Nutty by name, nutty by nature. Turns out he was working on "smart drugs" and had a vested interest in alcohol being restricted to boost his market!
http://www.livescience.com/4060-hangover-free-buzz-star-trek...
http://www.livescience.com/4060-hangover-free-buzz-star-trek...
You've stooped to an ad-hominem, implying that Nutt's statistics are somehow faulty because he's got an interest in something which might "compete" with a drug he identifies as more harmful, without providing any evidence that he's wrong. That's slimy.
Alcohol is toxic to most major organs, is one of only a tiny number of drugs that can make normally passive people become violent, and is the world's most prolific date-rape drug. If you've ever seen the emergency room in a typical hospital on a Saturday night, you'd see that many of the millions who enjoy a drink get violent and antisocial, injuring themselves and others. Then there's domestic abuse, drunk driving, risky sex, etc etc.
You'd need to take figures on all of those effects into account before deciding whether it's a 'stretch' or not. Which is exactly what Prof. Nutt did in his paper.
I do not believe that alcohol is a net negative to society. I'm pretty confident that crack cocaine is more damaging, especially to the individual user (and in fact you'll find that borne out by Nutt's research).
However, while perhaps "nobody robs a granny to buy a single malt," alcohol can very obviously have damaging effects, especially if it's misused. Sexual assault and drunk driving are just two examples.
That these exist does not mean that alcohol should be banned, and that crack is more damaging does not mean that the most effective tool to prevent it's use is criminalisation.
No, they rob granny to buy another bottle of $15 vodka.
Also, getting publicly sacked from your job is not great marketing, so seems inconsistent with the money-focused approach you are suggesting. However, it is entirely consistent with standing up for your belief in harm reduction above all else.
(By the way, if that last sentence is giving you cognitive dissonance, you need to stop and think hard about the statistics. The fact is that the most dangerous thing about pot, MDMA, LSD, and the like isn't their biochemistry. It's the fact that ignorant people have made them illegal.)
That depends what's in the pill, and how often there's a glass of wine, and if it's only ever one pint. Which I doubt.
Binge drinking is a very popular passtime here in the UK and is very dangerous.
Do you not think that when Prof Nutt makes these sorts of calculations they take this stuff into account? Or do you think he just pulls it all out of his arse?
You can rant and rave all you like, when the studies come in your (and my) favourite drug really is more harmful and more addictive than many/most others.
(--edit-- had the term kindling wrong, now right)
Can't do that with MDMA...
Just because you can find an article from 12 years ago saying a small glass of red may be healthy (and I bet I can find 10 more articles saying it isn't in the 12 years since that was published), doesn't mean that alcohol isn't addictive and harmful to its users. Hell, few brits drink that way anyway and your article posits that the benefit doesn't come from the ethanol but something else. It doesn't support your position at all.
Oh look I can google too - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23358078 - around 9000 people a year die directly from alcohol misuse in the UK.
Why do you have so much of a problem with this? Why do you think the experts are liars? Have you actually read any of Nutt's stuff? He doesn't actually advocate drug use, he's only interested in honesty and harm reduction.
--edit-- can I ask why you're so invested in this idea that alcohol must be less harmful than anything else?
I mean, the science is in. Booze is more addictive and more harmful (cancer, liver disease, alcoholism, alcohol related violence...) than lots of other drugs. Isn't an appropriate reaction to that news "oh, guess maybe those other things aren't as evil as I thought" rather than "but not really, because alcohol can't really be bad, we're only joking right lads? Booze is fine, right? I don't binge much, it's probably good for me eh? Not like those idiots taking pills"
They may well be idiots, but you're probably in denial too.