cannabisnews.com: The Toxicity of Recreational Drugs 





The Toxicity of Recreational Drugs 
Posted by CN Staff on June 11, 2006 at 11:05:54 PT
By Robert S. Gable
Source: American Scientist
World -- The Shuar tribes in Ecuador have for centuries used native plants to induce religious intoxication and to discipline recalcitrant children. By comparison, most North Americans know little about the mood-altering potential of the wild vegetation around them. And those who think they know something on this subject are often dangerously ignorant. Over a three-week period in 1983, for example, 22 Marines wanting to get high were hospitalized because they ate too many seeds of the jimsonweed plant (Datura stramonium), which they found growing wild near their base, Camp Pendleton in southern California.
A dozen seeds of jimsonweed contain about 1 gram of atropine, 10 grams of which can cause nausea, severe agitation, dilation of pupils, hallucinations, headache and delirium. Tribal groups in South America refer to datura plants as the "evil eagles." Of approximately 150 hallucinogenic plants that are routinely consumed around the world, those with atropine have the most pernicious reputation—something these Marines discovered the hard way. Toxicity Profiles The easier way to learn about the relation between the quantity of a substance taken and the resulting level of physiological impairment is through careful laboratory study. The first example of such an exercise, in 1927, used rodents. Research toxicologist John Trevan published an influential paper that reported the use of more than 900 mice to assess the lethality of, among other things, cocaine. As he and others have since found, a substance that is tolerated or even beneficial in small quantities often has harmful effects at higher levels. The amount of a substance that produces a beneficial effect in 50 percent of a group of animals is called the median effective dose. The quantity that produces mortality in 50 percent of a group of animals is termed the median lethal dose.Laboratory tests with animals can give a general picture of the potency of a substance, but generalizing experimental results from, say, mice to humans is always suspect. Thus toxicologists also use two other sources of information. The first is survey data collected from poison-control centers, hospital emergency departments and coroners' offices. Another consists of published clinical and forensic reports of fatalities or near-fatalities.But these sources, like animal studies, have their limitations. Simply tallying the number of people who die or who show up at emergency rooms is, by itself, meaningless because the number of such incidents will be influenced by the total number of people using a particular substance, something that is impossible to know. For example, atropine is more toxic than alcohol, but more deaths will be reported for alcohol than for atropine because so many more people get drunk than ingest jimsonweed. Furthermore, most overdose fatalities involve the use of two or more substances (usually including alcohol), situations for which the overall toxicity is largely unknown. In short: When psychoactive substances are combined, all bets are off.How then does one gauge the relative risks of different recreational drugs? One way is to consider the ratio of effective dose to lethal dose. For example, a normally healthy 70-kilogram (154-pound) adult can achieve a relaxed affability from approximately 33 grams of ethyl alcohol. This effective dose can come from two 12-ounce beers, two 5-ounce glasses of wine or two 1.5-ounce shots of 80-proof vodka. The median lethal dose for such an adult is approximately 330 grams, the quantity contained in about 20 shots of vodka. A person who consumes that much (10 times the median effective dose), taken within a few minutes on an empty stomach, risks a lethal reaction. And plenty of people have died this way.As far as toxicity goes, such deaths are quite telling. Indeed, autopsy reports from cases of fatal overdose (whether from alcohol or some other substance) provide key information linking death and drug consumption. But coroners are generally hard-pressed to determine the size of the dose because significant redistribution of a drug often occurs after death, typically from tissues of solid organs (such as the liver) into associated blood vessels. As a result, blood samples may show different concentrations at different times after death. Even if investigators had a valid way to measure the concentration of a lethal drug in a decedent's blood, they would still need to work backward to make a retrospective estimate of the quantity of the drug consumed. Although the approximate time of death is often known, the time the drug was taken and the rate at which it was metabolized are not so easily established. Lots of guesswork is typically involved. Obviously, people who want clean answers should not seek information from corpses. Safety Comparison Despite these difficulties, it is evident that there are striking differences among psychoactive substances with respect to the lethality of a given quantity. The way a substance is absorbed is also a critical factor. The common routes of consumption, from the least toxic to the most toxic (in general), are: eating or drinking a substance, depositing it inside the nostril, breathing or smoking it, and injecting it into a vein with a hypodermic syringe. So, for example, smoking methamphetamine (as is done with the increasingly popular illicit drug "crystal meth") is more dangerous than ingesting it.Once a drug enters the body, physiological reactions are determined by many factors, such as absorption into various tissues and the rates of elimination and metabolism. Individuals vary enormously in how they metabolize different substances. One person's sedative can be another person's poison. This variability alone introduces unavoidable ambiguities in estimating effective and lethal doses. Still, the wide range between different substances suggests that they can be rank-ordered with reasonable confidence. One can be quite certain, for example, that the risk of death from ingesting psilocybin mushrooms is less than from injecting heroin.The most toxic recreational drugs, such as GHB (gamma-hydroxybutyrate) and heroin, have a lethal dose less than 10 times their typical effective dose. The largest cluster of substances has a lethal dose that is 10 to 20 times the effective dose: These include cocaine, MDMA (methylenedioxymethamphetamine, often called "ecstasy") and alcohol. A less toxic group of substances, requiring 20 to 80 times the effective dose to cause death, include Rohypnol (flunitrazepam or "roofies") and mescaline (peyote cactus). The least physiologically toxic substances, those requiring 100 to 1,000 times the effective dose to cause death, include psilocybin mushrooms and marijuana, when ingested. I've found no published cases in the English language that document deaths from smoked marijuana, so the actual lethal dose is a mystery. My surmise is that smoking marijuana is more risky than eating it but still safer than getting drunk.Alcohol thus ranks at the dangerous end of the toxicity spectrum. So despite the fact that about 75 percent of all adults in the United States enjoy an occasional drink, it must be remembered that alcohol is quite toxic. Indeed, if alcohol were a newly formulated beverage, its high toxicity and addiction potential would surely prevent it from being marketed as a food or drug. This conclusion runs counter to the common view that one's own use of alcohol is harmless. That mistaken impression arises for several reasons.First, the more frequently we experience an event without a negative outcome, the lower our level of perceived danger. For example, most of us have not had a life-threatening traffic accident; thus, we feel safer in a car than in an airplane, although we are 10 to 15 times more likely to die in an automobile accident than in a plane crash. Similarly, most of us have not had a life-threatening experience with alcohol, yet statistics show that every year about 300 people die in the United States from an alcohol overdose, and for at least twice that number of overdose deaths, alcohol is considered a contributing cause.Second, having a sense of control over a risky situation reduces fear. People drinking alcoholic beverages believe that they have reasonably good control of the quantity they intend to consume. Control of the dose of alcohol is indeed easier than with many natural or illicit substances where the active ingredients are not commercially standardized. Furthermore, alcohol is often consumed in a beverage that dilutes the alcohol to a known degree.Consider the following: The stomach capacity of an average adult is about 1 liter; therefore, a person is unlikely to overdose after drinking beer containing 5 percent alcohol. Compare this situation to GHB (a depressant originally marketed in health food stores as a sleep aid), where stomach capacity does not place much of a limit on consumption because the effective dose is only one or two teaspoonfuls. No wonder that more than 50 percent of novice users of GHB have experienced an overdose that included involuntary loss of consciousness.Another reason that alcohol is often thought to be safe is that popular media do not routinely report fatalities from alcohol overdoses. Deaths are usually considered newsworthy when they involve a degree of novelty. Thus a fatality caused by LSD or MDMA is thought to be more interesting than one caused by alcohol. Other Ways to Invite DeathA simpleminded look at the ratio of effective to lethal doses ignores many complications, some of which are well recognized, some rather subtle. Take, for example, the fact that danger generally increases with repetitive consumption. High blood levels of a drug, without rest periods between use, tend to heighten risk, because the affected organs do not have sufficient time to recover. Studies of MDMA use, for example, show that relatively small repeated doses result in disproportionately large increases of MDMA in blood plasma. Cocaine is the substance that induces the highest rate of repetitive consumption as a result of mood change. Heroin and alcohol come in second and third. Also, the tendency of a user to take a "booster" dose prematurely is greater with substances that require an hour or more to provide the full psychological effect—during the interim the user often assumes that the original dose was not sufficiently potent. This phenomenon routinely occurs with dextromethorphan (found in cough medicines), GHB and MDMA.Overdose quantities that are based on acute toxicity also do not take into account the probability that an individual will become addicted. This probability can be cast as a drug's capture ratio: Of the people who sample a particular substance, what portion will become physiologically or psychologically dependent on the drug for some period of time? Heroin and methamphetamine are the most addictive by this measure. Cocaine, pentobarbital (a fast-acting sedative), nicotine and alcohol are next, followed by marijuana and possibly caffeine. Some hallucinogens—notably LSD, mescaline and psilocybin—have little or no potential for creating dependence.Finally, a comparison of overdose fatalities does not take into account cognitive impairments and risky or aggressive behaviors that sometimes follow drug use. And as most people are well aware, a substantial proportion of violent confrontations, rapes, suicides, automobile accidents and AIDS-related illnesses are linked to alcohol intoxication.Despite the health risks and social costs, consciousness-altering chemicals have been used for centuries in almost all cultures. So it would be unrealistic to expect that all types of recreational drug use will suddenly cease. Self-management of these substances is extremely difficult, yet modern Western societies have not, in general, developed positive, socially sanctioned rituals as a means of regulating the use of some of the less hazardous recreational drugs. I would argue that we need to do that. The science of toxicology may provide one step in that direction, by helping to teach members of our society what a lot of tribal people already know. Note: Alcohol is more lethal than many other commonly abused substances.Newshawk: EkimSource: American Scientist (NC)Author: Robert S. GablePublished: May-June 2006 Volume: 94 Number: 3 Page: 206 Copyright: Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research SocietyContact: editors amsci.org Website: http://www.americanscientist.org/CannabisNews -- Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #41 posted by charmed quark on June 14, 2006 at 15:57:43 PT
DEA ...
Also, they are focused on the abusability of drugs, not their safety. Safety is fairly irrelveant from their point of view, and in many cases, being less safe makes the drug better.For instance, a pure opiate is generally at the highest classification of prescription drugs ( schedule 2). If the drug is adultrated with acetaminiophin, making it much less safe to abuse, it gets sceduled as schedule 3.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #40 posted by Toker00 on June 12, 2006 at 17:29:33 PT
Bacon donuts...
,,, the police would NEVER leave the donut shops.Toke.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #39 posted by runruffswife on June 12, 2006 at 16:56:41 PT
or even worse
bacon donuts
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #38 posted by whig on June 12, 2006 at 13:38:43 PT
Even worse than bacon
Donuts.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #37 posted by whig on June 12, 2006 at 13:35:57 PT
Dan B
That was very insightful. Whenever people speak of the addictiveness of cannabis we know very well it has no physical withdrawal or tolerance, but some people do like it and use it regularly. This is equally true of bacon. The difference is that bacon is very bad for your health.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #36 posted by Dan B on June 12, 2006 at 11:36:37 PT
runderwo
Re: "According to the DEA ruling cited, DEA does not consider the "potential for abuse" to be a sliding scale upon which scheduling should be based (you know, the way common sense would consider it). All drugs with any potential for abuse have equal potential for abuse in their interpretation."Thanks for the info. Any logical person can see that the "potential for abuse" issue, at least as far as scheduling is concerned, is a moot point. Perhaps more precisely, it is a ridiculous point. Anything has a "potential for abuse." Bacon has a high potential for abuse, as evidenced by the large number of people (number of large people?) who eat it on a daily basis right after they wake up in the morning. Should bacon be outlawed? There are those who say it should be, but most of us agree that it shouldn't be. To say that cannabis should be illegal because it has a "potential for abuse" is just as ridiculous.Thanks again, runderwo. Good information.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #35 posted by runruffswife on June 12, 2006 at 06:08:08 PT
Whig TokerOO
Thank you Whig for the music. No, Jerry cannot have music Inside. They won't allow that. No color, no music, no view of the earth's horizon. He uses his imagination. Toker, Yes, I will be flying. I'm taking an overnighter and will get into Boston early in the morning. I was reading the visitation policy page on the Bureau of Prisons website and they said no recording devices. So, I don't think a picture will be possible. I thought of that too. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #34 posted by Toker00 on June 12, 2006 at 03:41:13 PT
runruffswife
Get someone to take a picture of you and Jerry in a Love Embrace. Send a copy to that damn Judginator who wants to destroy your relationship. SHOW her she is full of ----. I am so glad you will be seeing Jerry soon. I'll bet you anything that judge's life is miserable. She's probably jealous of people who are able to love. There was no mercy in her judgement.Linda, will you be flying?Toke.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #33 posted by whig on June 11, 2006 at 23:50:11 PT
runruffswife
Do you know if we can send music to Jerry? Does he have a way to listen? Or is it only letters that can be sent?I fear that they would not allow music because they cannot censor it so easily, but it is music that speaks for me best and most clearly when I cannot find words.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #32 posted by whig on June 11, 2006 at 23:45:01 PT
Tomorrow on the Runway
Old days, don't come to find me, the sun is just about to climb up over there.'While my heart is sinking I do not want my voice to go out into the air'.Did you leave the darkness without me? You're always miles ahead.And you're standing in tomorrow on the runway.Oh be the music in my head, the air around my bed, oh be my rest.Replace the small disgraces of the times and places that I never really left.Did you leave the darkness without me? You're always miles ahead.And you're standing in tomorrow on the runway.Oh I want to fly, fly forward into the light, be alive, to come alive, on the leaf-bright Friday drive, sudden horses at the red light, turn around, see clearer ways to go now.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #31 posted by whig on June 11, 2006 at 23:41:36 PT
runruffswife
I have no words adequate to express my feelings.Can I share a song with you?http://tinyurl.com/kx4zk
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #30 posted by runderwo on June 11, 2006 at 19:26:45 PT
Toker00
** DEA, why do ya put the LEAST TOXIC plant on the MOST TOXIC schedule? Why do ya do that? I can answer that question, can you? Not honestly, I'll bet.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act#Schedule_I_drugsAccording to the DEA ruling cited, DEA does not consider the "potential for abuse" to be a sliding scale upon which scheduling should be based (you know, the way common sense would consider it). All drugs with any potential for abuse have equal potential for abuse in their interpretation.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #29 posted by ekim on June 11, 2006 at 19:16:08 PT
wonderful news for the runruffs
Jun 15 06 Investigative Reporters and Editors Annual Conference N/A Terry Nelson Fort Worth Texas USA 
 Speakers Terry Nelson and Mike Gilbert will represent LEAP at this year's Investigative Reporters and Editors Annual Conference, Ft Worth, TX. LEAP will also have an exhibit booth supported by LEAP members Suzy Wills, Steve Heath and Jodi James. LEAP will attend the conference to promote their mission of ending America's failed war on drugs. For more information as the date gets closer, visit http://www.ire.org/ 
http://www.leap.cc/events
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #28 posted by runruffswife on June 11, 2006 at 17:49:02 PT
TRBG
Yes Yes.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #27 posted by FoM on June 11, 2006 at 14:28:49 PT
 runruffswife
I'm glad. Laughter is the best medicine.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by BGreen on June 11, 2006 at 14:26:40 PT
Yay!!!
That's such great news, runruffswife!I'm really happy for you.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by runruffswife on June 11, 2006 at 14:17:53 PT
FOM
Glad to meet you too.
(You make me laugh)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by FoM on June 11, 2006 at 13:58:54 PT
runruffswife 
I'm glad to meet you Bonnie.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by global_warming on June 11, 2006 at 13:56:39 PT
it is time
it is getting hot,that baby is coming,getting born is all right,cause you gonna get some of that Holy Spirit,you got it, you gotta move with the spirit,if you wonder, about your spirit,you have to talk to God,it is going to get better,this can be the best place,to hear the best music,that art that places,our fruits on the table,on that tableclothour RESOLVES can bury this beast,so tha this beast may come before its master,ito the bottomless abysm of Eternity, and *I Hope, the7, f8id ete5rnal 5rest 8i thie5r their eternal places, for my watche                                                  convincesmebadkeyboard.. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by runruffswife on June 11, 2006 at 13:55:20 PT
FOM
Thank you FOM, I will.
I had to go through the route a stranger would, but that's okay,on the "approved" form I am listed as his wife. I guess they decided we weren't trying to pull something. But in Their world, I'm the Bonnie in this Clyde.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by global_warming on June 11, 2006 at 13:34:08 PT
But? Can you dance
In your times at Norway?Has not this blight reached your frozen shores?That blood that dripped from that cross,Speaks to all of us,
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by Bhicks on June 11, 2006 at 13:24:31 PT:
Hmm
"Only 300 people a year die from alcohol overdose? I would have thought the number was much higher. Needless to say, hundreds of thousands die on an annual basis from the cumulative effects of alcohol consumption."
--We have approx. 400 alcohol overdoses in little ol' Norway each year (4.6 million people total). That's more than all other illegal drugs combined. I'm guessing the US has a bit more. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by global_warming on June 11, 2006 at 13:20:35 PT
re: the universe echoed back
again and again, you can hear, listen,it is our place in this universe,
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by FoM on June 11, 2006 at 13:16:23 PT
runruffswife 
Linda that is wonderful. Please give Jerry a big hug from me. Have a great visit.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by runruffswife on June 11, 2006 at 13:11:48 PT:
prison visitation
Dear Friends,
It appears as though all obstacles have been removed. Runruff called this morning and said, "get ready to push your giggle button" (he's funny even in Prison) "they've okayed your visit". When they did my criminal background check they were so blinded by the whiteness of the page.
So, thank you folks for all of your good thoughts and intentions, the universe echoed back and opened up the door. 
Friday June 23 is our one year wedding anniversary and it will be so great to be together. 
Love Love Love
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by global_warming on June 11, 2006 at 13:06:31 PT
In this free universe
We can choose,We can make a new world,It has been our hands and hearts,That stand before Eternity,Is our hand clean?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by global_warming on June 11, 2006 at 12:55:42 PT
the silence is deafening
the mutes in this world is positively amazing,strong people who bow before their necks,the next chapter in this universe,can be better than that hot cross.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by global_warming on June 11, 2006 at 12:31:38 PT
good question whigger
our anatomical differences, is not a bar to understanding,but whether a belief in in a higher principle in this worldly reality is in question, is god dead, do you believe in god?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by whig on June 11, 2006 at 12:21:57 PT
gw 
Why do we alter our consciousness? Might as well ask why we have sex.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by global_warming on June 11, 2006 at 12:15:42 PT
My Question is unanswered
why do human beings gather around mind altering substances?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by FoM on June 11, 2006 at 12:15:20 PT
global_warming
I'm sure there are many more reasons for people using substances. For some though it is like a mind vacation I think.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by global_warming on June 11, 2006 at 12:07:57 PT
Nice
"a break from it all"It is that "all" that is pushing most of us into another world, another way of thinking, another way of life.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by FoM on June 11, 2006 at 12:03:51 PT
global_warming 
Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we will die.Our world has so much chaos people will use substances just to try to take a break from it all. That what I always believed.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by global_warming on June 11, 2006 at 12:00:24 PT
I wonder why
So many people use and or abuse drugs, is the answer so simple, because it feels good? Some have said people drink to forget, forget what?We all have childhood traumas, yet many rise above to achieve power and glory, money and prestige, the question remains, why do human beings gather around mind altering substances?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by global_warming on June 11, 2006 at 11:49:24 PT
re: comment 5
"Only 300 people a year die from alcohol overdose? I would have thought the number was much higher. Needless to say, hundreds of thousands die on an annual basis from the cumulative effects of alcohol consumption."Consider how many human beings are rotting in prisons and the holocaust of cannabis users, that number is much much higher.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by ekim on June 11, 2006 at 11:43:07 PT
good graph showing dose to cause death
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/50773?&print=yes#50979click for full image and caption -----
go down to Other Ways to Invite Death and click on link.
http://www.saferniles.org
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by schmeff on June 11, 2006 at 11:41:56 PT
Conservative Estimate
Only 300 people a year die from alcohol overdose? I would have thought the number was much higher. Needless to say, hundreds of thousands die on an annual basis from the cumulative effects of alcohol consumption.Food...fuel...fiber...pharma...fun -- the kind bud is the responsible, safe and healthy choice. Free the weed.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on June 11, 2006 at 11:39:03 PT
Toker00
If a person even tried to smoke that much they would die of smoke inhalation but they might have a smile on their face! LOL!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Toker00 on June 11, 2006 at 11:34:52 PT
The DEA are liars, the DEA are liars, the DEA are 
"The LEAST physiologically TOXIC substances, those requiring 100 to 1,000 times the effective dose to cause death, include psilocybin mushrooms and MARIJUANA, when INJESTED. I've found no published cases in the English language that document deaths from SMOKED marijuana, so the actual LETHAL dose is a mystery. My surmise is that SMOKING marijuana is more risky than EATING it but still SAFER than getting DRUNK."So, if your ED is say, one joint, then if you EAT 1,000 joints in a short time, on an empty stomach, you would die. I could see that. Heck, the paper alone would kill ya! :) I can see how smoking 1,000 joints in a short time, say fifteen minutes, could kill ya. Any takers? Sheesh. DEA, why do ya put the LEAST TOXIC plant on the MOST TOXIC schedule? Why do ya do that? I can answer that question, can you? Not honestly, I'll bet.Wage peace on war. END CANNABIS PROHIBITION NOW! 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by FoM on June 11, 2006 at 11:33:18 PT
Now What Can They Say?
Excerpt: The least physiologically toxic substances, those requiring 100 to 1,000 times the effective dose to cause death, include psilocybin mushrooms and marijuana, when ingested. I've found no published cases in the English language that document deaths from smoked marijuana, so the actual lethal dose is a mystery. My surmise is that smoking marijuana is more risky than eating it but still safer than getting drunk.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by global_warming on June 11, 2006 at 11:29:05 PT
a verbose way of saying
end the prohibition of cannabis, take the drug business away from the judicial gorillas and allow free people in an advanced society to make choices, along with the responsibility that is required by free people."..what a lot of tribal people already know.."Now you can stuff that into your FDA pipe and smoke it.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment