tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20710455.post115445124644398845..comments2023-12-20T08:31:53.642-05:00Comments on POPSURFING.COM: Drugs: The Top Ten ListMichael in New Yorkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01449933463450154603noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20710455.post-1154466003193312272006-08-01T17:00:00.000-04:002006-08-01T17:00:00.000-04:00As you point out, ranking the "cost" of drugs is a...As you point out, ranking the "cost" of drugs is a wildly subjective enterprise that depends on what you include, how you measure it, what you don't include and so on. $166 billion? And I thought I was the only one who called in sick after a night at Stan's.Michael in New Yorkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01449933463450154603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20710455.post-1154456762591609432006-08-01T14:26:00.000-04:002006-08-01T14:26:00.000-04:00Interesting study. I kinda wonder what the "Dange...Interesting study. I kinda wonder what the "Danger Rating" is comprised of. It seems like it is a function of total users and death rates from the data which is presented. If that's the case then it fails to catch the true economic cost of the drugs. For instance, the estimated cost of alcohol in 1995 from the <A HREF="http://www.nida.nih.gov/economiccosts/Chapter1.html#1.10" REL="nofollow"> Economic Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse </A> was $166 billion while in 2003 we collected <A HREF="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=399&Topic2id=90" REL="nofollow"> $4.4 billon </A> in taxes. So, obviously alcohol consumption is a tremendous drain on our economy. It would be fun if an "economic effect" could be quantified for each drug and presented with the rest of the data.priv8petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08581174665532176849noreply@blogger.com