Nanny's getting ready...

[caddyman]

You remember when the smoking ban came in, after a generation's worth of preparatory work by Nanny and the Do-gooders in society?

I said at the time that the next target would be alcohol and that idea was poo-pooed. Some of you didn't believe me; it was a step too far and so on and so forth. Well, here's the latest attack.

It seems that alcohol is worse than tobacco. Tobacco is only as bad as cocaine, but alcohol is worse than both of them. It's also worse than heroin or crack.

Comments

[delvy.livejournal.com]

The problem with the way it is being reported atm is that the report refers to "overall" harm and seems to ignore it's impact on a per captia basis; ie alcohol has the highest level of use in society excepting perhaps caffiene therefore it is hardly surprising it had the biggest negative effect....

[nyarbaggytep.livejournal.com]

This is true.

That said, there's a difference between saying that something is dangerous, and demanding that it be banned... I'm not sure that can be classed as an "attack" on alcohol.

The report could equally be used to argue that Ecstasy and LSD should be reclassified as they are less harmful.

[mr-h-r-hughes.livejournal.com]

Yes, the way they are reporting it is sensationalist and doesn't make enough of how they are measuruing 'harm'.

They will at worst only ever control alcohol regarded as 'down market' or 'cheap', if they ever touched anything swilled by the not-at-all-silent middle classes their would eb a revolt. Also when smoking was legislated against people had been quitting/not starting for *years* it was a habit on it's way out, a soft target...drinking is not in the same boat at all.

[jfs.livejournal.com]

David Nutt has been investigating this for a long time - the scale that's referred to in the report came out about about 3 or 4 years ago, and does take the pervasive nature of alcohol in society into account.

[jfs.livejournal.com]

Pretty much exactly the tack that Professor Nutt has been taking for the last 5 years - he's arguing that drugs classification should be evidence based, which our current classification definitely isnt'.

[mr-h-r-hughes.livejournal.com]

Yeah he's being working on this stuff for a while

[delvy.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, I am well aware of the good Professor's work and wholeheartedly support it. It was the methodolology and selective quoting of the reporting I was commenting on.

[littleonionz.livejournal.com]

I think his research and comments are fair, it's how they are used by the PTB and how they are reported that could be an issue.

[mr-h-r-hughes.livejournal.com]

Quite

[budgie-uk.livejournal.com]

I'll look forward to the exact same arguments being offered against banning or restricting alcohol that were offered by the anti-banning-smoking lot.

As someone who doesn't drink owing to the strong painkillers I'm on, I'll admit to finding it amusing, to put it mildly...

The report, and I haven't read it yet, only heard it reported, seems to say that alcohol is so dangerous that it should be banned.

Hahahahahahahaha.

Schadenfreude

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

You are a bit of a rotter, aren't you, Mr Barnett? ;-)

[keith-london.livejournal.com]

IMHO, I think Prof. Nutter is a discredited idiot and a bit of a nutter, who is just out to be contrary-wise just for the hell of it. It's obviously common sense that alcohol can be harmful if abused. Heroin seems far more dangerous because it can turn addicts into muggers, prostitutes and even killers. I would not give that nut time of day.

[fractalgeek.livejournal.com]

I distrust risk assesments that multiply "worst effect" by "total users" too.

As another example, We as a society would live years longer if everyone was just above staving. Do we want to go there?