Top 20 drugs in order of danger
jd
which asked a group of doctors to list the 20 most used drugs in the
UK in the order of their danger. The list is as follows:
1 Heroin
2 Cocaine
3 Barbiturates
4 Street methadone
5 Alcohol
6 Ketamine
7 Benzodiazepine
8 Amphetamines
9 Tobacco
10 Buprenorphine
11 Cannabis
12 Solvents
13 4-MTA
14 LSD
15 Methylphenidate
16 Anabolic steroids
17 GHB
18 Ecstasy
19 Alkyl nitrates
20 Khat
Particularly interesting that Ecstasy appears so low on the list (less
dangerous) than tobacco or alcohol (both of which the various doctors
claimed would be made illegal if there were discovered today.) There
was also alot of discussion about the dangers of cannabis for those
that start smoking whilst young, or with previous problems with mental
illness.) LSD appears at number 14 and they even had interviews with
various doctors that were trying to restart research into its use for
psychological conditions. Even had a doctor stating that tales of
people jumping from windows whilst on the drug were largely a myth and
that the average number of deaths from the drug is marginally above 0
on average over the years.
All in all, it was an interesting programme (you can watch some of it
here http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/drugs/
or perhaps there's a torrent somewhere on the net.) As for criticisms
they didn't distinguish between crack cocaine use and snorting (I seem
to recall that smoking gives a greater high and is hence more habit
forming than snorting) and that the program didn't necessarily
distinguish between cost of a 'hit' of the drug and the cost of a
buying the standard measure (such as an 1/8th of cannabis)).
tcbev...@yahoo.com
discussing the Hillary/Barack race; he noted that the most dangerous
drug in all human history, the cause of the most wars, killer of the
most people, was one not on your list: that's right, testosterone!
Good point, I thought.
Tom Buckner
Dan Clore
Cannabis seems to be the one where the rating is most anomalous (getting
stoned is clearly much worse than testicular atrophy from steroids).
As to ecstasy, one should realize that most of it now is pretty low
dose, with some junk like speed and caffeine to help make up for it.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://tinyurl.com/3akhhr
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
RMJon23
> > or perhaps there's a torrent somewhere on the net.) As for criticisms
> > they didn't distinguish between crack cocaine use and snorting (I seem
> > to recall that smoking gives a greater high and is hence more habit
> > forming than snorting) and that the program didn't necessarily
> > distinguish between cost of a 'hit' of the drug and the cost of a
> > buying the standard measure (such as an 1/8th of cannabis)).
>
> Cannabis seems to be the one where the rating is most anomalous (getting
> stoned is clearly much worse than testicular atrophy from steroids).
>
> As to ecstasy, one should realize that most of it now is pretty low
> dose, with some junk like speed and caffeine to help make up for it.
>
> --
> Dan Clore
>
> My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:http://tinyurl.com/3akhhr
> Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
> immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
>
> - Show quoted text -
What supposedly is/are/seem the true risks of cannabis? I know some
young guys might get a touch of gynecomastia (sp?) if they smoke
forests of weed for a year. I'm thinking cannabis belongs down around
#19 or #20. I have never tried khat...
...But looking at the shopping list, I now want to check into 4-MTA,
which might go under some non-British name I'm familiar with. As it
is, it sounds like the bus you need to catch to get to the zoo...
Oh, hold on a second...Maybe I can do w/o it:
Dan Clore
> What supposedly is/are/seem the true risks of cannabis?
Going around saying things like: "Wow, like, is my fifth circuit ever
stimulated, man!!!"
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://tinyurl.com/3akhhr
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
Neil B.
"jd" <jdorr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8092c789-9da8-488d...@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Interesting wee program on the BBC popular science programme Horizon
> which asked a group of doctors to list the 20 most used drugs in the
> UK in the order of their danger. The list is as follows:
>
> 1 Heroin
> 2 Cocaine
> 3 Barbiturates
> 4 Street methadone
> 5 Alcohol
> 6 Ketamine
> 7 Benzodiazepine
> 8 Amphetamines
> 9 Tobacco
> 10 Buprenorphine
> 11 Cannabis
> 12 Solvents
> 13 4-MTA
> 14 LSD
> 15 Methylphenidate
> 16 Anabolic steroids
> 17 GHB
> 18 Ecstasy
> 19 Alkyl nitrates
> 20 Khat
>
4-MTA is very dangerous and has caused quite a few deaths, see Wikipedia. It
sure belongs higher IMHO than #13, unless we consider that a poetically apt
positioning. It seems to me Khat might as well be out there with Guarana and
caffeine, unless there's something I don't know about it. (Weird historical
note: when we were messing around in Somalia ca 1993, some thought US
soldiers would bring back the habit of using Khat and it would be a
"nuisance drug" of minor abuse like so many others.)
Tommy
"Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
news:60vadiF...@mid.individual.net...
I wonder where weed would rank if they based it on vaporizing instead of
smoking.
tcbev...@yahoo.com
> I wonder where weed would rank if they based it on vaporizing instead of
> smoking.
Good point. I've never tried a vaporizer, but seems to me that it must
be much kinder on the lungs.
Also: get this! researchers were shocked, SHOCKED to discover that
their assumptions about marijuana causing lung cancer were wrong. It
may even protect the lungs from cancer to some degree. How? By causing
apoptosis (self-destruction) in precancerous, abnormal lung cells.
links: http://content.herbalgram.org/wholefoodsmarket/herbalgram/articleview.asp?a=3064
and http://cannabisnews.com/news/10/thread10025.shtml
Tom Buckner
Tommy
<tcbev...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7638c535-cd46-4168...@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 7, 8:32 pm, "Tommy" <polyontol...@cox.net> wrote:
> I wonder where weed would rank if they based it on vaporizing instead of
> smoking.
>Good point. I've never tried a vaporizer, but seems to me that it must
>be much kinder on the lungs.
I'm to the point now where I don't know if I'd even partake of the wondrous
herb without a vaporizor. I am pretty active physically and even a couple
days of smoking rather than vaporizing really takes a toll on my lungs.
Unfortunately there still aren't any good portable vaporizors that I know
of.