Psssst.. Artists In The Middle Classes

[Lonan3]

According to the North West Public Health Observatory (LINK TO STORY), Drinkers in middle-class areas are more likely routinely to consume “hazardous” amounts of alcohol than those in poorer areas, research published today shows.

Social drinkers who regularly down more than one large glass of wine a day will be told they risk damaging their health in the same way as young binge drinkers.

It found that people living in relatively affluent areas are more likely to be drinking at above sensible levels than those living in deprived areas.

The percentage of adults drinking “hazardous” levels of alcohol ranges from 14.1 per cent to 26.4 per cent. “Hazardous” levels for women are between five and twelve large glasses of wine a week and for men between seven and seventeen glasses.

One large glass of wine — 250ml at 12 per cent alcohol — represents three units. A pint of normal strength beer is two units.

The research concludes that just 22 units per week will push a man into the “hazardous” category, while women need to drink just 15 units.

 

These people are clearly becoming a drain on the resources of the NHS (Long-term problems from persistent heavy drinking include liver disease, circulatory diseases, cancer, brain damage. stomach irritation and skin and hair damage. Short-term problems include accidents and drink-related assaults.) They are harming themselves and those nearest to them. Isn't it time that this habit was recognised as being anti-social? Shouldn't there now be graphic warnings on all containers of this evil weed rather than the soft option of All alcoholic drinks sold in bottles and cans are expected to carry labels disclosing the number of units and recommended safe drinking limits by the end of next year. Doctors’ leaders are also calling for pubs and restaurants to display warnings stating how many units of alcohol are contained in drinks served by the glass.?

Ultimately, isn't it time to consider banning this disgusting habit from public buildings/places?

Why do I have a sense of déjà vu about this?

[Pragmatopian]

There are some parallels with smoking but there are two pretty important distinctions:

 

(1) Drinking alcohol is not harmful per se: using cigarettes in the way they were intended is harmful.

 

(2) Drinking alcohol does not directly affect those in the immediate environment. If I have a beer, then the person sitting next to me can choose not to and will not experience the effects of consuming alcohol: if I smoke a cigarette it is difficult for them to avoid inhaling the smoke. (And yes, of course if I drink a lot it may be unpleasant for those around me, but that's a different issue!)

 

Is excessive consumption of alcohol the cause of health and social problems? Yes. Is consumption of alcohol per se a problem? No. Have I used 'per se' more in this short post than on any other occasion in my life? Undoubtedly

[Cambon]

Effectivley, it will come down to which ever set of scientists the government pays to prove their case. However many parallels there are with the smoking case, the pro smoking lobby could never put up links like these:

 

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/13870.php

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1774

 

http://health.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=111230

 

http://www.ynhh.org/online/nutrition/advisor/red_wine.html

 

http://healthlibrary.epnet.com/GetContent....chunkiid=156987

 

I would imagine these sorts of links will disappear over the next few years.

 

I do find it amusing though how last week 22-40 units per week may affect your health. This week 22 units is hazardous, and all this from a government, the majority of whom are "middle class wine drinkers". Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black or "Do as I say, not as I do"?