The report, written by two former British government advisers, David Nutt and Leslie King, aims to develop more effective state policies to mitigate the social impact of addictive substances, including snuff was also included.
The task is not easy given the wide range of harmful effects that drugs can have on consumers and their environment, as the authors explain in the preface of the investigation. A previous study led by Nutt in 2007 caused controversy by establishing nine main criteria of harm, since the intrinsic evil of drugs to health care costs it generates, each with an equal weight in the final evaluation evaluative and the effects of alcohol.
For best results, this study used the so-called Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), a technique that has been used successfully to advise the authorities on issues with many edges as the storage of nuclear waste.
Alcohol Effects
Nine of the criteria used in this study had to do with the harm that drugs cause in the individual and seven to the damage caused to others, all of which were divided into five subgroups related to the physical, psychological and social and the effects of alcohol..
The substances were rated from 0 to 100, with 100 being the maximum level of damage in each specific criterion. The nine categories of harm to the individual were mortality due to direct consumption, consumption-related mortality, direct damage due to consumption, damage from consumption, dependency, mental disability because of consumption, loss of skills of perception, damage personal relationships and injuries.
Alcohol, crack and heroinNine of the criteria used in this study had to do with the harm that drugs cause in the individual and seven to the damage caused to others, all of which were divided into five subgroups related to the physical, psychological and social and the effects of alcohol..
The substances were rated from 0 to 100, with 100 being the maximum level of damage in each specific criterion. The nine categories of harm to the individual were mortality due to direct consumption, consumption-related mortality, direct damage due to consumption, damage from consumption, dependency, mental disability because of consumption, loss of skills of perception, damage personal relationships and injuries.
Taking all these matters into account, alcohol scored 72, followed by heroin (55) and crack (54).
The other drugs were crystal methamphetamine (33), cocaine (27), snuff (26), amphetamines (23), cannabis (20), gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (18), benzodiazepines (15), ketamine (15) , methadone (14), mefedrona (13), butane (10), khat (9), ecstasy (9), anabolic steroids (9), LSD (7), buprenorphine (6) and fungi (5).
With these results, the study's authors emphasized that the alcohol, besides being the most harmful drugs in general, is almost three times more harmful than cocaine and snuff and the effects of alcohol..
The authors noted that heroin, crack and crystal methamphetamine were the most harmful substances for the individual who takes them, while alcohol, heroin and crack led the list of the most damaging to the immediate environment.
Professor Nutt, who resigned a few months ago from his position as adviser to the British Government on drug issues after saying that ecstasy was less dangerous than horseback riding, defended the classification model, recalling that is the most accurate known to now to these issues and the effects of alcohol.
"Finding the necessary counterweight is crucial in influencing the overall results. This process must necessarily be based on estimates and opinions, so that the best way of doing this is based on the consensus of a group of experts working in a together, "she said.
