3 ms·

I'd argue that most of those stats are very subjective. There would also be impacts on some by making others legal, people only do a majority of those drugs be

by dm2 12y ago

I'd argue that most of those stats are very subjective. There would also be impacts on some by making others legal, people only do a majority of those drugs because the others are illegal and inaccessable. Who would do Butane if they could smoke marijuana or take LSD or mushrooms? Environmental damage? Economic cost? Crime? Family relationships? How could those be established? They did a survey at a 1-day workshop, this chart has zero scientific significance, it's purely averaged opinions from a survey.

MarkMc 12y ago
'They' seem to be experts in the field of drug use: http://drugscience.org.uk/about/committee-members/ http://drugscience.org.uk/about/committee-members/ You seem confident that these people have no ability to judge the economic cost, crime, family breakdown, etc. associated with each drug. If a similar group of experts used the same methodology and produced a similar ranking of harm for each substance, would that change your mind?
- dm2 12y ago
  Not really, it's still just a survey, and there is no way that any of them could be an expert of every effect (social, economical, crime, their relationships) of every drug. Without actual tests it was purely subjective. Change drug laws in a city for a period of time, heavily track the before and after effects, then repeat it in another city, and another city. That would be a study that would be more scientifically accurate.