David Nutt's dangerous drug list..

Anyone find it upsetting that they nabbed 65 fucking tons of weed but only 2.9 tons of coke...Come on now, sounds like a lot of wasted resources
 
Stop dissing his research without bothering to read it. I linked to it in my last post in this thead.

Well I honestly don't care.

Let's forget Ketamine for a bit.

Cannabis is "more harmful" than SOLVENTS and ecstasy?

I don't care how intricate a research is, I don't care what criteria is, anyone with half a brain can put forth arguments against the above that no plausible research whatsoever can refute.
 
^I think that he might just have a point. Of course a single use of cannabis is less harmful than a single use of cannabis; on the other hand, I know no-one who still uses solvents, whereas I know many people, including myself, who use cannabis daily, and experience negative effects as a result of this. I think the social cost of cannabis use in terms of opportunity cost might be greater than that of solvents.
I'm not saying that he's right, but we shouldn't dismiss his ideas as not even possibly right. If we are going to reject every scientific conclusion that doesn't fit with our intuitions, what's the point of researching at all?
 
Hm.. something about this list don't sit right with me, like more assumption was done then research.. shouldn't methamphetamine be on there or is that under amphetamine?
 
Last edited:
I see.. man I figured it would be at least more popular in UK then Khat or a hard-to-come-by chemical like 4-mta... things really are different across the pond.
 
^
That's nice and all, and it seems to have a category for just about every consequence of using, but until I see each drug broken down with empirical evidence for each harm, I'm not convinced one bit.
that's cause it's only one picture, from a document refeerencing Nutt's work.

here is an excerpt from nutt et al 2007 for all ye without pubmed/sciencedirect access:

Categories of harm
There are three main factors that together determine the harm associated with any drug of potential abuse: the physical harm to the individual user caused by the drug; the tendency of the drug to induce dependence; and the effect of drug use on families, communities, and society.[5], [6], [7] and [8]

Physical
Assessment of the propensity of a drug to cause physical harm—ie, damage to organs or systems—involves a systematic consideration of the safety margin of the drug in terms of its acute toxicity, as well as its likelihood to produce health problems in the long term. The effect of a drug on physiological functions—eg, respiratory and cardiac—is a major determinant of physical harm. The route of administration is also relevant to the assessment of harm. Drugs that can be taken intravenously—eg, heroin—carry a high risk of causing sudden death from respiratory depression, and therefore score highly on any metric of acute harm. Tobacco and alcohol have a high propensity to cause illness and death as a result of chronic use. Recently published evidence shows that long-term cigarette smoking reduces life expectancy, on average, by 10 years.9 Tobacco and alcohol together account for about 90% of all drug-related deaths in the UK.

The UK Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority, in common with similar bodies in Europe, the USA, and elsewhere, has well-established methods to assess the safety of medicinal drugs, which can be used as the basis of this element of risk appraisal. Indeed several drugs of abuse have licensed indications in medicine and will therefore have had such appraisals, albeit, in most cases, many years ago.

Three separate facets of physical harm can be identified. First, acute physical harm—ie, the immediate effects (eg, respiratory depression with opioids, acute cardiac crises with cocaine, and fatal poisonings). The acute toxicity of drugs is often measured by assessing the ratio of lethal dose to usual or therapeutic dose. Such data are available for many of the drugs we assess here.[5], [6] and [7] Second, chronic physical harm—ie, the health consequences of repeated use (eg, psychosis with stimulants, possible lung disease with cannabis). Finally, there are specific problems associated with intravenous drug use.

The route of administration is relevant not only to acute toxicity but also to so-called secondary harms. For instance, administration of drugs by the intravenous route can lead to the spread of blood-borne viruses such as hepatitis viruses and HIV, which have huge health implications for the individual and society. The potential for intravenous use is currently taken into account in the Misuse of Drugs Act classification and was treated as a separate parameter in our exercise.

Dependence
This dimension of harm involves interdependent elements—the pleasurable effects of the drug and its propensity to produce dependent behaviour. Highly pleasurable drugs such as opioids and cocaine are commonly abused, and the street value of drugs is generally determined by their pleasurable potential. Drug-induced pleasure has two components—the initial, rapid effect (colloquially known as the rush) and the euphoria that follows this, often extending over several hours (the high). The faster the drug enters the brain the stronger the rush, which is why there is a drive to formulate street drugs in ways that allow them to be injected intravenously or smoked: in both cases, effects on the brain can occur within 30 seconds. Heroin, crack cocaine, tobacco (nicotine), and cannabis (tetrahydrocannabinol) are all taken by one or other of these rapid routes. Absorption through the nasal mucosa, as with powdered cocaine, is also surprisingly rapid. Taking the same drugs by mouth, so that they are only slowly absorbed into the body, generally has a less powerful pleasurable effect, although it can be longer lasting.

An essential feature of drugs of abuse is that they encourage repeated use. This tendency is driven by various factors and mechanisms. The special nature of drug experiences certainly has a role. Indeed, in the case of hallucinogens (eg, lysergic acid diethylamide [LSD], mescaline, etc) it might be the only factor that drives regular use, and such drugs are mostly used infrequently. At the other extreme are drugs such as crack cocaine and nicotine, which, for most users, induce powerful dependence. Physical dependence or addiction involves increasing tolerance (ie, progressively higher doses being needed for the same effect), intense craving, and withdrawal reactions—eg, tremors, diarrhoea, sweating, and sleeplessness—when drug use is stopped. These effects indicate that adaptive changes occur as a result of drug use. Addictive drugs are generally used repeatedly and frequently, partly because of the power of the craving and partly to avoid withdrawal.

Psychological dependence is also characterised by repeated use of a drug, but without tolerance or physical symptoms directly related to drug withdrawal. Some drugs can lead to habitual use that seems to rest more on craving than physical withdrawal symptoms. For instance, cannabis use can lead to measurable withdrawal symptoms, but only several days after stopping long-standing use. Some drugs—eg, the benzodiazepines—can induce psychological dependence without tolerance, and physical withdrawal symptoms occur through fear of stopping. This form of dependence is less well studied and understood than is addiction but it is a genuine experience, in the sense that withdrawal symptoms can be induced simply by persuading a drug user that the drug dose is being progressively reduced although it is, in fact, being maintained at a constant level.10

The features of drugs that lead to dependence and withdrawal reactions have been reasonably well characterised. The half-life of the drug has an effect—those drugs that are cleared rapidly from the body tend to provoke more extreme reactions. The pharmacodynamic efficacy of the drug also has a role; the more efficacious it is, the greater the dependence. Finally, the degree of tolerance that develops on repeated use is also a factor: the greater the tolerance, the greater the dependence and withdrawal.

For many drugs there is a good correlation between events that occur in human beings and those observed in studies on animals. Also, drugs that share molecular specificity (ie, that bind with or interact with the same target molecules in the brain) tend to have similar pharmacological effects. Hence, some sensible predictions can be made about new compounds before they are used by human beings. Experimental studies of the dependence potential of old and new drugs are possible only in individuals who are already using drugs, so more population-based estimates of addictiveness (ie, capture rates) have been developed for the more commonly used drugs.11 These estimates suggest that smoked tobacco is the most addictive commonly used drug, with heroin and alcohol somewhat less so; psychedelics have a low addictive propensity.

Social
Drugs harm society in several ways—eg, through the various effects of intoxication, through damaging family and social life, and through the costs to systems of health care, social care, and police. Drugs that lead to intense intoxication are associated with huge costs in terms of accidental damage to the user, to others, and to property. Alcohol intoxication, for instance, often leads to violent behaviour and is a common cause of car and other accidents. Many drugs cause major damage to the family, either because of the effect of intoxication or because they distort the motivations of users, taking them away from their families and into drug-related activities, including crime.

Societal damage also occurs through the immense health-care costs of some drugs. Tobacco is estimated to cause up to 40% of all hospital illness and 60% of drug-related fatalities. Alcohol is involved in over half of all visits to accident and emergency departments and orthopaedic admissions.12 However, these drugs also generate tax revenue that can offset their health costs to some extent. Intravenous drug delivery brings particular problems in terms of blood-borne virus infections, especially HIV and hepatitis, leading to the infection of sexual partners as well as needle sharers. For drugs that have only recently become popular—eg, 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine, better known as ecstasy or MDMA—the longer-term health and social consequences can be estimated only from animal toxicology at present. Of course, the overall use of a drug has a substantial bearing on the extent of social harm.

Assessment of harm
Table 1 shows the assessment matrix that we designed, which includes all nine parameters of risk, created by dividing each of the three major categories of harm into three subgroups, as described above. Participants were asked to score each substance for each of these nine parameters, using a four-point scale, with 0 being no risk, 1 some, 2 moderate, and 3 extreme risk. For some analyses, the scores for the three parameters for each category were averaged to give a mean score for that category. For the sake of discussion, an overall harm rating was obtained by taking the mean of all nine scores.

Table 1.
Assessment parameters

Parameter
Physical harm One Acute
Two Chronic
Three Intravenous harm
Dependence Four Intensity of pleasure
Five Psychological dependence
Six Physical dependence
Social harms Seven Intoxication
Eight Other social harms
Nine Health-care costs

Full-size table

View Within Article



The scoring procedure was piloted by members of the panel of the Independent Inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act.13 Once refined through this piloting, an assessment questionnaire based on table 1, with additional guidance notes, was used. Two independent groups of experts were asked to do the ratings. The first was the national group of consultant psychiatrists who were on the Royal College of Psychiatrists' register as specialists in addiction. Replies were received and analysed from 29 of the 77 registered doctors who were asked to assess 14 compounds—heroin, cocaine, alcohol, barbiturates, amphetamine, methadone, benzodiazepines, solvents, buprenorphine, tobacco, ecstasy, cannabis, LSD, and steroids. Tobacco and alcohol were included because their extensive use has provided reliable data on their risks and harms, providing familiar benchmarks against which the absolute harms of other drugs can be judged. However, direct comparison of the scores for tobacco and alcohol with those of the other drugs is not possible since the fact that they are legal could affect their harms in various ways, especially through easier availability.

Having established that this nine-parameter matrix worked well, we convened meetings of a second group of experts with a wider spread of expertise. These experts had experience in one of the many areas of addiction, ranging from chemistry, pharmacology, and forensic science, through psychiatry and other medical specialties, including epidemiology, as well as the legal and police services. The second set of assessments was done in a series of meetings run along delphic principles, a new approach that is being used widely to optimise knowledge in areas where issues and effects are very broad and not amenable to precise measurements or experimental testing,14 and which is becoming the standard method by which to develop consensus in medical matters. Since delphic analysis incorporates the best knowledge of experts in diverse disciplines, it is ideally applicable to a complex variable such as drug misuse and addiction. Initial scoring was done independently by each participant, and the scores for each individual parameter were then presented to the whole group for discussion, with a particular emphasis on elucidating the reasoning behind outlier scores. Individuals were then invited to revise their scores, if they wished, on any of the parameters, in the light of this discussion, after which a final mean score was calculated. The complexity of the process means that only a few drugs can be assessed in a single meeting, and four meetings were needed to complete the process. The number of members taking part in the scoring varied from eight to 16. However, the full range of expertise was maintained in each assessment.

This second set of assessments covered the 14 substances considered by the psychiatrists plus, for completeness, six other compounds (khat, 4-methylthioamphetamine [4-MTA], gamma 4-hydroxybutyric acid [GHB], ketamine, methylphenidate, and alkyl nitrites), some of which are not illegal, but for each of which there have been reports of abuse (table 2). Participants were told in advance which drugs were being covered at each meeting to allow them to update their knowledge and consider their opinion. Recent review articles[5], [6], [7], [15], [16], [17] and [18] were provided.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table 2.
The 20 substances assessed, showing their current status under the Misuse of Drugs Act

Class in Misuse of Drugs Act Comments
Ecstasy A Essentially 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine (MDMA)
4-MTA A 4-methylthioamphetamine
LSD A Lysergic acid diethylamide
Cocaine A Includes crack cocaine
Heroin A Crude diamorphine
Street methadone A Diverted prescribed methadone
Amphetamine B ..
Methylphenidate B eg, Ritalin (methylphenidate)
Barbiturates B ..
Buprenorphine C eg, Temgesic, Subutex
Benzodiazepines C eg, Valium (diazepam), Librium (chlordiazepoxide)
GHB C Gamma 4-hydroxybutyric acid
Anabolic steroids C ..
Cannabis C ..
Alcohol .. Not controlled if over 18 years in UK
Alkyl nitrites .. Not controlled
Ketamine .. Not controlled at the time of assessment; controlled as class C since January, 2007
Khat .. Not controlled
Solvents .. Not controlled; sales restricted
Tobacco .. Not controlled if over 16 years in UK

Full-size table

View Within Article



Occasionally, individual experts were unable to give a score for a particular parameter for a particular drug and these missing values were ignored in the analysis—ie, they were neither treated as zero nor given some interpolated value. Data were analysed with the statistical functions in Microsoft Excel and S-plus.
 
So Ketamine is more dangerous than Benzos (Physically addictive, possible to OD on), Amphetamines (highly addictive, can cause heart problems and psychosis), Solvents (guaranteed brain-damage), Methylphenidate (same as amps), Steroids (don't get me started), GHB (physically-addictive, can cause coma and death), Ecstasy (can contain anything from MDMA to BZP to your mother's nail polish), and Khat (probably the cause of many social problems in Yemen and East Africa)?

Wonderful. Dr Nutt impresses us again with his encyclopaedic knowledge of drug dangers.

As I have said elsewhere, I believe ketmaine was ranked so high due to the fact the one of the used routes of administration is injection - ie: adds to the risk-factor.

Take that out and it plummets down the list...
 
5. Alcohol

Subject to increasing concern from the medical profession about its damage to health. According to the ONS, there were 8,724 alcohol deaths in the UK in 2007. Other sources claim the true figure is far higher.

From http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/Defining_alcohol-related_deaths.pdf

The definition of alcohol-related deaths which has been used by ONS only includes those
causes regarded as being most directly due to alcohol consumption. It does not include other
diseases where alcohol has been shown to have some causal relationship, such as cancers of
the mouth, oesophagus and liver.

and...

Apart from deaths due to accidental poisoning with alcohol, the definition excludes any other
external causes, such as road traffic deaths and other accidents, and suicides and homicides
where alcohol may have played a role in the circumstances leading to death. The definition
also does not include any proportions of causes where alcohol has been shown to have some
causal link.


6. Ketamine

Class C. A hallucinogenic, dance drug for clubbers. There were 23 Ketamine-related deaths in the UK between 1993 and 2006. Last year there were 1,266 seizures.

23 Ketamine related deaths? I believe most, if not all, of these are indirectly caused by the drug... ie: accidents not poisoning or overdose.



Aren't statistics great kids? :)
 
Also, regarding Ketamine. It was my understanding that it was actually made into a controlled substance not on the request of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, but of HM Revenue & Customs. Basically, it was figured out that it was being imported into the UK legally (it was previously only covered under the Medicines Act) and people (ie: criminals) were making money from it. So to give HMRC the power to seize Ketmine, they put it under the misuse of drugs act.


I am sure there are documents floating about from before 2006 that say that there is no 'medical' need to control ketamine... and then it gets banned... hmm...

EDIT: Actually I was wrong about the above... the ACMD did recommend that ketamine should be controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act...
 
Last edited:
that's cause it's only one picture, from a document refeerencing Nutt's work.

here is an excerpt from nutt et al 2007 for all ye without pubmed/sciencedirect access:

Half step there. It better explains the categories, but it still doesn't present what and why each drug was rated. I don't have any issue with the categories, but I do have a problem with not seeing the evidence and reasoning behind their rating.

This reminds me of the Lancet ratings... Their chart is available on Wikipedia and it has been discussed here on BL in various forums. Again, the issues over those ratings were the same ones I have with this set of ratings.
 
This is a heavily flawed study, has alot to do with how he feels and less to do with objective statistical analysis. very unfortunate.
 
Last edited:
MDMA is proven neurotoxic. All claim of Ketamine neurotoxicity has yet to be proven in humans.

proven only in high doses in animals. mdma has not been proven to be neurotoxic in recreational doses in humans.

the list does have some good points as route of administration and if popularity is already factored in. mta, solvents, khat and steroids aren't that popular i suspect that if a larger part of the population used these ones they'd rank higher.
it's also good to know that at the time the list was published (that was quite some time ago) some (now controversial) study, which linked cannabis use and higher incidence of psychosis, had just been published
 
I believe the reason why that list looks so odd is because it tries to combine at least two aspects of the harm caused by drug use. Harm to the user and harm to society. Once you take into account how popular a drug is to determine the relative harm it really makes the list confusing. I think if Nutt made at least two different lists they would look more accurate(One for the user and one for society).
 
^Agreed. We can complain about the lack of objectivity all we want, but how exactly do you rank a load of drugs like this from "good" to "bad", considering so many factors, without making value judgements?
 
The biggest factor is how they're used and at what levels. Things like this come off as implying there's no way to use them responsibly. Not true, even though what they're trying to display is how likely it is that they're going to cause harm. Again, there are a lot of factors involved. I just wish we had all of the data.
 
Top