Alcohol Consumption Guidelines: Do you care?

[PH]

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

Exactly that, they've publisised the information and the recommendations based on it and I'm free to do as I please.
In my case I'll ignore it, I quite often exceed the daily recommendation, though rarely the weekly one, I'll accept that level of risk.
For those who think this is nanny state, what would you call having the information and not publisising it?

[Bonefishblues]

For clarity I too am grateful for the information but feel it could have been delivered in a way better calculated to have the desired effect. It's enough to turn a man to Americana...

[irc]

For those who think this is nanny state, what would you call having the information and not publisising it?

It's nanny state when they say there is no safe level of drinking. The suggested limits are so low as to make the alcohol risk safer than many other activities we are all quite happy to do.

Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter, an expert in understanding risk from the University of Cambridge, said it was important to put the 1% risk in context. He said an hour of TV watching or a bacon sandwich a couple of time a week was more dangerous.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35255384

Personally I think any activity that is safer than eating 2 bacon sandwiches a week is pretty safe. The limits are also set to be the same for a 7 stone woman as a 17 stone man (me). Personally I'll carry on drinking more than a pint a day on average, watching TV and eating bacon sandwiches.

Once you stop smoking, get plenty exercise, and eat a reasonable diet cutting down a few pints of beer is just tinkering at the edges.

[landsurfer]

THIS IS HOW IT WORKS;
The govt asks the scientists "how much is safe?" they say 30 units a week ..
The politicians say "lets not take a risk ... 18 units
The politicians lawyers say ... "risky decision" ...16 units...
The teetotal Dame in charge of the review says 14 units ...after being warned by her lawyers.
Her colleagues that disagree with her suddenly find themselves no longer part of her review.

"Rules are for the guidance of wise men, and the obedience of fools" ...(sic) ..

[lingy]

Seems an odd definition of 'Nanny State' then... It's simply information based on new evidence isn't it? Even when we don't like the message, let's not blame the messenger.

[irc]

From wikipaedia

Nanny state is a term of British origin that conveys a view that a government or its policies are overprotective or interfering unduly with personal choice.

Trying to tell people that the safe level of alcohol is one where 2 bacon sandwiches a week or 1 hour of TV is more dangerous sounds over protective to me.

The rest of Europe seems to think far higher amounts are still low risk. 26 is a popular figure. I'll go with that.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35252650

[PH]

Look at the information, as close to it's source as possible, then make your own mind up. 4% of cancer is linked to alcohol, you may decide that's an acceptable risk to take, others may decide otherwise.

[Manc33]

No because I don't drink and haven't for about ten years.

I have to laugh though when people are being told how much to drink, I view it as a "comedy element".

What are they going to do with the people that drink the least, give them a gold star?

Write a note to your parents to tell them how obedient you are?

With drinking alcohol I realized after a while, anything making me feel that bad the next day can't be right. Plus I never really enjoyed it being off balance "enjoying" it or whatever. Also, people became loud and idiotic when drunk, often fighting or wanting to.

Alcohol kills people and if it isn't doing that it is killing brain cells and organs. When it isn't doing that it it splitting families up, nice.

I'd be trying to ban it if there was any point in trying.

Look at the phrase "Drink and drugs" and how clever it is as a subtle lie - drink is a drug!

I have noticed the BBC using the phrase "drink and drugs". So alcohol is legal, therefore we can move it to a different category than all other drugs? When there's illegal drugs less harmful? How does that work?

Society is being micro-managed lol.

Think about alcohol as a solvent which is exactly what it is - if you wipe neat alcohol on glass it just evaporates off into the air, now think that's what you're drinking. What must that solvent do when it comes into contact with oxygen in your bloodstream or anything it can evaporate into? It makes me cringe.

[reohn2]

Whilst I agree drink is drugs,if they were both lumped into together as drugs,drink would be quietly forgotten about as a potentially dangerous drug.
Separating the two in one phrase lumps them together as a drug,and so is a positive term IMHO.

Anyway how can it be right to have pubs and clubs open all hours of day and night and the owners pushing as much cheap booze down people's throats as possible,lining up 'shots' on the bar and drinking them one after another,not what you'd call a social night out is it?
Then there's the White Lightening 'cider' end of the spectrum being sold cheaper than water to anyone who looks over 18.
There's no direct control over alcohol sales,meanwhile liver disease is on the increase especially in the younger generation.
Alcohol abuse has been legitimised,and responsible drinking paid lip service to,now the fall out has begun and we're heading for a health disaster.

[al_yrpal]

They tried prohibition, that didnt work. The campaign against smoking had some success but people still do it. Smoking is only about a 500 year habit. But, there are massive commercial interests at the back of both habits, hard to oppose them. Canabis is widespread, legal highs too. You can only advise the downside of these habits and hope people will take note. That isnt Nanny State , because we ALL pay for the NHS, its in our financial interest that the downsides are publicised because cancer and cirrosis are expensive to treat, just like that other affliction - fat. Whack on a sugar tax I say, they witter on about it being a tax on the poor??? What? Leave the price of diet stuff alone and put VAT on the sugar bomb stuff - simples!

Al

[AJ101]

I can't help thinking that as risk factors go that being overweight is a bigger problem than a couple of beers a twice a week with friends. The social aspect is a good pressure release valve for many and its impact should not be understated.

[SpannerGeek]

To me av Nanny State is any operation of the government which attempts to micro manage the lives and liberty of its citizens. For those who think this makes no difference, you'll see the step change when you next visit the doctor. In most European countries Health hype is roundly ignored. Prohibition actually increased the amount of alcohol consumption after WW2. People generally react badly to nannying like this, saying that ANY alcohol consumption is bad is ludicrous and it won't deter a single person enjoying a social drink which compared to other drugs and legal highs is very low on risk and high on reward.

[reohn2]

They tried prohibition, that didnt work. The campaign against smoking had some success but people still do it. Smoking is only about a 500 year habit. But, there are massive commercial interests at the back of both habits, hard to oppose them. Canabis is widespread, legal highs too. You can only advise the downside of these habits and hope people will take note. That isnt Nanny State , because we ALL pay for the NHS, its in our financial interest that the downsides are publicised because cancer and cirrosis are expensive to treat, just like that other affliction - fat. Whack on a sugar tax I say, they witter on about it being a tax on the poor??? What? Leave the price of diet stuff alone and put VAT on the sugar bomb stuff - simples!

Al

What about the cheap booze?
And reducing the anxiety of work,of ever longer hours for less pay and the uncertainty of short term and zero hours contracts?
The pressure is on constantly for a lot of the workforce,which has always been the case.Though I'd rather have had my youth/work time over than the pressures of today's youth.

[SpannerGeek]

And the danger of sugar is FAR greater than alcohol both to your liver and from a diabetes perspective.

1 can of coke (35g of sugar) puts as much stress on your liver as a triple vodka.

1 can of coke = 3 units or nearly 25% of the weekly limit!

[al_yrpal]

Cheap booze? What about it? Its heavily taxed already, you could tax it more like they do in Scotland. Low wages - get better educated, acquire a skill, start your own business, move, alcohol just makes things worse. Lots of folk from Eastern Europe here seeking something better, grafting away far from their families.

Al