Alcohol 'more harmful than heroin' says Prof David Nutt

Alcohol 'more harmful than heroin' says Prof David Nutt

www.bbc.co.uk

Alcohol is more harmful than heroin or crack, according to a study published in medical journal the Lancet.

The report is co-authored by Professor David Nutt, the former UK chief drugs adviser who was sacked by the government in October 2009.

It ranks 20 drugs on 16 measures of harm to users and to wider society.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Many of us are already aware of the harm that alcohol can cause. For it to be shown it is as bad as it is, it takes a fired government official to do a private study without any political interference.

Just goes to show how corrupt politics is.

The UK national health service (NHS) has complained for many years about how many alcohol related problems they face at all of the UK's hospitals on a daily basis.

Many a drink-driving campaign has been launched to save the lives of many road users and pedestrians. This campaign is obviously a money spinner, obtaining money from the known problems of alcohol abuse in order to sustain a society and/or line fat cats pockets.

Why such a dangerous substance can be aloud to be legally sold can only be for profit and control.
This control could be more about preventing riots of angry citizens. The stress and strains we receive on a daily basis are largely swept away by a couple of drinks down the local pub (bar) which often leads to more drinks, either in a session or spread over a long term abuse cycle. This helps TPTB by allowing them to be sure that many an issue can be fixed temporarily by a few drinks and can be easily controlled by a police force and health service which all raise profits.

The actual problems caused by alcohol are ignored as there is far more to be made from the sale of such a deadly drug than banning or controling it which would make a lot of people angry.

So what should we do? Does there need to be more control on alcohol? more education? The banning of it? Tighter restrictions on where it can be consumed like the smoking ban?


www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Also posted here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Maybe some of the die-hard anti-drugs crew will take notice of this. Then again, maybe not.

As I said in another post on the subject:

Many people have been saying this for a very long time.
Here in the UK, the cost to the taxpayer treating injuries due to alcohol induced violence and stupidity is huge. Add to that the acts of alcohol induced vandalism and the cost of policing many town and city centres when the pubs and clubs close and the cost rises further.

I'd like to see charges introduced for any treatment of injuries received where alcohol is a factor. The NHS is cash strapped as it is and alcohol linked injuries and illnesses are a huge drain on resources.
I expect the authors of the report to be ridiculed again over this, like they were previously, forcing their resignation from government employment, but they deserve to be heard and I think the figures speak for themselves.

I don't buy that at all. All 12 heroin users I knew are dead, I know plenty of people that are hardcore alcoholics that are over 50. Also, not every person that drinks alcohol is an alcoholic, or even an idiot. Name a single regular herion user that is not an addict. If people want to put harmful substances in their body, that is their right IMO. When they go out and do something stupid that hurts other, then yes they should be punished.

Thats quite suprising, I want to know how they came to these results though as imho heroin is a lot lot worse than a bit of Liqour, crack too. Unless they mean the cost of hospital admission / cost of policing town centres, drunken fights ect, but surely, muggings, burglary, rehab has a bigger affect on society




I'm also very suprised to see '___' right at the bottom of the list as prolonged use has a devistating affect on your mental condition.

reply to post by Extralien


I do not agree that alcohol is more dangerous than heroin as i was a heroin addict for a few years and almost died several times. and to answer your question on what i think should happen with alcohol is it should be made illegal and marijuana should be made legal. no one dies from marijuana unless they are shot by a dealer wich is rare here. it helps people who are nauseated. it helps glaucoma. it helps prevent breast cancer. but before i get off topic i really dont think alcohol is as bad as heroin but it should definitely be illegal before marijuana should.

Originally posted by TKDRL
I don't buy that at all. All 12 heroin users I knew are dead, I know plenty of people that are hardcore alcoholics that are over 50. Also, not every person that drinks alcohol is an alcoholic, or even an idiot. Name a single regular herion user that is not an addict. If people want to put harmful substances in their body, that is their right IMO. When they go out and do something stupid that hurts other, then yes they should be punished.

maybe if we had a sensible drugs policy those 12 people may still be alive. Heroin kills its users by overdose or contamination. As its bought on the black market you never know the strength it has been cut to. If heroin is delivered at the right dose, it is not harmful to the user apart from being addictive.

If you examine the graph in the study, you notice that harm is divided into "harm to users" and "harm to others". Heroin and crack have the greatest "harm to users" column from all drugs listed. Heroin is the second in the list ONLY because it has lower "harm to others column" than alcohol. Why? Probably because its forbidden. Imagine it would not be, and would be sold in every bar like alcohol. What would be its "harm to others" column then?

Heroin is also FAR more physically addictive than alcohol. Majority of moderate regular alcohol users are not physically addicted to it. In the case of heroin, its the other way around. So claiming that if heroin would be legalised, majority of people would be able to use it only moderately like alcohol is simply false. It has far greater addictive potential.

This study actually PROVES that criminalization of hard drugs can lower their harm on the society so that its even less than the alcohol caused harm, even if all relevant biochemical properties (harm, addictive potential) of heroin are worse than alcohol.

Originally posted by Maslo
If you examine the graph in the study, you notice that harm is divided into "harm to users" and "harm to others". Heroin and crack have the greatest "harm to users" column from all drugs listed. Heroin is the second in the list ONLY because it has lower "harm to others column" than alcohol. Why? Probably because its forbidden. Imagine it would not be, and would be sold in every bar like alcohol. What would be its "harm to others" column then?

Heroin is also FAR more physically addictive than alcohol. Majority of moderate regular alcohol users are not physically addicted to it. In the case of heroin, its the other way around. So claiming that if heroin would be legalised, majority of people would be able to use it only moderately like alcohol is simply false. It has far greater addictive potential.

This study actually PROVES that criminalization of hard drugs can lower their harm on the society so that its even less than the alcohol caused harm, even if all relevant biochemical properties (harm, addictive potential) of heroin are worse than alcohol.

IF this study proves that criminalization of hard drugs lowers harm to society, explain why countrys like Holland where all drugs have been de-criminalised have much much lower cases of drug use through out the entire spectrum(soft to hard drugs)?

reply to post by TKDRL


the way theyre conveying their findings is really poor. I heard the prof on radio this morning where it was made clear.

Basically the reason they found it does more harm is becuase of the number of poeple who drink alcohol. He's not saying alcohol is more harmfull than some class A drugs. But as a measure on the harm done to our society & individuals is greater becuase of the volume of alcohol users.

Theyre talking about where to put resources into combating negative effects of drugs (including alcohol). the study shows alcohol does the most harm- becuase a shedload more poeple use it. Therefor more resources & thought need to be put into combatting the negative effects of alcohol in the uk.

reply to post by SKUNK2

IF this study proves that criminalization of hard drugs lowers harm to society, explain why countrys like Holland where all drugs have been de-criminalised have much much lower cases of drug use through out the entire spectrum(soft to hard drugs)?

www.parl.gc.ca...

Hard drugs are illegal in the Netherlands. Only soft drugs are partially decriminalized, and I agree with that. Soft drugs should be legalised, but not hard drugs. I was talking about criminalization of hard drugs.

Alcoholics are addicted to alcohol... some for the simple fact they feel they cannot cope without a daily drink.

But addiction is not the issue really. It's more to do with the harm these drugs do. People become addicted to almost anything.

I see far more people drunk and being involved in some form of harm than I do addicted drug users. We hear about drink drivers killing people or drunks fighting in the streets on a daily basis, but we do not hear of those who die from drug addiction/overdoses.

IMO, there is a campaign that sustains the use of alcohol in this country. It is profitable in more areas than just the off licences and supermarkets that sell it. It keeps many services busy and people employed. It prevents protests and riots regarding government issues or daily living due to our ability to 'forget our worries' after a few drinks. It fuels anger and splits people and the community down in such a way that we are afraid to walk the streets at night. This could possibly be good for TPTB as it reduces the costs of having to put more police on patrols.

With the majority of pubs, bars and nightclubs in certain areas of a city, the less police you need to cover known hotspots. If nobody drank there would be the need for more areas to be covered as we would find ways in which to spend our free time.. whatever those ways may be, somebody up there would not like it. If you're all in a pub getting drunk then that suits TPTB just fine as your drugging yourtself into a peaceful nights slumber and not out on the streets needing to be monitored or worried about.

There is a big difference between use and abuse and education of this must be pushed forwards, but it's not as it would cost too much and make us more aware of things so we would probably consume less.

We might even wake up.

All the government is prepared to do is put warning signs on bottles, cans and in pubs and bars. The legal age to buy alcohol is not raised because many who buy it are young students away from home for the first time in their lives (not labeling anyone.. just an example). Pop culture, stardom and footballers are more of a concern as alcohol swirls its way around these groups like liquid fire and it is these groups that are major influences on our young and they could be the addictive 'draw' to alcohol than alcohol itself.

reply to post by yeti101


The reaction of the media in this country when covering these stories really does not help the debate. Knee jerk reactions and pandering to the middle class's will only maintain the status quo and we will never make any rational changes to drug policy.

Personally i would stay away from all 3. I would not drink, and alcohol, seems to have a really negative effect on people full stop, and people do not know when to stop.

On the other stuff, who knows.

I tend to agree that the illegal status of these things are put down to powerful people wanting to make money, not really that they are wrong.

When did these things become illegal, and who benefits.

The black op community, i.e the gov run agencies, that must run the drug trade must make fortunes.

The drug trade must be run by these agencies full stop. How come drugs are everywhere all the time. How come they just do not spray all the crops making there opium trade?

The questions on these subjects never get answered, and why. Its because powerful people in society must run this thing.

I agree with the Professor. I was awakened on more than one occasion as a kid to my house being wrecked 'cos my dad had too much to drink. Lots of auntie's/uncles divorcing over the demon drink too, same with friends and their relatives. Then there are the parties that turn into fights. When I hear shouting outside at the weekend and see the blue lights of police cars or ambulances it's usually due to alcohol. Everyone knows that casualty departments are very busy at the weekends and it's all due to drink.

I'm not a drinker myself but his nibs like a few at the weekend. It makes him talk (too much) then I get to the point where I have to ask him to just quieten down a bit because my heads buzzing from the blethering, then he takes the huff and mumbles away to himself, or gets sarcastic. This could escalate into a fight but because I'm sober I deal with it, usually off upstairs to watch telly or read.

I wonder though, did he take house breakings into his equation for drug users?. Was that mentioned in the article?

reply to post by wigit


yes crime & associated impacts to society were taken into account. I doubt they seperate the types of crime. How many assaults are alcohol related compared to heroin related for example? a shedload more alcohol i bet.

its becuase of the sheer volume of alcohol users that it comes top in this study,

What set my BS alarm off is that Methadone is ranked as being safer than Cannabis.

Steaming hot pile, if you ask me

This is just silly.

There a Billions of fully functioning, non addicted, healthy happy people that drink alcohol on a regular basis and still hold down jobs, have happy family lives and are not alcoholics.

The same can not be said for people that take Heroin.

It's not the damage the actual substance causes it's the level of addiction it causes thats the problem

Wha Whaatt ??

Crack coc aine

Seriously ?!?!!

This guy needs to lay off the acid or something...