Breaking Down the Landmark CAMH-Led Alcohol Harm Study in Canada

The recent publication titled 'Drug Harms in Canada: A Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis' has sent ripples through public health circles, particularly within academic and research communities across Canadian universities and colleges. Led by researchers at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), which maintains strong ties to the University of Toronto, this study marks the first comprehensive, Canada-specific evaluation of psychoactive substance harms using a rigorous scientific framework. Published on January 26, 2026, in the Journal of Psychopharmacology, it draws on expertise from a diverse panel of 20 professionals spanning six provinces, including epidemiologists, addiction specialists, and those with lived experience in substance use.

What sets this alcohol harm study apart is its use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), a method originally pioneered in the United Kingdom by Professor David Nutt and colleagues. MCDA allows for a nuanced assessment by considering multiple harm dimensions simultaneously, rather than relying on simplistic metrics like overdose deaths alone. This approach is especially relevant for higher education institutions, where research in public health and addiction medicine is burgeoning, offering opportunities for students and faculty alike to engage in impactful policy-informing work.

How MCDA Works: Step-by-Step Insight into the Methodology

Understanding MCDA is crucial for grasping why this alcohol harm study in Canada provides such authoritative insights. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is an analytical technique designed to support complex decisions involving competing criteria. Here's how the researchers applied it step by step:

• Panel Selection: A multidisciplinary group of 20 experts was assembled, chaired by Jean-François Crépault, a senior policy advisor at CAMH. Panelists hailed from fields like epidemiology (e.g., Mark Asbridge from Dalhousie University), addiction medicine (e.g., Bernard Le Foll from the University of Toronto), and harm reduction advocacy.
• Harm Criteria Definition: Sixteen distinct harm types were evaluated, divided into 10 affecting users (e.g., drug-specific mortality, dependence, physical injury, mental health impairment) and six impacting others (e.g., violence, economic costs, environmental damage).
• Scoring Process: During a two-day decision conference in Toronto on November 10-11, 2024, experts scored each of 16 drugs from 0 to 100 per criterion, drawing on empirical data like prevalence from the Canadian Alcohol and Drugs Survey.
• Weighting: Criteria were weighted for relative importance using 'swing weighting'—a technique where panelists compared the value of avoiding the worst outcome in one criterion versus another. Weights summed to 100 across categories like physical, mental, and social harms.
• Aggregation: Scores were combined using specialized software (HiView3) to yield overall population-level harm scores, factoring in both per-user risk and usage prevalence.

This methodical process ensures transparency and reproducibility, making it a gold standard for drug policy research conducted in Canadian higher education settings.

Full Rankings: Alcohol Tops the List by a Wide Margin

The study's overall harm scores reveal stark disparities. Alcohol emerged as the unequivocal leader with a score of 79 out of 100, far surpassing all others. Here's a breakdown of the top-ranked substances:

Lower-ranked drugs included prescription opioids, crack cocaine, benzodiazepines, and psychedelics like LSD and MDMA, which scored minimal population-level impact due to rarity of use. These rankings reflect total societal burden in Canada, emphasizing alcohol's dominance from its ubiquity—over 80% of Canadians report lifetime use.

Dissecting Alcohol's Harms: To Users and Society

Alcohol's score breaks down to 52.4 for user harms and 26.4 for others, highlighting its dual impact. For users, it excels in physical harms like liver disease and cancer, mental harms including depression and cognitive decline, and social issues like family breakdown. To others, it drives traffic fatalities (over 25% of road deaths), violence (40% of assaults), and healthcare costs exceeding $14 billion annually in Canada.

In university contexts, these harms manifest acutely. Canadian campuses report binge drinking rates of 30-40% among undergraduates, correlating with academic disruptions, sexual assaults, and mental health crises. Institutions like the University of British Columbia and McGill University have ramped up research into these patterns, underscoring the need for evidence-based interventions.

Why Alcohol Outranks Fentanyl and Meth: Context Matters

Despite fentanyl's notoriety—with over 7,000 overdose deaths yearly—non-prescription opioids scored only 33. Opioids devastate per user but affect fewer people (prevalence ~2%). Meth and cocaine tie at 19, 'punching above their weight' in severity but limited by lower uptake.

Alcohol's edge stems from cultural normalization and lax regulation. Unlike illegal drugs, it's sold in supermarkets, advertised widely, and socially expected at events—including university orientations. This accessibility amplifies harms, a pattern mirrored in MCDA studies from the UK (alcohol 72/100) and Australia (alcohol highest).

For higher ed researchers, this disparity spotlights policy research opportunities. Explore research jobs in epidemiology and public health at Canadian universities to contribute to such analyses.

Canadian Context: Alcohol Consumption Trends and Costs

Canada's per capita alcohol consumption hovers at 8 liters of pure alcohol annually, with youth (18-24) showing the highest risky drinking rates. Post-legalization shifts haven't curbed this; CAMH data notes rising dependence symptoms from 7.4% pre-pandemic to over 12% recently.

Economic toll: $24 billion yearly in healthcare, lost productivity, and criminal justice. Indigenous communities face disproportionate impacts, with alcohol-linked violence 3-5 times higher. Universities like the University of Saskatchewan lead studies on culturally tailored prevention.

Read the full CAMH press release for deeper stats.

Expert Perspectives: Quotes from the Research Panel

Jean-François Crépault emphasized: “Alcohol clearly stands out... highlighting a major gap between the harms and current regulation.” Dr. Jürgen Rehm added: “Alcohol combines serious harms with very widespread use.” These voices, many from academia, call for parity in drug policies.

Panel diversity—including Indigenous criminologist Robert Henry and youth mental health expert Karleigh Darnay—ensures balanced views, reflecting Canada's multicultural higher ed landscape.

Policy Implications: Proven Strategies to Reduce Alcohol Harm

The study urges evidence-based reforms: minimum unit pricing (proven 10-20% consumption drop in UK), availability curbs (fewer outlets), and marketing bans (especially targeting youth). Canada's patchwork provincial rules lag; Ontario's recent ad restrictions are a start.

On campuses, harm reduction shines: education campaigns, sober events, and screening tools. Universities partnering with CAMH report 15-25% harm reductions. For administrators eyeing policy roles, career advice on academic CVs can position you for leadership in health policy.

Impacts on Higher Education: Campuses, Students, and Research Careers

Alcohol harms hit universities hard: 1 in 5 students experience alcohol-related violence, per Universities Canada surveys. Binge drinking links to 30% GPA drops and higher dropout rates. Research from Western University shows policy tweaks like later bar hours worsen this.

Positively, this study fuels addiction research funding. Postdocs in psychopharmacology or social epidemiology are in demand. Check postdoc opportunities or Canadian academic jobs to join the fray.

International Comparisons and Lessons for Canada

Aligning with global MCDA: UK's 2010 study (alcohol #1), NZ 2020 (same). Yet Canada regulates alcohol leniently versus tobacco. Nordic models—high taxes, monopolies—cut harms 20-30%.

Future outlook: With federal reviews looming, academic input is key. Access the open-access study for methodological details.

Photo by Sérgio Alves Santos on Unsplash

Future Directions: Research Gaps and Actionable Insights

Gaps include variant-specific analyses (e.g., binge vs. chronic drinking) and subgroup harms (e.g., students). Solutions: Integrate MCDA into Health Canada frameworks; campuses adopt WHO 'best buys'.

For readers: Track intake via apps, advocate locally. Aspiring profs, rate experiences at Rate My Professor or seek faculty positions in public health. In conclusion, this study reframes drug discourse, prioritizing evidence for safer Canada—starting on campuses.

Explore more career resources at higher ed jobs, higher ed career advice, and university jobs.