3 ms·

Nutt didn't advocate restrictions on alcohol use. He argued that it was absurd to make other drugs illegal when something as dangerous as alcohol is illegal.

Nutt didn't advocate restrictions on alcohol use. He argued that it was absurd to make other drugs illegal when something as dangerous as alcohol is illegal. (By the way, if that last sentence is giving you cognitive dissonance, you need to stop and think hard about the statistics. The fact is that the most dangerous thing about pot, MDMA, LSD, and the like isn't their biochemistry. It's the fact that ignorant people have made them illegal.)

gaius 13y ago
Well, no, the dangerous thing is a second order effect of the being illegal, namely you've no way of knowing what you're actually buying. FWIW I'd like to see most drugs legalized and sold OTC at Boot's. But Nutt fundamentally failed to understand that a glass of wine with dinner or a pint after work - how most people actually drink most of the time - ARE inherently safer than pills.
- Nursie 13y ago
  >> But Nutt fundamentally failed to understand that a glass of wine with dinner or a pint after work - how most people actually drink most of the time - ARE inherently safer than pills. That depends what's in the pill, and how often there's a glass of wine, and if it's only ever one pint. Which I doubt. Binge drinking is a very popular passtime here in the UK and is very dangerous. Do you not think that when Prof Nutt makes these sorts of calculations they take this stuff into account? Or do you think he just pulls it all out of his arse?
  - gaius 13y ago
    Binge drinking doesn't mean what you think it does. The recommended alcohol in units is per week recognising that people might drink more on a Friday night. Binge drinking is defined as weekly limit/7 x 2. So you can be a "binge drinker" even if you drink half your units and nothing any other night! The term is just a stupid thing Tony Bliar made up.
    - Nursie 13y ago
      No, no it isn't, there are recognised damages from that sort of pattern of drinking. Look up alcohol kindling for a start. That pattern in particular may be more harmful than having constant levels in your system. You can rant and rave all you like, when the studies come in your (and my) favourite drug really is more harmful and more addictive than many/most others. (--edit-- had the term kindling wrong, now right)
      - gaius 13y ago
        You can Google in a second articles like http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1719675.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1719675.stm Can't do that with MDMA...
        Nursie 13y ago
        So f'cking what? Just because you can find an article from 12 years ago saying a small glass of red may be healthy (and I bet I can find 10 more articles saying it isn't in the 12 years since that was published), doesn't mean that alcohol isn't addictive and harmful to its users. Hell, few brits drink that way anyway and your article posits that the benefit doesn't come from the ethanol but something else. It doesn't support your position at all. Oh look I can google too - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23358078 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23358078 - around 9000 people a year die directly from alcohol misuse in the UK. Why do you have so much of a problem with this? Why do you think the experts are liars? Have you actually read any of Nutt's stuff? He doesn't actually advocate drug use, he's only interested in honesty and harm reduction. --edit-- can I ask why you're so invested in this idea that alcohol must be less harmful than anything else? I mean, the science is in. Booze is more addictive and more harmful (cancer, liver disease, alcoholism, alcohol related violence...) than lots of other drugs. Isn't an appropriate reaction to that news "oh, guess maybe those other things aren't as evil as I thought" rather than "but not really, because alcohol can't really be bad, we're only joking right lads? Booze is fine, right? I don't binge much, it's probably good for me eh? Not like those idiots taking pills" They may well be idiots, but you're probably in denial too.

gaius 13y ago

Well, no, the dangerous thing is a second order effect of the being illegal, namely you've no way of knowing what you're actually buying. FWIW I'd like to see most drugs legalized and sold OTC at Boot's. But Nutt fundamentally failed to understand that a glass of wine with dinner or a pint after work - how most people actually drink most of the time - ARE inherently safer than pills.

Nursie 13y ago
>> But Nutt fundamentally failed to understand that a glass of wine with dinner or a pint after work - how most people actually drink most of the time - ARE inherently safer than pills. That depends what's in the pill, and how often there's a glass of wine, and if it's only ever one pint. Which I doubt. Binge drinking is a very popular passtime here in the UK and is very dangerous. Do you not think that when Prof Nutt makes these sorts of calculations they take this stuff into account? Or do you think he just pulls it all out of his arse?
- gaius 13y ago
  Binge drinking doesn't mean what you think it does. The recommended alcohol in units is per week recognising that people might drink more on a Friday night. Binge drinking is defined as weekly limit/7 x 2. So you can be a "binge drinker" even if you drink half your units and nothing any other night! The term is just a stupid thing Tony Bliar made up.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    No, no it isn't, there are recognised damages from that sort of pattern of drinking. Look up alcohol kindling for a start. That pattern in particular may be more harmful than having constant levels in your system. You can rant and rave all you like, when the studies come in your (and my) favourite drug really is more harmful and more addictive than many/most others. (--edit-- had the term kindling wrong, now right)
    - gaius 13y ago
      You can Google in a second articles like http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1719675.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1719675.stm Can't do that with MDMA...
      - Nursie 13y ago
        So f'cking what? Just because you can find an article from 12 years ago saying a small glass of red may be healthy (and I bet I can find 10 more articles saying it isn't in the 12 years since that was published), doesn't mean that alcohol isn't addictive and harmful to its users. Hell, few brits drink that way anyway and your article posits that the benefit doesn't come from the ethanol but something else. It doesn't support your position at all. Oh look I can google too - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23358078 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23358078 - around 9000 people a year die directly from alcohol misuse in the UK. Why do you have so much of a problem with this? Why do you think the experts are liars? Have you actually read any of Nutt's stuff? He doesn't actually advocate drug use, he's only interested in honesty and harm reduction. --edit-- can I ask why you're so invested in this idea that alcohol must be less harmful than anything else? I mean, the science is in. Booze is more addictive and more harmful (cancer, liver disease, alcoholism, alcohol related violence...) than lots of other drugs. Isn't an appropriate reaction to that news "oh, guess maybe those other things aren't as evil as I thought" rather than "but not really, because alcohol can't really be bad, we're only joking right lads? Booze is fine, right? I don't binge much, it's probably good for me eh? Not like those idiots taking pills" They may well be idiots, but you're probably in denial too.