Here ya go...


fairly interesting i reckon....
( Mr Nerdy-Speccy-FuckNuts Ouchy ouchy wa wa!, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:03, 36 replies)

You're right, Nerdy.
Interesting.
( thealternativefact, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:07, closed)

Pretty
But I can't say whether it's interesting yet, as I have no idea what it is.

More information, if you please...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:10, closed)

*agrees*

(sabre-tooth monkey, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:12, closed)

What is there to explain?
Both axis are pretty clearly labelled!
(McDave, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 19:03, closed)

Reasonably interesting, but doesn't make much sense
Surely each drug/substance should be a line/collection of points, rather than a circle?

i.e. if I have an arbitrary dependence level of '3' on tobacco (whatever that means), does it do me no harm as this graph seems to indicate?
(Son of Sam-i-am We're all as mad as hatters here, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:13, closed)

I don't think that's what this means
They are a measure of how harmful the drug is (on average/to a normal person/similar disclaimer) plotted against how addictive they are.

Generally being drugs that are nearer the origin (the bottom left hand corner) are less 'bad' than ones in the top right. (Roughly speaking - the graph doesn't cover everything. If you added another axis called 'rapeyness' GHB would probably look worse)

So eating razorblades would be in the bottom right hand corner, because it isn't addictive, but is very deathy. I'm trying to think what would go in the top left. QOTW maybe.
(teebie jeebie, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:42, closed)

Oh, I see now
I was reading it as 'for a given dependence on a drug, how much harm does it do you'

Now I understand it, I'd query the relative placements of quite a few of the substances.
(Son of Sam-i-am We're all as mad as hatters here, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:47, closed)

I was reading it as
the more dependent you are on a given drug, the more self-harm you do...
(bamboozled Can hear you getting fatter, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:57, closed)

...
You can't have a dependance of 3 on tobacco. the circles denote the area in which the points fall, so tobacco is about 2.2-2.4 on the dependance scale, and 1.1-1.2 or so on the physical harm scale.

The graph just shows how the different things relate to one another.
(Gazebo will eat you on, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:43, closed)

...
That would only be true if the circles were different sizes.

And not circles.
( argyleblanket The man on the roof works for me, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:46, closed)

Can I have one from the top and any other five please Carol...

( Colonel Dracula Two manky hookers and a racist dwarf, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:14, closed)

Heheh

( LemonEntryMyDearWatson This time, Moriarty, the hand is on the other foot, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:20, closed)

That is interesting.
Cheers for that!

So...Heroin more dependence-generating than cocaine but LESS physically harmful.

My tobacco and alcohol consumption are virtually identical in terms of what they do to me and how much I need them- but the alcohol is more harmful than the poisonsticks, though less addictive. And my occasional bong is better on either front.

I could go on for days- but then, being stoned and drunk and a nerd presented with a graph, that will happen.
(Angie the Redneck Wonder, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:15, closed)

where is
lemsip and gravy on this chart?
(Halfy By light alone, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:21, closed)

Off the scale
I had a lemsip 2 years ago in February, and I'm only just starting to come down.
( LemonEntryMyDearWatson This time, Moriarty, the hand is on the other foot, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:41, closed)

Brocolli
Don't forget the brocolli...
( snee held his breath since, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:41, closed)

Is that...
...Amy Winhouse's Xmas shopping list?
(Tugnut I got them all..., Tue 23 Dec 2008, 10:52, closed)

Um...
As far as I was aware, whilst heroin is cripplingly addictive it is actually one of the least physically damaging drugs you can take.
( Madam Marlboro wonders if you've found her yet, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:06, closed)

it was my understanding
that it's the shit that gets mixed in that does the damage.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:10, closed)

Agreed
Look at the Rolling Stones...

Methadone is also far more physically addictive than heroin, despite its placement on the graph.
(Son of Sam-i-am We're all as mad as hatters here, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:16, closed)

My understanding
Was quantity matters - less harmful than cocaine (fractionally), but you take more of it over time to get a reasonable kick.

I presume this graph is a snapshot of a newish users in reasonable levels of consumption (i.e, still a fair while before their bucket kicking commences).
(FunOnABun Smears lard on you!, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 16:18, closed)

Uhm...
...where is "clunge" on your list?
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:35, closed)

if you are getting any
... you won't be looking at the graph.

But it would score a 3.5/3.5 easily
(Biff..., Tue 23 Dec 2008, 13:23, closed)

??
Does this mean drugs are bad for you?
(fase69, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 12:11, closed)

Has anyone else tried Khat.
Did bugger all but give me the raging horn and it tasted foul.
( girlinthehole, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 13:43, closed)

I have
I concur - it does bugger all and you look and feel like a bell-end chewing on a mouthful of sticks.

Unless of course I was doing it wrong....

All the Somalis in Camden love it - there used to be a fellow who spent his days outside my brother's flat, nicknamed 'The Ghost'. He'd turn up in the morning with a carrier bag full of it, gobbing the residue into a second bag - all day, until carrier bag 1 was empty and carrier bag 2 was full, at which point he'd bugger off.

He did not appear to be having a good time in any way thoughout this procedure.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 14:15, closed)

We brewed it up and drank it.
There was a very slight feeling like taking amphetamine based slimming pills but mostly I just wanted to get my leg over.
( girlinthehole, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 14:23, closed)

Base
Base, or amphetamine sulphate is much better. Cheaper too. Coke is just boring.
( Bathory, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 19:18, closed)

Is this
not a good thing?

As for taste - put it in something tasty?
(FunOnABun Smears lard on you!, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 16:22, closed)

I can't seem to see cake.

(Frozen_Banana Shaved against the grain; thoroughly unrewarding., Tue 23 Dec 2008, 13:47, closed)

*is a trained researcher
Who drew this up? How are the relative values arrived at? etc
(Juan Quar is clinging to her front teeth on, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 14:56, closed)

Hang on....
where the fuck is craaaaaaack?
( Piper Alpha is being a grumpy northerm bastard on:, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 15:03, closed)

Where's this from?
How are the numbers arrived at? Just presented like that it means nothing and having had personal experience of many of those substances the graph looks a bit like bollocks. There's different kinds of addiction for different kinds of people, and then there's the mental effect, which is very hard to account for. Apparently LSD does less physical harm than alcohol, but take LSD every evening for a year and then compare your life with someone going to the pub every evening.. you'll be an emotional wreck most probably unable to take care of yourself physically - you'll probably have picked up a few more addictions just to cope. Also, most drug users agree that tobacco is far, far more addictive than coke, in my experience.
(raymond "three griddle pans" luxury yacht lovin' the christmas action, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 15:26, closed)

.
These pub expert threads always remind me of the Pathetic Sharks in Viz!
( browser still relating boring anecdotes into a void on, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 16:09, closed)

completeness
This chart is crap.
Where is World of Warcraft on there? No where do i see mention of silicon crack.
(andythepieman Is surfing the waves of indifference on, Wed 24 Dec 2008, 15:48, closed)