I'm not sure i agree here. The national guideline is by definition the best general recommendation for the public as a whole - it can't take into account men who are huge and can metabolise more alcohol than others and vice versa, so by definition it's the best estimate for the public at large, it's not arbitrary (though there are dissenting voices as the the best estimate, as evidenced by the limit decreasing over time in the UK and big discrepancies across Europe.)
I think there is a bit of a misconception about alcohol harms for many people (not saying this is you and Tea) where it's a polarise situation of danger drinkers/alcoholics making up the reckless 5% who become ill and need loads of treatment and cost the taxpayers lots of money and then 'everyone else' - the 95%, who are healthy and may drink a bit or a lot but are ok.
But for public health people of course it's all on a scale, and for them shifting the drinking habits of people in the middle of that scale (people like us, i drink similar amounts to what people here have been saying) down a bit is just as valuable as shifting down the people at the extreme end, if not more so, because there are so so many people in that middle section. I do think as a society we underestimate the damage that sitting in the middle of this scale can do - because alcohol is all around us, because it tastes great, our mates do it etc. We are numbed to its toxic effects because it's so so embedded in our lives.
I've got a few stats to hand from doing stuff at work on alcohol that may be interesting..
• 1.6 million people have mild, moderate or severe alcohol dependence (Home Office. Drug strategy 2010: reducing demand, restricting supply, building recovery: supporting people to live a drug-free life 2010)
Average unit consumption is actually quite low.
• In 2009, men drank, on average, 15.6 units of alcohol a week; women drank 9.5 units a week– both within the NHS guidelines (Demos, Under the influence: Taking a look at binge drinking behind the headlines… 2011.)
• Excessive alcohol consumption (twice the recommended daily allowance in a single episode) in the UK has been decreasing since 2005, and more quickly among 16-24 year olds, falling from 39 per cent in 1998 to 30 per cent in 2008, and by a similar amount among underage drinkers (Demos, Under the influence: Taking a look at binge drinking behind the headlines… 2011.)
• 21% of Londoners are reported to be drinking to harmful or hazardous levels. 5% (approximately 370 000 people) of adult Londoners are dependent drinkers compared to 3.6 % of adults across the whole of England (Greater London Authority. London: the Highs and Lows 2: A report from the Greater London Alcohol and Drug Alliance 2007)
Oh, I agree with that entirely - I think drink can be very damaging for those in the middle of the scale. But it's precisely because of this that I don't think that the weekly limits are changing anyone's behaviour (maybe I'm wrong). But British social life in particular is so dominated by drinking, that it's that that will need to change before counting units will have much effect.
As to the statistics, how do they measure those? If it's by asking people how much they drink, then it's not going to give a very accurate picture.
i'm from newcastle and beers here range from about £2.90 for your standard 3.8 pale ale to £4 for something strong / interesting. more for keg beers.
I think official figures on booze consumption are widely regarded as underestimates, because they're based solely on the legal sale of booze in this country, so they don't include booze brought back from foreign trips for personal use, bootleg stuff imported and sold illegally and home-brew (though this is perhaps less important in the UK than in countries in e.g. eastern Europe where many people distill their own spirits). And if some effort is made to include those figures, they're necessarily going to involve a big margin of error.
Also, average intake *per drinker* is going to be a fair bit higher once you exclude people who don't drink at all.
I agree though that there is no hard and fast line between 'proper' alcoholics and 'normal' drinkers who drink a healthy amount. It's perfectly possible to do yourself damage without being clinically dependent on alcohol, or being somewhat dependent but in a sufficiently functional way (holding down a job) that you can sustain it indefinitely until the damage really starts to manifest itself, which could be years.
Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you
Shit, I'm way out of touch. No wonder pubs are going down the swanny at a rate of knots.
Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you
need more people to answer this question. sample group too smalll
mistersloane boshes the average Dissensus weekly intake and then says "what's for breakfast?"
Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you
sippin' on gin and juice!
possibly without the juice
breakfast of champions
Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you
Bookmarks