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://

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.