Recent Comments

9/11 9-11 Series abortion advertising Afghanistan Africa AIDS air travel art atheism Austrian economics Avatar Barack Obama BCFNM Bill Clinton biology blogging books bureaucracy campaign finance capitalism children China Christianity Congress conservatism Continental corporatism crime culture culture war debt deflation democracy Democratic Party development diplomacy domestic policy Driving Test Series drug policy economics education elections energy policy environmental policy ESL Series Ezra Klein Facebook Featured Find federalism food foreign policy Fox News Freddie deBoer Front Porch Republic gay rights Glenn Beck Goldman Sachs government spending H1N1 health care hip hop history humor immigration Inception India inflation Information Generation Internet Iran Iraq Israel Japan Japanese culture Keynesianism Kyoto Series language liberalism libertarianism marriage Marxism math media medicine microfinance military policy Mitt Romney Modern Visionaries Series morality movies music nanny state NASA neo-tradition neuroscience Nobel Prize nuclear weapons Osama bin Laden Pakistan Paul Krugman pharmacology philosophy photography politics porn prison policy privatization Rand Paul recession religion Republican Party reviews Ron Paul Rube Goldberg Machines Russia Sam Harris Sarah Palin satire savings science security Shinto socialism Spencer Ackerman sports stimulus Table of the Worthy taxes Tea Party technology terrorism The Cove the mundane The U.K. To Autumn Series Tohoku Earthquake Series torture trade policy tradition travel travel writing TSA turds U.S. Dollar unemployment
Explore

 

 

Inductive Twitter
Inductive Facebook
Sources
« Reality Based Conservative Commentary | Main | The Other Side of Bill Clinton »
Wednesday
Sep232009

Drug Danger Visually

I can't read the article that accompanies this graph, but the graph alone is pretty interesting.  Unfortunately, without the methodology from the article, you can't see why amphetamines (which I assume includes meth) are rated as less dangerous than cocaine.  A more serious criticism would be that dependence is a lot less important than physical harm.  For example, a huge chunk of the population is dependent on caffeine, but there is so little physical harm that it has a net positive affect on society.  I suppose the counter point would be that without habitual use physical harm is minimized.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (1)

An astounding observation.

Brad Kline
www.addiction-online.net

November 13, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterBrad Kline

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>