According to the Telegraph sacked drugs advisor Professor David Nutt has come out and said that his public statements on drugs were made to highlight the evils of alcohol.
It seems to me that he’s gone over the top in showing his contempt for alcohol and taken the tack of trying to score sensational debating points rather than advance a cogent argument — exactly the behaviour one would expect from a politician and not a scientist.
For one thing he bands about extreme and emotive language: ”There are hundreds of kids lying in hospital beds waiting for transplants that will never come.” Are there really hundreds of under 18s waiting for liver transplants caused by alcohol abuse? How can he be so sure they will never get these transplants and it’s a bit bizarre anyway for someone involved in medicine to complain that there aren’t enough transplant organs available. This must be a measure of success for others in the medical field.
His biggest mistake is confusing absolute numbers with proportionality. In absolute terms, he’s probably right. There are probably more people with health problems due to alcohol than from any other drug, although why he’s not as miltitantly against smoking as alcohol I can’t fathom. However, when he makes statements like the horse-riding is more dangerous than ecstasy, he trivialises the debate. Does he really mean that because there are more horse-riding deaths than those from ecstasy in absolute terms that means horse-riding is really riskier — apart from the numbers of people participating there are also lots of other factors to consider. What he doesn’t know and can’t possibly argue with any credibility is that we would all be better off if 90% of the population were on heroin, cocaine or whatever other drug he chooses as he argues alcohol is the worst.
Nutt also tries to make his argument (in true NL fashion) by attacking and denigrating something else without realising that many of the anti-alcohol arguments can also be applied to the substances he is promoting. He would find more favour by arguing that banned drugs had similarities to alcohol (i.e. if he said just as most drinkers aren’t alcoholics then he could say most e or cannabis users aren’t addicts). Typical short-sighted, point-scoring student debating tactics.
Tags: drugs, middle classes, politicians, students
This is a dumb statement from Nutt as you say he should just make the point we lock people who for supplying Ecstasy like they are Heroin smugglers and yet they are supplying something less dangerous than horse riding (millions of regular users less deaths per trip than a horse ride was my take – look how many people die from paracetamol, prescribed drugs or even falling through frozen lakes and rivers if you want to count dead bodies).
If they can classify drugs for no reason other than a feedback loop prejudice fed by individual anecdote they can attack drinking with much ammunition. I read a judge lock up a guy for Ecstasy for the damage he was doing yet now Alan ‘Buffoon’ Johnson says harm is not the reason for illegality! If harm is not at issue then what the anti social behaviour of young people on the love drug hugging each other? Compared to what drunken lads and lasses spewing up in Cardiff (or anywhere)?
Indeed with some drugs much of the harm comes from the illegality.
You know New Labour are coming for drinkers next. Nutt’s just trying to get back on the gravy train?