yeah, seems to be one of those studies where the outcome was known from the start due to bias in the method.
>In an effort to offer a guide to policy makers in health, policing, and social care, Nutt's team rated drugs using a technique called multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) which assessed damage according to nine criteria on harm to the user and seven criteria on harm to others.
>Harms to the user included things such as drug-specific or drug-related death, damage to health, drug dependence and loss of relationships, while harms to others included crime, environmental damage, family conflict, international damage, economic cost, and damage to community cohesion.
>The scientists found alcohol was most harmful, with a score of 72, followed by heroin with 55 and crack with 54.
Indeed, because if I drink one beer it'll be 17% worse off than doing one dose of heroin.
My only gripe is that they seem to intentionally mislead readers by treating heavy users of alcohol the same way as light users of other harder drugs. Clearly, the issue is real, but actions like this will only worsen the public perception on the subject instead of re-affirming it.
Yes, alcohol is indeed much more dangerous than heroin. Not just when considering a single dose, though.
Not necessarily than street heroin, ie the heroin that people use, because that can contain any number of other drugs or substances, and even if it doesn't contain anything more dangerous there's still added danger from not knowing the dose.
If you could buy well-manufactured heroin from a supermarket or a pharmacy, or get it prescribed by your doctor, you'd be extremely unlikely to overdose unless wanting to kill yourself, and it would be a much healthier addiction to get than alcohol.
Only diamond moderators can see deleted comments. You need 10K reputation to view deleted posts, so you have a long way to go if you are only in the hundreds.
I am not a developer and so don't use it much, but it's occasionally handy. I guess I need to try to score more points to make it a bit more interesting, huh.
I've made my revanced so that it doesn't have the shorts tab at all. Combined with the fact that I have the history turned off, so even if I open one video, I can't keep scrolling because YouTube won't give you recommendations anymore without the history. That's a win for me.
>In an effort to offer a guide to policy makers in health, policing, and social care, Nutt's team rated drugs using a technique called multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) which assessed damage according to nine criteria on harm to the user and seven criteria on harm to others.
>Harms to the user included things such as drug-specific or drug-related death, damage to health, drug dependence and loss of relationships, while harms to others included crime, environmental damage, family conflict, international damage, economic cost, and damage to community cohesion.
>The scientists found alcohol was most harmful, with a score of 72, followed by heroin with 55 and crack with 54.
Indeed, because if I drink one beer it'll be 17% worse off than doing one dose of heroin.
My only gripe is that they seem to intentionally mislead readers by treating heavy users of alcohol the same way as light users of other harder drugs. Clearly, the issue is real, but actions like this will only worsen the public perception on the subject instead of re-affirming it.