Alcohol Consumption Guidelines: Do you care?

[SpannerGeek]

The new limits are the well publicised 14 units. I drink at least three times that on a normal week.
I'm having a dry January, mainly to shift the bit of timber i put on after the holidays, but I doubt very much I'll be paying any attention to the Government. Alcohol is an excellent sedative and muscle relexant. People have been using it to that end for over 5000 years. What are they playing at!!! Next it'll be 'any alcohol is dangerous'!!

[reohn2]

The UK worker on average works the longest hours in the EU,in ever increasingly unstable jobs,which in turn leads to far more stress than needs be,the country's falling apart around our ears,we've entered yet another middle east conflict,and the country's being run by the biggest bunch of con merchants to date,etc,etc.

Is it any wonder people need a muscle relaxant in the form of alcohol,recreational drugs and smoking!


BTW,I don't drink,smoke or indulge in recreational drugs.

[beardy]

Next it'll be 'any alcohol is dangerous'!!

I thought that it already was the case. Though the word dangerous should possibly be better defined.
I heard Spiegelhalter commenting about this. All factually correct but why point at this one issue in particular? An extra couple of kilograms around your waste is a more significant health risk.
Bacon butties I think were also more risky than exceeding the 14 unit limit.
So even a pint a day is reckoned to have a detrimental effect, you just have to decide if the rewards justify the risk. It is not in the same risk league as smoking though.

[reohn2]

Next it'll be 'any alcohol is dangerous'!!

I thought that it already was the case. Though the word dangerous should possibly be better defined.
I heard Spiegelhalter commenting about this. All factually correct but why point at this one issue in particular? An extra couple of kilograms around your waste is a more significant health risk.
Bacon butties I think were also more risky than exceeding the 14 unit limit.
So even a pint a day is reckoned to have a detrimental effect, you just have to decide if the rewards justify the risk. It is not in the same risk league as smoking though.

No one's mentioned driving,high stress levels more chance of injury or death too

[greyingbeard]

No, I dont care
People will have a drink if they want one, similarly a bag of chips, fatty takeaway or a lard of chocolate.
Having just listened to a politician gobbing off on telly I too feel the need for a stiff one.

[Bonefishblues]

I was actively irritated by the nanny (forgive me Nannies) who was punting this information on the meeja the other day - supercilious, hectoring harriden. I wish her a dull life.

Worth looking up the comparative levels around Europe (on the BBC IIRC) to see what they say.

[simonineaston]

Those who are sensible will remain so; those who are addicted will still have trouble.
Which reminds me - I read a funny quote the other day - here it is: "Do not use semicolons - all they do is show you've been to college." Kurt Vonnegut
PS I once got so drunk I fell off my bike - although I think there was someone else riding it at the same time.
PPS - coming to think of it, I might have got so drunk that I fell off my bike twice... once in the '80s and once again in the noughties, when I was old enough to have known better. Oh Dear.

[al_yrpal]

I would care if I was drinking 20 pints a week, but I don't. These guidelines are based on studies of drinking statistics and show that drinking excessively puts you more at risk of horrible diseases, thats for sure. If someone told me that I couldnt have another alcoholic drink ever I wouldnt care less, alcohol never got a grip on me like smoking and I gave that up 30 years ago.
Coincidently I had read about the livers capacity to regenerate itself and before this scare story appeared I had started having a month largely off alcohol. Last night I had a small glass of red and will probably treat myself to one every Saturday. Why be a pedant?
As for alcohol being an escape, undoubtably it is for some, but some seem to seek things out to be overly concerned about. Forget the bottle, chill out and listen to the Eagles or something with a nice cup of tea.

Al

[Bonefishblues]

As for alcohol being an escape, undoubtably it is for some, but some seem to seek things out to be overly concerned about. Forget the bottle, chill out and listen to the Eagles or something with a nice cup of tea.

Al

Woah there, that could lead to Steely Dan and goodness knows where!

[sjs]

I was actively irritated by the nanny (forgive me Nannies) who was punting this information on the meeja the other day - supercilious, hectoring harriden. I wish her a dull life.

Worth looking up the comparative levels around Europe (on the BBC IIRC) to see what they say.

I heard her on the Today programme, and felt the same. And then felt a bit guilty; would I have felt the same way about a man giving the same message in a similar style?

She was asked a good question. Given that the risk associated with an average amount of driving is similar (apparently) to that of drinking to the new limit, why wasn't she advising that there is no safe level of driving? There are no doubt good answers ("Not my job to advise on Elf and safety" being one maybe) but she didn't manage to find one.

[Psamathe]

What I find disappointing is how so much of the press is asking/suggesting this is "Nanny State ...". When it seems to me it is no more than a review of health impacts has taken place and everybody is being made aware of the current best knowledge on health impacts. Nothing "nanny state" about it; everybody can decide for themselves based on current best knowledge.

To me, "nanny state" is when the state sets rules e.g. "You must wear a helmet when cycling", etc.

Ian

[reohn2]

As for alcohol being an escape, undoubtably it is for some, but some seem to seek things out to be overly concerned about. Forget the bottle, chill out and listen to the Eagles or something with a nice cup of tea.

Al

Woah there, that could lead to Steely Dan and goodness knows where!

Probably Gillian Welch and Dave Rawllings:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj3TmCkGcg4
or even Poke LaFarge:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jckFQ2U4z5I

[axel_knutt]

She was asked a good question. Given that the risk associated with an average amount of driving is similar (apparently) to that of drinking to the new limit, why wasn't she advising that there is no safe level of driving?

Because she was invited on the program to talk about alcohol, if she'd changed the subject to driving everyone would have been accusing her of avoiding the questions. The government do offer advice about driving too, and they even set a maximum speed limit, there's no legal limit on the maximum you can drink.

What I find disappointing is how so much of the press is asking/suggesting this is "Nanny State ...". When it seems to me it is no more than a review of health impacts has taken place and everybody is being made aware of the current best knowledge on health impacts. Nothing "nanny state" about it; everybody can decide for themselves based on current best knowledge.

To me, "nanny state" is when the state sets rules e.g. "You must wear a helmet when cycling", etc.

Ian

That's the point, it's the government's job to provide it's citizens with the best advice available so they can make an informed decision of their own. The "nanny state" complainers are trying to stop people telling them what they don't want to hear, like putting their fingers in their ears and going "lalala".

[sjs]

She was asked a good question. Given that the risk associated with an average amount of driving is similar (apparently) to that of drinking to the new limit, why wasn't she advising that there is no safe level of driving?

Because she was invited on the program to talk about alcohol, if she'd changed the subject to driving everyone would have been accusing her of avoiding the questions. The government do offer advice about driving too, and they even set a maximum speed limit, there's no legal limit on the maximum you can drink.

Fair enough. She could have said that. She just didn't handle the question very well, that's all. But maybe that's a point in her favour; she's not like the usual oily politicians they have on there, any of whom would have brushed the driving question aside with no difficulty.

[reohn2]

Because she was invited on the program to talk about alcohol, if she'd changed the subject to driving everyone would have been accusing her of avoiding the questions. The government do offer advice about driving too, and they even set a maximum speed limit, there's no legal limit on the maximum you can drink.

The difference being alcohol consumption is a guide,driving limits and habits are law,which this and the previous governments have restricted the ability of the police to enforce,in favour of taking such laws on trust

That's the point, it's the government's job to provide it's citizens with the best advice available so they can make an informed decision of their own. The "nanny state" complainers are trying to stop people telling them what they don't want to hear, like putting their fingers in their ears and going "lalala".

But in the case of enforcing and punishing law breaking on the roads the "nanny state" has been mostly removed allowing free rein to idiots in cars.Mobile phone use whilst driving is endemic in society,and whilst the punishment has been made harsher even an idiot knows the chances of being caught are minimal.