Thursday, 14 October 2010

Understatement of the Century

David Nutt responds to his Critics, including me

Q.26 “Banning didn’t work in the US with prohibition, why should it work now?”

A: I didn’t mention banning but in fact, it did reduce alcohol health harms dramatically, however, the increase in social harms from crime was deemed to offset the health benefits

Was Deemed?

His new blog can be found here.



2 comments:

PJH said...

"[Nutt(er)] didn’t mention banning but in fact, [prohibition] did reduce alcohol health harms dramatically"

Did it now?

The Chemist's War

U.S. govt. poisoned its own citizens during Prohibition

Now I know he (and others no doubt) are going to say the two are separate, but

1) If there was no prohibition, then the poisoning wouldn't have happened

2) Given the fact that a not insubstantial number of people did die as a result of the poisoning, which (see [1]) was as a result of the prohibition, how could the prohibition have reduced harm due to people drinking alcohol?

Or are they just counting the 'non-fatal' harm?

Idiots, the lot of them.

PJH said...

I note, with some amusement, that while my comment on his site (linking to the same links above and expanding on my points above) still remains in the moderation queue, he has published two subsequent comments.

Amused. And not surprised.

There was an error in this gadget