Thursday, May 26, 2011 - Peter Reynolds

100 X Safer than Alcohol? Cannabis Is 1000s X Safer!

Today the NHS released new statistics on the enormous damage that Britain’s favourite drug causes.

Admissions to hospital for alcohol abuse reached 1,057,000 in 2009-10. See the BBC story: “Alcohol-related hospital admissions reach record level”

Similar figures for hospital admissions in 2009 are:

Peanuts – 3000

Cannabis – 750

Now there are “lies, damned lies and statistics” so take them as a pinch of salt. Is this really news? When I researched the same figures three months ago, Alcohol Concern, a respected source, said there were 1.1 million admissions for alcohol. You can only take these figures as indicative. Look at them in very broad terms, allow for error, be sceptical.

This was my analysis of mortality, hospital admissions, toxicity and propensity to psychosis. Now I am not a scientist, nor a doctor of public health, nor a statistician – but I don’t think I need to be to understand the truth.

Cannabis/Alcohol Harms 2011, P.J.Reynolds

PDF

http://www.facebook.com/cannajan Janice Wells

It is clear to see that alcohol is far more dangerous, I can see that, you can see that, junior politicians can see that, but something happens to MP’s, they seem to become blind to these obvious statistics, maybe its all the duty free alcohol in the Houses of Parliament?
http://www.facebook.com/CommunityCriminal John Ellis

:D no brainer this one literally… and physically…
TD

The average is meaningless given that you just chose 5 things to measure. Furthermore the first 2 statistics are meaningless unless adjusted for the number of users. I don’t disagree that Marihuana is probably safer than alcohol, but it’s damaging to the campaign to misuse statistics in this way.
http://www.peter-reynolds.co.uk Peter Reynolds

Please explain to me why it is “misusing” statistics?

My argument is entirely transparent. There’s no deception or contrivance. It seems to me to be pretty clear that by a reasonable selection of reasonable measures, cannabis is nearly 3000 times safer than alcohol.
Anonymous

I don’t think you should knock this because Peter only chose 5 things to measure; it’s quality not quantity! But I do agree the figures would have more meaning if adjusted for the number of users … even if it did produce a lesser outcome.
Great work nether-the-less. I don’t think it damages the campaign. He expressively wrote: “take them as a pinch of salt” and “Look at them in very broad terms, allow for error, be skeptical.” and “I am not a scientist, nor a doctor of public health, nor a statistician” so people who read this should do exactly that.
TD

That you included the average implies it has some meaning. You just mixed together a bunch of statistically unrelated stuff. There’s no weighting for the number of users, no weighting for the nature of the thing measured (death numbers vs a risk percentage vs a ratio of ratios). I’m fine with it all as a broad strokes “get the message across” piece, but if I were deciding policy based on statistics reports like this, it would not be convincing.
Mishal Patel

Hospital admissions and deaths p.a. need to be considered as a percentage of total users. It is misleading to compare these figures, for example if 500 people died from heroin p.a. this would not mean it is safer than alcohol. Hence, the analysis of ‘incidence of psychosis’ is fine.
One further point of information is that you have taken the average of the five variables, without justifying why each variable should be given even weighting. Unfortunately it is not simple to (honestly) turn this data into a soundbite, and taking the average is meaningless. They may be used as 5 separate statistics.
Mishal Patel

You may say deaths per hospital admissions are ~1% for alcohol, 0% for cannabis.
It’s fine to take the average of the two therapeutic index statistics; you are 2050 times less likely to reach the lethal dose.
You may say the likelihood of incidence of psychosis is 200 times greater with alcohol than cannabis.
http://www.peter-reynolds.co.uk Peter Reynolds

Well it is what it is TD. As I said, I’m not holding myself out as something I’m not but it is an analysis of some important statistics.
Jordan Docker

to be fair, many more people use alcohol than cannabis- so figures would be higher (for hospital admissions at least). Additionally I think it is unfair to use the therapeutic index for both cannabis and THC, whilst using the same value for alcohol. I do however, agree that cannabis is many orders of magnitude physically safer than alcohol and possibly safer mentally.
http://www.peter-reynolds.co.uk Peter Reynolds

I take your point Jordan but we’re not talking about a close comparison here are we? I said “You can only take these figures as indicative. Look at them in very broad terms, allow for error, be sceptical.”

I don’t see where you get the “possibly” about mental health though. Psychosis is a very small risk with cannabis. It’s a certainty for 2% of alcohol users.

I’m quite happy to say that cannabis is 100 times safer than alcohol – at least!
Rhys Morgan

Great work Peter. Although I would agree with TD, in that some of the statistics are misleading. The reason the average isn’t a real statistic as such, is due to only using 5 categories. Let’s say we threw in something on lung capacity for example, then the average would drop (in alcohols favor). Also, I agree that the the hospital admissions should be as a percentage of users. Remember, the prohibition posse are just waiting for any hole in anything we show them. If they’re get out clause is “well, of course more people are admitted to hospital for alcohol, because more people take alcohol”. We know this is ridiculous, but we want to avoid wasting time with side debates. The admissions not being a % also effects the total/average. This would need to be as a percentage of users, as the other figures are not use based. The key is to make sure that any statements we make are 100% accurate and can be scrutinised inside out. I don’t know if you’ve got accurate figures for number of alcohol users in the UK. I’m trying to find some decent stats now and will send them over once I’m done.
I think if we can get %’s for hospital admissions and death rates, it’d be an excellent, concise group of statistics, which I’ll be attaching to any further letters sent to MPs, judges and any complaints. I don’t think the total/average is necessary, as each individual statistic speaks for itself and it isn’t really a statistically viable number.
http://sites.google.com/site/archiveinfo2010/ Frazz

Possibly misleading statistics in the comparison of drugs? drawn conclusions from questionable statistics from one individuals point of view?

Who would’ve thought that could happen under drug prohibition.

I really like your angle Peter… or maybe i missed the point apfu lol.
Rhys Morgan

Right the best I can find is: Population in 2009 - 61,792,000 (ONS), with approx 1/5 being children so adult population is 49,433,600. In 2009 – 69% of men and 55% of women drink alcohol at least once a week (http://www.alcoholpolicy.net/). So that means (if we assume 50% of the population is of each sex) that the number of people in the UK who drink once a week is: 30,648,632. 1.1 mil. 9000
So % of weekly alcohol users dying due to alcohol use is each year is 0.03% or 1:3333.
So % of weekly alcohol users admitted to hospital due to alcohol each year is 3.5% or 1:28.
I would appreciate it if someone could check the maths though…
http://www.peter-reynolds.co.uk Peter Reynolds

Thank you Rhys. I think it’s about time that we started putting together some properly validated statistics of our own. Starting here and now I’m appealing for anyone qualified in statistical analysis to step forward and help. I’m also going to be writing to various authors credited in other studies asking whether they will work with us.

If we need to, we could launch an appeal to raise funds to commission or sponsor a study of comparative harms.
Rhys Morgan

I agree completely. I actually have a friend who works at ONS, so should be able to find figures a bit more efficiently, as the ONS site is crap! I also have a good friend who is a statistician, so when you have a solid idea of what you’re looking for, let me know and I’ll get in touch. Strongly validated, indisputable statistics are definitely the way forward. Of course there’s still the “well, I don’t need scientists to tell me how harmful cannabis is, I just look at the people I know who take cannabis” brigade, but I don’t think we’ll ever get through to them!
Mishal Patel

One glaring error is claiming the ratio of deaths p.a. is 1:9000. That is mathematically wrong and not a trivial concern, you cannot divide by zero. Please revise this.
Dweed

The problem you have is the statistics on the number of people who smoke cannabis, a lot of people don’t like to admit it. I was reading an old issue of Softsecrets ( http://softsecrets.nl/?id=47&title=Issues issue 5- 2008 -page 35 ) who interveiwed an officer from the SDEA. He reckoned ” A massively higher amount of people use some sort of illicit drugs than we know about” & “The bottom line is that we don’t actually know how many people in the uk use drugs”. This article is worth a read.
http://www.buydutchseeds.com/ Marijuana Seeds

It’s fine to take the average of the two therapeutic index statistics; you are 2050 times less likely to reach the lethal dose.
Jordan

your telling us this like we dont know what is more dangerous…..

this whole thing is kinda redundant
Tom

actually, one problem with this. 0:9000 deaths isn’t the same as 1:9000. It would actually mean that cannabis is infinitely better by this measure. But a brilliant post all the same
http://www.facebook.com/people/Persephone-Ingram/100002385862877 Persephone Ingram

Yeah, “the way forward” into a brick wall erected by business concerns so deeply entrenched, they control our politicians and the mass media!
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001083076198 MedicalCannabis Spain

Alcohol is not more harmful in itself, it simply comes down to how it is used. There are many health benefits from alcohol too, in its many many forms of course. :)
Nutta1985

shhh dont tell the sheeple lol. it all comes down to one thing, if your not causing loss harm or ingery your not a criminel it dosn’t matter what any one else says your not a criminel even if cannabis was as harmfull as some ignorant people belive, its your body your life and your choice.we will be percicuted but i and many others need our medicen and we would rather die on my feet than live on my nees. mr camoron give us liberty or give us death
godfather_cwq

If we all had a bong we’d all get along
Leah Quartermain 2011
paolo1066

i’ll give you a fact, to all these pernickety whingers.. the endocannabinoid system. the fact that it doesn’t affect the respiratory part of your brain, means unlike alcohol, benzodiazepines and opiates (to name but a few)…Cannabis will not make you stop breathing,..ever! fall asleep, yes. stop breathing, no. i’m not a scientist nor statition, but that is a clean cut argument for which is safer. if you don’t like that, blame your god
James Conroy Uk

Added to that you threw in the therapeutic ration for just THC on its own, which brought the final ratio of harms caused significantly closer together (as opposed to just using the 1:4000 therapeutic ratio of all cannabis ).

Tsk tsk, you’ll never please every Peter
James Conroy Uk

Edit, should read: Tsk tsk, you’ll never be able to please everyone Peter.

Also, excuse the typo on the first line
http://www.peter-reynolds.co.uk Peter Reynolds

Yes, that’s true (except it’s 1:40000 not 1:4000) but the calculation is what it is. It’s entirely transparent.

100 X Safer than Alcohol? Cannabis Is 1000s X Safer!

Categories

CLEAR on Facebook

TOKEpure on Facebook

CLEAR Cannabis Law Reform: You must be 18 years old to visit this site.