Alcohol abuse is more harmful than crack or heroin abuse, according to a new study by a former British government drug advisor and other experts.

nutt isn’t campaigning against alcohol. he’s previously said that horse-riding is more dangerous than ecstasy (and lost his job for it), even though in the uk, ecstasy is a class a drug with heroin and cocaine.

another article with nice charts:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/11/drugs_debate…

[ChrisC] nutt isn’t campaigning against alcohol.

Maybe that is why it is so interesting.

If this kind of rhetoric, oops, information came from a sermon, people would dismiss it as a rabid “anti-alcohol” preacher. I previously saw this article and thought of some here at SI who seem to be very “alcohol-sympathetic”.

I read this article yesterday, and I think it just illustrates our lack of consistency on such matters. Personally, I think it also reinforces the ‘abstaining because of prudence’ argument.

I’m not clear as to what this article really means. There are no parameters given for dosage or frequency. Furthermore, because of their prevalence, the adverse effects of alcohol and tobacco have been studied far more exhaustively than those of any other substance. If I’m reading this right, in conjunction with Chris’ link, the study is not actually prescriptive, but rather descriptive. It’s telling how much harm particular substances are causing in Britain. At least, I don’t know how anyone could predict a category like “economic costs” or “environmental damage.” So, although these articles may be calculating harm currently done, I’m not sure that they speak much to the inherent dangerousness of substances vis-a-vis each other.

I’ve never heard of anybody (though I’m sure somebody has) who died from drinking a single can of Budweiser, but there are plenty of people who die the first time they get a hit of crack. If you had to choose (thank goodness you don’t), would you want your kid’s babysitter to have had a glass of wine or a needle of meth?

Then what about articles like this: http://www.thecurrentonline.net/oped/do-the-health-benefits-of-alcohol-…

[Charlie] …the study is not actually prescriptive, but rather descriptive. It’s telling how much harm particular substances are causing in Britain. At least, I don’t know how anyone could predict a category like “economic costs” or “environmental damage.” So, although these articles may be calculating harm currently done, I’m not sure that they speak much to the inherent dangerousness of substances vis-a-vis each other.

Definitely descriptive, and i think the only useful conclusion from the study is the same as from their 2006 study — that there is a good scientific basis for moving ecstasy from a class A to a class B drug. The conclusion about alcohol grabs headlines, but it depends on the new weighting system. Previous studies had heroine and cocaine ranked higher than alcohol.

Jumping off Charlie’s comment, and taking into consideration the gist of the article, I think one of the most important lessons to take away from this is the danger of legalizing drugs, including alcohol and tobacco.

There are other lessons as well, but if some of these other drugs were legalized, I think you would see them climbing the ‘harm chart’ as well.