Opioids can be used in VERY high doses as a person becomes more dependent. What is clear is that people are use to heroin and then take the higher dose without knowing and OD. This is the current trend. It is cheaper to get the Fent from Ch than the H from Afgan.

[1] http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,288... [2] http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_exa...

I don't know any user of any substance that would say "well 1 unit is likely to get me off a bit, so I think I'll take 20 just to be sure".

If alcohol was illegal the death toll might be even higher. People might shift to something with more bang for the buck and have an even shittier and shorter life than dying with 64 from liver failure.

> Overall, alcohol was the most harmful drug (overall harm score 72), with heroin (55) and crack cocaine (54) in second and third places.

>Members of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs, including two invited specialists, met in a 1-day interactive workshop to score 20 drugs on 16 criteria: nine related to the harms that a drug produces in the individual and seven to the harms to others. Drugs were scored out of 100 points, and the criteria were weighted to indicate their relative importance.

You could make the scores come out however you wanted based on the people you chose for the "1-day interactive workshop" and the criteria you used as the basis for the analysis. This isn't something you'd ever want to use as a basis for policy.

Better data about drug policy and harm reduction can be found by looking at results from Portugal or other countries with permissive policies. None of them supports the claim that prohibition reduces use or harm caused.