Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Ah Pook
Aug 23, 2003


Either there is something obvious I'm somehow missing, or this graph is two bars comparing the total number of "harms". What.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Ah Pook
Aug 23, 2003

bawfuls posted:

maybe read the link from a Psychopharmacology journal if you're interested in how they quantify harm?

I did.

quote:

During a meeting of the UK’s Advisory Council on the
Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) in 2009, 16 criteria of drug harms
were identified, including items such as damage to physical
and mental health, dependence, mortality, economic cost, loss
of relationships and crime – clustered into subgroups of physical, psychological and social harms to the self and to others.
In 2010, a panel of experts with specialist knowledge on the
pharmacological, psychological, social and legal aspects of
drug harms was convened to rate each of the 20 most commonly used drugs in the UK today. A multi-criteria decision
approach (MCDA) was used during the rating process, which
allowed the panel to take into account objective facts about
drug harms as well as subjective judgements about the relative
importance of the different parameters of harm.
Using such an approach has the advantages of being able
to consider all the harms of a substance objectively and in
comparison with others, and of harms to be weighted according to changing ‘values’ or importance to the self and others.
In the absence of objective data on all of the criteria assessed,
discussion amongst a group of experts is the most valid
approach to use.
Using the MCDA, the rating scale is able
to evolve over time and provides a robust framework for
assessing both currently used and new psychoactive substances
on a constantly developing drugs market. Overall scores of
this rating exercise correlated highly with recent findings by
a group of Dutch experts employing a similar methodology
(van Amsterdam et al., 2010) as well as comparisons of misused drugs based on drug-specific mortality (King and
Corkery, 2010) and toxicology alone (Gable, 2004).
Alcohol was confirmed as the most harmful drug to others
and the most harmful drug overall (Figure 6). A direct comparison of alcohol and cannabis showed that alcohol was
considered to be more than twice as harmful as cannabis to
users, and five times as harmful as cannabis to others (Nutt
et al., 2010).
Some of the factors included as 'harms' are listed, but how the Harm Number is calculated is not explicitly indicated anywhere, as far as I can tell. I'm not doubting that alcohol is vastly more damaging to society than cannabis, it's just that creating a graph with 'harm' as the y-axis is kind of strange without further clarification.

  • Locked thread