Minimum price alcohol

[cloughie]

On the other hand, is it not the case that cannabis, for instance, has led musicians down some rather creative paths?

I honestly can't remember a musician ever claiming that they did some great work after a few pints.

When Dizzy Gillespie was asked why he'd outlived many of his contemporaries he replied that his wife would not let him indulge in their excesses.

[Flosshilde]

Flosshilde, I'm sixty three and have been drinking since I was a teenager, so I'm definitely middle aged and might be an alcoholic, but I cant be sure because I've never tried to stop. If I could, I wouldnt be an alcoholic, merely a heavy drinker. And while doctors tell me I'm drinking too much and am PROBABLY damaging my health, I cant detect any sign of damage. And hey, I enjoy it. I may be behaving recklessly, but I dont think what I posted was nonsense and I rather object to the accusation that it was idiotic. I merely point out what is an observable fact: to satisfy my thirst I need what the medics tell me is a dangerous amount of alcohol, but if it is dangerous it doesnt seem to be doing any damage (other than to my wallet, but I can afford it). Perhaps I just have a sturdy liver.

Perhaps you should try stopping for a week?

It's comments like 'satisfying my thirst' and 'seasoned drinker' that make me wonder. Does anyone drink alcohol to satisfy their thirst? Given that one of the effects is dehydration it's a very strange way of doing so. The main reason surely is the taste and the feeling of inebriation, tipsyness, drunkenness it gives you, and the relaxing of inhibitions. The phrase 'seasoned drinker' suggests someone who has been drinking for a considerable time & needs more alcohol than in the the past to achieve that.

[JFLL]

I don't think so, unless the bottle of wine you 'enjoy' is exceptionally cheap - "The Home Office said the consultation was targeted at "harmful drinkers and irresponsible shops".
A spokesman added: "Those who enjoy a quiet drink or two have nothing to fear from our proposals."
The 45p minimum would mean a can of strong lager could not be sold for less than £1.56 and a bottle of wine below £4.22."
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20515918)

It will mean that shops (mainly supermarkets) couldn't sell alcohol at a lower price than water.

That bit about 'harmful drinkers' made me wonder. I get the impression that they include in the that term people who they deem to be doing harm to themselves, especially in view of news items like this:

"The deaths of 11,500 pensioners could be avoided over the next decade if minimum alcohol pricing is rolled out in England, according to new research. The BBC's Panorama programme commissioned the research from statisticians at Sheffield University. They examined the likely outcomes if Scotland's planned 50p per unit minimum price was applied in England. It is estimated that 1.4m older people in Britain are drinking too much, leading to more hospital admissions. Sarah Wadd, director of substance misuse and ageing research at the University of Bedfordshire, said: "We might be on a cusp of an epidemic of people drinking problematically in old age.""

So it seems that some health campaigners do also have in their sights 'those who enjoy a quiet drink or two', since I doubt whether most pensioners have a noisy drink or two and cause mayhem in town centres after tanking up on cheap lager. But maybe I live a too sheltered life and I've got quite the wrong impression.

[Flosshilde]

Precisely, Alain. And isn't that in part because it has been a normal part of many different cultures for a very long time? See for instance this brief history.

The history doesn't make any reference to the strength of the drink. For example, 'Small beer' was drunk regularly until un-polluted water was available & tea became cheap enough to be drunk by all. The alcohol content was very low. What we have now are super-strength lagers (the same alcohol content as wine) & wines - especially from Australia - that are higher than wine used to be. There are also fortified wines (the notorious Buckfast for example) that are very cheap.

What I don't much care for is the puritanism of those who persistently seek to intervene in the behaviour of people even if that behaviour does not harm anyone else.

This is more nonsense. Excessive consumption of alcohol does harm other people. It harms the family of the drinker, both emotionally and financially - and physically. It harms friends, colleagues. It harms society, in creating a less pleasurable environment and diverting resources to deal with its effects.

Most of what's been posted on this thread seems to come from a rather smug, middle class perspective. Has anyone on here had any experience of excess drinking (I don't mean their own) & the impact it can have?

[Flosshilde]

So it seems that some health campaigners do also have in their sights 'those who enjoy a quiet drink or two', since I doubt whether most pensioners have a noisy drink or two and cause mayhem in town centres after tanking up on cheap lager. But maybe I live a too sheltered life and I've got quite the wrong impression.

This is sheer stupidity & makes me very angry. The majority of 'problem drinkers' do NOT drink in public, but quietly at home.

[umslopogaas]

#32, Floss, of course, the thirst I am satisfying is my thirst for alcohol, not water. Talking of which, its getting to that time of day when a glass or two of red would go down very nicely, but first I have to organise dinner.

[Flosshilde]

#32, Floss, of course, the thirst I am satisfying is my thirst for alcohol, not water. Talking of which, its getting to that time of day when a glass or two of red would go down very nicely, but first I have to organise dinner.

Having a 'thirst' - ie a need - for alcohol does suggest slight addiction, does it not?

[umslopogaas]

#34, Flosshilde, experience of heavy drinking? Yes, plenty. Starting with the father of an old schoolfriend. He turned into a helpless alcoholic, lost his job, practically bankrupted the family and made it extremely difficult for me to visit my friend, for fear of this maudlin drunk butting in.

And then there was Father K******r. An old catholic priest managing a rather remote plantation on the coast of one Papua New Guinea's offshore islands. I had to visit to have a look at the state of the cocoa crop (as poor as it usually was). I was fine for a beer as the sun set, but half a dozen just after it rose did not seem a good idea. "Ah, dont worry me boy, I'll be all right. They've got a little home down in Queensland for old dipsos like me."

I'm sure I can think of more. A point worth making, I think, is that there is a fine but real difference between a heavy drinker and an alcoholic. They may both drink the same amount, but an alcoholic cant stop. The two I just mentioned were both alcoholics, they would have had the screaming abdabs if denied booze. But I have known others, like Dieter, a scientist I once worked with, who could drink just as much, and certainly drink me under the table, but who didnt have to have it. He might have been a bit grumpy if denied his evening allowance, but that was all. He wasnt dependent, he just liked it.

[aeolium]

This is more nonsense. Excessive consumption of alcohol does harm other people. It harms the family of the drinker, both emotionally and financially - and physically. It harms friends, colleagues. It harms society, in creating a less pleasurable environment and diverting resources to deal with its effects.

No, what I posted is NOT nonsense - it is a statement of my own view about people who continually seek to intervene in the private lifestyle of others. You may disagree with it but it is not nonsense. The private drinker may have no family and if s/he does have family there are all kinds of other ways - not illegal - in which someone's behaviour may be not what we would think is in the best interests of the family. The question is whether that 'harm' entitles society to intervene without making government intolerably intrusive. There are all kinds of ways in which other people's behaviour has "created a less pleasurable environment" for me but I don't necessarily feel entitled to intervene to stop it. How does someone drinking in their own home create a "less pleasurable environment" for wider society?

Has anyone on here had any experience of excess drinking (I don't mean their own) & the impact it can have?

Yes, I have. A close friend of the family drank very heavily for much of her life and it eventually resulted in serious loss of brain function and dementia which was in part thought to be induced by the alcohol consumption. She knew that she drank a lot but she greatly enjoyed it and it undoubtedly increased her pleasure in life which would have been pretty miserable without it (it was when she was unable to drink). Except in the very last years of her life - she died some years ago - her drinking did not impinge adversely on others, as she had a very wide circle of friends and was very sociable. I hardly ever recall seeing her seriously drunk.

I think discussion would be all the better if people refrained from making dismissive comments like "nonsense" and "smug, middle class perspective" about other people's posts and stick to the actual points of the argument.

[Serial_Apologist]

As far as I understand, people are born either with or without addictive personalities, which appear to be in their genetic makeup. Like me - in my case it might have led to drugs or compulsive sex but "fortunately" has manifested in nail biting and a smoking habit. As far as I know a non-addictive personality like Unsloppableglass will not succumb to alchoholism, but best wishes all the same to his liver!

[Flosshilde]

stick to the actual points of the argument.

Which are?

[MrGongGong]

Which are?

Middle class people who like to drink fine wine don't think that their excessive consumption is a potential problem wheres those who like to drink strong lager and cider are a menace to society ?
or
If I can afford to hospitalise myself through drinking too much as I pay tax I don't see why I shouldn't get the best treatment available ?
or even
Society is falling apart like this ...............



and it's all the fault of the lower classes who don't know which way to pass the port ?

or ?

[Resurrection Man]

This is sheer stupidity & makes me very angry. The majority of 'problem drinkers' do NOT drink in public, but quietly at home.

It harms society, in creating a less pleasurable environment and diverting resources to deal with its effects.

Make your mind up, Flossie!

[Flosshilde]

Note the word 'majority' in the first quote. Which means that some is in public. And people who consume too much at home do go out sometimes, still under the influence. And the people the measure is mostly directed at tend to be always under the influence.

[JFLL]

This is sheer stupidity & makes me very angry. The majority of 'problem drinkers' do NOT drink in public, but quietly at home.

I didn't say that 'problem drinking' was confined to public drinking. What I was implying was that it is a bit disingenuous of the government to imply that there is no problem about people having 'a quiet drink or two', when health campaigners clearly think, like you, that there is a problem.

But I don't like the tone of your comment, Flosshilde, however strongly you feel about these things. I think it goes too far to accuse someone of 'sheer stupidity' when you happen to disagree with them, or, even worse, read into their message something which wasn't there. I'd hope that members of this board would be above this sort of abuse. The last time you commented on a message of mine, you called it 'such rubbish', I think, but I can take that and laughed it off. 'Stupidity' goes too far. If it irks you so much, you can always put me on your Ignore list and spare me the insults.