Alcohol 'more harmful than heroin'

[singlecoil]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660210


At last, somebody talking sense about all the drugs that people take!

The modelling exercise concluded that heroin, crack and methylamphetamine were the most harmful drugs to individuals, but alcohol, heroin and crack cocaine were the most harmful to others.

[ringram]

Its always seemed fked to me that alcohol, tobacco and coffee are legal drugs, while others arnt.
Legalise them all, tax them, control them and ban them in the workplace or where ever else, like Tobacco and Alcohol are already.

I blame the narrow minded religious retards.

[thinfourth2]

BAN COFFEE!!!! from the workplace.

Over my dead body

[Eric Mc]

Two bad drugs legal already. I have a brainwave, iin order to solve the drug related problems of society, let's legalise all drugs.

I've never quite got the logic behind this argument.

If you actually listen to Nutt, he actually isn't saying that alcohol is more harmful than heroin.

He was interviewed this morning on Radio 4 and he admitted that alcohol was LESS harmful to the individual than heroin, but that he was talking about societal impact rather than the effect on the individual.

Nutt is a disgruntled and bitter academic who is now on the sidelines carping and bhing and looking for attention.

[singlecoil]

Eric Mc said:

He was interviewed this morning on Radio 4 and he admitted that alcohol was LESS harmful to the individual than heroin, but that he was talking about societal impact rather than the effect on the individual.

Would it not be more fair to say that he agreed that alcohol was LESS harmful to the individual than heroin? By using the word 'admitted' I think you are impying that there is a weakness in his argument that was exposed during the interview, whereas in fact he has never denied that he was talking about overall harm rather than individual harm.

I agree with him, overall harm is far more important than individual harm. I have, TF, never been addicted to anything except overeating, but I have been personally affected by alcoholism(in others) far more than any other addiction.

[prand]

Surely this is about the scale of use?

I'm certain if crack or crystal meth were legal, and as widely used and available as alcohol, then the social effects would be horrendous.

[MikeyT]

As long as British culture still gives off the impression that the more you can drink, the better, more popular, and happier person you are, things will never change.

We created this myth .. now we live with the consequences.

[Eric Mc]

singlecoil said:

Eric Mc said:

He was interviewed this morning on Radio 4 and he admitted that alcohol was LESS harmful to the individual than heroin, but that he was talking about societal impact rather than the effect on the individual.

Would it not be more fair to say that he agreed that alcohol was LESS harmful to the individual than heroin? By using the word 'admitted' I think you are impying that there is a weakness in his argument that was exposed during the interview, whereas in fact he has never denied that he was talking about overall harm rather than individual harm.

I agree with him, overall harm is far more important than individual harm. I have, TF, never been addicted to anything except overeating, but I have been personally affected by alcoholism(in others) far more than any other addiction.

It depends on who wrote the original headline or heading to the press release. If it was him or his team, then he needed to clarify what he meant. I get the feeling that Nutt is an attention speaker and he is now running a personal campaign to prove his assertions.

I don't know what his true position is regarding changes to the law. Is he in favour of the legalising of currently illegal drugs? And, if so, does he think that easing the law on currently illegal drugs will make society a better place? And if so, how would he foresee a drug tolerant society developing in the future?

Edited by Eric Mc on Monday 1st November 09:11

[singlecoil]

Eric Mc said:

I don't know what his true position is regarding changes to the law.

It's my impression that he is providing us with a very well informed view of the overall situation. As to what should be done about it, if anything, I didn't get the impression that he felt he had a more valid opinion than anyone else.

Attention seeking? You could say that about the vast majority of people who appear on TV.

[IainT]

He was also on R5 this morning and clarified that alochol was the most damaging purely because of the scale of usage. Bit of a no-brainer really.

[Hedders]

It must be pretty obvious to everyone that Alcohol is going to be in the firing line once us horrible ciggarette smokers have been spurned by society!

Having lived with three junkies who could afford their heroin, you would not even know they had a problem unless you were there when they were actually doing the do. There is a five minutes period where they go 'sleepy' and then they appear perfectly normal and happy.

The only reason Heroin affects a wider audience is because it is expensive and addicts need to get that money. If it were legal it would be very cheap and people could just stay at home and mong out in peace

[Fittster]

ringram said:

Legalise them all, tax them, control them and ban them in the workplace or where ever else, like Tobacco and Alcohol are already.

Why is the automatic position to tax something?

[Eric Mc]

Fittster said:

ringram said:

Legalise them all, tax them, control them and ban them in the workplace or where ever else, like Tobacco and Alcohol are already.

Why is the automatic position to tax something?

Because it is. Legalising things opens the door for the government to reach in and grab - whether it be through taxation, licensing, setting up montoring beaurocracies etc.

[Hedders]

Fittster said:

ringram said:

Legalise them all, tax them, control them and ban them in the workplace or where ever else, like Tobacco and Alcohol are already.

Why is the automatic position to tax something?

Unfortuantely that is the only reason that currently illegal drugs might be legalised. So the government can make money.

What they do not seem to think about is legalising drugs just to save money, as saving money is not as much fun as getting even more money to spend.

[MikeyT]

Fittster said:

ringram said:

Legalise them all, tax them, control them and ban them in the workplace or where ever else, like Tobacco and Alcohol are already.

Why is the automatic position to tax something?

I know what you mean - but in this case I agree - tax it if it were made legal (there is no chance of that so purely hypothetical) then maybe they can lower the rate of tax on fuel to something even approaching FAIR.

[ringram]

Eric Mc said:

Two bad drugs legal already. I have a brainwave, iin order to solve the drug related problems of society, let's legalise all drugs.

I've never quite got the logic behind this argument.

If you actually listen to Nutt, he actually isn't saying that alcohol is more harmful than heroin.

He was interviewed this morning on Radio 4 and he admitted that alcohol was LESS harmful to the individual than heroin, but that he was talking about societal impact rather than the effect on the individual.

Nutt is a disgruntled and bitter academic who is now on the sidelines carping and bhing and looking for attention.

Yeah because Illegal drugs in Mexico have resulted in over 28,000 recent deaths. So lets stay with the ban option. Its worked for Mexico.

[Conian]

that crystal meth is a bit more-ish

[The_Burg]

[redacted]

[TEKNOPUG]

Eric Mc said:

Fittster said:

ringram said:

Legalise them all, tax them, control them and ban them in the workplace or where ever else, like Tobacco and Alcohol are already.

Why is the automatic position to tax something?

Because it is. Legalising things opens the door for the government to reach in and grab - whether it be through taxation, licensing, setting up montoring beaurocracies etc.

As opposed to making something illegal and opening the doors for criminals to reach in and grab?

The only reason that organised crime even exists is because of prohibition.

[rhinochopig]

Conian said:

that crystal meth is a bit more-ish

Good point, perhaps we should ban Pringles too.