Nanny state on booze

[Elixir]

UK is just getting prepared for the time when it becomes an Islamic Republic and alcohol is banned.

Lol! Are you sure it's not going to become a Russian satellite, where there will be forced consumption of a couple of liters of Vodka per day?

 

[Derec]

UK is just getting prepared for the time when it becomes an Islamic Republic and alcohol is banned.

Lol! Are you sure it's not going to become a Russian satellite, where there will be forced consumption of a couple of liters of Vodka per day?

Are there millions of Russians flooding into Western Europe or millions of Muslims?
Are these Russians or Muslims?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hmm... maybe it is time for me to get into the Homeopathic Beer business. If you like Coors Light, you'll love Homeopathic Brew.

 

[Elixir]

Lol! Are you sure it's not going to become a Russian satellite, where there will be forced consumption of a couple of liters of Vodka per day?

Are there millions of Russians flooding into Western Europe or millions of Muslims?
Are these Russians or Muslims?

No True Russian opposes vodka. I thought you'd know that.

 

[DBT]

Going on a bit of a tangent, I wonder how far people are prepared to relinquish their privacy, in what is essentially becoming a surveillance society, in exchange for the perception of safety and ability to identify lawbreakers?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Going on a bit of a tangent, I wonder how far people are prepared to relinquish their privacy, in what is essentially becoming a surveillance society, in exchange for the perception of safety and ability to identify lawbreakers?

I don't think there's any limit. At the moment privacy advocates mostly come across as cooks don't they? I've been following this debate and it mostly makes me sad how little people seem to value all the freedoms our ancestors fought for. It makes me even sadder than politicians who push for these laws are allowed to keep their jobs. They're clearly not acting in the best interest of their constituents. But their constituents don't seem to care.

 

[Philos]

Going on a bit of a tangent, I wonder how far people are prepared to relinquish their privacy, in what is essentially becoming a surveillance society, in exchange for the perception of safety and ability to identify lawbreakers?

I don't think there's any limit. At the moment privacy advocates mostly come across as cooks don't they? I've been following this debate and it mostly makes me sad how little people seem to value all the freedoms our ancestors fought for. It makes me even sadder than politicians who push for these laws are allowed to keep their jobs. They're clearly not acting in the best interest of their constituents. But their constituents don't seem to care.

Dr Zoidberg,

There certainly is a lot of regulation in human society. All sorts of reasons are given and all kinds of regulations, but the principle of regulating is the theme.

A.

 

[DBT]

I think the balance between regulation and freedom has already gone to far....with no sign of abating. Politicians constantly churning out new regulations like a sausage factory making snags.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't think there's any limit. At the moment privacy advocates mostly come across as cooks don't they? I've been following this debate and it mostly makes me sad how little people seem to value all the freedoms our ancestors fought for. It makes me even sadder than politicians who push for these laws are allowed to keep their jobs. They're clearly not acting in the best interest of their constituents. But their constituents don't seem to care.

Dr Zoidberg,

There certainly is a lot of regulation in human society. All sorts of reasons are given and all kinds of regulations, but the principle of regulating is the theme.

A.

There's a difference. It's OK to monitor people who are suspected of a crime. But the rest of us, no it's not. Then it is violating our rights to privacy. It's important to value this distinction

 

[ronburgundy]

You can disagree, but you're just flat out objectively wrong.
Beer has existed at least as long as leavened bread, and other forms of alcohol longer than that. Alcohol has been consumed by a large % of societies since the dawn of civilization, and every past effort to rid society of it (short of using religious violence against those who use it) has done nothing to hinder its popularity. People everywhere have gone to great lengths to find ways to create alcoholic liquids out of just about anything they could find in their environment that would ferment. IOW, its appeal does not rely upon and cannot be notably hindered by culture.

You've got a very Western perspective. In large parts of India booze is looked upon with suspicion while weed is not only legal, but the drug of choice.

There is nothing Western about it. Drinking of intentionally fermented liquids goes back at least 12,000 years to long long before the concept of Western had any meaning. For more than 5000 years, it has been drank by people's in every part of the globe from what is now China, India, Iran, Greece, Africa, and Mexico. Benefits of alcohol use are mentioned in ancient Sumerian texts, the Old Testament, and early Vedic texts (and rice wine is the favorite drink of the Hindu deity Indra).

In any culture there will be one drug which is culturally acceptable and which people will socially partake in to wind down with. When that drug is taken it signals all manner of festive things and is probably necessary.

Sure, but no drug is even close to alcohol in having a more consistent global use since the dawn of civilization. Proving that there are aspects of it that transcend cultural variation.

There is no culture that is drug free. Anthropologists have looked. Most likely, historically, we've never taken less drugs than now.

I agree with that. But for the last thousands of years there have been almost no cultures that have even been alcohol free without the use of violent authority to prohibit what people are naturally drawn to. Alcohol is not the only way to get there, but it has been by far the most common way to get there for at least the last few thousand years.

BTW, the main reason why alcohol is so popular around the world isn't it's intoxicating effects, nor it's damages. It's not particularly fun nor safe. It's most likely the fact that of all the recreational drugs out there it's the easiest to dose. It's as simple as that. And that's a good reason we'll keep using it, in spite of it damaging effects.

Of course its intoxicating effects are central to its popularity. In particular that its intoxicating effects tend to enhance socialization, unlike many other drugs that reduce it. Also, I am not arguing that booze has more inherent appeal than all other drugs, only far more inherent appeal and positive social benefits than tobacco. The fact that booze can be easily manufactured by so many things found in almost every environment plays a huge role in its very early emergence in most societies and continued global use, but without its effects having a strong innate appeal to most people, it would never have gained the sustained global popularity it has.

IOW, it is inherently easy to make and fun to take, so it will be with us always and prohibitions will be made to break.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You've got a very Western perspective. In large parts of India booze is looked upon with suspicion while weed is not only legal, but the drug of choice.

There is nothing Western about it. Drinking of intentionally fermented liquids goes back at least 12,000 years to long long before the concept of Western had any meaning. For more than 5000 years, it has been drank by people's in every part of the globe from what is now China, India, Iran, Greece, Africa, and Mexico. Benefits of alcohol use are mentioned in ancient Sumerian texts, the Old Testament, and early Vedic texts (and rice wine is the favorite drink of the Hindu deity Indra).

Sure. But cultures change over time. There's lots of things that my Viking ancestors did that I don't. I frown upon raping and pillaging for instance.

In any culture there will be one drug which is culturally acceptable and which people will socially partake in to wind down with. When that drug is taken it signals all manner of festive things and is probably necessary.

Sure, but no drug is even close to alcohol in having a more consistent global use since the dawn of civilization. Proving that there are aspects of it that transcend cultural variation.

So what? That doesn't prove that other cultures might not have this as their number one drug. There's plenty of cultures where it's not. In Egypt they drink coffee and smoke hookah until their eyes look like they're about to pop out of their skulls.

BTW, the main reason why alcohol is so popular around the world isn't it's intoxicating effects, nor it's damages. It's not particularly fun nor safe. It's most likely the fact that of all the recreational drugs out there it's the easiest to dose. It's as simple as that. And that's a good reason we'll keep using it, in spite of it damaging effects.

Of course its intoxicating effects are central to its popularity. In particular that its intoxicating effects tend to enhance socialization, unlike many other drugs that reduce it. Also, I am not arguing that booze has more inherent appeal than all other drugs, only far more inherent appeal and positive social benefits than tobacco. The fact that booze can be easily manufactured by so many things found in almost every environment plays a huge role in its very early emergence in most societies and continued global use, but without its effects having a strong innate appeal to most people, it would never have gained the sustained global popularity it has.

IOW, it is inherently easy to make and fun to take, so it will be with us always and prohibitions will be made to break.

I see that you're not familiar with shrooms, ecstasy, weed, LSD, cocaine and so on. Alcohol comes quite far down the list of my favourite drug. I hate that it pretty much always fucks up the next day for me. If I do ecstasy or shrooms I wake up well rested and happy the next day. As well as most likely would have had rewarding conversations with people, that I remember. Alchol just turns me into an idiot. A happy idiot. But it doesn't really make my life any better.

Yes, alcohols intoxicating effects is the reason for it's popularity. But doesn't explain why it's the most popular drug.

 

[bilby]

 

[Philos]

Bilby,

The new UK guidelines are 14 units for both men and women. However, my GP said tactfully to me, "The guidelines are moving more towards 14 than 21". Well, of course that's not the case, the new guidelines are actually 14 units, but I loved her for giving me some 'fake news'.

A.

 

[Derec]

Sure. But cultures change over time. There's lots of things that my Viking ancestors did that I don't. I frown upon raping and pillaging for instance.

They also thought it was a good thing to defend their country from foreign invaders. You want to invite them in by the millions.

Sure, but no drug is even close to alcohol in having a more consistent global use since the dawn of civilization. Proving that there are aspects of it that transcend cultural variation.

Except your new Islamic overlords will ban alcohol as soon as they have enough numbers (through a combination of mass migration and European taxpayer funded mass breeding) to impose Sharia law. Remember, the invaders that you open your borders to come predominanetly from cultures where belief in Sharia is very common - 99% in case of Afghanistan.

So enjoy booze while you are still allowed to.

 

[DrZoidberg]

They also thought it was a good thing to defend their country from foreign invaders. You want to invite them in by the millions.

Nope. They didn't. If you take a peak at history the Vikings left their villages undefended when they went on raids. Why? Because nobody sensible wanted to live there. The shitty cold weather was their only defence. That and the fact that Viking ships were fast as fuck and they could return at any time. They were typically only gone a few weeks per raid. Which is bizarrely quickly. But which was made possible by having flexible bendy hulls only a couple of centimeters thick. They could easily be sunk by a well aimed arrow. Lunacy. And they took regular trips all the way to America in these. I can recommend the Viking ship museum in Roskilde in Denmark. Fascinating. Those crazy Viking ancestors. Whenever foreign invaders would show up in superior numbers the Vikings would promptly get into their boats and fuck off. Or hide in the mountains. Happened very rarely.

Viking kingdoms/empires that dominated non-Vikings were typically run as a sort of extortion racket. They did fuck all for the people under their rule. They certainly didn't protect them. The only thing the taxes bought the people was protection from their own king.

Good ole' traditions.

But fuck it... tried uploading pictures I took there and they were too big. This site needs resizing capabilities.

Sure, but no drug is even close to alcohol in having a more consistent global use since the dawn of civilization. Proving that there are aspects of it that transcend cultural variation.

Except your new Islamic overlords will ban alcohol as soon as they have enough numbers (through a combination of mass migration and European taxpayer funded mass breeding) to impose Sharia law. Remember, the invaders that you open your borders to come predominanetly from cultures where belief in Sharia is very common - 99% in case of Afghanistan.

I had no problem finding beer in Egypt or Malaysia. Friends working in Saudi Arabia have told me finding a bar there was easy. It wasn't advertised in the street. But were easy to find anyway. Iranian friends say the same thing about Iran. Our history of trying to ban psychoactive drugs has been just as ineffectual in the Middle East as it was in USA.

That article was utter bullshit. In a modern western government we don't forbid people from having children. If we have a law that allows couples getting access to subsidised IVF then we have to apply the law fairly. Also, women in particular can be fucking nuts about having more children. I've learned not to judge. At my last job I had a colleague who had seven kids. Ethnically Swedish atheist.

Also, Daily Mail. It's mostly likely not true anyway.

So enjoy booze while you are still allowed to.

There's nothing on those signs about banning alcohol. As far as I can tell this is just information. Their signs are correct. There are huge numbers of alcohol related deaths. You can't argue the facts.

But even if they were, why are you against freedom and democracy? I encourage everybody to express their views. Tolerance for alternate views is was defines a civilised country. They want to ban alcohol. So what? It'll never happen in the west. Because it's stupid. It would be stupid even if you were against alcohol.

There's a de-criminalisation wave of all drugs sweeping all across the globe. Iran is one of this planets main trail blazers and main proponents. I think they will soon de-criminalise alcohol for purely pragmatic reasons. That's certainly what their internal debate seems to indicate.

Please get out of your Jihadwatch/Daily Mail bubble. It's not reality.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

Hi,

The chief medical officer of the UK Tory government has cut recommended alcohol limits for men. This was 21 units per week and was reduced (earlier this year) to 14 units per week. Why? Other European countries are far more liberal, with recommendations in most countries ranging from 21 units to 31 units per week. Why do we get the nanny state?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38466507

A sinister development is the medical officer's recent remarks on the similarity between alcohol and smoking. She says, “This plan is a great start. This is a journey. Look at tobacco.” What journey is she talking about? Prohibition?

I don't know how other people feel, but I'm sick of the nanny state telling me what I can and cannot do with my own money.

A.

Hi Alex,

Sorry I haven't browsed the rest of the thread, I am likely repeating what has already been said.

The recommendation is talking about likely health outcomes and will be based on research.

No law to say you have to heed it.

 

[Philos]

Hi Alex,

Sorry I haven't browsed the rest of the thread, I am likely repeating what has already been said.

The recommendation is talking about likely health outcomes and will be based on research.

No law to say you have to heed it.

Hi spike,

Hope things are good with you.

A quick summation of my argument is that other European countries also base their recommendations on research and have different guidelines, most much more liberal.

I talked to my doc about this and she just said that the guidelines were 'moving towards' 14 units, which of course is factually incorrect but politic with me. Also, the guidelines printed on booze bottles are still 21 units and it is a year since the CMO changed the recommendations.

A.

 

[TSwizzle]

My doctor pretty much tells me not to drink alcohol at all ! There's no doubt some cultures/countries have chronic alcohol abuse problems but I'm not sure how best to tackle these problems but things like minimum pricing is not the way to go.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

Hi Alex,

Sorry I haven't browsed the rest of the thread, I am likely repeating what has already been said.

The recommendation is talking about likely health outcomes and will be based on research.

No law to say you have to heed it.

Hi spike,

Hope things are good with you.

A quick summation of my argument is that other European countries also base their recommendations on research and have different guidelines, most much more liberal.

I talked to my doc about this and she just said that the guidelines were 'moving towards' 14 units, which of course is factually incorrect but politic with me. Also, the guidelines printed on booze bottles are still 21 units and it is a year since the CMO changed the recommendations.

A.

My life is good, if annoying. Hope yours is the same, without the annoying aspect.




The research I'm aware of suggests that for optimal health you consume a couple of drinks max. on the days you do drink (which accords with your 14 unit/week stat)and have 3 or 4 days a week when you abstain. (which doesn't )

Personally, I don't get involved in the numbers. The metamessage of the "recommendations" is that alcohol really doesn't do your body much good, your liver gets involved in dealing with the alcohol and may neglect its other duties. Knowing that, I have a drink (or 6) when I feel like it and tend not to have one just because someone suggests it, if I'm not in the mood.

I like to have good facts even if they don't always guide my behaviour.

I would bet money that many of the government guidelines are based on somebody's estimate of what the drinkers in that country will hear without being openly derisive and getting oppositional, regardless of whether the research sets a "safe" limit. I suspect alcohol is one of those substances that just has a sliding scale, rather than a safe level, and individuals just have to determine what is most important to them.

Take care of yourself, Alex.

 

[DrZoidberg]

My doctor pretty much tells me not to drink alcohol at all ! There's no doubt some cultures/countries have chronic alcohol abuse problems but I'm not sure how best to tackle these problems but things like minimum pricing is not the way to go.

We know how to tackle substance abuse. Give access to rehab and councillors. People take drugs to cope with mental stress. It's a maladaptive strategy to reduce stress, because as anybody who knows the chemistry, alcohol for instance is a drug that does the opposite.

But we can't just remove the drugs and think we've solved the problem. The problem is the mental issues and lack of tools to deal with them. These need to be taught.

There's also a huge variety of "drugs" that aren't drugs. Exercise addiction, sex addiction and food addiction. Each of these can be more dangerous to the health than a couple of beers at night.

That's what Iran figured out. When the Taleban fell Iran was flooded with cheap heroin and addiction went up. Putting addicts in jail wasn't helping them or anybody. So they decriminalised it (not legalised it) and moved all the money they used to give to the police, moved it to councilling. Has worked a charm. Portugal is another country that has done the same.

These two countries have found a way to combat substance abuse that works. Many countries are now following their example.

Making alcohol more expensive won't fix the underlying problem. In Sweden alcohol is extremely expensive. So we have among the highest number of opioid addicts in Europe. Is that really a good trade?