Wanted 35,000 livers per year.

jambutty · 01-07-2006, 14:42

The incidence of liver disease due to alcohol abuse has drastically increased these few years says a government health bod and who am I to argue with him.

35,000 new cases are admitted to hospitals each year and if the trend continues in the same vein it will be hundreds of thousands within a decade. So it looks like by 2016 or thereabouts our hospitals will be full of patients with chronic lung disease from breathing in air polluted by the internal combustion engine, tobacco smoke, industrial pollution, aircraft and alcoholics with failing livers.

What does the government do about it? Why! Extend the drinking hours. There must be some sort of twisted logic in that move but for the life in me I cannot fathom it out. Unless they are trying to keep the drinkers too puddle to notice just what exactly the government is up to.

To cap it all, at the last budget duty on spirits was not increased although beers, ciders and wines had their annual increase. Oh! I forgot! Gordon Brown is a whiskey drinker so he wouldn’t increase the duty on spirits now would he.

I look forward to a campaign being started by all the anti-smoking brigade to get alcohol banned or severely restricted. After all it is more of a killer and misery maker than tobacco ever was.

I await the flack! But first comes 'the match'.

Bye! for a couple of hours.

Madhatter · 02-07-2006, 01:33

Why would an increase in the pub hours mean that there'd be an increase in alcohol consumed? the match has caused a bigger increase.

jambutty · 02-07-2006, 09:57

In days of old when men were bold and women drank Babycham, Cherry B or Pony Madhatter pub hours were from 11:00am to 3:00pm and 6:00pm to 11:00pm most days. Also you could not buy booze in any shop except an off licence.

Today with the closing time much later people have more time to drink more and more women drink lager rather than ‘ladies’ drinks. Today you can buy booze just about anywhere so boozing is no longer restricted to pub hours.

Much to the delight of the drinks industry and the chancellor more alcohol is consumed today than 20 years ago.

andrewb · 02-07-2006, 10:20

I'm sure gordon wouldn't be holding off taxing spirits simply because he drinks them. There'll be an offical figure but I can't be bothered to find it, but I know he gets paid above 60k, and possibly above 100k... He isn't going to miss a few pence

shakermaker · 02-07-2006, 10:49

I agree; I think the government are not helping the epidemic of binge drinking in this country at all - if anything they are encouraging it.

But who are they to do any different?

As with smoking, the farcical argument of "it's my choice" rings to loud for the weak cabinet ears.

No one in power dare act against the tide & prevent thousands of people's lives being wrecked by alcohol because they are scared, plain and simple. They are scared of the financial loss & petrified at the thought of vote losses - which is a worrying feat when the point of a government is to act in the best interest of the people.

junetta · 02-07-2006, 23:44

I have my own views on this subject. I reckon that the antiquated drinking laws in England have lead to the binge drinking that exists there.

When I'm home in Spain, I normally go for a beer or three at around five in the evening. I know I can drink until daybreak but I'm quite happy to go home around half seven for my evening meal. Put me in the Stop in Ossy, during my yearly visit, and I'm begging for an extra pint as soon as last orders are called.

You always want what you can't have.

Madhatter · 03-07-2006, 00:01

exactly junetta. people either still go out at the same time and come home at the same time or go out later and stay out later. They've still got the same amount of money to spend, and can still only consume the same amount. If they do stay out longer. People who are drinking more because they are out later are few and far between. People who go out to get p sed do so and crawl into theirs or someone elses bed, regardless of when they start or finish.
Hopefully these new laws will help teach brits that achohol is a drink, it's something that can be enjoyed for taste, and can be enjoyed anytime, not just to get them p sed at the end of the night so the girl they've copped with looks pretty.

jambutty · 03-07-2006, 09:21

Alcohol is a potent drug and even in small quantities will affect a person’s ability to think clearly.

In spite of some people claiming that they drive better after a few drinks it is just an illusion. But the resulting carnage on the road is the reality. It is also an illusion to think that people do not drink more during a longer period of time. They do and also spend more, money that they normally wouldn’t have spent had the time and drink not been available.

If alcohol is something to be enjoyed then so is tobacco yet smoking is frowned on. The A & E departments of hospitals are full of aggressive drunks most evenings, particularly at weekends. In some towns it has got so bad that Triage Centres are set up in the town centres to filter out the not serious cases. The cost of dealing with drunks by the NHS and police is taking away vital resources that could be used on crime prevention and treating the genuine sick. The losses in working days are reaching epidemic proportions and are costing this country billions each year.

You don’t get many aggressive smokers in casualty if any at all.

Then there are those who like controlled drug addicts turn to crime to fund their drinking when they have run out of dole money.

Quite rightly smoking products were banned from being advertised except at the point of sale – well the same should apply to alcohol. The public didn’t ask for teenage alcopops, the drink industry developed them to get the youngsters hooked on alcohol and they have succeeded. Our streets are full of kids with cans of lager/cider/beer creating mayhem.

The World Cup was sponsored by a drinks giant. Is that the right thing to do? Commercial TV is full of alcohol adverts. The drinks industry is following in the tobacco footsteps and saturating the public’s awareness of alcohol and its ease of availability.

Ban ALL ALCOHOL advertising except at the point of sale.

In my younger days when I was footloose and fancy free I never went to bed with an ugly woman but I sure woke up with a few.

shakermaker · 03-07-2006, 10:42

I agree Jambutty; the advertisements put forward by the big alcohol producing companies are at fault for softening the effects of alcohol.
Take the Carlsberg ad' for example - "probably the best lager in the world"; does it say anywhere in that advert or on the 24/48 packs of cans that your liver & brain cells are going to be somewhat lacking function after consuming umpteen amounts of these?
No.
The message it does give however is...'enjoy responsibly' - a bit vague dont you think?

The "THINK!" road safety campaign is a very good one; the adverts, I think, are brilliant catalysts towards creating safer roads - but the alcohol manufacturers must be pulling in the same direction on this one.

Total ban on alcohol advertising? It's not going to happen.
However a more realistic target would be for the government to enforce a warning on cans/bottles/billboards like on the cig packets which should give information about how many units are safe etc.

talentedbutslow · 03-07-2006, 11:30

More hours to drink??........I,ll drink to that.....while I light up my smoke......

jambutty · 03-07-2006, 12:17

Quote:

Total ban on alcohol advertising? It's not going to happen.

They said that about tobacco products.

Warnings on cans/bottles/packs will have little or no effect. At least after smoking 10 fags you can still read what is written on a packet of 20. How many people can stand up let alone read a label after 10 drinks? Then again there is the pint and half pint glass, plus the wine glass and the spirit glass. How do you put a warning on them?

shakermaker · 03-07-2006, 12:30

Ok if you must nitpick; not so much on the actual product but on the giant posters around town.

Smokers obviously pay no attention to the warnings on the fag packets so I accept warnings on cans wouldn't work for drinkers.

junetta · 03-07-2006, 19:44

Yes, Shakermaker........you've got it in one.

I wouldn't take notice of a bad health warning on my bottle of lager as I don't on my ciggie packet.

The whole thing is getting a little crazy. Next thing would be labels wrapped around my chips!!

Madhatter · 03-07-2006, 20:07

The units should be marked and it should say the drink sensibly web address, thats all. For those that can't get on the web information leaflets should be in store. Thats my main criticism, drinks are getting stronger and that fact is not put accross.
You'll always get people who will drink till they drop, which I believe has been made worse by restricting hours. This country needs to stop pushing drink, as a get ****ed substance, and teach people to enjoy it as a social substance. As for banning drinking, thats as bad as banning smoking. Some people enjoy a smoke and have respect for others, the rare occasions when I get to enjoy a drink, in a social situation, I have respect for others, I don't get that ****ed that I can't stand up, or puke all over the place, or fall over and end up in cassualty hurling abuse at the nurses.

jambutty · 04-07-2006, 08:37

I don’t think anyone mentioned banning alcohol Madhatter. Prohibition would never work as the states found out in the early part of the last century.

Ban the ADVERTISING of alcohol except at the point of sale is what many people advocate. Forget the written warnings on bottles etc. No one takes any notice anyway.
Ban the drinking of alcohol ANYWHERE except in licensed premises and your own home or garden.
The permitted level of alcohol in the blood for drivers should be halved with severe penalties for those that transgress. Banned from driving for 10 years and being forced to re-take the test before getting the license back - without exception. No leeway for those who drive for a living.