Once again, the safe limits of alcohol is rolled out. This time it is an article in the BBC from Debbie Bannigan of Swanswell. Apparently it’s a charitable trust, but I don’t know if it’s a fake charity as I haven’t researched their accounts. At the outset, I will agree with Bannigan’s advice that no alcohol is appropriate for driving. As it affects our cognitive functions and we need them to drive competently, yes, zero is the right amount.
However, the article then goes on to tell us that the safe limits using units is confusing – we, poor little dears, are confused.
Most people think they have a rough idea of “how much is too much?”, but ask them for specifics and they’re not sure. Who can blame them, when the measure that is used to define safe limits – ‘units’ – is so hard to understand?
I am not remotely confused. As I have repeatedly pointed out and will continue to do so every time this junk science is trotted out by government and the media, the safe limits – whether measured by units or anything else are completely fabricated. They are nothing more than junk science – and I slur the term science using it in the same sentence. They are fairy stories, fiction, fact-free fantasy plucked from the collective arse holes of the people who dreamed them up, in short, a pile of cack. Therefore, they are not remotely confusing.
A safe limit will vary according to each individual. Such things as exposure and body mass, for example will affect how much is safe for an individual. It is up to each of us to reach a rational conclusion. Worrying about how many units are in a glass of wine is so much useless fripprey. It doesn’t matter. If you aren’t planning to go out and operate machinery or drive, so what?
Ironically, ‘units’ become even harder to compute when we’ve had a drink, because the part of our brain that works that sort of thing out switches off.
That’s not ironic, that’s basic biology and chemistry.
And the concept of a daily safe amount may even encourage the idea that we should drink alcohol every day.
What? You have to be really screwed to come to that conclusion. That’s how these people think. Bejesus! Look if someone has an alcohol problem, you can bleat as much as you like about safe limits and they will ignore you. The rest of us can make up our own minds based upon our own lifestyles. And, you know what? If someone drinks to excess and damages their liver and shortens their life; well, that’s their concern. It isn’t as if we aren’t aware of the risks.
To add to the confusion, we’re bombarded with new “scientific” findings about alcohol.
You have to smile. Well, if you don’t you could always burst a blood vessel. No, what we are bombarded with is not science, it is pseudo-science, temperance propaganda dressed up to look scientific in much the same way as the creationists came up with the intelligent design cockwaffle to make their fairy story appear rational and logical. Much like the smoking “science” we have seen in recent years whereby secondhand or even third hand smoke is responsible for demonic possession, we are seeing the same tactics being used on alcohol. It is not scientific. It never was. It is nothing more than a series of scare stories.
In the last couple of months alone, we’ve been told that alcohol damages the DNA of unborn children beyond repair, but that it’s OK for pregnant women to have a couple of glasses of wine a week, which is pretty conflicting advice.
This being a prime example of the kind of cack we are expected to swallow. Mankind has been drinking alcohol for millennia without becoming extinct. The idea that children are born deformed because mummy had a glass or two of wine while pregnant is risible when exposed to the harsh light of day. Where are all these damage and deformed babies?
It’s little surprise that people are confused about the impact alcohol can have on their lives.
I have yet to see any evidence that supports this assertion. I meet plenty of people who like a drop or two – from the folk who quaff a few pints down the pub to those who like a few wines with their dinner. None of them has a problem, none of them are suffering health effects and none of them are remotely confused about what they are doing. Indeed, I suspect that they remain largely ignorant of the type of hectoring nonsense peddled by the BBC and its like. They are too busy imbibing the fermented fruit of the vine or the hop to be bothered and why not indeed?
But walk into any supermarket and you’ll be encouraged to buy alcohol.
My local supermarket’s “seasonal aisle” – one of the first things you see when you enter the store – has become a wine festival.
So what? When I lived in France, our local supermarket had a whole stack of local wines to choose from and usually someone on hand to advise about the choices available. We’ve been drinking this stuff since biblical times and we have survived.
And the end of each aisle – the “impulse buy” space – is also stacked with cans of lager and cider, so selecting and purchasing alcohol is just part of the weekly shop rather than something that we have to think about doing.
Again, so what? Some people like to keep a few tinnies in the fridge. It isn’t a problem. It never was a problem. Some people have a problem. They are a minority.
The people who come to us for help are just like you and me, but they’ve found that their choice to drink alcohol has been riskier than they expected.
What can be done about it? Official guidelines could be clearer. Other public health messages are short and snappy, like ‘clunk-click every trip’ or ‘catch it bin it kill it’.
No. I’ll tell you what can be done about it; nothing. It is up to government to do nothing about our lifestyles because that is a personal matter. The problem with someone writing an article such as this who comes from an organisation that helps addicts is that all they see are addicts. The rest of us are not and don’t need to be nannied by the state. We don’t need guidance because we can work it out for ourselves.
We shouldn’t be afraid of setting clear guidelines and sticking to them.
Sure. On an individual level we can do this. We do not need the dead hand of the state involved though.
With co-operation between drinks manufacturers, supermarkets and the government we can judge the risk of alcohol use for ourselves.
Again, we don’t need cooperation or guidance from anyone. We can do that last bit all by ourselves.
Not only can we reach the point where hospital admissions are going down instead of up, we can create a society that is free from problem alcohol use altogether.
Quite apart from this being a pie in the sky wish, Debbie Bannigan seems to have forgotten – or not noticed – the inconvenient little fact that alcohol consumption in the UK has been falling this past decade or so. So… we don’t actually have a problem that needs fixing, do we?
I want to know why these nutjobs are so concerned about us. They don’t even know us, personally.
You have to marvel at how these people take it upon themselves to tell us what we should and should not do. What on earth do they think gives them the authority to sit in judgement on their fellow men?
I have been a professional in the field of addiction for the past twenty-eight years and the true facts are these: despite all the research done, all the vast varieties of treatment modalities employed, all the educational/prevention programs developed and all the legalistic means brought to bear, the statistics have remained fairly stable. Roughly 16-23% of the population have a problem with alcohol while 84-77% of the population are able to use and enjoy alcohol responsibly. It has been this way for hundreds of years.
There is NO rise in youth binge drinking, or elderly problem drinking or women drinking, etc. Short term stats do show some variance as would be expected but long term, the numbers remain remarkably consistent.
And you are correct that increasing prices and/or taxes, increasing fines and jail times, hamstringing supermarkets who sell alcohol and pressuring/threatening bars/bartenders with legal liabilties does absolutely NOTHING re: dissuading the problem drinkers. It only serves to wrongly/unjustly punish private business and individuals who can use and enjoy alcohol responsibly.
We need to continue to provide viable treatment to those with a problem and leave the vast majority of people alone!
@nisakiman
“You have to marvel at how these people take it upon themselves to tell us what we should and should not do.”
Of course they do. It’s their job – or should I say non-job. How else would they justify the wads of cash thrown their way under the guise of ‘research’ and ‘charity’?
Research this organization’s funds and I’ll hedge a bet that you’ll find the money trail.
From their website:
“Swanswell is a leading provider of community-based services. These include help and support for people in tackling drug and/or alcohol misuse.”
Whether they want it or not.
Swanswell get almost all their dosh ( 6 million a year)from Government and the Public Sector. Private donations are almost zero. They brazenly state they “did not engage in any findraising activities during the year”. They are not a Charity in the sense that I and many others understand it. They are an extension of the Public Sector, being paid by the tax-payer. Just read their submissions to the Charities Commission – full of management jargon. And they have a CEO ! Swanswell are a typical example of a Fake Charity. There are hundreds of them – beavering away telling us what to do, what not to do, how to behave, how fast to drive, how much to drink, etc. They should all be closed down. If they can’t survive on private donations ( eg RNLI, Salvation Army ) then they ain’t a real charity.
So my original gut feeling was right, then, a fake charity.
I am not disagreeing with the principle of not drinking and driving but one point supporting our current limit is that it encompasses the concept of intent. It is pretty hard for anyone over the limit to argue that they didn’t intend to break the law, so the law is viewed as just, penalties are quite stiff and the vast majority of us regard drink driving as socially unacceptable.
Change the law so that someone loses their licence for having a miniscule amount of alcohol in their body and you create a scenario whereby people face serious punishment for a crime that they did not intend to commit. Before long, the law is seen as unjust and flaunting it based on the probability of not being caught becomes more acceptable.
As the real issue is not blood alcohol content but its potential impact on performance, perhaps we should stop worrying about alcohol and introduce a performance based test that would weed out the dangerously bad drivers irrespective of their alcohol consumption. That would make a lot more sense than punishing someone who slightly overdid the sherry trifle at his grannies 2 hours earlier and has an almost undetectable amount of alcohol in his system.
As over 86% of all accidents involve people who are not even little bit drunk, perhaps we should take Dave Allen’s advice and lock up the sober motorists to protect the public. Dave hailed from an era when we had a better sense of humour partially as a consequence of not being harassed night and day by pressure groups and vested interests.
Ivan, I wasn’t suggesting a change in the law. I was merely pointing out that alcohol affects our cognitive abilities and therefore the safe limit is zero – nothing to do with the law.
Bravo Ivan D; a little bit of common sense intruding upon the orthodoxy.
Dave Allen was great, wasn’t he? Fag in one hand, whisky in the other, delivering non-PC gems in a cascade of wry humour. I must download some of his stuff…
Point taken LR but you can be sure that others will use the case you make to campaign for a change in the law despite the risk to justice and the likelihood of unintended negative consequences. The ego of the campaigner demands “victories” and is rarely satisfied by change through education and reason.
“…we can create a society that is free from problem alcohol use altogether.”
Good luck with that, love. I’m reminded of the ‘X Files’ episode ‘Je Souhaite’, where Mulder frees a genie and then foolishly wishes for world peace…
*shudder*
Ivan, they already are. I would always make the same case as Bannigan on this one. There is no safe limit when it comes to driving or operating machinery. I am not campaigning for a change in the law. That others might do so is not something I have any control over – except to point out as I have here, I am not campaigning for a change in the law, merely presenting sensible, pragmatic advice. Indeed, if anything, I would adopt Sean Gabb’s approach and not have a drink drive limit in law at all – choosing to prosecute those who cause harm by doing so under the offences against the persons act.
“A society that is free from problem alchohol use altogether”
Like Prohibition USA, you mean?
Where do these idiots come from?
And will they PLEASE go back there?
Please forgive me for swearing, ie mentioning the involvement of the EUssr, but I sense that they are behind this.
They lost the last attempt to get the British blood alcohol level reduced, and are revving up for another go. No, it is not official policy, it is another “Oh look! We have a common policy on this, so we ought to have a harmonisation directive anyway” things. You might have noticed the recent commitment in Northern Ireland to reduce the blood alcohol limit to 50 mg. They are just inserting the thin end of the wedge in a different place this time. That another fake charity is spewing propaganda like this is to build a groundswell of acquiescence when the English are told that the same thing is planned to happen here. As it will, just like the EUssr-wide ban on smoking in public places.
There are four major pan-EUssr road safety measures of the moment:
* 20 mph speed limits in towns,
* 80 mph speed limits on motorways,
* 50 mg blood alcohol limits, and
* anything that infringes on personal liberties suggested by TISPOL (which might be characterised as the EUssr branch of the ACPO Ltd Traffic Business Unit).
Possibly. However, the tendency for prohibition goes much wider than the EU.
I would suggest the safe limit for health fascist preaching is zero. Anyone going over this limit should be locked up with no chance of remission. I propose a fake charity campaigning for this and would like £2 million of taxpayers money to spread the word, from my charity HQ in the Cayman Islands.
Longrider – I recommend this-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15269215
//I really don’t see why anthropologists feel they have to travel to unpronounceable corners of the world in order to study strange tribal cultures with bizarre beliefs and mysterious customs, when in fact the weirdest and most puzzling tribe of all is right here on our doorstep. I am of course talking about my own native culture – the British.
And if you want examples of bizarre beliefs and weird customs, you need look no further than our attitude to drinking and our drinking habits. Pick up any newspaper and you will read that we are a nation of loutish binge-drinkers – that we drink too much, too young, too fast – and that it makes us violent, promiscuous, anti-social and generally obnoxious.
Clearly, we Brits do have a bit of a problem with alcohol, but why?
The problem is that we Brits believe that alcohol has magical powers – that it causes us to shed our inhibitions and become aggressive, promiscuous, disorderly and even violent.//
That link goes to a discussion about Liam Fox.
I suspect the Hammer of Thor meant this which seems to be a transcript of this excellent programme.
OK links eaten:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15265317
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b015p86z