Stuart if every death as a result of Alchol or Tobacco was reported in papers/TV news, there would be no room for any other news. If you really think people only die from Class A drug abuse, not fags or booze, go to any hospital in the country and see what people are dying of.

Alistair comparing 20 cigarettes to 20 LSD tabs is the most stupid thing I have read on this HYS (that's saying quite a lot). What do you believe would be more harmful 20 Magic Mushrooms or 20 bottles of wine, over the same period as that is what you seemed to be saying.

I can't believe how reactionary some people are, can I suggest you go to the Daily Mail website instead.

Adam, London, England

Why don't we just admit that none of us is an expert on this?

I would prefer to see all "drugs" disappear but in the event that they don't let's have a real debate about alcohol which damages more people than anything else.

Marek, London,

Kate,

It is not Scientists Jobs to 'discuss with drug victims the true damage that all these drugs can cause', but to determine based on _statistical_ evidence the extent of damage to society that is caused.
It even says in the article that
'isolated cases of unpleasant and unpredictable responses to drugs such as Ecstasy had been allowed to dictate policy'
and this appears to be your argument, just because one person has a bad effect then it is automatically more dangerous than a drunken driver.

People respond differently to all manor of drugs, people are hypersensitive to caffine and alcohol yet the scare stories have correctly not been used to dictate policy. Simmilarly people can respond badly to prescription drugs, and again policy is to evaluate these risks to permit safe usage.

I would also like to know when a casual user who enjoys the occasional spliff becomes a victim, why should those few who have bad experiences dominate the debate over those who enjoy the effects?

Robert McGuiness, London, England

The only reason alcohol and tabacco is not being banned is that is that the government has enormous amounts of revenue from it.They really don't care. If they did, it would have been banned ages ago. The cost to the NHS etc. have to be less than their revenue in order for them to continue to allow it, as the combination of the two are probably the biggest causes of self-induced disease.

Emile, London,

Where Kate S. has her facts about cannabis use developing paranoia etc after short term or even longer term use? As far as I know there are no such known effects - of course that has been the propaganda of anti-cannabis lobbyists since the 1920s.....

Bjarne Bong, Oslo,

If alcohol and tobacco is worse than drugs such as cannabis and Ecstasy. Then please tell me why the only times you hear about people dying from drugs the stories are all related to (Ecstasy) or class A drugs. Never Alcohol!!! If this is the case it would be made illegal. So why isn't it? Instead the just keep putting up the taxes on it!!!

Stuart, Nelson, Lancashire

Accurate but not entirely honest science, Since it confuses prevalence and long use of a low -harm substance with brief or rarer use of a high-harm one to announce the 'total harm' of the low-harm one like tobacco is higher. Grist to the mill of the single issue antismoking lobby but not entirely honest in terms of public presentation.
A fair comparison would be like for like, given same volumes and periods of use, which would allow accurate comparison of the the effect of 20 lsd tabs or spliffs a day compared to say 20 cigarettes. Once relative harm of the substances is identified, issues of volume of use and socialisation could be taken into account, but to announce something very lethal is low harm because it is taken rarely is misleading, you could make a case for switching from alcohol to weedkiller on that basis.

They are correct in that drug regulations (like many) have evolved in an ad hoc manner, and ensuring they remain a good fit with reality is common sense.

Alistair Stuart, London, UK

How it can be stated that LSD, cannabis, and ecstasy are less dangerous drugs than tobacco and alcohol?Alcohol can be taken in moderation and tobacco only really ever has negative effects if smoked over an extended period.Yet LSD and cannabis have been shown to create paranoia,schizophrenia and severe psychosis often after only a relatively short use.

I know of a person who took LSD once and experienced nightmares that he lived through in flashbacks again and again even when entirely sober- often when in dangerous situations such as driving.I think it's incredibly irresponsible to state that these drugs are safer than those already legal, as individuals could read this and suddenly believe that since they smoke and feel fine, LSD - as a safer drug - will certainly not harm them.

Perhaps scientists instead of creating lists that prioritise the danger of some drugs over others to society, should instead be discussing with drug victims the true damage that all these drugs can cause

Kat Slowe, Dorset, UK

I wonder - does this particular study take into account the regularity by which certain drugs are taken? For example, a glass of red wine a night is unlikely to cause much in the way of permenant and severe damage. However, if a person were to take an ecstacy pill every night for 30 years, I imagine the consequences would be pretty horrific.

Alcohol is legal and therefore more open to abuse by society thus causing the ill-effects witnessed. Are the scientists in question suggesting we all take ecstacy and LSD instead?

Laurence, Lincoln,

Despite alcohol abuse being clearly vastly more prevalent and harmful than drug abuse, the government has poured money into a multiplicity of agencies offering help to drug abusers to the extent that ( private ) agencies are fighting each other to attract customers. Meanwhile almost all support for alcoholics has been withdrawn.

An alcoholic friend of mine asked her doctor for assistance for a detox on 7th february and has been offered an appointment for assesment on 22nd may, contrast that with drug abusers who can walk in off the street and be offered immediate drugs, needles, counselling.

richard herbert, london,

In budget after budget the Chancellor has left the duty on spirits untouched but raised it on wine. A couple of days after his latest increase, do I detect a hint in this report that alcohol should be made still more expensive? Many of us just enjoy the small pleasure of a glass or two of wine with our meal, and The Times doctor has often mentioned the health benefits. I hope we're not going to be clobbered further.

Barry, Wallington, UK

Even I, as a 17 year old can see the inconcistency of the government classification system. Is there no common sense in this country? Punishing somone for taking a drug less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco? And people wonder why we don't trust what the government says about illegal drugs.
I notice Magic Mushrooms aren't even on the list, and yet they are straight up with Class A's even though their risk to health is minimal.
The drug laws need a total overhaul.

Jake Burley, Aldershot, UK

Finally, a true representation of the social and financial costs of the socially-acceptable drug, alcohol. Bear in mind that there is a crackdown on every other drug on the list, particularly tobacco, due to the "health damage" they cause, yet legislation on alcohol has been relaxed so we can now drink 24hours a day, 7 days a week. Another mixed message from the government, a case of them not knowing what they are doing, or a substantial cash donation to "reexamine legislation" similar to the pro-gaming lobby......?

Pete North, manchester,

The Academy of Medical Sciences is currently running a public consultation on the future of drugs and drugs-culture. Anyone interested in this debate can join in at www.drugsfutures.org.uk

Katherine Marsh, Brighton,