Drug Scale
Shrooms beat booze
A study by Great Britain's Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs, published in the November 1 issue of The Lancet, compared the harmfulness of 20 drugs based on 16 criteria, ranging from the drug's lethality to the ecological costs of production and distribution. Alcohol scored highest, with a 72 on a 100-point scale. Heroin came in a distant second place at 55.
Psilocybin mushrooms finished last, with a measly six harm points, all of them for "drug-specific impairment of mental functioning." Shrooms weren't the only drug researchers determined to have virtually no social costs; the study found that both LSD and MDMA (seven and nine points, respectively) did not impose a significant burden on others.
The study was led by committee founder David Nutt, a University of Bristol psychopharmacologist who was forced out of his job as the British government's chief drug control adviser after suggesting that current legal distinctions between cannabis and alcohol are not scientifically justified. While Nutt's comparisons between psychoactive substances provide ammunition to opponents of the war on drugs, they can also be used in service of less libertarian arguments: He and his co-authors suggest alcohol is underregulated, concluding that "aggressively targeting alcohol harms is a valid and necessary public health strategy."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
No surprise there. I also don't expect research to honestly change policy. Its going to take a state's rights push.
is good
perfect
perfect
perfect
How about mbt kisumu sandals this one: there are X driving deaths a year- what % of driving deaths (or serious injuries) involve alcohol, or other intoxicating substances? kisumu 2 People are pretty darn good drivers when they are not impaired.
outlet
outlet
outlet
outlet
impairment" that corresponds to a probability nike shox tl3 of an accident. Standard psychomotor tests of impairment do not test driving habits. For instance almost *all* people over the age of 60 are "impaired" in terms of those tests, oakely sunglasses but these people do not have a higher accident rate. Older people develop compensatory driving habits
he study was led by committee founder David Nutt, a University of Bristol psychopharmacologist who was forced out of his job as the British government's chief drug control adviser after suggesting that current legal distinctions between cannabis and alcohol are not scientifically justified. While Nutt's comparisons between psychoactive substances provide ammunition to opponents of the war on drugs,
???? ????? ????? ???????
????? ????? ??????? they can also be used in service of less libertarian arguments: He and his co-authors suggest alcohol is underregulated, concluding that "aggressively targeting alcohol harms is a valid and necessary public health strategy."