For decades, cannabis has been treated as a public menace while alcohol and tobacco were folded into daily life, policy frameworks and corporate profit models. A newly published scientific analysis out of Canada once again flips that logic on its head.
A peer-reviewed study published January 27 in the Journal of Psychopharmacology finds that alcohol and tobacco cause far greater overall harm to both individuals and society than cannabis. The research evaluates not just health risks, but the broader social damage associated with drug use, including injury, economic cost and harm to others.
The paper, titled Drug harms in Canada: A multi-criteria decision analysis, was authored by an international group of researchers and can be accessed here.
The findings are striking but consistent with prior global research. When all factors are weighed together, alcohol ranks as the most harmful drug overall, followed by tobacco. Cannabis sits far lower on the scale.
How the study measured harm
The researchers used a method known as multi-criteria decision analysis, a framework previously applied in the United Kingdom, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand.
A panel of 20 experts from six Canadian provinces evaluated 16 psychoactive substances, including alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, cocaine, methamphetamine, opioids and benzodiazepines. Each substance was scored across 16 categories of harm.
Ten categories measured harm to the user, including mortality risk, physical health damage, mental health impact and dependence. Six additional categories measured harm to others, including motor vehicle injuries, violence, environmental damage and economic cost.
After scoring each substance and weighting the relative importance of each category, alcohol emerged as the most damaging overall, with a cumulative harm score of 79. Tobacco followed at 45. Cannabis scored 15.
In other words, cannabis ranked far below alcohol and tobacco in terms of total population-level harm.
This isn’t new. That’s the point.
The Canadian findings align closely with earlier studies led by British neuropsychopharmacologist David Nutt, including a landmark 2010 Lancet paper that first drew international attention to alcohol’s outsized harm.
More recently, a 2024 U.S. study published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs found that secondhand harms from alcohol use were substantially more prevalent than harms caused by other drugs.
The consistency across countries and methodologies matters. These findings are not an outlier, and they are not driven by cannabis advocacy. They are driven by data.
What the study does and doesn’t say
The authors are careful to clarify that these harm scores reflect population-level impact, not the inherent danger of a substance in isolation.
Alcohol’s high ranking is not only about toxicity. It reflects how widely alcohol is used, how socially normalized it is and how weakly it is regulated relative to its risks.
Cannabis, by contrast, scores lower in part because it causes fewer harms to others. It is far less associated with violence, fatal accidents and long-term disease burden at the population level.
At the same time, the study does not claim cannabis is harmless. It acknowledges health risks, particularly for certain populations and patterns of use. The takeaway is not that cannabis should be ignored by regulators, but that drug policy should be proportional to actual harm.
As the authors note, the findings also reflect the current policy environment. Alcohol’s high harm score underscores what they describe as a failure to adopt proven policies to reduce alcohol-related damage, despite decades of evidence.
Why this matters now
As cannabis legalization continues to evolve across North America, the disconnect between scientific evidence and public policy remains stark.
Cannabis businesses face advertising bans, banking restrictions and criminal penalties that alcohol and tobacco companies do not. Meanwhile, alcohol remains deeply embedded in social life despite its well-documented risks.
This study does not argue for replacing one substance with another. It argues for honesty.
If governments claim to base drug policy on public health, then the relative harms of substances must be acknowledged. Otherwise, enforcement becomes less about safety and more about tradition, stigma and political convenience.
For readers who have long questioned why cannabis is treated differently, this research provides something valuable: confirmation grounded in evidence, not rhetoric.
The data is not radical. The implications are.
Photo: Shutterstock
