« Telegraph Fails to Report What Bear Did in the Woods | Main | Maguire Refuses To Gossip »

Alcohol Limits - The Consensus Fights Back

You may remember sometime ago I blogged about The Times reporting that the recommended Alcohol Limits were simply “plucked out of the air”.

Over the weekend a comment appeared from Dom:

The Times article quoted has since been discredited...there will always be those who deny the harm caused by alcohol as over estimated, usually those who drink too much. The suggestion that 60 units a week is acceptable is raving mad...unless you imagine that drinking 3 pints of vodka a week is normal. An individual's right to cause their bodies permanent damage notwithstanding, The Times article should be removed from internet, it's a hugely irresponsible green light for alcohol abuse.
It's a typical reaction of people to believe something only when it sounds acceptable to their ears.

I emailed him back to ask if he had any source for his claim, no reply; I have googled but can't see any rebuttal. Has the report being discredited or is his comment simply “plucked out of the air”?

Comments

60 units is just over 2 bottles of spirit.

But 3 pints sounds a lot more, doesn't it?

Blogged in October, comment in March, Dom must have been hibernating, perhaps he's the bear in the woods.

I drink about 4 bottles of red wine per week plus the odd beer, scotch and G & T so I reckon I'd be close to the 60 units. In our social circle, that level of consumption is about normal. My body, my life, my business.

You're seeing a collision between the real world and the vision of the anointed.

The vision wins out every time, evidence and/or facts notwithstanding.

Note the "argument" employed - it's not about whether the limits are invented or not (after all, we know they are), it's all to do with it being a "green light" to do something the righteous don't want you to do. Everything is the message, nothing is the facts and data; they are not even addressed.

Remember, the 63 units-a-week figure was the one Richard Doll and colleagues found equalised the risk with people who did not drink at all. They didn't say you 'should' drink that much, merely that that was the second x-axis intercept taking zero consumption as the origin of the graph. I'm off the booze pro tem, but even when I was drinking what I would consider a goodly amount, 63 units a week would have been considerably higher than my usual intake.

Well, first of all, I'm a recovering alcoholic, okay ? Secondly, I didn't know there was a danger to what I called moderate drinking, that being 2-4 stiff ones (my favourite being 'Greyhounds') a day. Thirdly, being of excellent health, career, family, and raised in a Christian home, I truly believed that anything that was legal, couldn't damage you in anyway shape or form, if never drunk nor bingeing !

So wrong, was I !!

The Medical Professionals, have now stated, that moderate drinking of hard liquor, should not be more than 2 per week. Wine 1-2 per day, max.
Gee, I wonder why........................?
Well, here's one good reason:

At this time, there are 5 major Alcohol caused Health afflictions, all with no cure('s).
And they are (not in any particular order either):
-Grand Mal Seizures
-Progressive Deafness
-Progressive Blindness
-Rapidly Corruded Livers
-Heart Attacks
Each one severe, and each one permenant.

So suddenly, your entire life is torn apart, after 25-30 yrs of successful living........
You're required to immediately relinquish your cherished profession, drivers license, and any/all future travel plans. And suddenly on first name basis with not only your family Doctor, who rarely saw much of you, but also 1-2 Surgeons, who've been called in for different calamity's resulting from this newly found illness.

My beloved hubby passed away 23 months ago, from a perforated ulcer, acquired directly from his continued worrying about our health & future. After which, my next visit to our Physician's resulted in their joint opinions/knowledge that I'd not last 6 mos to a year.
Well, I'm still here, but mind you, its unusual to say the least, when seeing them after all this time, they smile & hug you ! As they're truly amazed I'm still here !

I'm not going to judge anyone, who's still enjoying a 'good one' whenever, it's not my place. But, my grave concern is for our youth, who seem to be following already, in our grimy slimy footprints.
So, think about this...........
When all us old farts have been dropped off at entrances to Seniors Nursing Homes, to be spoon fed & diaperred, who will take over all our many jobs/professions ? If our young people have already destroyed their own health ??

May God have mercy on us all !

as i stated on the Adam Smith Institute blog on the 17th of last month

written by chris southern, March 17, 2009

@Shiela, whilst you mention the problems that Alcohol brought you, you must remember that it was your over consumption for a prolonged period of time that caused your current health problems. I don't mean to cause offence so apologise if i may have done.

What people need to remember is that health warnings on labels don't stop people from drinking or smoking, never has and never will.
Changing the price/tax won't stop people from consuming more than is healthy, especialy for prolonged periods of time.
The Licenced premises have a responsibility, and the super markets are not acting responsible in regards to their responsibilties towards the sale of alcohol (they make vitualy no profit on a lot of alcohol so as to entice people into the stores) Revoke the licenses of those who are proving to be irresponsible, after all, it was lax licence laws that brought about the problems with gin lane, and readdressing that problem, sorted the problem out.

The main reason people purchase cheap alcohol is due to the fact that public houses and licensed clubs charge so much, due to the cost of their licences, the amount the breweries charge and the rates they pay on the premises.
Combine readressing these issues with common sense applied with educating people about alcohol at an earlier age (as is done in mainland europe) and you start to make progress for the future.
panicky kneejerk reactions, as is so often seen in politics only brings about further problems, remember, it is few but good well though out regulations that always offer the best solutions.
Quick fixes are nothing but a short term PR stunt, they are never a long term solution.

If we are to change the future, we need to look at past mistakes, so as to ensure we do not repeat the all to often repeated mistakes of history.
Also, good education provides for the future, that way the people can make a better future for themselves, tyrants do not wish for you to control your present or future.

Post a comment