- In the days following the publication of our harms paper, several newspapers ran headlines along the lines of “Professor Nutt says Alcohol Worse than Drugs,” as though alcohol weren’t a drug itself. This false distinction is a large part of the communication problem I encounter whenever I try to emphasise how harmful alcohol is. It has a separate language – you get “high” on drugs, but “drunk” on alcohol, drug addicts need a “fix” but alcoholics need a “drink.”
No way it would be legal if it were a manufactured product just created/discovered. It's a drug, pure and simple. People ingest it to get high. We have entire buildings erected where people flock to on weekend nights to all get high together. It is culturally interwoven with communal sporting events, and getting high while watching them is part of our culture. The vast majority of our politicians, leaders, heroes, cultural icons, religious leaders, luminary thinkers, bosses, CEOs, etc, get high. In younger years, especially in college, we drink and try and get as fucked up high as humanely possible. Eventually we grow up and only want to get moderately high, less often (but still want to get high). Being one of the oldest drugs on Earth (maybe THE oldest?) made from ingredients available in every culture across the globe throughout civilization kind of gives it a leg up on all the other drugs I guess.
In the days following the publication of our harms paper, several newspapers ran headlines along the lines of “Professor Nutt says Alcohol Worse than Drugs,” as though alcohol weren’t a drug itself.
It certainly is amazing how perceptions and cultural acceptance do in regards to this topic. The obvious insanity revolves around marijuana and the large amounts of people imprisoned for marijuana related charges. Makes absolutely ZERO sense. None.
wWe have to consider the nature of anti drug laws. In essence they are nanny laws, like wearing a seat belt, intended to protect citizens from themselves. Protecting citizens from the intoxication effects of others (intoxicated driving, eetc) is a separate issue, as current laws surrounding alcohol show. So then we must determine where the line is drawn. If alcohol is more harmful than weed, and we are creating laws based on the danger of the substance, then certainly weed should also be legal. Or if weed is too dangerous surely alcohol should be as well. How do we consider tobacco, which has less intoxicating effects but is more addictive and leads to more health issues? What about expanding the debate to substances like LSD which are non addictive, have little health concerns, but extremely strong intoxication effects? The obvious conclusion is of course that current substance laws are based on societal norms,.not logical evaluations of the relevant factors. Thus IMHO the most relevant considerations for changing current substance laws is societal norms.
It's all in how these things are marketed to the public. Consider the massive marketing campaign by the Reagan "just say no" culture. Millions of dollars were poured in to the "this is your brain, this is your brain on drugs", but never did it say "this is your brain on alcohol". -While we know that alcohol is a drug, society doesn't see it as such and these adverts were pointed at drugs like crack, cocaine and even marijuana. If an equal amount of marketing were put forth to sway the public that marijuana, LSD and the like were no more dangerous than alcohol we might see different "societal norms".