this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
657 points (97.4% liked)

World News

38987 readers
2132 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] YarHarSuperstar@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago (3 children)

What is the source of that image? I'm questioning its validity. They have cannabis as more dependency forming and physically harmful than GHB. Unless it means something it doesn't say, like they've weighted the results by how many users there are of each drug or something.

[–] scottywh@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

LSD shouldn't even be pictured... I question the validity, as well.

[–] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

It’s completely bullshit.

I love GHB but it needs to be way higher on dependence. It’s extremely easy to be addicted to. Benzos as well. Benzos are just under heroin in levels of dependency.

Edit: full agree with you, LSD isn’t even on this chart if the chart was real.

[–] djdadi@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

I'd argue benzos should be higher than heroin for dependence. You can't cold turkey a bad benzo addiction, but you can with heroin.

[–] Obi@sopuli.xyz 1 points 10 months ago

Yeah I'm guessing the source data for this chart is "random boomer's feelings".

[–] Cracks_InTheWalls@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

You should totally question the validity, but I'd pause before dismissing it entirely. It's supposedly based on an opinion survey of psychiatrists and a group of 'independent experts' (footnote incoming) published in the Lancet in 2007. Edit: I said things that weren't true about the Wikimedia image that I have removed - it's based on the table near the bottom of the article.

DOI is 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4

You should ask our friend ANNA if she'S heard people talk about this during her time in the ARCHIVEs.

It's not a completely objective harm/dependence measure, for sure, but the opinions of experts aren't meaningless - it's worth reading the article and judging the authors' claims rather than this image. Though I will say the number of participants seems really low.

On LSD,

  1. the opinion thing should be underlined and considered heavily (particularly in the UK, where rave culture is/was more top of mind than other places and LSD is/was in the mix, albeit I don't think to the same degree as MDMA and other compounds), but also

  2. as crazy as it may sound, dependency can develop in some users. I'd argue it looks VERY different than dependence to other substances (frequency is obviously much lower, given rapid tolerance, and some people may not call once a week or every two weeks dependency*), but it still exists. Given that this is basically an expert opinion poll it's actually placed more or less where I'd expect to see it.

*Though in online discussion groups for folks interested in such compounds, those folks often do call that level of frequency a sign of dependency. Should note I'm talking specifically about macrodoses, not microdosing.

(Footnote) from page 1049: "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."

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Interesting - linking again, which pulled it from an expert survey in the UK.

[–] deltasan@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I think they were asking for the source because the link you shared is just Wikipedia to a file. I was wondering about the original source of data too.

Edit: full link came out weird like yours. No wonder we were confused.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago

They end in .svg but load as a page - both yours and mine.

That wasn’t the case for you? Which browser/app?

[–] qaz@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

The data in the paper is obtained solely from questionnaire results obtained from two groups of people: the first comprised people from the UK national group of consultant psychiatrists who were on the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ register as specialists in addiction, while the second comprised of people with 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 experts are not named and were chosen by the authors.