Here we go. Alcohol being ATTACKED. More harmful than Cocaine and Heroin

Well, I would not normally put up a post of media related news but I have noticed a trend that when
a group of researchers get their orders nothing is off the governments radar.

So they have killed of all our little vises one by one and reclassified everything under the sun so we as a people can not enjoy anything in our lives.

Now, they have attacked alcohol our one last dribble of legal pleasure.

The group in the following news article, a group of researchers have rated alcohol worse than HEROIN and CRACK.

How long till we are not allowed this lovely nectar to pass our lips. I have noticed that when an article like this arises in the media its because they wish to create a fear among us and we need to know that the banning of it COULD be not far off. Makes me sick that we have idiots dictating what we can and can not do. I am sure this will lead somewhere later. It did with cigarettes.

Alcohol is more dangerous than illegal drugs like heroin, ecstasy and crack coc aine, according to a new study. Researchers rated alcohol the most dangerous substance based on the overall dangers to the individual and society as a whole.

Full story

Another Source

They wont and cant ban alcohol it is too much of a tax xash cow for them and lets be honest you can make your own from home quite easily I think this is just one nutcase talking rubbish

I agree that alcohol is extremely dangerous - because of the fact that is so socially acceptable for many people to get drunk, get in their cars and cause absolute mayhem.
It is also a huge factor in the breakdown of indigenous societies such as the Australian Aborigine, native American, Hottentot etc.

But it is not the alcohol per se - it is the abuse of alcohol.

I don't believe the authorities will ban alcohol (just as they have not banned cigarettes) - simply because of the huge revenue derived from the taxation of such products (alcohol and cigarettes are deemed to have an elastic demand).

We see headlines like this every now and then here in the UK, usually in the aftermath of a reported rise in anti-social behaviour or an increase in STI's. Alcohol becomes a scapegoat for any and all of societies problems here; only this past summer the government tried to limit the amount of alcohol superstores could sell and the price they could sell it at.

As for it being more harmful than Heroin and Cocaine, it certainly effects more people but mentioning it in the same breath as Heroin and Cocaine is merely a psychological ploy to form a long-term association.

Alcohol in moderation is fine.

Heroin in moderation? I've never heard of it.

I don't think Professor Nutt is "Attacking" alcohol consumption at all.
What his research does point out though, and which he butted heads with the last government over forcing his resignation, is that alcohol use and abuse costs us all a lot more than drug use and is, in a lot of cases, more addictive than certain classes of drug, such as cannabis / marijuana. On that score he is correct.

Alcohol will NOT be banned, but I do think penalties should be imposed on those acting idiotically and causing any harm to themselves or others whilst under the influence. After all, we ALL have to pay for that and, like the treatment of drug addicts, I strongly object to seeing any of my tax money used to bail out / treat idiots.

Reclassification of some drugs and decriminalisation of others will help end a lot of the problems. It's worked elsewhere without the population all suddenly becoming drug addled addicts.

Already posted here: www.abovetopsecret.com...
and here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I find the statement made by Professor van den Brink to be of particular interest......

www.smh.com.au... aine-and-heroin-study-20101101-179pa.html

Experts said the study should prompt countries to reconsider how they classified drugs. For example, last year in Britain, the government increased its penalties for the possession of marijuana. One of its senior advisers, David Nutt - the lead author on the Lancet study - was fired after he criticised the British decision.

"What governments decide is illegal is not always based on science," said Professor van den Brink. He said considerations about revenue and taxation, such as those garnered from the alcohol and tobacco industries, might influence decisions about which substances to regulate or outlaw.

"Drugs that are legal cause at least as much damage, if not more, than drugs that are illicit," he said.

Heroin in moderation? I've never heard of it.

Sure about that?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d2eaa7833baf.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/79eeed97f245.jpg[/atsimg]

I am treading very carefully here, due to ABS's stance on drug related posts etc.
I personally am very interested in this development, as a human that very rarely drinks, and doesn't touch anything else, I don't have a vested interest in anything here apart from the truth.
I have seen first hand the damage to families, and the damage done to society as a whole by alcohol.
The fact that it's socially accepted does not alter the fact that it's a nasty toxin.
The other less socially accepted substances really need to be understood more adultly and delt with accordingly.

reply to post by darkdays4u


As an alcoholic I can confirm that Alcohol is definitely up there with Heroin and Cocaine. Fortunately my habit is restricted to beer and not stronger stuff(spirits).

Also I don't have kids so I am only hurting myself. Alcohol can be very destructive to families.

I am not saying it should be banned but the hypocrisy when it comes to 'hard drugs' is quite comical because Alcohol is one of the most damaging drugs available.

Originally posted by Kryties
Already posted here: www.abovetopsecret.com...
and here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I find the statement made by Professor van den Brink to be of particular interest......

www.smh.com.au... aine-and-heroin-study-20101101-179pa.html

Experts said the study should prompt countries to reconsider how they classified drugs. For example, last year in Britain, the government increased its penalties for the possession of marijuana. One of its senior advisers, David Nutt - the lead author on the Lancet study - was fired after he criticised the British decision.

"What governments decide is illegal is not always based on science," said Professor van den Brink. He said considerations about revenue and taxation, such as those garnered from the alcohol and tobacco industries, might influence decisions about which substances to regulate or outlaw.

"Drugs that are legal cause at least as much damage, if not more, than drugs that are illicit," he said.

Mods: I have made a grave error in posting a thread that already exists.

I apologize and did not mean no repetition. Can be closed if you so wish.

heroin apart from being very addictive, actually does very little damage to organs, compared to Alcohol. What kills heroin users is overdosing and contaminated heroin. Remember we use heroin in hospitals on a daily basis. It's called morphine.

The point of the study is to highlight what is most damaging to society. Instead of concentrating policy funding on trying to stop people taking marijuana and ecstacy, which are relatively harmless to both the individual and society, focusing more on those drugs that are causing the most harm to individuals and society.

No one is going to be banning alcohol in this country, it would be political suicide. British culture is inseperable from alcohol. I dont think Professor Nutt is advocating banning alcohol. Just re allocating finite funds to tackle the serious problems drugs can cause.

I was purely looking at this article as a precursor to some sort of restriction to be imposed in the future.

We have so many restrictions that its ridiculous.

I am not for having anything banned, just increase punishments for those caught in criminal acts while undertaking eg, drink driving, assault etc.

I do not like a society that imposes restriction because some abuse it.

I am a fully grown man who does not smoke or do drugs but I do have the occasional red win and evening brandy. I would hate this to be curtailed because they want to restrict our access to such pleasures.

They banned smoking everywhere, I have never been a smoker but have never agreed with the whole Pub and bar ban. I do not want my enjoyments in the odd sip to come to an end.

I hope this article is not the forewarning cigarettes got.

Alcohol is a social problem.
It causes violence and anger in the streets, in the bars and in common public places.

Drugs, for most part are personal things. They damage you, your mind and become a problem to yourself.

this excludes ice, which isn’t a drug its a pure chemical concoction.. like metho, chlorine and salt thrown together and crystallised.

The government, doesn’t want to spend the time and the money that it needs to stop the problem.
It also doesn’t have the capacity.

I know in Perth, atleast that on a regular night out youd see a fight or an altercation at every club or pub without fail. Now, if the pentalty for locking up to brawlers is... 3 weeks? think of how many that would 2nd guess into throwing that first punch.

3 weeks, lose your job, debt and bills when you got out, youd have to explain to everyone where you were.. all for a scuffle on the dance floor...

Police need to be able to take proper measures in cases of brawls or violent fights. If someones fighting, go straight for his leg with your batton, drop him let him learn that pain.

Until our politicans listen to us, violents streets will never go away.

Originally posted by Britguy
After all, we ALL have to pay for that and, like the treatment of drug addicts, I strongly object to seeing any of my tax money used to bail out / treat idiots.