Thread: Drug comparison: Likelihood of injury from dangerous behavior

I would like to compare the likelihood of injury or death from dangerous behavior when a drug is taken without supervision, specifically between these four drugs - alcohol, sleeping pills (in general), LSD, and Psilocybin.

Note that only harm from dangerous behavior is considered, and not death from chemical toxicity.
Note that harm to self and harm to others are both considered.

I can't find proper answers on the internet as this comparison is quite specific.
I would like to seek help from anybody who have insight or are good at researching or getting this data.

Thank you.

I would imagine that LSD and Alcohol are quite well researched as a lot of research went into backing up or arguing against their legal status.

Sleeping tablets are prescribed medically and so ,in that context would be considered beneficial or, at least the least harmful choice.

I did think I may have heard in the past few years that psilocybin was being considered as a tool in psychiatry but can't remember the details.

As for LSD the anecdotal stories go along the lines of people jumping off buildings under the misapprehension that they can fly.

And of course the bad trip where people with vulnerable mental makeups suffer bad setbacks and go into decline (eg Syd Barret and Peter Green)

You don't mention cannabis but an old friend of mine used to believe that it improved his driving ability as it improved his concentration.....I doubt he told that to the Police if he was ever pulled over.

That's just anecdotal.I don't know of any studies that have put the question you asked involving those comparisons between those 4 drugs.

Thanks for the insight.

Please let me know if you find stats for comparison.

Originally Posted by geordief

a lot of research went into backing up or arguing against their legal status.

I strongly doubt that. Governments seem too quick to make illegal, substances that are discovered to be used recreationally, for this to be based on much research. Also, the illegality of drug analogues that have never been synthesised proves that illegality is not based on actual harmfulness.

Originally Posted by KJW

Originally Posted by geordief

a lot of research went into backing up or arguing against their legal status.

I strongly doubt that. Governments seem too quick to make illegal, substances that are discovered to be used recreationally, for this to be based on much research. Also, the illegality of drug analogues that have never been synthesised proves that illegality is not based on actual harmfulness.

I didn't mean necessarily good research ,I just assumed that there must be a fair amount of studies that were used to buttress prexisting arguments and positions.


Ramennoodles is looking for data in research and I was suggesting it is probably out there because both proponentsand opponents in the legalize versus restrict debate need this data to shore up their positions in the public debate that has been going on for decades.

I don't assume that either side necessarily "follow the science".They probably both use research to show up their side of the argument as more plausible and ,in the medium to long term to persuade public opinion that they have the right approach.

My own opinion is that it is criminally irresponsible to allow a black market in recreational drugs to exist and so sit on the "legalize it" side of the fence.