[Vision2020] Lancet Medical Journal: Rational Scale to Assess Harmof Drugs

[lfalen]

Ted
I agree with most of your post except for some of your causes and solution.
The war on drugs has not worked any better than prohibition did. Drug use should be decimalized.Those  that place others in harms way by using drugs should be subject to the same penalties ans DUI.  I would be in favor of the death penalty for members of the drug cartels.
Making drug use legal will not cure the drug problem anymore than the end of prohibition solved alcoholism, but it would reduce the problem and reduce crime just as ending prohibition did. Marijuana should be in the same category as alcohol and tobacco. Meth and heroin are much more dangerous. D.A.R.E and the Idaho Meth Project are good organizations and should be promoted. Put more effort into prevention and treatment. Do not jail users. Increase self help programs and job training. Bring inspiring stories of those who have started within nothing and made it big to the inner cities and other poverty stricken areas (George Washington Carver, Booker T. Washington, Frederick Douglas. Luther Burbank, Jack Simplot). Bring 4- H programs to the inner city.

Roger

-----Original message-----
From: "Ted Moffett" starbliss at gmail.com
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 18:43:23 -0700
To: "vision 2020" vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] Lancet Medical Journal: Rational Scale to Assess Harmof Drugs

> After the post from Tim Lohrmann on law enforcement conduct discussed in the
> video below, it seemed appropriate to objectively assess the medical and
> social facts regarding the harm to society from various drugs, and how these
> facts are rationally, or not, reflected in drug laws,
> enforcement, access, and regulation:
> 
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4838183480791433140&ei=FSGeSKajNam0qAP68NDQCg&q=maryland+mayor+drug+raid&vt=lf&hl=en
> 
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-August/055344.html
> --------------------
> Access to this "Lancet" medical journal study is restricted,
> though registration for the full text of this article if offered for free.
> I offer the text in full below.  The charts and tables do not show, so the
> simple 1-20 ratings of the relative harm of various drugs is at the top.
> 
> Note alcohol is rated fifth most harmful, tobacco rated ninth, just below
> number eight amphetamine.  I don't agree with the relative rating of the
> drugs in all cases (Cannabis at 11 and LSD at 14?), but the method used is
> based on a wide sampling of relevant professional opinion.  Perhaps the
> ratings in part express how widespread the use of each drug is, rather than
> the danger of use per "dosage" per person.
> 
> Why do we allow any advertising, and sale of tobacco and alcohol at grocery
> or convenience stores, given the harm of promotion of these drugs?  I am not
> advocating making use of tobacco or alcohol more criminalized.
> 
> Harsh criminalization of drug use (I am not suggesting total unregulated
> legalization of drugs...even alcohol and tobacco are illegal for those
> underage) is a failed policy that creates a class of well paid profit
> seeking business people, always finding clever ways to elude detection, who
> often use mules, also well paid, for the risky aspects of the business,
> insulating the "upper management " from law enforcement, turns casual users
> and low level sellers into criminals by the millions (the cost of arresting,
> prosecuting and jailing all these offenders is incredible), and undermines
> civil rights, as the video under discussion amply demonstrates.
> 
> Drug abuse can be mitigated by solving other social problems that are
> associated with this destructive behavior, such as poverty and low paying
> jobs that are a joke compared to the profits to be made in the drug
> trade, domestic violence, family dysfunction, and lack of education, among
> other problems... Widespread drug abuse is a symptom of
> social/economic/political/spiritual dysfunction.  The causes of this
> dysfunction should be addressed.  If drug abuse was lessened, the market
> would be reduced.  As long as there is a strong demand, someone will supply,
> given the profits.
> 
> Amazing that those who promote the virtues of free market capitalism
> advocate massive government interference and draconian criminalization in
> the free market for a product consumers clearly demand and freely chose to
> use.  The success of the illegal drug trade, given the billions government
> ostensibly spends to stop this business and the number jailed, is a
> demonstration of the power of supply and demand in the marketplace.  It
> seems the example of illegal drugs poses a serious theoretical problem for
> the advocates of free markets who impose their morality to restrict the
> market in this case.  At least the late Milton Friedman, famous free market
> advocate and Noble Prize winning economist, was consistent on this issue,
> calling the "war on drugs" a "socialist enterprise."
> 
> http://www.druglibrary.org/special/friedman/socialist.htm
> ---------------
> I don't think the problem of drug abuse can be solved completely, just as
> stopping murder or war totally seems impossible.  Some people will abuse
> drugs no matter how perfect our world, just as some will eat themselves into
> obesity and heart disease, at great cost to society (should we criminalize
> Haagen Dazs ice cream and McDonalds double cheeseburgers?).  The government
> should not be everyones nanny...
> 
> The legal drugs alcohol and tobacco (odd how they are usually called
> "legal," yet they are not legal for those underage, a not trivial segment of
> the population, who have very easy access, making a mockery of the underage
> laws), of considerable power and harm to society, should not be dispensed in
> check out lines to families along with eggs, milk and bread (what message
> does this send to impressionable minds?), nor should multimillion dollar
> advertising campaigns be allowed.  Maybe keep alcohol and tobacco in liquor
> stores, and ban all advertising for them.
> 
> Does anyone doubt that the fact that wine, beer and tobacco are available in
> grocery stores, and are still legally promoted by advertising, is due to the
> huge profits generated by widespread convenient access to these dangerous
> addictive substances, and the lobbying by the alcohol and tobacco industries
> to block more restrictive regulation?
> 
> Ted Moffett
> --------------------------------
> Most dangerous drugs
> 
> Research recently published in the medical journal The Lancet rates the most
> dangerous drugs (starting with the worst) as follows:
>  *1. *Heroin
> *2. *Cocaine
> *3. *Barbiturates
> *4. *Street methadone
> *5. *Alcohol
> *6. *Ketamine
> *7. *Benzodiazepines
> *8. *Amphetamine
> *9. *Tobacco
> *10. *Buprenorphine
> *11. *Cannabis
> *12. *Solvents
> *13. *4-MTA
> *14. *LSD
> *15. *Methylphenidate
> *16. *Anabolic steroids
> *17. *GHB
> *18. *Ecstasy
> *19. *Alkyl nitrates
> *20. *Khat
> --------------------------
> http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/abstract
> 
> The Lancet 2007; 369:1047-1053
> DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4
> 
> *Health Policy*
> 
> Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential
> misuse
> 
> Prof David Nutt<http://www.thelancet.com/search/results?search_mode=cluster&search_area=cluster&search_cluster=thelancet&search_sort=date&restrictname_author=author&restricttype_author=author&restrictterm_author=nutt0d&restrictdesc_author=David+Nutt>FMedSci
>  [image: email address] <david.j.nutt at bristol.ac.uk>
> a<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#aff1>
>  [image: Corresponding Author
> Information]<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#cor1>,
>   Leslie A King<http://www.thelancet.com/search/results?search_mode=cluster&search_area=cluster&search_cluster=thelancet&search_sort=date&restrictname_author=author&restricttype_author=author&restrictterm_author=king0la&restrictdesc_author=Leslie+A+King>PhD
>  b<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#aff2>,
>   William Saulsbury<http://www.thelancet.com/search/results?search_mode=cluster&search_area=cluster&search_cluster=thelancet&search_sort=date&restrictname_author=author&restricttype_author=author&restrictterm_author=saulsbury0w&restrictdesc_author=William+Saulsbury>MA
>  c<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#aff3>
>  and
> Prof Colin Blakemore<http://www.thelancet.com/search/results?search_mode=cluster&search_area=cluster&search_cluster=thelancet&search_sort=date&restrictname_author=author&restricttype_author=author&restrictterm_author=blakemore0c&restrictdesc_author=Colin+Blakemore>FRS
>  d<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#aff4>
>  e<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#aff5>
> 
>  See Comment<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604711/fulltext>
>  Summary
> 
> Drug misuse and abuse are major health problems. Harmful drugs are regulated
> according to classification systems that purport to relate to the harms and
> risks of each drug. However, the methodology and processes underlying
> classification systems are generally neither specified nor transparent,
> which reduces confidence in their accuracy and undermines health education
> messages. We developed and explored the feasibility of the use of a
> nine-category matrix of harm, with an expert delphic procedure, to assess
> the harms of a range of illicit drugs in an evidence-based fashion. We also
> included five legal drugs of misuse (alcohol, khat, solvents, alkyl
> nitrites, and tobacco) and one that has since been classified (ketamine) for
> reference. The process proved practicable, and yielded roughly similar
> scores and rankings of drug harm when used by two separate groups of
> experts. The ranking of drugs produced by our assessment of harm differed
> from those used by current regulatory systems. Our methodology offers a
> systematic framework and process that could be used by national and
> international regulatory bodies to assess the harm of current and future
> drugs of abuse.
> Back to top<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#article-outline>
> 
>   Introduction
> 
> Drug misuse is one of the major social, legal, and public-health challenges
> in the modern world. In the UK, the total burden of drug misuse, in terms of
> health, social, and crime-related costs, has been estimated to be between
> £10 billion and £16 billion per
> year,1<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#bib1>with
> the global burden being proportionately enormous.
> 2,3<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#bib2>
> 
> Current approaches to counter drug misuse are interdiction of supply (via
> policing and customs control), education, and treatment. All three demand
> clarity in terms of the relative risks and harms that drugs engender. At
> present, in the UK, attitudes to policing and the punishments for possession
> and supply of drugs are scaled according to their classification under the
> Misuse of Drugs Act of
> 1971,4<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#bib4>while
> education and health-care provision are nominally tailored to the
> known actions and harms of specific drugs. Most other countries and
> international agencies—eg, the UN and WHO—have drug classification systems
> that purport to be structured according to the relative risks and dangers of
> illicit drugs. However, the process by which harms are determined is often
> undisclosed, and when made public can be ill-defined, opaque, and seemingly
> arbitrary. In part, this lack of clarity is due to the great range and
> complexity of factors that have to be taken into account in estimation of
> harm and the fact that scientific evidence is not only limited in many of
> the relevant areas but also evolves progressively and in unpredictable ways.
> 
> These qualifications apply to the evidence base of the current UK Misuse of
> Drugs Act, in which drugs are segregated into three classes—A, B, and C—that
> are intended to indicate the dangers of each drug, class A being the most
> harmful and class C the least. The classification of a drug has several
> consequences, in particular determining the legal penalties for importation,
> supply, and possession, as well as the degree of police effort targeted at
> restricting its use. The current classification system has evolved in an
> unsystematic way from somewhat arbitrary foundations with seemingly little
> scientific basis.
> 
> Here, we suggest a new system for assessing the potential harms of
> individual drugs on the basis of fact and scientific knowledge. This system
> is able to respond to evolving evidence about the potential harm of current
> drugs and to rank the threat presented by any new street drug.
>  Categories of harm
> 
> There are three main factors that together determine the harm associated
> with any drug of potential abuse: the physical harm to the individual user
> caused by the drug; the tendency of the drug to induce dependence; and the
> effect of drug use on families, communities, and
> society.5–8<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#bib5>
>  Physical
> 
> Assessment of the propensity of a drug to cause physical harm—ie, damage to
> organs or systems—involves a systematic consideration of the safety margin
> of the drug in terms of its acute toxicity, as well as its likelihood to
> produce health problems in the long term. The effect of a drug on
> physiological functions—eg, respiratory and cardiac—is a major determinant
> of physical harm. The route of administration is also relevant to the
> assessment of harm. Drugs that can be taken intravenously—eg, heroin—carry a
> high risk of causing sudden death from respiratory depression, and therefore
> score highly on any metric of acute harm. Tobacco and alcohol have a high
> propensity to cause illness and death as a result of chronic use. Recently
> published evidence shows that long-term cigarette smoking reduces life
> expectancy, on average, by 10
> years.9<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#bib9>Tobacco
> and alcohol together account for about 90% of all drug-related
> deaths in the UK.
> 
> The UK Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority, in common with similar
> bodies in Europe, the USA, and elsewhere, has well-established methods to
> assess the safety of medicinal drugs, which can be used as the basis of this
> element of risk appraisal. Indeed several drugs of abuse have licensed
> indications in medicine and will therefore have had such appraisals, albeit,
> in most cases, many years ago.
> 
> Three separate facets of physical harm can be identified. First, acute
> physical harm—ie, the immediate effects (eg, respiratory depression with
> opioids, acute cardiac crises with cocaine, and fatal poisonings). The acute
> toxicity of drugs is often measured by assessing the ratio of lethal dose to
> usual or therapeutic dose. Such data are available for many of the drugs we
> assess here.5–7<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#bib5>Second,
> chronic physical harm—ie, the health consequences of repeated use
> (eg, psychosis with stimulants, possible lung disease with cannabis).
> Finally, there are specific problems associated with intravenous drug use.
> 
> The route of administration is relevant not only to acute toxicity but also
> to so-called secondary harms. For instance, administration of drugs by the
> intravenous route can lead to the spread of blood-borne viruses such as
> hepatitis viruses and HIV, which have huge health implications for the
> individual and society. The potential for intravenous use is currently taken
> into account in the Misuse of Drugs Act classification and was treated as a
> separate parameter in our exercise.
>  Dependence
> 
> This dimension of harm involves interdependent elements—the pleasurable
> effects of the drug and its propensity to produce dependent behaviour.
> Highly pleasurable drugs such as opioids and cocaine are commonly abused,
> and the street value of drugs is generally determined by their pleasurable
> potential. Drug-induced pleasure has two components—the initial, rapid
> effect (colloquially known as the rush) and the euphoria that follows this,
> often extending over several hours (the high). The faster the drug enters
> the brain the stronger the rush, which is why there is a drive to formulate
> street drugs in ways that allow them to be injected intravenously or smoked:
> in both cases, effects on the brain can occur within 30 seconds. Heroin,
> crack cocaine, tobacco (nicotine), and cannabis (tetrahydrocannabinol) are
> all taken by one or other of these rapid routes. Absorption through the
> nasal mucosa, as with powdered cocaine, is also surprisingly rapid. Taking
> the same drugs by mouth, so that they are only slowly absorbed into the
> body, generally has a less powerful pleasurable effect, although it can be
> longer lasting.
> 
> An essential feature of drugs of abuse is that they encourage repeated use.
> This tendency is driven by various factors and mechanisms. The special
> nature of drug experiences certainly has a role. Indeed, in the case of
> hallucinogens (eg, lysergic acid diethylamide [LSD], mescaline, etc) it
> might be the only factor that drives regular use, and such drugs are mostly
> used infrequently. At the other extreme are drugs such as crack cocaine and
> nicotine, which, for most users, induce powerful dependence. Physical
> dependence or addiction involves increasing tolerance (ie, progressively
> higher doses being needed for the same effect), intense craving, and
> withdrawal reactions—eg, tremors, diarrhoea, sweating, and
> sleeplessness—when drug use is stopped. These effects indicate that adaptive
> changes occur as a result of drug use. Addictive drugs are generally used
> repeatedly and frequently, partly because of the power of the craving and
> partly to avoid withdrawal.
> 
> Psychological dependence is also characterised by repeated use of a drug,
> but without tolerance or physical symptoms directly related to drug
> withdrawal. Some drugs can lead to habitual use that seems to rest more on
> craving than physical withdrawal symptoms. For instance, cannabis use can
> lead to measurable withdrawal symptoms, but only several days after stopping
> long-standing use. Some drugs—eg, the benzodiazepines—can induce
> psychological dependence without tolerance, and physical withdrawal symptoms
> occur through fear of stopping. This form of dependence is less well studied
> and understood than is addiction but it is a genuine experience, in the
> sense that withdrawal symptoms can be induced simply by persuading a drug
> user that the drug dose is being progressively reduced although it is, in
> fact, being maintained at a constant
> level.10<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#bib10>
> 
> The features of drugs that lead to dependence and withdrawal reactions have
> been reasonably well characterised. The half-life of the drug has an
> effect—those drugs that are cleared rapidly from the body tend to provoke
> more extreme reactions. The pharmacodynamic efficacy of the drug also has a
> role; the more efficacious it is, the greater the dependence. Finally, the
> degree of tolerance that develops on repeated use is also a factor: the
> greater the tolerance, the greater the dependence and withdrawal.
> 
> For many drugs there is a good correlation between events that occur in
> human beings and those observed in studies on animals. Also, drugs that
> share molecular specificity (ie, that bind with or interact with the same
> target molecules in the brain) tend to have similar pharmacological effects.
> Hence, some sensible predictions can be made about new compounds before they
> are used by human beings. Experimental studies of the dependence potential
> of old and new drugs are possible only in individuals who are already using
> drugs, so more population-based estimates of addictiveness (ie, capture
> rates) have been developed for the more commonly used
> drugs.11<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#bib11>These
> estimates suggest that smoked tobacco is the most addictive commonly
> used drug, with heroin and alcohol somewhat less so; psychedelics have a low
> addictive propensity.
>  Social
> 
> Drugs harm society in several ways—eg, through the various effects of
> intoxication, through damaging family and social life, and through the costs
> to systems of health care, social care, and police. Drugs that lead to
> intense intoxication are associated with huge costs in terms of accidental
> damage to the user, to others, and to property. Alcohol intoxication, for
> instance, often leads to violent behaviour and is a common cause of car and
> other accidents. Many drugs cause major damage to the family, either because
> of the effect of intoxication or because they distort the motivations of
> users, taking them away from their families and into drug-related
> activities, including crime.
> 
> Societal damage also occurs through the immense health-care costs of some
> drugs. Tobacco is estimated to cause up to 40% of all hospital illness and
> 60% of drug-related fatalities. Alcohol is involved in over half of all
> visits to accident and emergency departments and orthopaedic
> admissions.12<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#bib12>However,
> these drugs also generate tax revenue that can offset their health
> costs to some extent. Intravenous drug delivery brings particular problems
> in terms of blood-borne virus infections, especially HIV and hepatitis,
> leading to the infection of sexual partners as well as needle sharers. For
> drugs that have only recently become popular—eg,
> 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine, better known as ecstasy or MDMA—the
> longer-term health and social consequences can be estimated only from animal
> toxicology at present. Of course, the overall use of a drug has a
> substantial bearing on the extent of social harm.
>  Assessment of harm
> 
> Table 1<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#tbl1>shows
> the assessment matrix that we designed, which includes all nine
> parameters of risk, created by dividing each of the three major categories
> of harm into three subgroups, as described above. Participants were asked to
> score each substance for each of these nine parameters, using a four-point
> scale, with 0 being no risk, 1 some, 2 moderate, and 3 extreme risk. For
> some analyses, the scores for the three parameters for each category were
> averaged to give a mean score for that category. For the sake of discussion,
> an overall harm rating was obtained by taking the mean of all nine scores.
>   [image: Table Thumbnail Icon]
> 
> Click to view table
> Table 1. Assessment parameters
> 
> The scoring procedure was piloted by members of the panel of the Independent
> Inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs
> Act.13<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#bib13>Once
> refined through this piloting, an assessment questionnaire based on
> table
> 1<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#tbl1>,
> with additional guidance notes, was used. Two independent groups of experts
> were asked to do the ratings. The first was the national group of consultant
> psychiatrists who were on the Royal College of Psychiatrists' register as
> specialists in addiction. Replies were received and analysed from 29 of the
> 77 registered doctors who were asked to assess 14 compounds—heroin, cocaine,
> alcohol, barbiturates, amphetamine, methadone, benzodiazepines, solvents,
> buprenorphine, tobacco, ecstasy, cannabis, LSD, and steroids. Tobacco and
> alcohol were included because their extensive use has provided reliable data
> on their risks and harms, providing familiar benchmarks against which the
> absolute harms of other drugs can be judged. However, direct comparison of
> the scores for tobacco and alcohol with those of the other drugs is not
> possible since the fact that they are legal could affect their harms in
> various ways, especially through easier availability.
> 
> Having established that this nine-parameter matrix worked well, we convened
> meetings of a second group of experts with a wider spread of expertise.
> These experts had experience in one of the many areas of addiction, ranging
> from chemistry, pharmacology, and forensic science, through psychiatry and
> other medical specialties, including epidemiology, as well as the legal and
> police services. The second set of assessments was done in a series of
> meetings run along delphic principles, a new approach that is being used
> widely to optimise knowledge in areas where issues and effects are very
> broad and not amenable to precise measurements or experimental
> testing,14<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#bib14>and
> which is becoming the standard method by which to develop consensus in
> medical matters. Since delphic analysis incorporates the best knowledge of
> experts in diverse disciplines, it is ideally applicable to a complex
> variable such as drug misuse and addiction. Initial scoring was done
> independently by each participant, and the scores for each individual
> parameter were then presented to the whole group for discussion, with a
> particular emphasis on elucidating the reasoning behind outlier scores.
> Individuals were then invited to revise their scores, if they wished, on any
> of the parameters, in the light of this discussion, after which a final mean
> score was calculated. The complexity of the process means that only a few
> drugs can be assessed in a single meeting, and four meetings were needed to
> complete the process. The number of members taking part in the scoring
> varied from eight to 16. However, the full range of expertise was maintained
> in each assessment.
> 
> This second set of assessments covered the 14 substances considered by the
> psychiatrists plus, for completeness, six other compounds (khat,
> 4-methylthioamphetamine [4-MTA], gamma 4-hydroxybutyric acid [GHB],
> ketamine, methylphenidate, and alkyl nitrites), some of which are not
> illegal, but for each of which there have been reports of abuse (table
> 2<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#tbl2>).
> Participants were told in advance which drugs were being covered at each
> meeting to allow them to update their knowledge and consider their opinion.
> Recent review articles5,6,7,15–18<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#bib5>were
> provided.
>   [image: Table Thumbnail Icon]
> 
> Click to view table
> Table 2. The 20 substances assessed, showing their current status under the
> Misuse of Drugs Act
> 
> Occasionally, individual experts were unable to give a score for a
> particular parameter for a particular drug and these missing values were
> ignored in the analysis—ie, they were neither treated as zero nor given some
> interpolated value. Data were analysed with the statistical functions in
> Microsoft Excel and S-plus.
>  Results
> 
> Use of this risk assessment system proved straightforward and practicable,
> both by questionnaire and in open delphic discussion. Figure
> 1<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#fig1>shows
> the overall mean scores of the independent expert group, averaged
> across all scorers, plotted in rank order for all 20 substances. The
> classification of each substance under the Misuse of Drugs Act is also
> shown. Although the two substances with the highest harm ratings (heroin and
> cocaine) are class A drugs, overall there was a surprisingly poor
> correlation between drugs' class according to the Misuse of Drugs Act and
> harm score. Of both the eight substances that scored highest and the eight
> that scored lowest, three were class A and two were unclassified. Alcohol,
> ketamine, tobacco, and solvents (all unclassified at the time of assessment)
> were ranked as more harmful than LSD, ecstasy, and its variant 4-MTA (all
> class A drugs). Indeed, the correlation between classification by the Misuse
> of Drugs Act and harm rating was not significant (Kendall's rank correlation
> −0·18; p=0·25; Spearman's rank correlation −0·26, p=0·26). Of the
> unclassified drugs, alcohol and ketamine were given especially high ratings.
> Interestingly, a very recent recommendation from the Advisory Council on the
> Misuse of Drugs that ketamine should be added to the Misuse of Drugs Act (as
> a class C drug) has just been
> accepted.19<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#bib19>
>   [image: Mean harm scores for 20 substances]
> Click to enlarge image
> Figure 1. Mean harm scores for 20 substances
> 
> Classification under the Misuse of Drugs Act, where appropriate, is shown by
> the colour of each bar.
> 
> We compared the overall mean scores (averaged across all nine parameters)
> for the psychiatrists with those of the independent group for the 14
> substances that were ranked by both groups (figure
> 2<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#fig2>).
> The figure suggests that the scores have some validity and that the process
> is robust, in that it generates similar results in the hands of rather
> different sets of experts.
>   [image: Correlation between mean scores from the independent experts and
> the specialist addiction psychiatrists]
> Click to enlarge image
> Figure 2. Correlation between mean scores from the independent experts and
> the specialist addiction psychiatrists
> 
> 1=heroin. 2=cocaine. 3=alcohol. 4=barbiturates. 5=amphetamine. 6=methadone.
> 7=benzodiazepines. 8=solvents. 9=buprenorphine. 10=tobacco. 11=ecstasy.
> 12=cannabis. 13=LSD. 14=steroids.
> 
> Table 3<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#tbl3>lists
> the independent group results for each of the three subcategories of
> harm. The scores in each category were averaged across all scorers and the
> substances are listed in rank order of harm, based on their overall score.
> Many of the drugs were consistent in their ranking across the three
> categories. Heroin, cocaine, barbiturates, and street methadone were in the
> top five places for all categories of harm, whereas khat, alkyl nitrites,
> and ecstasy were in the bottom five places for all. Some drugs differed
> substantially in their harm ratings across the three categories. For
> instance, cannabis was ranked low for physical harm but somewhat higher for
> dependence and harm to family and community. Anabolic steroids were ranked
> high for physical harm but low for dependence. Tobacco was high for
> dependence but distinctly lower for social harms, because it scored low on
> intoxication. Tobacco's mean score for physical harm was also modest, since
> the ratings for acute harm and potential for intravenous use were low,
> although the value for chronic harm was, unsurprisingly, very high.
>   [image: Table Thumbnail Icon]
> 
> Click to view table
> Table 3. Mean independent group scores in each of the three categories of
> harm, for 20 substances, ranked by their overall score, and mean scores for
> each of the three subscales
> 
> Drugs that can be administered by the intravenous route were generally
> ranked high, not solely because they were assigned exceptionally high scores
> for parameter three (ie, the propensity for intravenous use) and nine
> (health-care costs). Even if the scores for these two parameters were
> excluded from the analysis, the high ranking for such drugs persisted. Thus,
> drugs that can be administered intravenously were also judged to be very
> harmful in many other respects.
>  Discussion
> 
> The results of this study do not provide justification for the sharp A, B,
> or C divisions of the current classifications in the UK Misuse of Drugs Act.
> Distinct categorisation is, of course, convenient for setting of priorities
> for policing, education, and social support, as well as to determine
> sentencing for possession or dealing. But neither the rank ordering of drugs
> nor their segregation into groups in the Misuse of Drugs Act classification
> is supported by the more complete assessment of harm described here. Sharply
> defined categories in any ranking system are essentially arbitrary unless
> there are obvious discontinuities in the full set of scores. Figure
> 1<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#fig1>shows
> only a hint of such a transition in the spectrum of harm, in the small
> step in the very middle of the distribution, between buprenorphine and
> cannabis. Interestingly, alcohol and tobacco are both in the top ten,
> higher-harm group. There is a rapidly accelerating harm value from alcohol
> upwards. So, if a three-category classification were to be retained, one
> possible interpretation of our findings is that drugs with harm scores equal
> to that of alcohol and above might be class A, cannabis and those below
> might be class C, and drugs in between might be class B. In that case, it is
> salutary to see that alcohol and tobacco—the most widely used unclassified
> substances—would have harm ratings comparable with class A and B illegal
> drugs, respectively.
> 
> Participants were asked to assess the harm of drugs administered in the form
> that they are normally used. In a few cases, the harms caused by a
> particular drug could not be completely isolated from interfering factors
> associated with the particular style of use. For example, cannabis is
> commonly smoked as a mixture with tobacco, which might have raised its
> scores for physical harm and dependence, among other factors. There is a
> further degree of uncertainty resulting from polydrug use, especially in the
> so-called recreational group of drugs that includes GHB, ketamine, ecstasy,
> and alcohol, for which adverse effects could be attributed mainly to one of
> the components of commonly used mixtures. Crack cocaine is generally deemed
> to be more dangerous than powdered cocaine, but they were not considered
> separately in this study. Similarly, the scores for the benzodiazepines
> might have been biased in the direction of the most abused drugs, especially
> temazepam. Individual scoring for particular benzodiazepines and for the
> various forms in which other drugs are used would be more appropriate should
> this or any other system of harm classification be used in a formal setting.
> 
> In view of the small numbers of independent scores, we did not think that
> estimation of correlations between the nine parameters was legitimate. There
> is quite likely to be some redundancy—ie, the nine parameters might not
> represent nine independent measures of risk. In much the same way, the
> principal components of the parameters were not extracted, partly because we
> thought that there were insufficient data and partly because reduction of
> the number of parameters to a core group might not be appropriate, at least
> until further assessment panels have independently validated the entire
> system.
> 
> Our analysis gave equal weight to each parameter of harm, and individual
> scores have simply been averaged. Such a procedure would not give a valid
> indication of harm for a drug that has extreme acute toxicity, such as the
> designer drug contaminant MPTP (1-methyl 4-phenyl
> 1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine), a single dose of which can damage the
> substantia nigra of the basal ganglia so severely that it induces an extreme
> form of Parkinson's disease. Indeed, this simple method of integrating
> scores might not deal adequately with any substance that is extremely
> harmful in only one respect. Take tobacco, for instance. Smoking tobacco
> beyond the age of 30 years reduces life expectancy by an average of up to 10
> years,9<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#bib9>and
> it is the commonest cause of drug-related deaths, placing a huge
> burden
> on health services. However, tobacco's short-term consequences and social
> effects are unexceptional. Of course, the weighting of individual parameters
> could be varied to emphasise one facet of risk or another, depending on the
> importance attached to each. Other procedural mechanisms, such as those of
> multi-criteria decision
> analysis,20<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#bib20>could
> be used to take account of variation of ranking across different
> parameters of harm. Despite these reservations about the interpretation of
> integrated scores and the need for further consideration of the weighting of
> parameters of harm, we were greatly encouraged by the general consistency of
> scores across scorers and across parameters of harm for most drugs.
> 
> Our findings raise questions about the validity of the current Misuse of
> Drugs Act classification, despite the fact that it is nominally based on an
> assessment of risk to users and society. The discrepancies between our
> findings and current classifications are especially striking in relation to
> psychedelic-type drugs. Our results also emphasise that the exclusion of
> alcohol and tobacco from the Misuse of Drugs Act is, from a scientific
> perspective, arbitrary. We saw no clear distinction between socially
> acceptable and illicit substances. The fact that the two most widely used
> legal drugs lie in the upper half of the ranking of harm is surely important
> information that should be taken into account in public debate on illegal
> drug use. Discussions based on a formal assessment of harm rather than on
> prejudice and assumptions might help society to engage in a more rational
> debate about the relative risks and harms of drugs.
> 
> We believe that a system of classification like ours, based on the scoring
> of harms by experts, on the basis of scientific evidence, has much to
> commend it. Our approach provides a comprehensive and transparent process
> for assessment of the danger of drugs, and builds on the approach to this
> issue developed in earlier
> publications5–8,11,12,21,22<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#bib5>but
> covers more parameters of harm and more drugs, as well as using the
> delphic approach, with a range of experts. The system is rigorous and
> transparent, and involves a formal, quantitative assessment of several
> aspects of harm. It can easily be reapplied as knowledge advances. We note
> that a numerical system has also been described by MacDonald and colleagues
> 23<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#bib23>to
> assess the population harm of drug use, an approach that is
> complementary
> to the scheme described here, but as yet has not been applied to specific
> drugs. Other organisations (eg, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and
> Drug Addiction24<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#bib24>and
> the CAM committee of the Dutch government
> 25<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#bib25>)
> are currently exploring other risk assessment systems, some of which are
> also numerically based. Other systems use delphic methodology, although none
> uses such a comprehensive set of risk parameters and no other has reported
> on such a wide range of drugs as our method. We believe that our system
> could be developed to aid in decision-making by regulatory bodies—eg, the
> UK's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the European Medicines
> Evaluation Agency—to provide an evidence-based approach to drug
> classification.
> 
> *Contributors*
> 
> All authors contributed to the study design, analysis, and writing of the
> manuscript. All authors saw and approved the final version of the
> manuscript.
> 
> *Conflict of interest statement*
> 
> We declare that we have no conflict of interest.
> 
> *Acknowledgments*
> 
> Some of the ideas developed in this paper arose out of discussion at
> workshops organised by the Beckley Foundation, to whom we are grateful. We
> thank David Spiegelhalter of the MRC Biostatistics Unit for advice on
> statistics. An early version of this paper was requested by the House of
> Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology to assist in their review
> on the evidence base of the drug laws, and appeared unacknowledged as
> Appendix 10 of their
> report.26<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#bib26>
>  References
> 
> 1<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#back-bib1>
> . Foresight. Brain science, addiction and drugs, 2005
> http://www.foresight.gov.uk/Brain_Science_Addiction_and...<http://www.foresight.gov.uk/Brain_Science_Addiction_and_Drugs/index.html>
> (accessed March 11, 2007)..
> 
> 2<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#back-bib2>
> . Lopez AD, Murray CJL. The global burden of disease. Nat Med 1998; 6:
>  1241-1243. MEDLINE<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/medline/record/ivp_10788956_6_1241>|
> CrossRef<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#>
> 
> 3<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#back-bib3>
> . Ezzati M, Lopez AD, Rodgers A, Vander Hoorn S, Murray CJthe Comparative
> Risk Assessment Collaborating Group. Selected major risk factors and global
> and regional burden of disease. Lancet 2002; 360: 1347-1360.
> Abstract<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673602114036/abstract>|
> Full
> Text<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673602114036/fulltext>|
> Full-Text
> PDF (199 KB)<http://download.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/0140-6736/PIIS0140673602114036.pdf?clusterid=thelancet&mis=.pdf>|
> MEDLINE<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/medline/record/ivp_01406736_360_1347>|
> CrossRef<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#>
> 
> 4<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#back-bib4>
> . UK Home Office. Misuse of Drugs Act
> http://www.drugs.gov.uk/drugs-laws/misuse-of-drugs-act/
> (accessed March 11, 2007)..
> 
> 5<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#back-bib5>
> . King LA, Moffat AC. A possible index of fatal drug toxicity in humans. Med
> Sci Law 1983; 23: 193-197.
> MEDLINE<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/medline/record/ivp_00258024_23_193>
> 
> 6<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#back-bib6>
> . Gable RS. Toward a comparative overview of dependence potential and acute
> toxicity of psychoactive substances used nonmedically. Am J Drug Alcohol
> Abuse 1993; 19: 263-281.
> MEDLINE<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/medline/record/ivp_00952990_19_263>|
> CrossRef<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#>
> 
> 7<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#back-bib7>
> . Gable RS. Comparison of acute lethal toxicity of commonly abused
> psychoactive substances. Addiction 2004; 99: 686-696.
> MEDLINE<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/medline/record/ivp_09652140_99_686>|
> CrossRef<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#>
> 
> 8<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#back-bib8>
> . Goldstein A, Kalant H. Drug policy: striking the right balance. Science
> 1990; 249: 1513-1521.
> MEDLINE<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/medline/record/ivp_00368075_249_1513>
> 
> 9<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#back-bib9>
> . Doll R, Peto R, Boreham J, Sutherland I. Mortality in relation to smoking:
> 50 years' observations on male British doctors. BMJ 2004; 328: 1519-1528.
> 
> 10<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#back-bib10>
> . Tyrer P, Owen R, Dawling S. Gradual withdrawal of diazepam after long-term
> therapy. Lancet 1983; 1: 1402-1406.
> MEDLINE<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/medline/record/ivp_01406736_1_1402>
> 
> 11<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#back-bib11>
> . Anthony JC, Warner L, Kessler R. Comparative epidemiology of dependence on
> tobacco, alcohol, controlled substances and inhalants: basic findings from
> the National Comorbidity Survey. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 1994; 2: 244-268.
> CrossRef<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#>
> 
> 12<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#back-bib12>
> . Academy of Medical Sciences. Calling time: the nation's drinking as a
> major health issue. London: Academy of Medical Sciences, 2004:.
> 
> 13<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#back-bib13>
> . Drugs and the Law. Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Misuse of
> Drugs Act 1971. London: The Police Foundation, 2000:.
> 
> 14<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#back-bib14>
> . Turoff M. The design of a policy delphi. Technological Forecasting and
> Social Change 1970; 2: 149-171.
> 
> 15<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#back-bib15>
> . Corkery JM. Drug seizures and offender statistics. UK 2000. London: Home
> Office Statistical Bulletin, 2002:.
> 
> 16<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#back-bib16>
> . Griffiths C, Brock A, Mickleburgh M. Deaths relating to drug poisoning:
> results for England and Wales 1993–2000. Health Statistics Quarterly 2002;
>  13: 76-82.
> 
> 17<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#back-bib17>
> . Nutt DJ, Nash J. Cannabis—an update. London: Home Office, 2002:.
> 
> 18<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#back-bib18>
> . Gonzalez A, Nutt DJ. Gammahydoxybutyrate abuse and dependency. J
> Psychopharm 2005; 19: 195-204.
> 
> 19<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#back-bib19>
> . UK Home Office. Proposed changes to Misuse of Drugs legislation
> http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/2005-cons-ketami...<http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/2005-cons-ketamine/?version=1>
> (accessed Feb 28, 2007)..
> 
> 20<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#back-bib20>
> . Figuera J, Greco S, Ehrgott M. Multiple criteria decision analysis: state
> of the art. Boston, Dordrecht, London: Springer Verlag, 2005:.
> 
> 21<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#back-bib21>
> . Hall W, Room R, Bondy S. Comparing the health and psychological risks of
> alcohol, cannabis, nicotine and opiate use In:  Kalant H,  Corrigal W,
>  Hall W,  Smart R, eds. The health effects of cannabis. Toronto: Addiction
> Research Foundation,  1999:.
> 
> 22<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#back-bib22>
> . MacCoun R, Reuter P. Drug war heresies: learning from other vices, times
> and places. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001:.
> 
> 23<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#back-bib23>
> . MacDonald Z, Tinsley L, Collingwood J, Jamieson P, Pudney S. Measuring the
> harm from illegal drugs using the Drug Harm Index
> http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/notes/rdsolr2405.html
> (accessed Feb 28, 2007)..
> 
> 24<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#back-bib24>
> . EMCDDA. Guidelines for the risk assessment of new synthetic drugs.
> Luxembourg: EMCDDA, Office for Official Publications of the European
> Communities, 1999:.
> 
> 25<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#back-bib25>
> . van Amsterdam JDC, Best W, Opperhuizen A, de Wolff FA. Evaluation of a
> procedure to assess the adverse effects of illicit drugs. Regul Pharmacol
> Toxicol 2004; 39: 1-4.
> 
> 26<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext#back-bib26>
> . House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Drug classification:
> making a hash of it? Fifth Report of Session 2005–06, 2006
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmsel...<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/1031/103102.htm>
> (accessed Feb 28, 2007)..
>