Alcohol more harmful than drugs – the argument is specious…

Alcohol ‘more harmful than heroin or crack’, says sacked government drugs adviser David Nutt (Guardian, today), which is arguably the most idiotic statement anyone has ever come up with about booze, and simplistic to the point of being cretinous.

Tell me, Mr. Nutt, how many alco-pop mules o-d and die each year, because their cargo comes open in their gut?

How many cider-producing warlords are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, and incalculable misery, across the world?

How many beer cartels are wreaking havoc in the US, and pretty much waging war in Mexico?

How many drunks break into homes, to steal anything not screwed down, to sell to feed their habit?

How many…

OK, no need to belabour the point, it’s not hard to grasp.

Nutt might have a the beginnings of a  valid argument but in comparing the harm done by alcohol to that done by heroin and crack he is incredibly parochial and narrow in his focus, to the point of being crass.

Put simply, the harm done by hard drugs is massive and world-wide, that done by drunks is local and limited in scope – the comparison simply isn’t valid.

Yes, I know a very small proportion of drunks cause violence, death and misery, and grab the headlines, but the vast majority do no harm to anyone save, perhaps, themselves, and often not even that – which nobody ever bothers to mention.

The same cannot be said of crack and heroin, the trail of which, across the world, is drawn in blood…

Note: In the comments following the article in the Guardian, you’ll see someone called LePendu expressing the same opinion in a somewhat shorter form – this isn’t  plagiarism; that’s me.

2 thoughts on “Alcohol more harmful than drugs – the argument is specious…

Comments are closed.