Alcohol Causes More Harm Than Crack Alcohol causes more widespread harm than drugs like heroin or crack cocaine, according to a study published in respected medical journal The Lancet. The research evaluates recreational drugs on a wide range of factors, weighing up the mental and physical damage users suffer alongside crime and costs to the community. It found the most dangerous drugs to individual users were heroin, crack cocaine and crystal meth. But when all factors were taken into account alcohol was found to be most harmful, followed by heroin and crack. Ecstasy and LSD were found to be the least damaging. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK...rding_To_A_New_Study_Published_In_The_Journal
Hasnt this all been done before tho? and will this affect anything (apart from tax increases). probably not.
I think this is the first report since the new government. Its not saying people should take crack instead of drinking alcohol. Its saying they should look at the wider picture when classifying drugs. Look at ecstasy and alcohol for example. Ecstasy is a class a drug but causes the least problems to the user and society. Alcohol is legal and although its not as damaging to the user as some drugs its more damaging than ecstasy and even more damaging to society than crack.
Regardless of the grading of these drugs, none of them will be getting reclassified or legalised in any significant way for a very very long time, if at all. No government wants people loved up, or questioning reality. They want them inside pubs, paying duty on expensive alcohol, and able to do it at least a few times per week to keep the tills ringing. .... still, i do wonder if say you had an entire town of people all using mdma and lsd, instead of drinking beer, wines and spirits. Would people still turn up to work as much, remain as materialistic, and rush around spending and earning money as much?
the report is from Prof Nutt who was sacked from the drugs committee for telling the truth, and went and set up his own expert committee http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/nov/02/britain-drugs-hypocrisy-giant-wound says it all really.
Has anyone actually read the article in the Lancet? I think it focusses on absolute harm to society (which is why alcohol scores so highly - it is more widely available and much more widely used) and 'popularity' or number of users etc hasn't been properly accounted for. Surely the relative harm (per user/x number of abusers etc) should have been discussed too? All it can 'prove' is alcohol is bad, not that anything else is good or should be re-classified. some drugs are pretty much tolerated by the police/government now anyway, otherwise why wouldn't they just raid lots of clubs every weekend?? Everyone knows it's happening but the law enforcers don't seem to care that much... If people used/abused other drugs like they do alcohol then their harm scores would be a lot higher i think!
Professor David Nutt is the drugs comapny bitch & they would make trillions out this, I am surprised a left wing tin hat wearer like Forks has not picked up on this. As I said last time you dont Glaxosmithkline or even worse a drinks like VK making your weekend supplies.
I wouldn't mind Glaxo making supplies. at least you would know what was in them. I expect the price might go up. Why it might even get to £10 a pill ps its the right wing who like tin hats we are tree hugging bearded sandal wearers
What difference does it make if drug companies make recreational drugs - they make drugs for everything else don't they. Anyways, people need to wise up that bleating about legalising drugs is about as pointless as it gets. If you think the powers that be have YOUR best interests at heart, then you are sorely mistaken. All these tinpot countries with relaxed drugs laws are nothing more than experiments in social policy, which is why you don't get any big, IMPORTANT countries doing likewise. The war machine wouldnt be able to crank on with a nation full of people getting along with each other, chilled out and easy going.
