3 ms·
Because there are some big money interests that don't want alcohol regulated (much) or banned. There was an interesting study released in 2010 which attempted
by blunte 5y ago
Because there are some big money interests that don't want alcohol regulated (much) or banned.
There was an interesting study released in 2010 which attempted to measure the total cost, beyond just health harm, of different drugs. https://www.ias.org.uk/uploads/pdf/News%20stories/dnutt-lancet-011110.pdf https://www.ias.org.uk/uploads/pdf/News%20stories/dnutt-lanc...
The UK government did not like that study, because it showed that many illegal drugs were ultimately much less overall harm to society (the direct users as well as those around them and the healthcare system) than alcohol.
- abraxas 5y agoDid the study take into account the prevalence of each substance? Alcohol would be the most prevalent by a wide margin. If it's normalized for prevalence however, then the results are mighty interesting.
- blunte 5y agoYes, it was normalized. It was a very comprehensive, well thought out study. Of course the researchers could still get the results they wanted by choosing which metrics to include in the comparisons, but the choices attempted to balance individual cost (physical, mental) with social (family suffering, divorce) and societal (burden on society from underperforming people, shared health costs, etc.) The takeway was that alcohol was one of the worst, along with crack cocaine and heroin; ecstacy was really not bad, and weed was a bit worse but still nowhere near as overall costly/damaging as alcohol.