Scientists Have Ranked 9 Recreational Drugs From Safest to Most Dangerous
A 2017 Global Drug Survey (GDS) covering hundreds of thousands of people around the world has ranked recreational drugs from the safest to the most dangerous, based on how many hospital admissions they lead to.
more…
Don’t take the brown acid…
furious said:
Don’t take the brown acid…
Only cannabis here
furious said:
Don’t take the brown acid…
Woodstock.
They don’t appeared to have weighted those stats by usage.
dv said:
They don’t appeared to have weighted those stats by usage.
Hospital admissions.
Tau.Neutrino said:
dv said:
They don’t appeared to have weighted those stats by usage.
Hospital admissions.
Right.
You understand my point?
If you were assessing the safety of the drugs, you’d weight them by usage.
An extremely rarely used drug will cause few hospital admissions, even if it is extremely dangerous.
dv said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
dv said:
They don’t appeared to have weighted those stats by usage.
Hospital admissions.
Right.
You understand my point?
If you were assessing the safety of the drugs, you’d weight them by usage.
An extremely rarely used drug will cause few hospital admissions, even if it is extremely dangerous.
Is looking at hospital admissions accurate as it does not include non hospital admissions of people who use drugs?
Here is their website
https://www.globaldrugsurvey.com/
and press release
https://www.globaldrugsurvey.com/wp-content/themes/globaldrugsurvey/results/GDS2018-Core-Press-Release.pdf
Tau.Neutrino said:
dv said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Hospital admissions.
Right.
You understand my point?
If you were assessing the safety of the drugs, you’d weight them by usage.
An extremely rarely used drug will cause few hospital admissions, even if it is extremely dangerous.
Is looking at hospital admissions accurate as it does not include non hospital admissions of people who use drugs?
Looking at hospital admissions is fine but you have to weight it by usage.
If 20000000 people smoke marijuana and there are 5 hospital admissions, and 100 people do Krokodil and there are 3 hospital admissions, then obviously marijuana is safer than Krokodil.
dv said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
dv said:Right.
You understand my point?
If you were assessing the safety of the drugs, you’d weight them by usage.
An extremely rarely used drug will cause few hospital admissions, even if it is extremely dangerous.
Is looking at hospital admissions accurate as it does not include non hospital admissions of people who use drugs?
Looking at hospital admissions is fine but you have to weight it by usage.
If 20000000 people smoke marijuana and there are 5 hospital admissions, and 100 people do Krokodil and there are 3 hospital admissions, then obviously marijuana is safer than Krokodil.
The comparison is based on percentages. Marijuana globally (among those respondents who actually told the truth) has a 0.6% emergency hospitalisation rate.
So if 20,000,000 people smoke marijuana then there would be 120,000 emergency hospital admissions, not 5. The paper actually says 60,000 emergency hospital admissions from marijuana, so presumably 10,000,000 people smoke it.
Alcohol has a 1.3% emergency hospitalisation rate.
Synthetic cannabis, whatever the heck that is, has a 3.2% emergency hospitalisation rate.
Methamphetamine is worse.
> In Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria there is now a ‘blanket ban’ on possessing or selling any substance that has a psychoactive effect other than alcohol, tobacco and food.
That had better not be right. Lots of legal drugs should have psychoactive effects.
mollwollfumble said:
> In Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria there is now a ‘blanket ban’ on possessing or selling any substance that has a psychoactive effect other than alcohol, tobacco and food.That had better not be right. Lots of legal drugs should have psychoactive effects.
Telling people what they can or cannot put into their own bodies is Government bullying.
mollwollfumble said:
> In Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria there is now a ‘blanket ban’ on possessing or selling any substance that has a psychoactive effect other than alcohol, tobacco and food.That had better not be right. Lots of legal drugs should have psychoactive effects.
They would overlook that…it probably even went over their heads.
mollwollfumble said:
Alcohol has a 1.3% emergency hospitalisation rate.
I find that very hard to believe… (or the statistics are VERY skewed)
Dropbear said:
mollwollfumble said:Alcohol has a 1.3% emergency hospitalisation rate.
I find that very hard to believe… (or the statistics are VERY skewed)
High or low ?
Cymek said:
Dropbear said:
mollwollfumble said:Alcohol has a 1.3% emergency hospitalisation rate.
I find that very hard to believe… (or the statistics are VERY skewed)
High or low ?
I cannot believe 1.3 out of 100 sessions of alcohol consumption lead to an emergency hospitalisation..
a lot of my mates would never leave the place.
Cymek said:
Dropbear said:
mollwollfumble said:Alcohol has a 1.3% emergency hospitalisation rate.
I find that very hard to believe… (or the statistics are VERY skewed)
High or low ?
I cannot believe 1.3 out of 100 sessions of alcohol consumption lead to an emergency hospitalisation..
a lot of my mates would never leave the place.