From The Metro:
The number of people being killed by cocaine has soared by a fifth in just one year, official statistics have shown. There were 235 deaths involving the class A drug in 2008, up from 196 the year before and up by half since 2004... As many as 1million people, half of them aged between and 16 and 24, are said to take cocaine. Prices have fallen to £40 a gramme from £77 a decade ago...
Drug deaths remain dwarfed by those from alcohol, put at nearly 9,000 in a year.
OK, what's safer, statistically speaking: something used by a million people that is "involved" in 235 deaths (which is slightly different to "killing", natch), or something used by half the population (30 million people) that is "involved" in 9,000 deaths?
Clue: 235 x 30 = 7,050
Pondering assassination
2 hours ago
8 comments:
"involved" also gives infinite room for the assessment of its involvement to be finerssed. The 20% increase may well be down to dotors being asked to ask relatives "if you think he ever took cocaine".
On top of which, 196/1,000,000 "soaring" up to 235/1,000,000 is well below the bounds of any statistical significance.
But, journalists (and a depressing number of "researchers") don't seem to grasp this simple fact.
Their use of the word "involved" usually means "Guy snorted a little bit of cocaine, then tanked a litre of vodka and later died having choked on his own vomit having passed out in an alcoholic stupor".
If they were restricted to reporting on drug deaths where use of said drug (ecstasy/cocaine/whatever) was unequivocally responsible for the death rather than just a happenstance fact then you could probably count on your fingers the number of "death by illegal recreational drug" stories that would pop up each year.
And taking ecstasy is safer than horse riding.
Anybody want anything for the weekend..?
I'd treat the number of deaths for alcohol with scepticism too, if only because the medical establishment is lying like an Arab diplomat about the booze at the moment.
No. Just no. no no no no no . The only reason alcohol here has caused more deaths is due to the far FAR higher frequency of use by many many more people. Alcohol also has a more certain... but very far off... lethal dose than Cocaine however is unpredictable and the risk of death-per-session is much higher than the risk of death per bar visit. Cocaine does not cause quite as much coordination intoxication so this also may lend a lower death rate when you factor all the accidental deaths due to alcohol (driving) just 5 years of heavy cocaine use (for those on a celebrity budget) is enough to trigger heart failure in a large portion of users. Someone I know with no family history of heart disease and no other risk factors started doing coke at age 20 and maybe spent 200 a week on it... by age 23 he had heart failure. Dont let statistical numbers fool ya.
Anon: "Don't let statistical numbers fool ya."
I am seldom fooled by statistics. You're making the worse mistake of letting anecdotal evidence and isolated cases fool you. Every year there are a couple of stories in the paper about some young and otherwise healthy person dying as a result of a binge drink. So what? You can't legislate against stupidity or bad luck, can you?
Post a Comment