Historically, heroin is not the only drug that has been vilified, and drug use in various forms is far from an affliction of modernity, can be considered as 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 is therefore something of a myth. His view explains the arbitrary nature of changing cultural perceptions of drugs. In particular, it does not matter which substance is demonized: - myths exist to provide social guidance, and the drug myth, like that of diabolical possession, demonstrates what will happen to us if we give in to temptation and let's move away from the narrow path. Such stories predate the heroine, and even modernity: - stories from Greek mythology to ancient world fairy tales convey a common message. However, even though the heroine myth is allegorical, that does not mean it is false. Heroin is clearly a dangerous substance, responsible for countless deaths and incalculable damage. But this myth also does not imply that heroin is fundamentally 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 Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essayTo isolate the "worst" drug, it is necessary to clarify what we mean by "worst", so let's try a rather simple definition: "the drug that kills most people". Tobacco is responsible for the majority of drug-related deaths and, according to UK government statistics, it causes four times more deaths than alcohol and all other drugs combined. This definition, however, ignores multiple factors such as harm to others and society at large, as well as non-fatal side effects such as damage to mental health and associated problems such as violence and illness. One of the most notable attempts to objectively rank drugs in terms of overall harm came from British neuropsychopharmacologist David Nutt, whose studies attempt to cut through the fog of popular perception and arbitrary assumptions of government litigation, and whose controversial article "Development of a 'rational scale' led to his dismissal from the Advisory Council on Drug Abuse. Using data from a wide range of sources and a panel of psychiatrists and independent experts, this article concluded that heroin was indeed the worst drug. However, his later, more nuanced study concluded that alcohol is the most harmful overall, primarily due to the harm it causes to others, with crack followed by heroin being the most harmful to the users themselves . Although his reckless approach may have undermined his influence, Nutt's work confidently demonstrates the flawed nature of the government classification system and makes a strong case for a reevaluation of that system. But the colorful bar charts and bold scatterplots present a picture that perhaps belies the nuanced complexity of reality. Factors such as long-term mental health problems may be impossible to assess and, as Nutt himself agrees, more work is needed on issues such as polydrug use and pharmaceutical drug use. Perhaps more relevant to our question, its a posteriori approach evaluates the effects of drugs in today's society, effects whichare at least partly due to this context. Heroin may be widespread, but its illegal status and reputation as a "devil drug" ensures that the vast majority of the population never uses it, or even encounters it. Alcohol, on the other hand, is freely available and socially acceptable in most of the Western world. Although the culture of binge drinking among young people is apparently in decline, it remains associated with a kind of harmless hedonism and, despite its well-documented risks, forms an important part of the social lives of many. For older people, drinking can be as much an obligation as a choice, provided you are not driving or "on the trolley", and there is evidence that middle-aged people now drink more than younger people. The violent 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 must be used in secret, even solitary, and its highly illegal status and associated stigma make discretion a priority for the user. While needles carry the risk of fatal overdose and transmission of HIV and other diseases, alcohol use increases the risk of STDs and harm from loss of control. Thus, although multiple complex factors contribute to the harmful effects of substances, it is clear that the importance of context should not be underestimated. According to Bruce Alexander, it is this disregard for context that has led to the popular assertion that heroin is almost supernaturally addictive. , a claim refuted by two studies from the 1970s. The first, by Lee Robins et al., observed that heroin-using American troops returning from the Vietnam War were disinclined to continue using the drug. The second, carried out by Alexander himself, known as the Rat Park experiment, used a very different methodology to reach a broadly similar conclusion. Alexander's study found that laboratory rats that quickly became dependent on morphine when isolated were disinclined to continue using it when in a comfortable environment in the company of other rats. These studies provided 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 flawed and incomplete, and both have been widely criticized. The conclusions of the Rat Park experiment were oversimplified to appeal to the general public, and subsequent similar experiments yielded inconsistent results. Rat Park remains a source of much controversy and has been accused of "still spreading bad ideas" 38 years after its creation. Lee Robins' findings were contradicted by the fact that many of the soldiers she studied were occasional rather than frequent heroin users and that they apparently had less success quitting other, more common illicit drugs. Additionally, Robins' comparison to American heroin addicts who had been addicted for longer was misleading. In the popular imagination, heroin withdrawal is a hellish experience, another claim refuted by Bruce Alexander who describes it as uncomfortable and unpleasant, but hardly unbearable. . In support of this claim, Alexander cites the experience of listening to a speaker whose only overt withdrawal symptoms were his persistent sniffling and tired demeanor. However, this view tends to conflict with ethnographic evidence. ThereBourgois' graphic description of a "drug sick" addict who "succumbed to extraordinarily painful, convulsion-like vomiting" after only a few hours without heroin paints a very different picture. The despair of his interlocutors in the face of consumption, despite their awareness of the risk to people's health and safety, also seems to reinforce the idea that consumers are indeed ready to do anything to support their addiction. Furthermore, countless personal accounts of heroin use, from Burroughs' "Junkie" to more contemporary shows such as "The Recovering," tend to agree. Although these memoirs are perhaps created for popular appeal rather than scientific accuracy, they may offer insights beyond the reach of anthropologists. Although intrepid ethnographers experimented with heroin, few, if any, became regular users and experienced first-hand the highs and lows of the long-term heroin addict. Ethnographic accounts have been accused of focusing on the extreme side of heroin abuse and may have made a small contribution to addiction prevention. They do, however, offer a participatory view of the human experience that laboratory observations of rats or interviews with veterans cannot. Alexander Bruce speaks with authority about the effects of heroin withdrawal but never (we presume) experienced them himself. Nevertheless, ethnographic evidence appears to support one aspect of Alexander's hypothesis: - that heroin addicts are generally not uncontrollable or "chaotic." Bourgois notes that although heroin addicts are likely to steal from each other, they are curiously tolerant of such intrusions and are often well organized in their pursuit of heroin. Among heroin-using sex workers, Frenken et al. observe similar patterns of behavior, and David Moore notes that addicts are capable of being calculated and manipulative and calls for a redefinition of the term "chaotic" itself. So, if there is some truth in the suggestion that users are intelligent and clear-headed rather than crazy and unpredictable, or even that heroin withdrawal is no worse than a mild flu, why Is heroin continually seen as so addictive? The crucial role that context plays in addiction is now abundantly clear, and perhaps apparent in the common ground between sociological, ethnographic, and biomedical studies of addiction. This is 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 work industry sex. The biomedical model takes a more deterministic approach to addiction. Leshner says continued drug use triggers a “metaphorical shift” 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 neglected in treatments. Fashionable celebrities may flirt with addiction, then go to rehab and appear in magazine articles, but their situation is not representative. The experience of detoxification in an exclusive clinic with clean beds, good food and helpful medications is nothing like that of the street addict. Resisting heroin is much more difficult for a person who lives in significantly reduced conditions and whose problems, themselves catalysts for.