Never fight with logic. Its really sharp and pokey and you might get hurt.

Note the title of the following article on AOL:

"Study: Alcohol More Lethal Than Heroin, Cocaine" [1]

Now, before you get all panicky, the author will ease your fears by inserting the mandatory caveat: "When drunk in excess, alcohol..." [emphasis added].  Phew!  And another one, just for good measure (and to lessen that panicky feeling even more): "Heroin, crack cocaine and methamphetamine, or crystal meth, were the most lethal to individuals." [emphasis added].  Double Phew!

BUT....even with those caveats, the findings were attention-getting to say the least:  "When considering their wider social effects, alcohol, heroin and crack cocaine were the deadliest."  In fact, "overall, alcohol outranked all other substances..."  Even the "when drunk in excess" phrase (and "excess" is never defined, by the way) is followed by some pretty serious stuff: "...alcohol damages nearly all organ systems. It is also connected to higher death rates and is involved in a greater percentage of crime than most other drugs, including heroin."  In fact even without the "excess" thrown in, the article states that alcohol "has devastating consequences not only for drinkers but for those around them."  Apparently it ranks so much higher than the others "because it is so widely used."  Wim van den Brink "a professor of psychiatry and addiction at the University of Amsterdam" goes so far as to say "Drugs that are legal cause at least as much damage, if not more, than drugs that are illicit."

Whoa, Whoa WHOA!   I thought alcohol was just a socially-acceptable, adult beverage that helped you be healthy and happy and brought joy and brotherhood to the broader society. But if the above information is true...  Hmm...  And if it is the case alcohol is so damaging because of its wide use, wouldn't it make sense to consider limiting said wide use.  Someone might even (gasp) suggest something like limiting its access.

But no, because "experts said it would be impractical and incorrect to outlaw alcohol."  (Well, if EXPERTS say it, then...)  In the best argument yet to avoid the backward-headedness of one who might put two and two together and come up with four (legal alcohol + serious detriment = at least a consideration of the effect on society if it is no longer legal), Leslie King, "an adviser to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and one of the study's authors"  gives the following air tight defense of setting up another round: "We cannot return to the days of prohibition. ... Alcohol is too embedded in our culture and it won't go away."  And If that doesn't convince you, maybe you will be swayed by what van den Brink points out: "...considerations about revenue and taxation, like those garnered from the alcohol and tobacco industries, may influence decisions about which substances to regulate or outlaw."  Well, why didn't you say so in the first place?

There you have it folks: the final word from the experts. I shall summarize in the following illogical sillygism:

1) Experts know alcohol is devastating
2) Experts know alcohol has a worse impact than heroin, cocaine, crack, meth, or [insert name of any other illegal drug here]
3) Experts know alcohol has such a massive impact because it is readily available
4) Experts know alcohol is readily available because it is legal

 THEREFORE:

5) Experts know alcohol cannot be limited in any way because that would be impractical and incorrect, would return us to the days of Al Capone et al, would deprive the State of lots of revenue, and, besides, its just too hard to do.

The logic is inescapable and air-tight, as you can clearly see.  So stop worrying about it already.  And remember, there are lots of things that aren't "embedded in our culture" and that "experts" have not yet said are "impractical...to outlaw," so there are still plenty of evils we can rid society of, like: stopping people from driving without a seat-belt, making sure people put 7 year-olds in booster seats, making sure every American purchases health care (whether they want/need/can afford it or not), preventing stores from selling "evil' incandescent bulbs (beginning 2013), etc, etc, etc.

After all, we don't get any taxes from those things, right?

________________
1. Maria Cheng, "Study: Alcohol More Lethal Than Heroin, Cocaine"; <http://www.aolnews.com/2010/10/31/study-alcohol-more-lethal-than-heroin-cocaine/>; 10/31/2010; accessed 12/16/2010.