Surely this is not news

I quote directly from The Lancet: "Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) modelling showed that heroin, crack cocaine, and metamfetamine were the most harmful drugs to individuals (part scores 34, 37, and 32, respectively), whereas alcohol, heroin, and crack cocaine were the most harmful to others (46, 21, and 17, respectively). Overall, alcohol was the most harmful drug (overall harm score 72), with heroin (55) and crack cocaine (54) in second and third places." I'm not certain what all the numbers are but they look like scores out of 100. It doesn't matter.

The media all over the world -I watch  Spain, the USA and UK mainly, but have seen references to the subject in papers and websites from Australia, South America, Japan, you name it- have lately been banging on about Professor David J. Nutt's study that is usually headlined something like this: Alcohol More Harmful Than Heroin, Cocaine or Ecstasy, this from the Sydney Herald. El alcohol es más dañino que la heroína y el crack, said Televisión Española (TVE).

I won't bore you with the prof's credentials, but I will try not to bore you with something else.

As a grateful member of Alcoholics Anonymous, on behalf of which superb organization I do not speak, I have heard the most horrific stories about how alcohol affects not just one's self but everyone around. The saying there is "Alcoholism is a family disease." (A separate organization was formed to help families of alcoholics, Al-Anon, a practice followed by just about all the 12-Step programmes, which sort of proves my point as well as the professor's.)

The same is undoubtedly true about every addictive disease. A disease is what addiction is. An illness, no matter how it shows itself: bulimia, anorexia, gambling, sex, love, co-depency, cocaine, narcotics, alcoholism, over eating... They are all allied in some way or other.

Is this proven with studies such as the above? I have no idea, but I do know that the effects on the individual and/or others is devastating in any form of this illness. The problem is something called denial (a poster in several of the many AA 'rooms' I have visited: 'Denial is not a river in Egypt').

Many people with this kind of problem will deny it until it could be too late. They will have lost families, homes, friends, spouses, money, football contracts, dignity ... not all, fortunately, but many. Others, though, have the strength and humility to seek help.

That, of course, is why we need studies such as Professor Nutt's.

What the study does not mention, I believe, is the fact that alcohol, because it is a 'legal drug' (Nutt says as much in one BBC interview), opens doors to just about everything else. This is my theory, anyway, unsupported by any scientific study. One of the main facts about alcohol is that it is a disinhibitor. In other words, it lowers one's inhibitions. How do we otherwise explain that relaxed feeling after a couple of drinks - and, usually some time later, that feeling oh-so-sick, not to mention those dreadful hangovers? How can we otherwise explain the fact of so many otherwise sensible young people getting pregnant after 'a night out'? How do we otherwise explain the words I have heard so many times: "Oh, I began drinking at (say) thirteen, and then it was hash and later other stuff, at parties..."?

True, this does not happen to everyone. Far from it, thank God. In fact, I know plenty of people who can drink socially; you know, a couple of drinks and that's it. But I also know plenty of those who simply can't stop - I was one, I realized suddenly one day. My inhibitions were so lowered that I lost track not only of how many drinks I'd had that day, but of my life.

True, Professor Nutt's study would not have stopped me from going over the top, even if I'd given it so much as a glance. Nor did Prohibition in the US (1920 to 1933) stop everyone from drinking (curiously, AA was founded not long after, in 1935).

It also seems as though governments don't really know what to do about an increasing problem, especially among the young (in the years I have been in AA, I have seen how the 'average' age has dropped, except there is no average: you get help as soon as you become aware there's a problem). Then there's the revenue factor, not to mention legalization of certain drugs. Prohibit drink and lose over 8 billion pounds in tax revenue, including VAT, and about a million jobs, - in the UK alone (stats according to the Institute for Alcoholic Studies) ... can't have that these days, can we?


The same 2009 study, however, puts the costs of alcohol abuse at 25% of all NHS costs. A quarter of 75 billion pounds is almost 19 billion! And that doesn't even take into account the costs of policing, court procedures, crime, etc. etc. We're only talking about the UK here but I venture the figures are similar elsewhere.


Don't get me wrong, though, I enjoyed my drinking until I didn't any more. I didn't enjoy drugs because I'm of an age where those were much less available, but had they been, I would probably have enjoyed those, too. So do I wish to take away people's enjoyment? Of course not! (But I'd say to my friends: look carefully at that word 'enjoyment' before it's too late...)

So, should Professor Nutt's conclusions lead to a new prohibition? What do you think?

(Note: All links to help organizations are UK based, but information for other countries can be obtained there, or via Google.)

(c) Alberto Bullrich 2010