/sci/ - Science & Math

About fucking time someone spoke up.

The video clip made me lol.

He is quite clear in what he says, and then the woman chimes in.

"So heroin isn't dangerous?"

I think the chart is off in alot of ways, but the order seems right.

Hmmm....
This may actually make sense I can name more rockstars that have died from alcohol + sleeping pills than died of heroin.

>>1985808
Sadly this is the mindset of hundreds of hippies across the globe, I once had my dad telling me that marijuana is safer than aspirin.

These studies are always thrown off by the fact that alcohol kills more people because it's easier to get hold of.
You could probably conduct a similar study and conclude that household bleach was much more dangerous than plutonium.

how is butane listed? who does butane?

I'm curious as to what even makes LSD dangerous at all other than loss of association and how are mushrooms less dangerous? And Cannabis more so than either? WTF, THIS STUDY IS BULLSHIT

>>1985853
LSD never leaves your system.

>>1985845

That was the basis of the study.

>>1985856
myth

>>1985857
So it's basically nonsense. Yet another study that'll no doubt be used to justify more control (read: taxes) on alcohol for our own good.

>>1985856
LSD leaves your system faster than any other drug ever

>>1985859
>>1985867
I stand corrected.

>>1985845
No that is the point of the study, this graph combines the effects to the user and the effects to society in order to get a idea of the overall harm. Because alcohol is more available that increases it effect on society.

If this graph was purely based on effect on the user, alcohol would be lower on the list.

>>1985859
>>1985871
>>1985867
>>1985867

Needs citation.....

I'm reading the study now because I think its bullshit. Here's the criteria.

Heres the master chart.

>>1985908
>overall harm score
Is there actually any numbers behind this, or is it just arbitrary?

>>1985900
>>1985919
Very difficult to put empirical values on harm, but from what I've read by Nutt in the past he does a reasonable job.

>>1985919
IDK, that seems to be all they provide, but ironically I gotta trim my plants in Hemp Tycoon! Then I'll see if theres any more data

>>1985932
Soooo in other words, yes. They're numbers picked out of the sky by doctors.
Why is this study being considered to be accurate?!

>>1985944
Because Nutt is somewhat famous for the circumstance in which he resigned, drug stories sell papers and these studies are important despite not being perfect statistically.

Do a meta-analysis on enough of these and a trend quickly appears.

>>1985932
If you were to rank each drug considered for each of those criterion, with x being most dangerous, most costly, highest deaths, etc, and x-1 being next most dangerous, down to 1 for least dangerous/costly/whatever, then sum them...

That's about the only way I can think to take all of those very very very dissimilar data and integrate them into a single statement DURP ALCOHOL IS MORE DANGEROUS THAN LSD AND ALSO POT IS MORE DANGEROUS THAN CRACK and have any sort of real backup from the data.

>Dr. Nutt

lol what a name.

But is the social cost per user? The study would be useless if all it says is alcohol is worst because most people consume alcohol. derp drugs are only bad if you use them

>>1985908
I loled when reading some of the topics they rated
Economic cost? Are you fucking serious?
This is complete shit
How in the world could you possibly think that damage the drug does to you is on the same scale as its cost

Hey guys, heroine is safer than booze

>>1985985
I love wierd names in science. I am doing research on ovarian cancer and I come across this paper
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16632533
Ovarian Teratoma in a Bitch.
Headley SA, Fuck EJ, Fuck ET, Curti CE.
Not one but two doctor fucks.

Can you IMAGINE the pickup lines?
" Hi, my name is Dr. Fuck. Your place or mine?"

>>1985986
Happens in medicine all the time, called QALYs.

Only treat someone if it is cost effective to treat them. Sounds cruel like that but it is ethically sound.

Surely that is an amalgamation of personal harm and economics?

>>1986005
Man, I'm never doing shrooms
Look at that massive chunk for loss of personal items
Know what's great? Somehow if that was purple (drug related mortality) it would be equally as bad of a drug

>>1986018
Well said.

>>1986018
but are the factors already properly weighed? Maybe there's a 1/100000 chance of dying but an 80% of losing lots of shit. That could be as bad as a higher risk of death.

>Prof Nutt told the BBC: "Overall, alcohol is the most harmful drug because it's so widely used.

>"Crack cocaine is more addictive than alcohol but because alcohol is so widely used there are hundreds of thousands of people who crave alcohol every day, and those people will go to extraordinary lengths to get it."

This article's authors are beyond retarded. They biases their results against any drugs that are widely used. By their standards, a drug that was 100% fatal but only used by 100 people/year would be "less dangerous" than alcohol.

>>1986018
I'm guessing they're weighted differently, but you do have a point. Some of these things are difficult to clump together.

Anyway, losing personal items can be as bad as mortality; see pic.

>>1986042
this

I mean fuck, I was excited for an interesting study. Someone tell me I'm misinterpreting things.

>>1986042
But it would be to the country as a whole.

>>1986052
Yeah, they really should have just focused on physiological and psychological effects for this study to be meaningful.

>>1985786

Author freely admits that study does not control for number or density of users in calculating harms which effectively makes it useless in determining public policy because the results are dependant on said policy.

If only one item on the list is legal at a time then that item will almost certainly rise to the top of the rankings. Alcohol is at the top not because its chemistry makes it the most dangerous, but because it's the most widely used/abused.

>>1986056
Except the total effect of the drug on the entire country is meaningless. You want to know the effect of that drug per drug user. A drug that's 1% fatal and used by 99% of the population is not more dangerous than a drug that's 100% fatal and used by 1%.

>>1986082
Is the individual harm still per user?

It's the most harmful because the last two generations do nothing but party and go on Youtube and Facebook.

LOOK AT THE FUCKING COMMENTS ON BOTH AND TELL ME THESE PEOPLE HAVE ANY BRAIN CELLS LEFT.