4 ms·

The article you posted is from well before Nutt was kicked out of his post, and it was common knowledge that this was an interest of his. You've stooped to an

The article you posted is from well before Nutt was kicked out of his post, and it was common knowledge that this was an interest of his. You've stooped to an ad-hominem, implying that Nutt's statistics are somehow faulty because he's got an interest in something which might "compete" with a drug he identifies as more harmful, without providing any evidence that he's wrong. That's slimy.

gaius 13y ago
Oh come on. No one robs a granny to buy another single malt. There are people who abuse anything, sure. But it's a stretch to say alcohol is a net negative on society, millions of people enjoy a drink. But crack unquestionably is.
- mattgibson 13y ago
  It's no stretch at all. If you read his article, they discriminate between 'bad for the users' (crack is worse) or 'bad for society' (alcohol is worse). http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/nov/01/alcohol-more-harmful-than-heroin-crack http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/nov/01/alcohol-more-... Alcohol is toxic to most major organs, is one of only a tiny number of drugs that can make normally passive people become violent, and is the world's most prolific date-rape drug. If you've ever seen the emergency room in a typical hospital on a Saturday night, you'd see that many of the millions who enjoy a drink get violent and antisocial, injuring themselves and others. Then there's domestic abuse, drunk driving, risky sex, etc etc. You'd need to take figures on all of those effects into account before deciding whether it's a 'stretch' or not. Which is exactly what Prof. Nutt did in his paper.
- matthewmacleod 13y ago
  That's a total non sequitur, given that I was objecting to this silly personal attack. I do not believe that alcohol is a net negative to society. I'm pretty confident that crack cocaine is more damaging, especially to the individual user (and in fact you'll find that borne out by Nutt's research). However, while perhaps "nobody robs a granny to buy a single malt," alcohol can very obviously have damaging effects, especially if it's misused. Sexual assault and drunk driving are just two examples. That these exist does not mean that alcohol should be banned, and that crack is more damaging does not mean that the most effective tool to prevent it's use is criminalisation.
- aneisf 13y ago
  >Oh come on. No one robs a granny to buy another single malt. No, they rob granny to buy another bottle of $15 vodka.

gaius 13y ago

Oh come on. No one robs a granny to buy another single malt. There are people who abuse anything, sure. But it's a stretch to say alcohol is a net negative on society, millions of people enjoy a drink. But crack unquestionably is.

mattgibson 13y ago
It's no stretch at all. If you read his article, they discriminate between 'bad for the users' (crack is worse) or 'bad for society' (alcohol is worse). http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/nov/01/alcohol-more-harmful-than-heroin-crack http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/nov/01/alcohol-more-... Alcohol is toxic to most major organs, is one of only a tiny number of drugs that can make normally passive people become violent, and is the world's most prolific date-rape drug. If you've ever seen the emergency room in a typical hospital on a Saturday night, you'd see that many of the millions who enjoy a drink get violent and antisocial, injuring themselves and others. Then there's domestic abuse, drunk driving, risky sex, etc etc. You'd need to take figures on all of those effects into account before deciding whether it's a 'stretch' or not. Which is exactly what Prof. Nutt did in his paper.
matthewmacleod 13y ago
That's a total non sequitur, given that I was objecting to this silly personal attack. I do not believe that alcohol is a net negative to society. I'm pretty confident that crack cocaine is more damaging, especially to the individual user (and in fact you'll find that borne out by Nutt's research). However, while perhaps "nobody robs a granny to buy a single malt," alcohol can very obviously have damaging effects, especially if it's misused. Sexual assault and drunk driving are just two examples. That these exist does not mean that alcohol should be banned, and that crack is more damaging does not mean that the most effective tool to prevent it's use is criminalisation.
aneisf 13y ago
>Oh come on. No one robs a granny to buy another single malt. No, they rob granny to buy another bottle of $15 vodka.