Alcohol Consumption Guidelines: Do you care?

[Psamathe]

...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.

But they didn't say "ANY alcohol consumption is bad", they warned everybody that any alcohol consumption can increase your risks of serious disease. And as so often these things are not always linear (i.e. not double consumption, double risk), they tried to quantify those risks for people, basically giving people the information to make choices they are comfortable with.

Ian

[reohn2]

Cheap booze? What about it? Its heavily taxed already, you could tax it more like they do in Scotland.

Why not do that,at least the higher taxes could be fast tracked straight into the health service.

Low wages - get better educated, acquire a skill, start your own business, move, alcohol just makes things worse.

Easy peasey isn't?
There's already a glut of people with university degrees working in MacDonalds(other fast food emporiums are available).
Stability and contentment leads less of a need to get smashed on a regular basis.

Lots of folk from Eastern Europe here seeking something better, grafting away far from their families.
Al

And good on them,but it isn't the answer is it?
They come here because their standard of living at home is even worse.That doesn't make it right.

There's a huge divide in our society,bigger now than ever,it's not helping.

[Psamathe]

...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

You raise an interesting point. It seems a sliding scale where at one end you have people who through no fault of their own become ill and need the NHS, whilst at the other end you have people who e.g. think some aspect of their body is not as they would wish so seek "enlargement". And in the middle you have a range of things that could to varying extents be considered self inflicted. And that becomes a very difficult thing for as you can't really not treat somebody because they are low on willpower and motivation.

It used to be the case that heavy drinkers would not be considered for liver transplants at least not until they had satisfied the NHS that they had their drinking "under control". I'd guess/hope that similar conditions are applied these days.

But at what point do you declare that something is "self-inflicted" and decide it is not fair for other taxpayers to pay for the treatment ?

People don't seem to refer to the high tax on tobacco products as "nanny state" but most think of it as contributing to the high costs many smokers might represent to the NHS. So, assuming the current information on sugar is accurate (and not just the latest "food bandwagon Jamie Oliver has jumped on"), maybe the same attitude should apply to a sugar tax. Except of course these days smoking is socially far less acceptable than e.g. eating sugar.

Ian

[Mick F]

Alcohol Consumption Guidelines: Do I care?
No a jot.

The thing is though, I don't care, and other people may not care, but some people have a drinking problem ......... or a problem with drinking. It's good to have guidance and advice.

[al_yrpal]

The alcoholics I know personally cant help it. They are an exception, alcoholism is horrible, they often cant help themselves. I worked for someone who was smashed for years and caused a motorway accident that killed some people. After that he never touched a drop, ever. He was an intelligent man though who afterwards had a good career. Someone not so well endowed would have fared worse.

Getting trained, studying, starting a business arent easy peasy at all. From my experience its all blinking hard. If you arent prepared to get stuck in and graft a bit you dont get anywhere (unless you had the silver spoon). Some of my friends here work in London, a 1 3/4 hr commute. When I lived in S Wales in a place of high unemployment there were plenty of jobs in Cardiff but many of the lazy blighters wouldnt even consider a 45 minute commute to Cardiff. Its a culture in all cases.

Al

[Mick F]

I wasn't referring to alcoholics (though I know a few) I was referring to heavy regular drinkers ........... people like me?
The fact that I don't care is really to do with my healthy lifestyle.

Some folk will take advice.
Some folk don't want advice.
Some folk are beyond advice.

Doesn't mean you shouldn't advise.

[reohn2]

Someone not so well endowed would have fared worse.

Ain't that the truth.

Getting trained, studying, starting a business arent easy peasy at all.

So we're agreed on one thing.

From my experience its all blinking hard. If you arent prepared to get stuck in and graft a bit you dont get anywhere (unless you had the silver spoon). Some of my friends here work in London, a 1 3/4 hr commute. When I lived in S Wales in a place of high unemployment there were plenty of jobs in Cardiff but many of the lazy blighters wouldnt even consider a 45 minute commute to Cardiff. Its a culture in all cases.

Al

The thing is that those who are willing to get stuck in,are struggling and some at the top end are coasting.
Not everyone is cut out to run their own business,and some(increasingly) are treading water whilst working damned hard at that,boozing and drugs are a pressure release that some fall into.
When the pressure is ramped up not everyone can handle it,and it's increasingly easier,due to the low cost of booze and drugs,to fall into the trap.
We've allowed a booze and drugs culture to develop,we're now reaping the whirlwind.

[reohn2]

The thing is though, I don't care, and other people may not care, but some people have a drinking problem ......... or a problem with drinking. It's good to have guidance and advice.

The problem is that those doling out the advise are probably the least trusted or believed people in the country.
Bankers aside that is

[Bonefishblues]

Raise you an Estate Agent...

[al_yrpal]

As I understand it the alcohol advice was from medical evidence and delivered by medical experts, nothing to do with politicians. If George had his way we would probably all be guzzling more and smoking like chimneys (but when the NHS bill arrives perhaps not!)

Al

[AlaninWales]

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.

Yes! Of course! It's all Evidence Based Policy you know!

or not ...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/08/uk_alcohol_guidelines_are_junk_but_why/
As others have pointed out, the evidence is that many activities commonly regarded as safe, are more dangerous than exceeding the new guidelines, let alone the "No level of alcohol is safe" statements.
Control the masses by instilling fear and guilt. An old ploy indeed.

[reohn2]

Raise you an Estate Agent...

I'll fold,I know when I'm beaten.

[reohn2]

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.

Yes! Of course! It's all Evidence Based Policy you know!

or not ...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/08/uk_alcohol_guidelines_are_junk_but_why/
As others have pointed out, the evidence is that many activities commonly regarded as safe, are more dangerous than exceeding the new guidelines, let alone the "No level of alcohol is safe" statements.
Control the masses by instilling fear and guilt. An old ploy indeed.

You forgot allowing them to get into debt,then reducing their right to strike

[Mick F]

The thing is though, I don't care, and other people may not care, but some people have a drinking problem ......... or a problem with drinking. It's good to have guidance and advice.

The problem is that those doling out the advise are probably the least trusted or believed people in the country.
Bankers aside that is

Ain't that the truth!

[beardy]

For every complex question there is an answer which is clear, simple and wrong.

An explanation for why men and women are now the same, (men and women having been a sort of simplification for bigger and smaller people).

The new guidelines recognise that while long-term alcohol-health risks are generally higher for women than men, men face much higher risks of acute harm (e.g. injury) on single drinking occasions. Therefore, it has been decided to set the lower-risk level at the same amount for both.

They have combined our risk of injury due to being drunk with the increased risk of cancer.
So my pint of beer watching TV at night puts me at risk of getting into a street brawl!

The 14 units was picked as the point at which a the risk curve passed the (arbitrary) 1% risk figure, if they had chosen an (arbitrary) .8% risk or an (arbitrary) 1.2% figure then the recommendation would be different.

So plenty of scope to "fiddle" your own maximum limit by choosing an incrementally higher or lower risk level, by making some compensation for your weight compared to the average and your ability to avoid fights, accidents etc after drinking.

While some may disparage a 1% risk, that does mean half a million people* potentially saved from cancer by following this advice.

*if you assume everybody would drink to excess without it.