The Lemon Fool

bungeejumper wrote:

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:And I think she was suggesting the alcohol industry should make this kind of information just a little bit more available. And I have to ask ... just what harm could it do?

Depends how they do it, I suppose? If it means having shock pictures of diseased livers printed onto the bottles' labels, they way they did with diseased lungs on the ciggie packets, then some of the magic is going to fade from a romantic candlelit dinner.

Booze is a gift from nature that's widely used as a pleasant shared accompaniment to socialising - whereas cigarettes are just a noxious addiction. Bit of a difference.

BJ

Or one of the most significant causes of crime, particularly violent crime, in the UK.

Cheers

DM

dionaeamuscipula wrote:

bungeejumper wrote:

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:And I think she was suggesting the alcohol industry should make this kind of information just a little bit more available. And I have to ask ... just what harm could it do?

Depends how they do it, I suppose? If it means having shock pictures of diseased livers printed onto the bottles' labels, they way they did with diseased lungs on the ciggie packets, then some of the magic is going to fade from a romantic candlelit dinner.

Booze is a gift from nature that's widely used as a pleasant shared accompaniment to socialising - whereas cigarettes are just a noxious addiction. Bit of a difference.

BJ

Or one of the most significant causes of crime, particularly violent crime, in the UK.

Cheers

DM

A galvanising reply and worthy of praise. Most of the violence I have either witnessed or had directed at me was "underwritten" by alcohol. A particularly sad thought.

AiY

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:

dionaeamuscipula wrote:Or one of the most significant causes of crime, particularly violent crime, in the UK.

A galvanising reply and worthy of praise. Most of the violence I have either witnessed or had directed at me was "underwritten" by alcohol. A particularly sad thought.

Up to a point, Lord Copper. Much of the death and injury on Britain's streets is caused by people who insist on driving cars, even though they are proven killers.

Wouldn't we do better to focus on persuading people to improve (or moderate) their use of cars or booze, rather than inveighing against them because of the way they can be abused?

BJ

bungeejumper wrote:

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:

dionaeamuscipula wrote:Or one of the most significant causes of crime, particularly violent crime, in the UK.

A galvanising reply and worthy of praise. Most of the violence I have either witnessed or had directed at me was "underwritten" by alcohol. A particularly sad thought.

Up to a point, Lord Copper. Much of the death and injury on Britain's streets is caused by people who insist on driving cars, even though they are proven killers.

Wouldn't we do better to focus on persuading people to improve (or moderate) their use of cars or booze, rather than inveighing against them because of the way they can be abused?

BJ

If half the crime is caused by drinkers and half the crime by people in cars, then the obvious thing to do is to put all the drinkers in cars and then the crime rate will halve. I imagine this will come just after tax cuts for the rich in Johnson's leadership bid launch later today.

DM

dionaeamuscipula wrote:If half the crime is caused by drinkers and half the crime by people in cars, then the obvious thing to do is to put all the drinkers in cars and then the crime rate will halve.

LOL, I barely scraped O level maths, but I suspect your probability assessment might be a little on the dodgy side? I'm sure a mathematician will be along in a minute, but for now I'm laughing too much. Good suggestion.

BJ

dionaeamuscipula wrote:If half the crime is caused by drinkers and half the crime by people in cars, then the obvious thing to do is to put all the drinkers in cars and then the crime rate will halve. I imagine this will come just after tax cuts for the rich in Johnson's leadership bid launch later today.

DM

Does that mean you're going to legislate for criminals to obey the law?

dionaeamuscipula wrote:If half the crime is caused by drinkers and half the crime by people in cars, then the obvious thing to do is to put all the drinkers in cars and then the crime rate will halve. I imagine this will come just after tax cuts for the rich in Johnson's leadership bid launch later today.

DM

From a comedy show I saw on french TV many years ago....

Do you know how many people are killed on french roads every year?
10,000
That's terrible. 10,000 people killed
And of those 10,000, do you know how many are killed by drunken drivers?
10%
That's 1000 people killed every year by drunken drivers
Do you know what that means?
The police are chasing the wrong people. If 1000 are killed by drunken drivers, 9000 are killed by sober drivers. That's who the police should be targeting. Sober drivers

(the exact numbers may be somewhat incorrect, my memory is failing me)

--kiloran

dionaeamuscipula wrote:If half the crime is caused by drinkers and half the crime by people in cars, then the obvious thing to do is to put all the drinkers in cars and then the crime rate will halve. I imagine this will come just after tax cuts for the rich in Johnson's leadership bid launch later today.
DM

This sounds suspiciously like the statistical computation used by the banks in the sub prime mortgage crash - and our Governor of the Bank of England didn't blink an eyelid - until ker-boom. Our current Governor seems to be of a somewhat higher standard, but his term expires January 2020. I suspect he will be glad to get out.

dionaeamuscipula wrote:If half the crime is caused by drinkers and half the crime by people in cars, then the obvious thing to do is to put all the drinkers in cars and then the crime rate will halve. I imagine this will come just after tax cuts for the rich in Johnson's leadership bid launch later today.

DM

In a similar manner, I have heard that approximately 10% of the population are sociopathic, it is also alleged that gentetically speaking 1 in 10 people alive today is descended from Ghengis Khan - I sometimes wonder if they are the same people?

Of course, her husband never realised your was drinking a bottle and a half every single day and never suggested she should moderate her intake. Like most alcoholics, I suspect, deep down, she knew herself but chose not to face up to it.

For those who didn't see it, the Panorama program contained the following shock revelations:

• The drinks industry was told to modify the guidance and labelling back in 2016. To date, the vast majority haven't done so. Mainly because they are self-regulated, have powerful, highly placed lobbyists and not compelled to do so by law. They have a three year period of grace (ends September 2019) to comply.
• Labelling is deliberately obscure and obfuscated - what is a 'unit', what is harmful, over what time period is not immediately clear. The use of microscopic, silver writing on a shiny white background (Stella Artois) makes it virtually impossible.
• Minimum pricing (introduced in Scotland) proved very effective - but only at encouraging alcoholics on low incomes to switch from white cider to spirits.

In next week's Panorama, the startling news that politicians tell fibs, smoke weed and snort cocaine.

Snorvey wrote:Alcohol is a poison

I can't see how any amount of any poison can be good for you - or even 'not bad' for you.

I know what you mean, so not disagreeing. OTOH Oxygen is a "poison".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity

It is the basis of some weedkillers. And look what happens to you after 70+ years of breathing it?

Once I got past a certain age. Probably staying in looking after/playing with the kids. So a significant gap before they weren't interested. Then realized I could go back to pub visits but then found I just could not manage the volume. Say a couple of pints then I struggle. So I stayed relatively sober and listen to people who think they make sense but aren't. I think labels work for sober/controlled people. Once you get into really enjoying the drink, rather than the company, counting units is way out the window. I've never thought or heard someone referring to the recommended count when they are mumbling at a sticky bar and only the fact that the elbows are stuck to it prevents them from sliding to the floor. It's great listening in to some of the loud confidential opinions that alcohol produces. We go to a quiz night and sometimes we can keep our answers secret. It's fun. Knowing when to stop is better than counting . At my age I couldn't read the fine print on any bottle anyway. Perhaps just a big bold number on the label might help those that want it?? Cheers.

Bizarre is quite right. Problem drinkers don't give a toss about how many units they're drinking. They're addicts, and solemn warnings have no more effect on them than pictures of diseased lungs do to cigarette addicts.

In fact, does anyone really take any notice of these unit counts? I'd describe myself as a moderate drinker, but although I'm vaguely aware of the number of units in any given drink it has not the slightest effect on my decision to drink or not or how much to drink. I drink what I feel comfortable with, and that's the only criterion I apply (unless the decision is influenced by external factors, such as having to drive etc).

The vast majority of us instinctively know what's a sensible level of drinking and what isn't, and the body has a very effective training mechanism in the form of hangovers!

So whilst I have no objection to units labelling I'm not sure it serves any useful purpose. Those who bother to measure their units probably don't need to, and those that do need a warning will pay no attention anyway.

And with regard to drinking affecting longevity I'm afraid I've spent far too much time visiting homes for the elderly for longevity per se to have any appeal at all.

excellent points by CK.

The same is true of the increasingly dire warnings on cigarette packets and tobacco etc. Clearly showing pictures of hugely diseased lungs doesn't actually stop people from buying them.

As for units and health - the official advice is quasi-meaningless anyway, and is too easy a target for ridicule. I've yet to have anyone advising me that "14 units is the maximum recommended limit" then explain why in Spain its 35 units, and why the discrepancy exists. It all looks like its made up on the spot and hardly signals any credence.

CK's point about "being aware" is the real "limit".

dionaeamuscipula wrote:However, social norms suggest that (as of today) it would be a very unpopular UK government which suggested that we gave up completely.

The US tried that in the 1930s. All it did was create a platform for organised crime of course!

didds

Snorvey wrote: I don't suppose it costs the industry much more to increase/decrease the alcohol level between 9 & 12%, but it probably increases the addiction level.

Then again one could always add a little water to one's glass to decrease the ABV in that glass.

If people are drinking to get to falling over state they'll just drink 4 bottles instead of 3 etc presumably. If its one glass with dinner per night, it wont make any odds either way overall I doubt

didds

Yes I have never been able to find any objective research to back up the claim that 14 units a week ( or 12 or whatever it is) is the maximum one should have.

It seems to be a figure that some committee plucked out of the air as 'a good idea' but no one has actually done any scientific research to back it up.

Obviously excess is bad for you but also I gather life expectancy of moderate drinkers is better than for teetotallers!

scrumpyjack wrote:Obviously excess is bad for you but also I gather life expectancy of moderate drinkers is better than for teetotallers!

That'll be (very) moderate drinkers vs non-drinkers. Note, not teetotallers as such - which in my vocabulary implies an active choice - but just those who don't drink. The latter being a sample affected by the presence of those whose non-drinking is for reasons of very poor health. At the extreme, perhaps people who are dying from their past excesses and can no longer drink. They may not be many, but their very short life expectancy has a disproportionate effect on the figures if you lump them in with healthy teetotallers.

AleisterCrowley wrote:I don't actually like very strong beers (with a few exceptions) - I have settled at 4% - 4.5% as optimum

I vary the strength of beer I drink according to the situation. If I'm having a drink at home I'll probably only have a glass or two so I like a strong beer of 5% or more, I can drink that slowly and enjoy it. If I go tho the pub I'll drink 2 or 3 pints so I want something arounf 4 - 4.5%.

Winter I tend to drink more stouts and porters which are often >>5%
Prefer lighter stuff during the beer garden season..
(Lovely weather today, may pop to Nag's Head later and sit in the yard)