28 votes

Out of All Drugs Legal And Illegal, Which Ones Kill?

If we were to have a sane and adult conversation about drug use and abuse in America instead of waging a war on drugs the same way we wage a war on terror, we might come to the realization that we’re letting the bad ones in our homes freely while some of the most helpful to improving the quality of life of the average person carry some of the highest minimum prison sentences of all, while touting an infinitesimal number of related deaths. Some of you may have read Thad McKracken’s well thought out article on the state of drugs in society today. The numbers fall in lockstep with his thoughts.

It turns out that, aside from Alcohol, Big Pharma is the #1 killer while drugs that have been used traditionally as entheogens hardly appear in the statistics at all. Drugs like LSD, DMT, Marajuana, Peyote and other psychedelics are used as a religious sacrament in many belief systems around the world, but are vilified because of their tendency to provide people with what Terence McKenna simply called ‘funny ideas’.

In 2010, there were 80,000 drug and alcohol overdose deaths in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s WONDER database. The database, maintained by the National Center for Health Statistics, keeps a tally of all the deaths listed on certificates nationwide. They’re classified by the ICD-10 medical coding reference system.

http://disinfo.com/2013/04/out-of-all-drugs-legal-and-illega...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

incomplete

No mention of cannabis

One world, under government, with power and money for the elite

Cannabis is on there, see the

Cannabis is on there, see the gray "Other*", that includes cannabis. Though OD'ing on cannabis isn't possible so it shouldn't have been included. Still apparently cannabis, LSD, opium, & mushrooms kill so few people that we can't even see the grey line on this graph.

So the entire category they put cannabis in could be called statistically insignificant I guess.

I know, I was kidding.

I know, I was kidding. Cannabis kills no one, ever. Joke fail..crap! Haha

One world, under government, with power and money for the elite

This Graph is Structurally Flawed

The whole thing is inverted. The sections do not correlate properly with the Y axis. The way it is currently presented, it shows that deaths from ‘Other’ and ‘Psychostimulants’ are more than 25 per 100,000 and deaths from ‘Pharmaceuticals’ at around 10 per 100,000 for the year 2010. In order to correlate properly with the Y axis, the category with the fewest number of deaths is supposed to be at the bottom and those with the highest number at the top.

Can anyone please fix this?

the graph is fine, there isn't a problem with it

The graph is fine, there isn't a problem with it, you just need to know how to read it correctly - it doesn't say what you think it says. See my post further down to educate yourself and know how to read these graphs correctly in the future. Seriously, it would be good for people to know how to read these, industries use these graphs to compare products, market share, and all sorts of various data all the time.

Here are several examples I found, I tried to ascertain the name of this type of graph, best I could get was "area graph". I got the following doing a Google image search for "area graph" & "mobile OS area graph".

Here is one showing a comparison of smartphone, PC, and tablet sales:
http://www.wcu.edu/ceap/houghton/edelcompeduc/ch1/handhelds/...

Apple's revenue broken down by product:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_0X1ggm5ZqsA/TTcFM2WjTII/AAAAAAAAKs...

Here is an example of it showing % of smartphones on the market from 2007-2010:
http://www.asymco.com/2011/02/07/smartphone-users-prefer-bra...

Or just some random mock up of sales by some company divided by regions:
http://www.tigerlogic.com/tigerlogic/omnis/developers/images...

I want to point out that the

I want to point out that the graph is from a site called disinfo.

Noticing small details like that, along with the other things mentioned on this thread, is yet another thing that is affected by drug use.

There is a reason that the CIA flooded this country with drugs, for instance Iran-Contra*1. Because subject populations don't think well on them.

*1 BTW, completely off topic, but the high ranking CIA official whom the Uncle of the bombing suspects lived with, and who was married to his daughter (The Uncle that was constantly on TV saying his nephews did it, weep weep), was the CIA author of the original Iran-Contra plan, and he resigned over it. It came to light during the Iran Contra hearings.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/02/15/us/washington-talk-briefin...

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Yes it is skewed

And why is cannabis even listed when no one has ever died from it? Why not list tomatoes then?

It's listed because the graph

It's listed because the graph is a list of "US Drug Overdoses" and cannabis is a widely used drug in the US. Appropriately they show cannabis to be causing zero deaths per year as you and I both know to be true.

I am interested to know why tobacco was left off. I know people don't OD on tobacco either, but since it is also a widely used drug it seems to merit inclusion for the same reason that I think cannabis was included.

If they kept it off b/c you can't OD on tobacco, then in that case you are correct they should have also left cannabis off. Both can kill you down the line or indirectly kill you, but neither will kill you via an "overdose" as this chart is measuring.

Looking through the comments

Looking through the comments it seems like some people don't look at graphs very often and found this one confusing. I don't think there was anything malicious in how they arranged this graph, it is fairly common on this type of graph to put the thickest line on the bottom and lay the thinner lines on top. Anyway, here's an explanation of the graph for anyone that's unfamiliar with how to interpret this sort of graph.

The Y axis (vertial) is drug overdose deaths/100,000 people('s deaths).
The X axis (horizontal) is for each year, starting in 1999 and going to 2010.

In 1999 the total deaths due to drug overdoses was about 11 or 12 per 100K, by 2010 it has increased to 26 per 100K.

The green component on bottom is the contribution from prescription drugs. Back in 1999 it was maybe a 1/3 of the OD deaths (~4 deaths / 100K people). By 2010 it had more than doubled to ~12/100K, now accounting for maybe just over half of all overdose deaths.

The teal is unspecified, so not much to say, might be proportional to size of bars around it or may be people who had multiple drugs in them.

Alcohol, cocaine, heroin, etc...up top doesn't mean more deaths from them. Look at the width (really height) of the bar - that is the # of deaths per 100,000 people. So, alcohol overdoses cause maybe 2.5 deaths per 100,000 people, up from 1 person in 1999.

Cocaine looks to be about flat at 1.5ish in both 1999 and 2010.
Heroin is less than 1 per 100K in 1999 and still less than 1 in 2010.
Narcotic about same as heroin.
Meth/ecstasy was barely measurable in 1999 and less than 1 in 2010.
Other (which includes pot) was 0 in 1999 and 0 in 2010, which makes sense b/c the CDC has agreed before than they have no record of anyone ever dying of a pot overdose.

The graph isn't complex, just don't assume a higher label on the graph equates to a higher rate - you look at the drugs color and what portion it contributed to the whole and that is the rate.

The main message I see here are:
#1 Drug overdoses have skyrocketed in the US, more than doubling in just 10 years.
#2 Most of that increase was in prescription drugs, which accounted for about 1/2 of specified drug deaths (meaning ignoring the "we don't know teal part") in 1999 and about 2/3 of specified drug deaths in 2010.
#3 Alcohol overdoses are increasing at a significant rate (also doubled in 10 years).
#4 Deaths from ODing on cocaine, heroin, meth, ecstasy, and "other narcotics" have been relatively flat over the last 10 years. They collectively cause less then 1/3 of OD deaths that prescription drugs caused in 2010.
#5 Rx meds (in 1999 thru 2010) were the most popular chemical means to intentionally kill oneself. With intentional Rx overdose #s being about equal to general cocaine & heroin ODs combined.

I didn't think there was malice, and I wondered if . . .

your interpretation was the correct one, but I don't think the graph was done very well. It shouldn't be that hard to read.

Thanks for your input, though--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

I think the meth deaths are higher

When something happens, it often appears to be due to very poor health such as a poor resistance to infections. The full circle of acquaintances don't get the whole story. It's "one of those things", only it's not because young people have more control of their health than that.

Defend Liberty!

Weed

I like how weed is not even mentioned on this. BECAUSE IT HAS NEVER KILLED ANYONE.

It says cannabis in the grey

It says cannabis in the grey "other" category.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

It does say cannabis on

It does say cannabis on there, but I've seen studies from the CDC that verify that ODing on cannabis can't be done. There is zero record of anyone ever dying by a weed overdose. There are weed associated deaths, as in dying of other things while high; but with alcohol, meth, and many other drugs you can OD and die from too much of that drug in your system. With cannabis you can't get enough in you via smoking it to OD in an acute setting.

I know this, but it's still

I know this, but it's still on there.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

The response is "Looks like

The response is "Looks like the drug war is working". Interesting chart but it isn't going to change the minds of people who are already convinced otherwise.

The ground is fertile on this one

Minds can get changed on it. The drug war has affected so many and for those few privileged people who haven't been touched in a way they don't like, you can still get their attention by the massiveness of the judicial system that built up around the drug war. The money motivation behind putting more people in prison, under parole officers, and to search as many people as they can is frightening even to the privileged. It means the drug war has the ability to grow into where they felt safe.

Defend Liberty!

Adding fuel to the fire

Thought we should add 'fuel to the fire', with.. Another thing to graph!

People killed with explosions, which is safer? (statistics made up).

# of population out of 10 million

53 Dynamite
44 C4
35 Blackpowder
22 Gasoline
0 Atomic bombs

It is clear that Gasoline is safer than almost any of the explosives on this list and safer than mother's milk! It is just nanny state poopery that says you shouldn't light cigarettes next to a gasoline pump. Go ahead and throw your matches on it. Safe! Safe! Safe!

And atomic bombs are the safest explosives of all - because no one has died from an atomic bomb in the last 20 years, at least!

Yes, more amazing then these statistics is what the person was on who created them. And freedom to disagree, a true test of freedom being to allow others to disagree and enter facts? Well, look at all the down votes on the thread below against opinions that maybe drugs aren't safe? Oh yes, freedom of thinking isn't what this is about. Not "free minds", but "controlled brains".

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

0 for atomic bombs?

Did you forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the countless people who died from fallout of nuclear tests?

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

Did that really occur in the

Did that really occur in the last 20 years?

The ability to concentrate for any length of time is something else besides graphs and mathematical ability that drugs affect.

Try to read what I wrote more carefully, and then apply the same absurdity to the graph in the initial post. It is not # of deaths in the general population, but # of users. No one has used an atomic bomb recently.

So the obvious conclusion is atomic bombs are the safest of them all! Yes! Yes! I can think! I have a degree in thinkology!

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

How do you know they haven't

How do you know they haven't been used lately?

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

Hmmm...

whoever put this graph together must of been higher than a kite lol

LIVE FREE OR DIE

Don't forget acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin)

It has killed a significant number of people by causing cerebral hemorrhages. It is, however, legal without prescription, because the government considers it "safe and effective."

I am not being an aspirin basher here, as I acknowledge that it has also saved many lived by thinning blood during heart attacks. The point is, safety and effectiveness should be determined by free choice based on whatever authorities people wish to consult with.

Comments: Besides the below

Comments:
Besides the below comments, drugs like pot affect the thinking ability, particularly mathematics, or so I've been told.

I looked at this thread because I already knew the statistics were false. It isn't how many deaths per % of population, but how many deaths per % of *users* of said drugs. Obviously, most of the population doesn't use harder drugs. So it doesn't say anything to begin with without the users vs non-users thrown in.

Well, considering the things happening lately, maybe it's not obvious most people don't use hard drugs.

But anyway, carry on.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Yeah, here is an example into

Yeah, here is an example into a world you do not know about marijuana. The comment explaining the graph below was written, right after I put down the bowl, stoned. I am currently watching a documentary on Robert E. Lee, high. The world you have been told is far more interesting than the perception given from the eye's of the public.

The world is far more interesting when you think off drugs

The world I've been told? I've probably dropped acid about 50 times, and done every other drug on that list, initially mainly because jackasses like you were lying all the time instead of saying the complete truth. And it's a total waste. Thinking and reasoning can replace bad experience as a teacher.

You will discover strange things, like numerous people claiming to be involved in wicca or satanism, and yes, I've been told by a few people they witnessed murders done on LSD - for exactly that reason - the people were too souped up to care - you'll be grinning the whole time watching someone die.

These are brainwashing drugs. They have been used for thousands of years like that, and it's one of only a few tricks the occult has to get people to believe things that aren't real. Control is what it's about - of you.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Interesting

So all my stoner friends are Ron Paul supporters due to the brainwashing effects of cannabis? I guess that kind of backfired on the establishment. LOL!

Poor minds aren't free

How does you not having someone you know is controlling you logically mean that these drugs don't affect your ability to think or to have a controller?

This thread itself is an example of the bad thinking on drugs, to whoever made that graph. It's a poor argument from a poor mind, and poor minds aren't free.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Brainwashing isn't really a religious sacrament, its the occult

"Drugs like LSD, DMT, Marajuana, Peyote and other psychedelics are used as a religious sacrament "

If by "religious sacrament", you mean brainwashing and mind control, you might be right. They are completely associated that way.

Old Greeks got their users so souped up they'd tear the flesh off of living beings in a sacrifice cannibal ritual. The assassins used it that way to program their assassins - it's where the word assassin comes from , a mix of hash and psychedelia use. It's how they make someone a zombie in Haiti witchcraft voodoo. The aztecs did it so people wouldn't care when they sacrificed people in front of them. By all accounts, the lowest of the lows are still doing that in the occult today.

And LSD was never used as a sacrament anywhere, it's too new. However, it was researched as a way to brainwash people too - from the CIA, where it came from into the United States.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

I don't recommend the use of any drugs--

In our home only herbal supplements are used, and all the herbs we use are 'legal'--

but one of our family members (more than one, but one was so profound as to be overshadow all the others) was severely damaged by prescription drugs--

the damage has been extensive and life-altering.

I know a young woman (not a family member or close friend, but a family member of a long-time acquaintance) with severe migraines whose profession allows her to have access to the raw form of lsd--

and keeps her able to function without mind-numbing, debilitating pain--

As for people using these mind-altering drugs to achieve some state of 'something'--

I don't agree with that. I just know what pharmaceutical drugs have done to some I love--

and knowing that, I want to see the hypocrisy and the charade (drug war) end--

I thought lsd came from a particular kind of mushroom. I wouldn't use it; I would be too afraid of taking too much, etc., but I don't have mind-numbing migraines that nothing else can dispel.

All substances can be dangerous if improperly used or if over-used.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--