Diageo Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 No it's not. Just because the WHO decides on something stupid like that doesn't make it some binding 'definition'. No one living in the real world would accept something as stupid as that. What is the difference if that is the binding definition or not. There is no worldwide consensus. That is the definition for Ireland, and so drinking 3 pints in Ireland is binge drinking. They made the definition. That's what it's defined as for this country. Whether you accept it or not makes no difference.
Zechs Merquise Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 What is the difference if that is the binding definition or not. There is no worldwide consensus. That is the definition for Ireland, and so drinking 3 pints in Ireland is binge drinking. They made the definition. That's what it's defined as for this country. Whether you accept it or not makes no difference. The WHO are not the ones who define things like that on a worldwide basis - each country has it's own laws on alcohol consumption. It's not the definition for Ireland at all. Stop being so silly and behaving like a child! Drinking three pints in Ireland is not binge drinking, nor is it binge drinking in England, Scotland or Wales. There is no Irish law or statute that states drinking three pints is binge drinking. Just a clearly disputed statement by the WHO.
Diageo Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 Of course there's no law. It's not illegal... I just said there is no worldwide consensus. So you tell me. Who decides on the definition of binge drinking and what is the number?
Oxigen_Waste Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 Ugh, can't stand it when people try to stifle discussion because they don't agree with it. Imagine how boring this forum would be if you could only have one opinion on something. I fully support tax on beer being increased. Out of all the things that could be taxed, it's certainly one of the least morally outrageous. I love you for this post. But (as always) I disagree with your second point. Not because I believe it's wrong, but because I like me some cheap beer!
Zechs Merquise Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 Of course there's no law. It's not illegal...I just said there is no worldwide consensus. So you tell me. Who decides on the definition of binge drinking and what is the number? Binge drinking is quite obviously when people go out with the sole intention of getting drunk. These people drink as fast as they can, knocking back as much as they can in the shortest possible time. Their aim is solely to get drunk. Binge drinking leads to the individuals losing control of themselves, often acting in an anti-social way and bahving irresponsibly. I might go out an have 4 or 5 pints over the course of an evening. I'm not binging, I'm not drinking to get drunk and I certainly don;t end up fighting, throwing up everywhere and urinating in the street! Putting a figure on binge drinking would be stupid! If I have 4 or 5 pints over and evening that's not binge drinking. If I drank that in an hour or so and continued like that, it most certainly would be. Just use some commonsense!
Sheikah Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 Zechs, binge drinking actually constitutes a lot less than you probably think. Also 'binging' has nothing to do with behaviour, only the amount of alcohol consumed within a certain space of time. Having 3 pints certainly sounds justified to be termed binging; recommended quantities by most respect healthcare bodies are much less than this for 1 sitting. As part of my PhD I do quite a lot of research into healthcare and the WHO is certainly a respectable source when citing in journal articles. To dismiss it as you have done is silly.
Raining_again Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 anything more than a couple of units with a meal is considered binging. Anything more than 2/3 units a day is a binge. You don't actually realise how much damage you do to your body.... I've had my bloods monitored for years (due to medical conditions) and i went through a stage like we all do of going out and getting plastered... and I actually did damage to my liver, my blood tests came back irregular a few times.. certainly was the scare tactic I needed. I still drink, and occasionally binge, but its not a regular weekly thing for me. I also agree on the binge eating/obesity thing. Definitely need to tax crappy food or provide more incentives to farmers/fishermen etc, to help bring down the cost of natural healthy food. Bowel cancer has overtaken every single cancer and is now the primary killer. I work in the nhs and the cancer centres we have contact with all say that bowel cancer is a problem now, its actually not a ticking bomb, the bomb has gone off! One of the bigger ones here has 2 days a working week to deal with ONLY bowel cancer, in comparison to 1 of breast and 2 for the other cancers.
Diageo Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 Binge drinking is quite obviously when people go out with the sole intention of getting drunk. These people drink as fast as they can, knocking back as much as they can in the shortest possible time. Their aim is solely to get drunk. Binge drinking leads to the individuals losing control of themselves, often acting in an anti-social way and bahving irresponsibly. I might go out an have 4 or 5 pints over the course of an evening. I'm not binging, I'm not drinking to get drunk and I certainly don;t end up fighting, throwing up everywhere and urinating in the street! Putting a figure on binge drinking would be stupid! If I have 4 or 5 pints over and evening that's not binge drinking. If I drank that in an hour or so and continued like that, it most certainly would be. Just use some commonsense! So you just made up your own definition of binge drinking depending on the behaviour you consider negative. Whereas the WHO organisation have based it on medical studies on the effect it has on health. Maybe you would care to give some sources for your definition?
LegoMan1031 Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 On top of the cost and demand to the NHS when it comes to alcohol there is also the demand on the police... As a lot of these people who drink too much so they can't look after themselves leads to police being called for people being drunk and disorderly. And there is an element where alcohol fuels crime such as domestic violence (in some cases) or criminal damage in the street, to property and vehicles or general fighting in street). Friday and saturday nights are sure to be super busy times for hospitals and the police!
bob Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 On top of the cost and demand to the NHS when it comes to alcohol there is also the demand on the police... As a lot of these people who drink too much so they can't look after themselves leads to police being called for people being drunk and disorderly. And there is an element where alcohol fuels crime such as domestic violence (in some cases) or criminal damage in the street, to property and vehicles or general fighting in street). Friday and saturday nights are sure to be super busy times for hospitals and the police! Yeah but the policeforce is going to be privatised anyway, so a tax hike won't help them.
LegoMan1031 Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 Yeah but the policeforce is going to be privatised anyway, so a tax hike won't help them. They will always be funded by Public money. I can't see it not being the case. Even if parts of backroom stuff on the police gets privitalised the money paying them will still come from the public in the first instance. IE Taxes. Some forces have been using private companies for years such as prisoner transport etc so it isn't really anything new.
bob Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 Fo'sho, I agree with you, i should have put some sort of smiley at the end of my post to show i was being flippant. My apologies.
jayseven Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 Over here, you'll pay $7.99 for a 568ml bottle of Bulmers in a 'bottle shop'. That equates to... £5.35ish. That's for one bottle. In a shop. I've not been to a pub yet to see the price comparison, but clearly it's not cheap! The cultural approach to alcohol is hugely different, and it's that different approach to alcohol that the government in the UK is trying to reach, despite whatever 'public service' puppet it tugs across the stage for the public to lap up. As a government, if your public drinks less then they'll be less of a burden on your resources, and potentially more efficient. What's not taken into account, and what is the hardest to take out of the british DNA, is the almost innate relationshop with alcohol that has been brewed (excuse the pun) over the centuries, as well as the ingrained british natural desire to balk at what they're being told to do. Over here, it's legal to drive bare foot, or in 'thongs' (as in the flip-flops, not the panties!). I'm sure there's been some sensible research into the dangers to public 'health' with unshod feet behind the wheel, but if you attempted to ban such behaviour here then you'd have an absolute public outcry, demanding heads to fall. Ultimately it's not about what's good and what's bad for you, it's more about one's liberty, and perhaps a smidge about the 'elected' governing body doing what can easily be percieved to be an act of kicking the people while they're down. It's no secret that those who turn to drink are those who have a harder time dealing with their socio-economic status (there are factsheets that can be faxed out, should the ex-cite-ables be aroused), and it will be those with the lowest income that will find the only luxuries currently affordable - that's pints and quarts, not 3D TVs or other luxuries that are rather more what the lowest earners would deem to be the 'rich man's' luxuries and the poor man's daydream. Fact is, the government needs more money, and the alcohol/cigarette duty is something all parties have meddled with. It's 'safer' for them to retread this area of tax where the argument is easily won. Happiness is irrelevent, says the government, when your health is at risk! [/slight hyperbole]
Iun Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 Come to China! Beer is 30p for a can or 50p for half a litre! Beer has to be cheap here because LIFE is so gosh darn DEPRESSING. It tastes like sucking on a rusty sword but IT'S SO CHEAP!
Jav_NE Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 Come to China! Beer is 30p for a can or 50p for half a litre! Beer has to be cheap here because LIFE is so gosh darn DEPRESSING. It tastes like sucking on a rusty sword but IT'S SO CHEAP! And they all taste the same and have like 3% alcohol or less!!! Perfect for three things - toasting, drinking games and destroying your bladder!
McPhee Posted March 18, 2012 Posted March 18, 2012 I doubt there would be so much anger among brewers and publicans if they saw evidence that the government were working to curb the actions of the supermarket trade. As it stands it just looks like the government are out to kill pubs rather than actually fix the social and health problems associated with drinking too much. Beer is fast approaching £3.50/pint in most towns (£4.50 in London) yet you can walk in to your local Tesco and buy a litre bottle of branded Vodka (40 standard 25ml measure shots!) for under £15 or 24 cans of Carlsberg (18.56 pints) for £16! Even then, people could bury their anger if the tax was actually solving anti-social behaviour relating to alcohol consumption (or indeed, alcohol related injury). The problem is, no such thing has happened. People just buy from the supermarket, drink at home and then venture in to town later to go clubbing. Personally I don't mind the current beer (pub) prices. I think they're fair. It's too expensive to drink in vast quantities but cheap enough to afford a few pints a couple of times a week. In the interests of fairness though, I think action needs to be taken against the supermarkets to force a price rise. It doesn't take a genius to work out that something's wrong when the same bottle of Vodka you can buy from a supermarket for £15 would cost you £112 in the average pub (i.e. 40x£2.80). It's curious that the Scottish parliament is (and has been) tackling the supermarket trade, yet Westminster isn't interested. Not that I think the supermarkets have been lobbying our corrupt government or anything .
Recommended Posts