- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
Is that because alcohol is more dangerous/unhealthy/damaging than illicit drugs, or is it because alcohol is more available, affordable, consumed in larger quantities & more regularly by a larger proportion of the population?
I'd wager that in an apples-with-apples comparison, each and every drug would be more deadly than alcohol.
some would, some wouldn't.
alcohol would still be very high no the list, but on an apples to apples basis crack, ice and alcohol would be more dangerous, and i'd probably wager cocaine and a few others would be on similarish levels to alcohol.
http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/ecstasy/dangers.htm
deaths per users sits at 7 per million in the UK according to this page. the estimates vary widely as there is no known way to source how many people have died as a result from ectasy use.
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/a/alcohol_abuse/deaths.htm
19,171 deaths in the US related to alcohol in 1999.
Population of the US at this time was 273 million according to this goverment report (page 3) - http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/files/1999/chap02.pdf
just say there are 200 million alcohol users in the US in that year (which there wouldn't be - it would be much lower) that would equate 95 deaths per million users....
the biggest positive alcohol has got going for it, is that because you are consuming a beer or win which roughly takes about 15 minutes to consume a standard drink, is that to get to the point of causing short term damage it is a gradual process and takes a bit a good amount of time. obviously if you start getting into shots this doesn't apply so much anymore.
however you can take 500mg of MDMA in 2 minutes which would put most people into an absolute oblivion.