Skipjack November 3, 2010 07:35 PM What a pile of crap. Of course I can twist and turn any statistics in a way that it produces an outcome that I want. I cant see any 13 year olds prostituting themselves for alcohol, but plenty doing the same for heroin. Of course that spreads HIV (which I am sure was discarded as a means to hurt others). I am also wondering whether the crimes commited to get the money for a certain drug were rated in \"harms others\"...Whatever, just another stupid study with no connection to reality whatsoever. And people are wondering why scientists get a bad rep. I for my part dont want to be associated with these people. Crash November 3, 2010 10:26 PM It would be helpful to know how the number of users of a drug influence the level of harm in the chart published.Ie are the high results for alcohol predominantly due to the number of users? If there are a large number of alcohol related vehicle accidents, this will create more harm to society generally than a small number of \"13 year olds prostituing themselves\" Facebook User November 4, 2010 01:49 AM Dear Skipjack, could we see the methodology, criteria and numbers you used in YOUR study? Or was it tea leaves? christopher November 4, 2010 02:41 AM What a huge shame that petrol-sniffing isn\'t on the list - this is a huge problem - it would be awesome to see how it rates: my guess is it would outrank the lot on both counts? Earl Leonard November 4, 2010 05:56 AM I am interested to read the methodology and criteria,e specially in the `harmful to others\' category. A large number of the farm workers with the cocaine industries are indentured (slave) labour... I\'d consider that pretty harmful too. But yeahnah, as a professional musician it doesn\'t surprise me at all that alcohol is rated the most harmful in both categories. Angelie Baral November 4, 2010 06:50 AM By just observing how booze lovers defend alcohol and don\'t seem to imagine any social gathering without it, it has long been obvious as far as I\'m concern that addiction is strong. Now, considering that someone drunk can bring violence into families, loose jobs or not perform well in business, can provoke dramatic road accidents... something which is not the case with - say, tobacco, such consequences on others have a cost for society.This is something which has long been observed by numerous people, especially those not keen on booze who have a fair judgement. I\'m glad that a team of scientist has finally brought a demonstration. I hope it helps health authorities to reassess their priorities: stop pointing your finger constantly at smokers, alcohol should be targeted equally if not more. 4Freedom November 4, 2010 08:29 AM It appears that methamphetamine is misspelled as "metamfetamine". [Ed note: That's how the graphic was supplied to us, although it does appear to be an alternate spelling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine] Henry Rody November 4, 2010 10:56 AM \"Interpretation: These findings lend support to previous work assessing drug harms, and show how the improved scoring and weighting approach of MCDA increases the differentiation between the most and least harmful drugs. However, the findings correlate poorly with present UK drug classification, which is not based simply on considerations of harm.\" (Quoted from the summary of this report). Terry King November 4, 2010 11:11 AM Back in the 60\'s (Remember or read about then??) I was a Broadcast journalist in New York. This was the time of the first wide public consciousness about drug use. I heard parents say, \"Why would someone take a drug they don\'t need??\" There was little real information and a lot of myth and rumor.Consumer Reports came out with a well-researched, scientifically based book titled \"Licit and Illicit Drugs\". It was a major part of my research into the drug phenomenon and the drug scene on the street. The book was widely condemned by people who \"knew\" things like \"heroin destroys the brain within 6 months\" and \"Marijuana smoking almost always leads to hard drug addiction\". By the time Woodstock got moved from Wallkill to White Lake and really happened (I got the posh accommodations: I slept on the floor in the Press trailer), I was able to identify and talk about the drug reality at that time and place. Again, well-researched hard information will be attacked by the fearmongers and the moralists. You will hear \"by saying \"XXDRUG\" is not terribly harmful you will lead our children into drug addiction\". MY kids heard all the discussion, and got my stories from the street dealers and the really bad stuff that went down, often to nice people. They knew what was what with drugs, and they and my 11 grandchildren have never had a lack of true knowledge about drugs or been seduced by the street/cultural myths about how great they are.The best thing you can do for YOUR kids is to know the truth and the details about \"Licit and Illicit Drugs\".. If you don\'t know the difference between opiates and amphetamines and hallucinogens and their street names, you can\'t help your kids learn about all the good things in the world and the bad things, and which is which.Regards, Terry King ..On the Red Sea at KAUST.edu.sa email@example.com Stephen Owens November 4, 2010 11:43 AM What about all those pharmaceuticals that have a chance for the side effect of \"death\" or other serious health conditions, especially if mixed with other Pharmaceuticals. So many people are addicted to pills. My pastor\'s wife is afraid someone is going to break into her house and steal her pain meds, and has constant freak outs when she is away from her home that someone is breaking it right that second. Pharmacies are on every corner. Include pharmaceuticals in your study.