Professor David Nutt, the former Chief Drugs Adviser to the Government, has sparked
controversy again today by pronouncing that alcohol is more harmful than heroin, crack, powder cocaine and methamphetamine. His findings are
based on a paper published today, which builds on a 2007 journal that explored the same issues. So, is Professor Nutt right? If he is, what should the consequences be for public policy and, in
particular, our systems of drug classification and alcohol taxation?
To find out, it is worth returning to Professor Nutt’s 2007 academic paper. The relative harm of drugs is measured according to nine meters, taking into account the various aspects of physical harm, dependence and wider social harms. The social harms measure includes health care costs and other harms such as damage to family and social life. Today’s paper uses a similar classification system – with the social harm measure pushing alcohol above every other illegal substance.
Get Britain's best politics newsletters
Register to get The Spectator's insight and opinion straight to your inbox. You can then read two free articles each week.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in