What Is The Worst Drug In The UK?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by bertstare
Alcohol is only top because people (esp young people/uni students) consume it so often and in such high quantities. Try taking MDMA 3x a week and then tell me alcohol is worse for you.
Haha, he's got a point, that does get hard on the system...
But then again, people on MDMA never start fights or cause the same kind of trouble as drunk people.
Original post by Steezy
Am I right in thinking meth is basically speed that you smoke? Cos I remember doing speed when I was like 16... That's ****ed up.
If i remember correctly, Crystal Meth is methamphetamine, while speed is just amphetamine.
Crystal Meth can be snorted, smoked or injected.
Original post by Spetznaaz
If i remember correctly, Crystal Meth is methamphetamine, while speed is just amphetamine.
Crystal Meth can be snorted, smoked or injected.
Crystal Meth can be snorted, smoked or injected.
OK... Makes me feel slightly better.
Original post by bertstare
Alcohol is only top because people (esp young people/uni students) consume it so often and in such high quantities. Try taking MDMA 3x a week and then tell me alcohol is worse for you.
Worst you'd get with MDMA is it stop working on you(I've done both 3x a week btw). Provided you don't overdose btw as obviously that ****'s lethal just like alcohol is. But tbh a rest sorts you out personally and if your serotonin isn't depleted when you use MDMA you feel quite good when you wake up.
Only problems you get with MDMA disregarding overdoses are depression and it stop working on you permanantly(figures are if you do it once a week or 2 for 5 years it stops working due to irreversible neuronal damage/connections.
Original post by jam277
Worst you'd get with MDMA is it stop working on you(I've done both 3x a week btw). Provided you don't overdose btw as obviously that ****'s lethal just like alcohol is. But tbh a rest sorts you out personally and if your serotonin isn't depleted when you use MDMA you feel quite good when you wake up.
Only problems you get with MDMA disregarding overdoses are depression and it stop working on you permanantly(figures are if you do it once a week or 2 for 5 years it stops working due to irreversible neuronal damage/connections.
Only problems you get with MDMA disregarding overdoses are depression and it stop working on you permanantly(figures are if you do it once a week or 2 for 5 years it stops working due to irreversible neuronal damage/connections.
I can honestly say i've never felt anything but absolute death after using MDMA. Then again i seem to suffer worse hangovers than everyone i know.
Original post by Steevee
Haha, he's got a point, that does get hard on the system...
But then again, people on MDMA never start fights or cause the same kind of trouble as drunk people.
But then again, people on MDMA never start fights or cause the same kind of trouble as drunk people.
Tbh the worst you get is it stop working on you. Which makes for a **** night. Comedowns are fine if you're not alone and have people to talk to.
Original post by Spetznaaz
I can honestly say i've never felt anything but absolute death after using MDMA. Then again i seem to suffer worse hangovers than everyone i know.
Did you get good sleep? If you eat fruits and get good sleep you're fine. Just make sure you don't have work the next day. I guess hangovers are more manageable, for me they're absolute death but a vomit later and I'm fine
and I've gone into uni slightly drunk/hangover take your pick but would never do that after MDMA.Although there was one time on MDMA where I had 4 hours of sleep, my mates then got me to go half way round the city and play football then get smashed on alcohol the night after, that's possibly the worst I've felt in my life.
Original post by Spetznaaz
I can honestly say i've never felt anything but absolute death after using MDMA. Then again i seem to suffer worse hangovers than everyone i know.
You're not alone there. I've done it a lot of times & I always feel like ****.
Then again, it usually ends in an after party in which lots of different drugs are had, and if you've got enough weed and fruit (fruit really sorts out a comedown), you're fine.
Original post by jam277
Worst you'd get with MDMA is it stop working on you(I've done both 3x a week btw). Provided you don't overdose btw as obviously that ****'s lethal just like alcohol is. But tbh a rest sorts you out personally and if your serotonin isn't depleted when you use MDMA you feel quite good when you wake up.
Only problems you get with MDMA disregarding overdoses are depression and it stop working on you permanantly(figures are if you do it once a week or 2 for 5 years it stops working due to irreversible neuronal damage/connections.
Only problems you get with MDMA disregarding overdoses are depression and it stop working on you permanantly(figures are if you do it once a week or 2 for 5 years it stops working due to irreversible neuronal damage/connections.
A fair amount of human studies show neurotoxic effects particularly on serotonin pathways when it's taken regularly, it can like you said lead to depression and permenant cognitive changes - true that when used infrequently there aren't really many long term risks but that can be said of alcohol as well. If you're comparing the risks of drugs then it's a little biased to compare one being used very frequently and one being used very infrequently, considering both of them don't have a particularly huge potential for addiction like heroin or crack cocaine
Original post by Spetznaaz
I'm pretty sure studies have shown rolling tobacco to be just as harmful as straights.
Cannabis smoke is certainly not "4 times more carcinogenic than cigarette smoke". It is less harmful than tobacco smoke, but still harmful.
David Nutt is a pretty smart guy. I've been to some of his lectures, and even served him a few times at work where we had a good chat about his current work. I assure you he knows what he is talking about. Maybe something to do with his PHD in psychopharmacology.
Cannabis smoke is certainly not "4 times more carcinogenic than cigarette smoke". It is less harmful than tobacco smoke, but still harmful.
David Nutt is a pretty smart guy. I've been to some of his lectures, and even served him a few times at work where we had a good chat about his current work. I assure you he knows what he is talking about. Maybe something to do with his PHD in psychopharmacology.
All I'm saying is his "harm to others" section is pretty vague. From my perspective, Illegal drugs cause more harm to others than legal ones, due to the processes by which they are manufactured and distributed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2419713.stm - British lung foundation probably know what they're talking about. I concede that this is only one link, and there are many other studies and opinions.
No need to have such a tone.Your intonation is painfully apparent even over the internet. Congratulations for serving him. I don't need to believe any random study as gospel, however, and neither should you. Especially when I don't know the reasons behind the study, and the measurements used to obtain the results.There are many opinions on this matter, which is evident from the amount of varied responses in this thread. I was merely questioning the results of his study, especially how he quantifies harm, which is what people are supposed to do with results.
Not everything written by anyone with a PHD will be fact. Yes, it indicates that he is knowledgeable, and his opinion in this matter is therefore more important than mine. That doesn't mean however that I shouldn't be allowed a perspective on the matter, and that I should take your word that, from the chat you had with him, he seemed to know what he was talking about.
Alcohol is by far the worst one......
Original post by jam277
Did you get good sleep? If you eat fruits and get good sleep you're fine. Just make sure you don't have work the next day. I guess hangovers are more manageable, for me they're absolute death but a vomit later and I'm fine and I've gone into uni slightly drunk/hangover take your pick but would never do that after MDMA.
Although there was one time on MDMA where I had 4 hours of sleep, my mates then got me to go half way round the city and play football then get smashed on alcohol the night after, that's possibly the worst I've felt in my life.
and I've gone into uni slightly drunk/hangover take your pick but would never do that after MDMA.Although there was one time on MDMA where I had 4 hours of sleep, my mates then got me to go half way round the city and play football then get smashed on alcohol the night after, that's possibly the worst I've felt in my life.
I can never sleep after MD. If i did it on say Friday night, i'd finally get to sleep about 4pm saturday, and still feel like **** Sunday and even Monday. I take vitamin-e before and after and 5-htp after as well. I think my brain just lacks serotonin lol. I very rarely do MDMA, it's a special occasion kind of thing for me.
Original post by bertstare
A fair amount of human studies show neurotoxic effects particularly on serotonin pathways when it's taken regularly, it can like you said lead to depression and permenant cognitive changes - true that when used infrequently there aren't really many long term risks but that can be said of alcohol as well. If you're comparing the risks of drugs then it's a little biased to compare one being used very frequently and one being used very infrequently, considering both of them don't have a particularly huge potential for addiction like heroin or crack cocaine
As far as i'm aware there are also a number of studies disproving any neurotoxic effects from MDMA. It's still a debated subject, but most MDMA users do not use it regularly. When they compare drugs, it's general pattern of use is obviously taken into account. It would be silly to compare the harms of one drug that people use frequently, to the harms of another drug WHEN used frequently, even though generally people who use said drug do not use it frequently.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Liam_G
This graph seems a little ridiculous. I guess the "harm to others" section of the graph accounts for drink drivers, which is why it's so high. I would hardly trust someone to drive a car who's just injected a **** load of heroin into their body either. The harm to self section for heroin is only slightly larger than alcohol too. Really? I consumed alcohol on average 1-2 times a week during my 9 months at uni. I came back for summer, and haven't touched alcohol for the last 2 and a half months. I'm guessing that if I used heroin twice a week for nine months, I'd have been having some serious withdrawals.
Pretty misleading to go with tobacco as apposed to cigarettes, or nicotine too. As cigarettes are much more harmful than tobacco, the second hand smoke causes a lot more damage to others, and much more people use cigarettes rather than straight tobacco. Surprised by the harm to others section for cannabis, too. Considering that I heard the second hand smoke from it is 4 times more carcinogenic than cigarette smoke.
Pretty misleading to go with tobacco as apposed to cigarettes, or nicotine too. As cigarettes are much more harmful than tobacco, the second hand smoke causes a lot more damage to others, and much more people use cigarettes rather than straight tobacco. Surprised by the harm to others section for cannabis, too. Considering that I heard the second hand smoke from it is 4 times more carcinogenic than cigarette smoke.
There are problems with it but I still think it's useful as a demonstration of the level of harm each drug carries.
Original post by Liam_G
But seriously. Alcohol scoring 20 points higher than Heroin. What the hell. If you're accounting for harm to others, surely you should consider drug smuggling, the fact that heroin isn't taxed, and links between Class A illegal drugs and trafficking (?)
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by bertstare
A fair amount of human studies show neurotoxic effects particularly on serotonin pathways when it's taken regularly, it can like you said lead to depression and permenant cognitive changes - true that when used infrequently there aren't really many long term risks but that can be said of alcohol as well. If you're comparing the risks of drugs then it's a little biased to compare one being used very frequently and one being used very infrequently, considering both of them don't have a particularly huge potential for addiction like heroin or crack cocaine
You have a good point here. I'd say that leads to the question of which one is worse when used insensibly? I would say that it's something that also depends on the volume/weight of MDMA/alcohol you use, the frequency you use it at etc. While its easy to find such figures on alcohol, it's much harder to find it on MDMA, baring in mind the lack of purity, different forms of MDMA(tablets/powder) it's very hard to find figures as it's not a standardized drug. When it's much easier to do so of alcohol, where you know that your carlsberg export is ~5% alcohol and your amaretto is 23%.
Original post by Logi
"The weighting process is necessarily based on judgement, so it is best done by a group of experts working to consensus,". Here's a break down of that graph:
The most obvious problem with it to me is that it doesn't weigh the elements against each other (at least I don't think it does). For example the maximum for crime appears to be comparable to the maximum for environmental damage. While weighting these would only further add to the subjectiveness of the graph I think we can agree that they are not all comparable with one another.
With that said I still think it's useful as a demonstration of the level of harm each drug carries.]
The most obvious problem with it to me is that it doesn't weigh the elements against each other (at least I don't think it does). For example the maximum for crime appears to be comparable to the maximum for environmental damage. While weighting these would only further add to the subjectiveness of the graph I think we can agree that they are not all comparable with one another.
With that said I still think it's useful as a demonstration of the level of harm each drug carries.]
Thank you
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Spetznaaz
I can never sleep after MD. If i did it on say Friday night, i'd finally get to sleep about 4pm saturday, and still feel like **** Sunday and even Monday. I take vitamin-e before and after and 5-htp after as well. I think my brain just lacks serotonin lol. I very rarely do MDMA, it's a special occasion kind of thing for me.
You must take a lot or have low serotonin. I found that happened to me one time and I slept at 10am
but usually I go straight to bed as soon as I come down.I get tuesday blues occasionally. Although I think that's psychological, when I'm in a good frame of mind I don't get that.
Original post by Spetznaaz
I can never sleep after MD. If i did it on say Friday night, i'd finally get to sleep about 4pm saturday, and still feel like **** Sunday and even Monday. I take vitamin-e before and after and 5-htp after as well. I think my brain just lacks serotonin lol. I very rarely do MDMA, it's a special occasion kind of thing for me.
As far as i'm aware there are also a number of studies disproving any neurotoxic effects from MDMA. It's still a debated subject, but most MDMA users do not use it regularly. When they compare drugs, it's general pattern of use is obviously taken into account. It would be silly to compare the harms of one drug that people use frequently, to the harms of another drug WHEN used frequently, even though generally people who use said drug do not use it frequently.
As far as i'm aware there are also a number of studies disproving any neurotoxic effects from MDMA. It's still a debated subject, but most MDMA users do not use it regularly. When they compare drugs, it's general pattern of use is obviously taken into account. It would be silly to compare the harms of one drug that people use frequently, to the harms of another drug WHEN used frequently, even though generally people who use said drug do not use it frequently.
More of a societal thing than anything. Alcohol is the socially accepted drug of choice during any kind of social event - as a result people use it frequently. But in itself it isn't a particularly harmful drug when consumed in moderation, even seems to offer some supposed health benefits. Bit like saying food is more dangerous than MDMA because far more people die of obesity related complications than they do of MDMA use - a societal issue and nothing really to do with food itself
From a Chemist's perspective it frankly scares me that people will happily buy any of these substances off some random person with no way of quantifying the purity or identity of what you've purchased. And before you think oh I'm just being boring, I know in 99% of cases you will take the substance and have absolutely no repercussions.
However I don't care about the 99%; I care about the 1% who will die from an overdose, or some other toxicity.
My view is to legalise and regulate, but that's an aside.
However I don't care about the 99%; I care about the 1% who will die from an overdose, or some other toxicity.
My view is to legalise and regulate, but that's an aside.
Original post by Liam_G
All I'm saying is his "harm to others" section is pretty vague. From my perspective, Illegal drugs cause more harm to others than legal ones, due to the processes by which they are manufactured and distributed.
The harm caused by the manufacture of drugs was not taken into account because the study was to asses the direct harms caused by drugs and not their production.
Also, the harms associated with the production of drugs are a direct result of the anti-drug laws, not of the drugs themselves.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2419713.stm - British lung foundation probably know what they're talking about. I concede that this is only one link, and there are many other studies and opinions.
It may or may not be that study, but the big main study everyone quotes when comparing cannabis smoke to tobacco smoke was completely flawed, and the guy who wrote it himself admitted it was flawed.
There are many studies to show cannabis smoke is much less harmful.
Not to mention, cannabis is not sprayed with a carcinogenic/mutagenic pesticide like tobacco is.
No need to have such a tone.Your intonation is painfully apparent even over the internet. Congratulations for serving him. I don't need to believe any random study as gospel, however, and neither should you. Especially when I don't know the reasons behind the study, and the measurements used to obtain the results.There are many opinions on this matter, which is evident from the amount of varied responses in this thread. I was merely questioning the results of his study, especially how he quantifies harm, which is what people are supposed to do with results.
I didn't realise i had a "tone" this is how i type.
I don't believe "random studies". I have probably done more reading on drugs and their pharmacology, affects, harms etc than i have for my entire degree. I didn't bother to check if that graph was the actual one from the study i'm thinking, but if it was, it was one of the largest studies done regarding drug harm and it took a number of factors into account.
Not everything written by anyone with a PHD will be fact. Yes, it indicates that he is knowledgeable, and his opinion in this matter is therefore more important than mine. That doesn't mean however that I shouldn't be allowed a perspective on the matter, and that I should take your word that, from the chat you had with him, he seemed to know what he was talking about.
I say that he knows what he's talking about, not because i have spoken to him in person, but because i have done extensive reading surrounding all of his work, reasoning, methods etc, and not to mention, the study i am referring to with the list of drug harms, was done by a whole panel of experts.
You are allowed any perspective you want. All i am saying is, i know a lot about this subject, and the graph/study in question, and it stands its ground very well.
Don't take my word for anything, if you're generally interested, research for yourself.
Prof Nutt's specific line of work is basically how drugs work and affect us, he is a hell of a lot more qualified than the people i've seen trying to say the drugs harm list is BS.
Original post by haydyb123
From a Chemist's perspective it frankly scares me that people will happily buy any of these substances off some random person with no way of quantifying the purity or identity of what you've purchased. And before you think oh I'm just being boring, I know in 99% of cases you will take the substance and have absolutely no repercussions.
However I don't care about the 99%; I care about the 1% who will die from an overdose, or some other toxicity.
My view is to legalise and regulate, but that's an aside.
However I don't care about the 99%; I care about the 1% who will die from an overdose, or some other toxicity.
My view is to legalise and regulate, but that's an aside.
I'm surprised that as a chemist you are not aware of the simple reagent tests that can be used to verify that what you purchased is say MDMA, or Cocaine etc. Also surely you are aware of the many other ways you have to verify if what your being sold is what you think it is.
You're right, you can't quantify the purity, but you can take an educated guess simply by testing some. Overdosing is only really an issue with mainlining drugs.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by That Bearded Man
Of all those drugs, violence caused by consummation of said drug are probably highest and most serious with GHB, plus alcohol 2nd.
Definitely for violence, alcohol is more commonly abused though, I wouldn't say there is a most dangerous drug since drugs can cause problems in different ways.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
