Quoi de neuf ?

Bienvenue sur Psychonaut.fr !

Le forum des amateurs de drogues et des explorateurs de l'esprit

Alcohol and tobacco just as harmful as heroin

  • Auteur de la discussion Auteur de la discussion multavisi
  • Date de début Date de début

multavisi

Matrice Périnatale
Inscrit
7/7/07
Messages
12
The National Institute for Public Health and Environment (RIVM) has performed a risk assessment to the harm of 17 drugs plus tobacco and alcohol (19 ‘drugs’). RIVM was charged by the ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports to rank these drugs according to harm in a way which was comparable with the previous evaluation that was made by the group of Nutt in the United Kingdom.

In fact, the assessment of the drugs was performed by a panel of 19 experts, who based their judgment on their own expertise and the scientific information documents about the drugs, which were prepared
by the RIVM and the Trimbos Institute. As such, the transparency of the assessment process was increased. The expert panel, which consisted of 7 toxicologists, 8 clinician and 4 remaining experts, gave a judgment about three different categories of the drugs i.e.: (1) toxicity (acute toxicity and chronic toxicity), (2) dependence potential and (3) social harm (at individual and population level). This report, however, merely describes the ranking of the hazard of the 19 drugs, so that the denoted
scores only give some indication about the intensity (or absolute level) of the harmfulness of the different drugs. The most important conclusions of the assessment are that:
(1) alcohol, tobacco, heroin and crack relatively scored high on the scale of Total harm, whereas magic mushrooms, LSD and khat score don this scale relatively low;
(2) the scores of the Dutch expert panel corroborate well with the previous findings of the British experts and previous advises of the CAM (Dutch Coordination point Assessment en Monitoring new drugs);
(3) the legal drugs alcohol and tobacco have been judged by the experts as more harmful than many of the presently assessed illegal drugs (except for heroin and crack). This accounts for the Total harm on
individual as well as on population level;
(4) regarding Total harm at individual level, cannabis and ecstasy are assessed by the experts as
moderately harmful.

genot_234496e.jpg


Pink = physical damage
Orange = social damage to the user (isolation, stigma, etc.)
Green = damage to society (crime, welfare, healthcare, etc.)


DUTCH:

Alcohol en tabak zijn net zo slecht voor de volksgezondheid als heroïne en crack. Ze staan bovenaan een lijst met negentien genotsmiddelen die het Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu heeft gerangschikt naar schadelijkheid.

http://www.nu.nl/gezondheid/2034518/alcohol-en-tabak-net-zo-slecht-als-heroine.html

Zou Klink ook iets met deze kennis gaan doen?
 
waarschijnlijk doet Klink er helemaal niets mee, maar het bevestigt weer eens hoe dom het drugsbeleid is.

Dat heroine zo schadelijk is, is volgens mij trouwens overdreven. Hoeveel heroinejunks zijn er nog in NL?
 
Als hij er iets mee doet zal het nog meer accijns heffen zijn.
 
Is an English version of this document available ?
 
Just a short summary:

The National Institute for Public Health and Environment (RIVM) has performed a risk assessment to the harm of 17 drugs plus tobacco and alcohol (19 ‘drugs’). RIVM was charged by the ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports to rank these drugs according to harm in a way which was comparable with the previous evaluation that was made by the group of Nutt in the United Kingdom.

In fact, the assessment of the drugs was performed by a panel of 19 experts, who based their judgment on their own expertise and the scientific information documents about the drugs, which were prepared
by the RIVM and the Trimbos Institute. As such, the transparency of the assessment process was increased. The expert panel, which consisted of 7 toxicologists, 8 clinician and 4 remaining experts, gave a judgment about three different categories of the drugs i.e.: (1) toxicity (acute toxicity and chronic toxicity), (2) dependence potential and (3) social harm (at individual and population level). This report, however, merely describes the ranking of the hazard of the 19 drugs, so that the denoted
scores only give some indication about the intensity (or absolute level) of the harmfulness of the different drugs. The most important conclusions of the assessment are that:
(1) alcohol, tobacco, heroin and crack relatively scored high on the scale of Total harm, whereas magic mushrooms, LSD and khat score don this scale relatively low;
(2) the scores of the Dutch expert panel corroborate well with the previous findings of the British experts and previous advises of the CAM (Dutch Coordination point Assessment en Monitoring new drugs);
(3) the legal drugs alcohol and tobacco have been judged by the experts as more harmful than many of the presently assessed illegal drugs (except for heroin and crack). This accounts for the Total harm on
individual as well as on population level;
(4) regarding Total harm at individual level, cannabis and ecstasy are assessed by the experts as
moderately harmful.
 
genot_234496e.jpg


Pink = physical damage
Orange = social damage to the user (isolation, stigma, etc.)
Green = damage to society (crime, welfare, healthcare, etc.)
 
Is that graph FROM the study, or just related to?
Either way I have some major issues with the lower portion of it. I think Benzos should have ranked MUCH higher. Their use is RAMPANT in society and most people can't even go about their day now without a sedative. That said, it looks like the rest of the list is fairly accurate, though tobacco is suspiciously farther left than it's values indicate it should be. It seems that the graph is ordered based only on the physical harm, and not on the overall harm of a substance.
 
If you´re on benzos you can still go to work and pay taxes, so no worries.

The graph was taken from the study by a newspaper.
 
With LSD physically more damage than steroids? Roids do harm the liver, kidney's, increase cholestrol, decrease semen, and have much more side effects.
 
Didn't understand the high damage of LSD either.

Hope it will make them start to THINK out there, for a change.
 
Eigenlijk horen Nederlandstalige nieuwsberichten niet thuis op de voorpagina. Ik verplaats hem daarom even. Bedankt voor de vertaling Forkbender.

edit: Besloten het bericht niet te verplaatsten, maar aan te passen.
 
One time i have smoked heroin, but in fact i didn't feel so much... and i can not understand where the fuzz is all about. I think the less harmfull strong hasj and weed is a lot more satifying/addictive nowadays, especially as an escape to relax from this stress society.
 
Especially when it's specified: PHYSICAL damage...
I though LSD caused none?
 
Yeah, they must be including other factors in their assessment of lsd. lsd is probably one of the least toxic drugs there is, you'd have to start stuffing entire 100-hit sheets in your mouth to risk physical overdose

actually the entire "physical damage" measurement really makes no sense if you measure just the toxicity of the drugs in question. eg. far more people percentage-wise die directly from tobacco use than alcohol.

I'm not trying to bash the article, I'd just like to know what criteria they are using to reach their conclusions, and what the harm scale of 0-4 is supposed to represent. I can't read the original, maybe they do qualify their ratings better?
 
Maybe they included in "Physical harm" the potential for harm because of the effects (disorientation, confusion, hallucinations...)
 
I don't know why it says 'Physical harm' in the graph posted here actually.. i just looked through the original report and the factors they actually did measure are 'Acute toxicity', 'Chronic toxicity', 'Total toxicity' (the average of chronic and acute toxicity [i think this is what is referred to by 'Physical harm' but it's very misleading]) 'Addiction', 'Total damage' and 'Social damage' (the latter split into damage on an individual scale and a population scale)..
Well, on Addiction, Total damage and Social damage LSD, as well as magic mushrooms, have a very low score. But on Total toxicity LSD scores somewhat higher, in the mid-range. The information given on LSD considering acute toxicity states some dangers as an acute psychosis in one promille of the cases, the very rare case of hospitilization due to LSD-symptoms, bad 'set' and/or 'settings' and the unpredictability of it's effects (different experiences by different users). Under chronic toxicity they mention very rare cases of a chronic psychosis, the occurrence of flashbacks and the negative effects of taking LSD during pregnancy.
So that's it.. the question is, why is LSD ranked so much higher than magic mushrooms (another thing you should note is that the scores do not indicate any linear scale in harmfulness, it is just a ranking)? Maybe because the effects last a lot longer? That would be a really bad way of looking at it though.. also i just noticed that the part on chronic toxicity for magic mushrooms doesn't include flashbacks, nor pregnancy difficulties, or any other dangers for that matter. The part on acute toxicity is very similar though. Also it is emphasized more clearly, by the information given on magic mushrooms, that drug induced psychoses are much more likely to occur when one is predisposed to a mental disorder, in comparison to the inof. given on LSD.

I don't agree that LSD is put higher up in the ranking considering total toxicity.. but this might clear it up a bit ^^
 
yes LSD but especially steroids are quite surprising.
 
Retour
Haut