Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Beavis

Dave Nutt - "Alcohol most dangerous drug in UK"

Recommended Posts

Alcohol is the most dangerous drug in the UK by a considerable margin, beating heroin and crack cocaine into second and third place, according to an authoritative study published today which will reopen calls for the drugs classification system to be scrapped and a concerted campaign launched against drink.

Led by the sacked government drugs adviser David Nutt with colleagues from the breakaway Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs, the study says that if drugs were classified on the basis of the harm they do, alcohol would be class A, alongside heroin and crack cocaine.

Today's paper, published by the respected Lancet medical journal, will be seen as a challenge to the government to take on the fraught issue of the relative harms of legal and illegal drugs, which proved politically damaging to Labour.

Today's study offers a more complex analysis that seeks to address the 2007 criticisms. It examines nine categories of harm that drugs can do to the individual "from death to damage to mental functioning and loss of relationships" and seven types of harm to others. The maximum possible harm score was 100 and the minimum zero.

Overall, alcohol scored 72 – against 55 for heroin and 54 for crack. The most dangerous drugs to their individual users were ranked as heroin, crack and then crystal meth. The most harmful to others were alcohol, heroin and crack in that order.

Nutt told the Guardian the drug classification system needed radical change. "The Misuse of Drugs Act is past its sell-by date and needs to be redone," he said. "We need to rethink how we deal with drugs in the light of these new findings."

For overall harm, the other drugs examined ranked as follows: crystal meth (33), cocaine (27), tobacco (26), amphetamine/speed (23), cannabis (20), GHB (1) benzodiazepines (15), ketamine (15), methadone (13), butane (10), qat (9), ecstasy (9), anabolic steroids (9), LSD (7), buprenorphine (6) and magic mushrooms (5).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/01/alcohol-more-harmful-than-heroin-crack

This should make the anti drugs people look even more stupid as they sit ranting about drugs as they sip their brandy and whisky.

David Nutt>>>>>>>>>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will no doubt discredit or ignore everything they can. For some reason there's a strong resistance to changing the drug laws in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see alcohol ever being illegal the goverment make to much money off it.

true but glad this study has been done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol

if heroin and crack shared the same social status as alcohol the stats would be different

and this is such a stupid case for an argument to legalise drugs, by demonising an already legal drug

the case for legalising drugs is rationality, it reduces crime, decreases health risks, and there is sustainable control over addiction, increased user awareness...

but i have already posted why certain drugs are illegal

no point arguing to the government about oh this is less dangerous then that are you f*ck*ng stupid do you not think they already know that

the game gets deeper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was with him about weed but nt sure about this.

its a bit of a narrow view because they are only considering physical harm. with drugs mental harm is an important issue which isnt weighted enough here.

I can't see alcohol ever being illegal the goverment make to much money off it.

not just that, it wouldnt work because its so ingrained in society. if they could make it illegal thought i reckon they would. just like with weed, its illegal cos they actually can hold it back....regardless of wheter its double standards with other drug policies or not.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It examines nine categories of harm that drugs can do to the individual "from death to damage to mental functioning and loss of relationships" and seven types of harm to others

spiderman it did take into account mental functioning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think sum of u r misunderstanding this, its not about demonizing alcohol or arguing that it should be prohibited like other drugs, its intended to highlight the irrationality of prohibition.

when the americans introduced prohibition in the 20's they included alcohol amongst the banned substances, they did this because they knew that there would be no moral ground for banning drugs based on the damage they inflict on society without including alcohol.

as it turns out they found that alcohol prohibition was unenforcable, mainly because anyone can manufacture alcohol anywhere with anything that will ferment. so alcohol was made legal again whilst the other drugs remained illegal. There are many conspiracy theories about why prohibition was first introduced, e.g to block southern hemp farmers cos hemp products were a threat to the emerging synthetic fibers.

But i think the main reason for prohibition is control, the countries that consume drugs want to control the countries that produce them. here in the u.k drug prohibition only came into effect as the our influence over the countries that produced cannabis and opium such as the middle east and asia waned and we lost control of the trade.

consider the fantastic revenue for south american countries if the cocaine trade was legal. the situation we have now is criminal syndicates with incredible wealth, are better armed and have more resources than most south american governments. these governments are then obliged to take loans from the americans in order to fight an un-winnable war on drugs, whilst their ppl r hungry and living in shacks.

imagine if you could buy fair trade cocaine at ur local shop and south american farmers could receive a fair proportion of the profits from one of the most lucrative substances on earth, imagine how these countries would rise up and be elevated out of the 3rd world. now think of how america fears losing influence over that area, how they still fear the spread of marxist/leftist politics through the region. or how we fear making heroin profits legitimately to available 'islamist regimes' The 'war on drugs' is basically about rich countries bullying poor countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol

if heroin and crack shared the same social status as alcohol the stats would be different

and this is such a stupid case for an argument to legalise drugs, by demonising an already legal drug

/case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Esquilax

It's not really demonisation, it's merely pointing out that if you abuse alcohol as hard as some people abuse heroin and crack, it will have a potentially more damaging effect

As generations of rockstars have proven, not everyone who shoots up is a pallid, sweating, dying mess

Look at Keith Richards, he must have hit the booze, coke and heroin hard from about 1965- recently, guys still breathing.

The thing about heroin and the like is we only ever see pictures of teenagers slumped in their rooms after having injected themselves with far too much. I'm not condoning the use , and I'm not against it- a variation of it is used in our hospitals.

If you're going to trust anyones judgement on the subject, it's going to be David Nutt's. He has nothing to gain from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Yilmaz

But there are other people just as qualified as David Nutt who don't agree with him...that's science.

If you (the royal you I mean) think we should blanketly follow what one person says no matter his position, then you're an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Esquilax

When did I say that? Did I say only trust his advice and disregard everyone else? No, I didn't, I said he's a reliable source because he's not getting paid by the government and conducts independent studies.

Some anti drug campaigns are funded by the government and the alcohol and tobacco industries. Take for instance the opposition to proposition 19 in California. One of the strongest opposers is the Alcholol industry because they don't want any competition. They'll pay anti drug propaganda groups tens of thousands of dollars to speak out against it. So it's important to know where your sources come from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Yilmaz

When did I say that? Did I say only trust his advice and disregard everyone else? No, I didn't, I said he's a reliable source because he's not getting paid by the government and conducts independent studies.

Did you see the part where I said the royal you...do you know what that means?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×