Eating Cheese More Dangerous Than Using Crystal Meth!

This article from The Independent in the UK amuses me, because of its poor reasoning.  The title should set off alarms, not those intended by the author though:

Super-strength lager 'causing more harm than crack or heroin'

The lager to which they refer is a high gravity beer.   High gravity beer tends to have a higher alcohol content than ordinary beer--the beer they refer to in the article has alcohol content of 9 per cent.  A craft brewery in Spartanburg produces a few, including one of its best-selling beers, Bell Ringer.   Samuel Adams brews specialty beers with ABV (alcohol by volume) in the 20 percent range.

The thesis of the article is that these high gravity beers are causing comparably worse harm than illegal drugs, and thus, presumably should be "made" scarce, through taxation or other means.   How does the article support the lead claim?  In the following way:

"Asked about the claim that high-strength beers and ciders caused more damage than illegal drugs, Sir Ian Gilmore, a spokesman on alcohol issues for the Royal College of Physicians, said: "Because the number of people using alcohol is so much higher, the harm is likely to be much more." "

Suppose that 300 million people partake in activity X, causing approximately 5 units of harm to each of them.  Suppose 30,000 people partake in activity Y, causing approximately 5000 units of harm to each of them.  Conclusion:  X causes more harm than Y!!!

One could be charitable and reinterpret the overall claim in a very weak sense.  That of course is not what the papers are intending.  The outrageous sells!

Herewith are some of the articles I'm working on:

Using toothpicks causes more harm than sniffing glue!
Golf causes more harm than civil war in a third world country!
Reading philosophy causes more harm than playing the clavier!

Feel free to suggest your own articles.