'Alcohol More Harmful Than Heroin'

[Chester™]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660210

 

The issue crops up again...

[JamboInSouthsea]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660210

 

The issue crops up again...

It will keep doing so but because politicians are mindless buffoons they will do nothing to help reduce the harm and associated crime with all in the list.

 

About time for a reality check...which may prove difficult depending on your own particular vice

[Miller Jambo 60]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660210

 

The issue crops up again...

 

 

Heroin takes 2 hits, drink takes 10 years or more

[Rick Grimes]

ah the "No Shit, Sherlock" report which states that alcohol is most dangerous - largely off the back of the sheer numbers of problem 'users'. nothing in it that isn't blatantly obvious really, but watch everyone get defensive....

[The Mighty Thor]

Obesity and it's related illnesses will kill more than all of them put together.

 

Once they've weaned us off the collie dugs and bevvy they'll wire our jaws shut. That should sort it.

[Miller Jambo 60]

ah the "No Shit, Sherlock" report which states that alcohol is most dangerous - largely off the back of the sheer numbers of problem 'users'. nothing in it that isn't blatantly obvious really, but watch everyone get defensive....

 

 

Drink is a cheaper hit, ask the hobos

[Ray Gin]

Heroin takes 2 hits, drink takes 10 years or more

 

This report takes into account the number of people who badly injure themselves, cause fights, accidents etc. through being drunk. These things only take being drunk once.

[The Treasurer]

This report takes into account the number of people who badly injure themselves, cause fights, accidents etc. through being drunk. These things only take being drunk once.

 

And of course junkies are such law abiding citizens wouldn't hurt a fly right enough

[Ray Gin]

And of course junkies are such law abiding citizens wouldn't hurt a fly right enough

 

Junkies are almost as bad, hence them being second on the list.

[Del1812]

It's a bit of an obvious list as it is mostly determine by the number of people who use it.

 

The only surprise for me was the ecstasy was so low down the list. I would give an education guess that it is a much more popular drug in Britain than a few of those above it. Yet it is still a class A drug and still the favourite drug of tabloids to go ballistic over whenever there are any deaths associated with it.

[jamboinglasgow]

I think it is a bit of a nonsense list by Prof. Nutt. And it also somethings should be pointed out about him. I find it funny that alcohol has come at the top of his list when he is currently working on with some fellow researchers a synthetic alcohol which he says will allow all the good things with alcohol with none of the bad. Where you can take an antidote and no hangover will happen and it will immediatly stop the you being drugs, something which can be given to police and medics to hand out to people. To me that means there is a financial incentive for him to paint Alcohol as the worst drug around as his new miracle alcohol will end all those evils and give people the good alcohol experience, that would be a big money earner for him.

 

I also question the way the report is done, Alcohol is also top as it is the most widely used drug.

 

Personally I see no problem with considering relaxing the laws of certain drugs. I personally still wont use them even if they were legal, in the same way I dont smoke. But if it is proved to have minimum health effects and social effects then I think there should be serious thought to allow them in regulated methods.

[Quagmire]

And of course junkies are such law abiding citizens wouldn't hurt a fly right enough

they are the dregs of society, granted - but if they could legally access their drugs they'd probably be a lot cheaper and less harmful to the rest of us...

[jamboinglasgow]

I think it is a bit of a nonsense list by Prof. Nutt. And it also somethings should be pointed out about him. I find it funny that alcohol has come at the top of his list when he is currently working on with some fellow researchers a synthetic alcohol which he says will allow all the good things with alcohol with none of the bad. Where you can take an antidote and no hangover will happen and it will immediatly stop the you being drugs, something which can be given to police and medics to hand out to people. To me that means there is a financial incentive for him to paint Alcohol as the worst drug around as his new miracle alcohol will end all those evils and give people the good alcohol experience, that would be a big money earner for him.

 

I also question the way the report is done, Alcohol is also top as it is the most widely used drug.

 

Personally I see no problem with considering relaxing the laws of certain drugs. I personally still wont use them even if they were legal, in the same way I dont smoke. But if it is proved to have minimum health effects and social effects then I think there should be serious thought to allow them in regulated methods.

 

Here is an article about synthetic alcohol developed by Nutt if anyone thinks I am just sounding crazy.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6874884/Alcohol-substitute-that-avoids-drunkenness-and-hangovers-in-development.html

[Chester™]

I think it is a bit of a nonsense list by Prof. Nutt. And it also somethings should be pointed out about him. I find it funny that alcohol has come at the top of his list when he is currently working on with some fellow researchers a synthetic alcohol which he says will allow all the good things with alcohol with none of the bad. Where you can take an antidote and no hangover will happen and it will immediatly stop the you being drugs, something which can be given to police and medics to hand out to people. To me that means there is a financial incentive for him to paint Alcohol as the worst drug around as his new miracle alcohol will end all those evils and give people the good alcohol experience, that would be a big money earner for him.

 

I also question the way the report is done, Alcohol is also top as it is the most widely used drug.

 

Personally I see no problem with considering relaxing the laws of certain drugs. I personally still wont use them even if they were legal, in the same way I dont smoke. But if it is proved to have minimum health effects and social effects then I think there should be serious thought to allow them in regulated methods.

 

Of course he may have a vested interest, but it isnt the first time a study of this type has been done and with remarkably similar results.

 

Alcohol will indeed be top because its the most widely used drug, though I think thats half the point. Many people (honestly) think that alcohol isnt a drug and abuse it as such, the effects of which are pretty obvious. The other half is other drugs, commonly used or otherwise, are used in the classification system, when arguably, they needn't be or be as high in the system.

 

What I think its main focus on, is to continue to pressurise the Government into having a proper, grown up discussion about what should be on the list or at least an overhaul of the system. They wont though because of certain media types.

[doctor jambo]

And of course junkies are such law abiding citizens wouldn't hurt a fly right enough

Ooh, stereotyping..... I've never been threatened by a heroin user in my life.

I have , however , been the subject of two random assaults by drunks, as well as numerous threats and absurd behaviour.

My car has never been broken into by a "junkie", but has been vandalised by a drunk. None of my female friends have ever been groped by a drug addict- yet most have been , for want of a better term sexually assaulted by drunks

I have never met a woman who claimed to have been raped by someone on heroin, yet met loads attacked by drunks

[doctor jambo]

Of course he may have a vested interest, but it isnt the first time a study of this type has been done and with remarkably similar results.

 

Alcohol will indeed be top because its the most widely used drug, though I think thats half the point. Many people (honestly) think that alcohol isnt a drug and abuse it as such, the effects of which are pretty obvious. The other half is other drugs, commonly used or otherwise, are used in the classification system, when arguably, they needn't be or be as high in the system.

 

What I think its main focus on, is to continue to pressurise the Government into having a proper, grown up discussion about what should be on the list or at least an overhaul of the system. They wont though because of certain media types.

 

Alcohol is top because it causes more violence in this country than all the other substances put together, and more illness, and most disability, and the highest benefits bill- which is remarkable considering the physical toll of smoking

[Chester™]

Alcohol is top because it causes more violence in this country than all the other substances put together, and more illness, and most disability, and the highest benefits bill- which is remarkable considering the physical toll of smoking

 

I think thats the point JiG was making though. If it wasnt as widely used, would it be as high? I dont disagree with your summation as to why its top in the current study though.

[chester copperpot]

If I drank 10 pints of heroin I'd be dead. Fact!

[Ray Gin]

If I drank 10 pints of heroin I'd be dead. Fact!

 

Drink 10 pints of pure alcohol and you'd be dead too.

[Ulysses]

I think thats the point JiG was making though. If it wasnt as widely used, would it be as high? I dont disagree with your summation as to why its top in the current study though.

A study of this kind actually does more harm than good unless it excludes usage levels from its calculation methodology.

 

We could use the same logic to conclusively show that dogs are more dangerous than crocodiles. Does that mean that if you see a crocodile taking a dump in your garden you should run out and give it a boot in the arse?

[Ray Gin]

Where does it say anything about the number of users being related to the ranking on the chart?

[Chester™]

We could use the same logic to conclusively show that dogs are more dangerous than crocodiles. Does that mean that if you see a crocodile taking a dump in your garden you should run out and give it a boot in the arse?[/color]

 

But could you? Surely it depends on the level of injury and death. For example, the stat that flows about is Hippos are the most dangerous animal on the planet, as they kill the most. Now I dont see many Hippos being pets. Or taking a dump in gardens either.

[Chester™]

Where does it say anything about the number of users being related to the ranking on the chart?

 

From the article:

 

'Prof Nutt told the BBC: "Overall, alcohol is the most harmful drug because it's so widely used.'

[Ulysses]

But could you? Surely it depends on the level of injury and death.

 

It's hard to get detailed statistics for crocodile attacks worldwide, but one source I read suggests that the Nile crocodile - which causes the most attacks because there is a large population of them with large populations of people nearby - kills between 200 and 500 people per year.

 

On the other hand, dogs cause 90% or more of rabies cases in humans - and rabies kills about 55,000 people every year.

 

 

http://iucncsg.org/ph1/modules/Crocodilians/attacks.html

 

 

http://www.vaccineinformation.org/rabies/qandadis.asp

[jamboinglasgow]

A study of this kind actually does more harm than good unless it excludes usage levels from its calculation methodology.

 

We could use the same logic to conclusively show that dogs are more dangerous than crocodiles. Does that mean that if you see a crocodile taking a dump in your garden you should run out and give it a boot in the arse?

 

Exactly, it is really a pointless study (though most studies are slanted towards something.) His study wants to demonstrate the social problems of alcohol (as I said earlier to show his synthetic alcohol is the almighty solution) and to back up his position which he fell out of the home office with that some drugs are not as harmful as others that are available.

 

It skews the issue and is one that is designed for the quick soundbite "alcohol is more harmful then heroin."

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Time to legalise drugs and tax them. Easy deficit solutions.

 

 

[Boris]

Time to legalise drugs and tax them. Easy deficit solutions.

 

 

 

California is voting on the legalisation of marijuana today. It's on the state ballot paper.

 

Marijuana is already legal on prescription in California, but someone realised the amount of tax they make on that and has thought let's open it up. Throw in the drug tourists and it's boom time!

[The Treasurer]

Ooh, stereotyping..... I've never been threatened by a heroin user in my life.

I have , however , been the subject of two random assaults by drunks, as well as numerous threats and absurd behaviour.

My car has never been broken into by a "junkie", but has been vandalised by a drunk. None of my female friends have ever been groped by a drug addict- yet most have been , for want of a better term sexually assaulted by drunks

I have never met a woman who claimed to have been raped by someone on heroin, yet met loads attacked by drunks

 

I think you're the one doing the stereo-typing.

You've never heard of someone being burgled or mugged by a junkie or had their car radio stolen by someone looking for cash to buy drugs.

You've never heard of someone being found guilty of sexual assault that claim to have been off their face on something at the time.

 

I also think questions must be asked about you if you know "loads of women" that have been attacked