Historically, heroin is not the only drug that has been vilified, and drug use in various forms, far from being an affliction of modernity , can be considered a cultural universal. According to Bruce Alexander, the demonization of substances is a modern reinvention of the medieval phenomenon of demonic possession, and heroin addiction therefore a sort of myth. His perspective explains the arbitrary nature of changing cultural perceptions of drugs. Specifically, which substance is demonized is of little importance: - myths exist to provide social orientation, and the myth of drugs, like that of demonic possession, demonstrates what will become of us if we give in to temptation and stray from the narrow path. Such narratives predate the heroine and indeed modernity: - stories from Greek mythology to old world fairy tales convey a common message. However, even though the heroine myth may be allegorical, this does not imply that it is false. Heroin is clearly a dangerous substance and is responsible for countless deaths and incalculable damage. But the myth doesn't even imply that heroin is, on a fundamental level, the worst drug. For a more objective answer to our question, we may need to consider a more empirical approach. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay To isolate the “worst” drug we need to clarify what we mean by “worst,” so let’s try a pretty simple definition: “the drug that kills the most people.” Tobacco is responsible for the majority of drug-related deaths and, according to UK government statistics, causes four times more deaths than alcohol and all other drugs combined. This definition, however, ignores multiple factors such as harm caused to other people and society at large, as well as non-lethal side effects such as damage to mental health and associated problems such as violence and disease. One of the most notable attempts to objectively classify drugs in terms of overall harmful effects came from British neuropsychopharmacologist David Nutt, whose studies attempt to pierce the fog of popular perception and arbitrary assumptions of government controversy, and whose controversial article 'Development of a Rational Scale' led to his dismissal from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Using data from a wide range of sources and a panel of independent psychiatrists and experts, this article concluded that heroin was truly the worst drug. However, his subsequent, more nuanced study concluded that alcohol is more harmful overall, mainly due to the harm it causes to others, with crack followed by heroin as the most harmful to others. consumers Although his reckless approach has perhaps undermined his influence, Nutt's work confidently demonstrates the flawed nature of the government classification system and strongly argues for a reevaluation of this system. But the colorful bar graphs and bold scatterplots present a picture that perhaps belies the complex complexity of reality. Factors such as long-term mental health problems may be impossible to assess and, as Nutt himself agrees, further work is needed on issues such as polydrug use and drug use. Perhaps more relevant to our question, his a posteriori approach evaluates the effects of drugs in today's society, effects that are at least partly due to this context. Heroin may be widespread, but its illegal status and reputation as a “demon drug”ensure that the vast majority of the population never uses it or even encounters it first hand. Alcohol, by contrast, is freely available and socially acceptable in much of the Western world. Although binge drinking culture among young people is apparently in decline, it remains associated with a kind of harmless hedonism and, despite its well-documented risks, is an important part of the social life of many. For older people, alcohol consumption it can be as much an obligation as a choice, provided you are not driving or “in the wagon”, and there is evidence that middle-aged people now drink more than younger people. The violence-inducing effects of alcohol are clearly exacerbated by the context of its consumption, often in public places and with strangers. In contrast, the nature of heroin is to be used secretly, if not solitarily, and its highly illegal status and associated stigma make discretion a priority for the user. While needles pose the risk of fatal overdose and transmission of HIV and other diseases, alcohol consumption increases the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and harm resulting from loss of control. Thus, although multiple complex factors contribute to the harmful effect of substances, it is clear that the importance of context should not be underestimated. According to Bruce Alexander, it is this disregard of context that has led to the popular claim that heroin is almost supernaturally addictive. , a claim refuted by two studies from the 1970s. The first, by Lee Robins et al., noted that American troops returning from the Vietnam War who used heroin had little propensity to continue using it. The second, conducted by Alexander himself, popularly known as the Rat Park experiment, used a very different methodology to reach a broadly similar conclusion. Alexander's study found that laboratory rats who quickly became addicted to morphine when isolated had little propensity to continue using it when placed in a comfortable environment in the company of other rats. These studies offered evidence of the contextual aspect of addiction, suggesting a focus on sociological rather than biomedical approaches to rehabilitation. But like all studies, their evidence is imperfect and incomplete, and both have been widely criticized. The conclusions of the Rat Park experiment were oversimplified to attract popular attention, and subsequent similar experiments produced inconsistent results. Rat Park remains the source of much controversy and has been accused of "still spreading bad ideas" 38 years after it was built. Lee Robins's findings were undermined by the fact that many of the soldiers she studied were occasional rather than frequent heroin users, and were apparently less successful in quitting other, more common illicit drugs. Furthermore, Robins' comparison to American heroin addicts who had been addicted for a longer period of time was misleading. In the popular imagination, heroin withdrawal is a hellish experience, another claim that is refuted by Bruce Alexander who describes it as uncomfortable and unpleasant, but hardly unbearable. . To support this claim, Alexander cites the experience of listening to a speaker whose only overt withdrawal symptoms were his persistent hiccups and tired demeanor. However, this view tends to conflict with ethnographic evidence. Bourgois's vivid description of a 'doped' drug addict who "succumbed to extraordinarily painful convulsion-like vomiting" after only a few hours without heroin paints a very different picture. Therehis interlocutors' desperation to use despite awareness of the risk to personal health and safety seems to support the idea that users will actually do anything to support their addiction. Furthermore, countless personal accounts of heroin use, from Burroughs's "Junkie" to more contemporary songs like "The Recovering," tend to agree. While such memoirs are perhaps created out of popular interest rather than scientific accuracy, they can offer insights beyond the reach of anthropologists. Although intrepid ethnographers have experimented with heroin, few, if any, have become regular users and experienced firsthand the ups and downs of long-term heroin addiction. Ethnographic accounts have been accused of focusing on the extreme aspects of heroin abuse and have perhaps made little contribution to the prevention of addiction. However, they cannot offer a participatory view of the human experience through laboratory observations, rats or interviews with war veterans. Alexander Bruce speaks with authority about the effects of heroin withdrawal but has never experienced it himself (we presume). However, ethnographic evidence appears to support one aspect of Alexander's hypothesis: - that heroin addicts are generally not out of control or "chaotic". Bourgois observes that, although heroin addicts are prone to stealing from each other, they are curiously tolerant of such transgressions and often well organized in their pursuit of heroin. Among prostitutes who use heroin, Frenken and colleagues observe similar patterns of behavior, and David Moore notes that drug addicts are capable of being calculated and manipulative and calls for a redefinition of the very term "chaotic." So if there is some truth to the claim that users are smart and clear-headed rather than crazy and unpredictable, or even that heroin withdrawal is no worse than a mild flu, why is heroin continually perceived as a such dependence? The critical role that context plays The issue of addiction is now abundantly clear, and perhaps evident in the common ground between sociological, ethnographic, and biomedical studies of addiction. This can be seen in the work of Alexander and Robins as well as ethnographies such as Frenken et al, which demonstrate that heroin use is an effect rather than a cause of women's entry into the sex work industry. The biomedical model takes a more deterministic approach to addiction. According to Leshner, continued drug use activates a "metaphorical switch" that pushes addicts to continue using, but he agrees that social context is also a factor in addiction. However, despite this weight of evidence, context is often overlooked in treatments. Fashion celebrities may flirt with addiction, then go through rehab and appear in magazine articles, but their circumstances are not representative. The detox experience in an exclusive clinic with clean beds, good food and useful medicines is not comparable to that of the street drug addict. Resisting heroin is much more difficult for a person living in very limited circumstances and whose problems, themselves catalysts for addiction, have grown exponentially as a result. There are perhaps good, if cynical, reasons for the dominance of the biomedical model: - in a neoliberal system that emphasizes maximum productivity and profit, enables rapid diagnosis and treatment, and creates income for pharmaceutical companies and private healthcare providers rather that expenses for public bodies. Of course, welfare states can provide help in the form of social workers and rehabilitation centers, but.