefully had their eyes opened by the conversation, in which they said that even making the comparison was offensive.
        ghshephard 10y ago
        It's true - I was originally referring to Alcohol versus LSD (as that was what the parent was trying to compare, and couldn't believe that LSD wasn't terribly dangerous). But, I was prepared to also discuss the relevant merits of Alcoholic abusers and Heroin Abusers (and users) as well. I think, much like people get used to the death rate from Car Accidents, and don't think of Cars as dangerous, people have gotten used to Alcohol issues in society, and don't think of it as dangerous, when it very much is. (Front page of New York Times is discussing an Alcohol related sexual also case in Palo Alto that almost certainly wouldn't have happened if the two parties had been sober).
        kgwgk 10y ago
        According to the author of the comment your interpretation is correct, but it's far from obvious. "Alcohol is unquestionably the more destructive of substances, LSD ranks far lower in this scale." - The sentence comes right after he points to the chart of 20 drugs ordered by "harm score", where alcohol is #1 and LSD is #18. - He says "of substances" without any qualification like "of those substances" or "of both substances". - He mentions that LSD ranks much lower. However, both interpretations 1) "alcohol is unquestionably the more destructive of alcohol and LSD, because LSD ranks much lower than alcohol in the scale of harm" and 2) "alcohol is unquestionably the more destructive of all substances because it's #1, and LSD ranks much lower in the scale" are possible. Anyway, I was wrong.
- mcguire 10y ago
  The Lancet paper. The graph shows tobacco as less harmful than cocaine, metamphetamine, and heroin, as well as alcohol.

kgwgk 10y ago

> Alcohol is unquestionably the more destructive of substances Because it is the most popular one. The "harm to others" part of the score is not per user. At the margin, one typical heroin or crack consumer creates more costs to society than one typical alcohol consumer.

ghshephard 10y ago
Is that really the case? I can't think of any reason why a heroin addict would be harmful to others, whereas people who drink alcohol tend to drive and kill/injure others. Indeed, if a heroin addict has clean needles, safe place to inject, and a safe supply of heroin, (close to zero mortality in Vancouver Safe Injection sites) then it's relatively benign substance, other than addictive component. I bet if you put one alcoholic against one heroin addict, more damage across almost every spectrum than the heroin addict.
- kgwgk 10y ago
  In the very paper that you cited to support your position they claim that the "community", "economic" and "family" harm is about three to five times larger for alcohol than for heroin. Which, given that there are more than two orders of magnitude of difference in the prevalence of alcohol and heroin usage, suggest that somehow heroin users are not as harmless as you paint them. The score for "crime" ("beyond the use-of-drug act") is actually higher for heroin than for alcohol.

mcguire 10y ago

The methods on that paper are hilarious. It's scores provided by a committee.