The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Putting the boot into bad drinking > Comments

Putting the boot into bad drinking : Comments

By Rob Moodie, published 10/8/2006

Our culture pushes alcohol at every turn, and those who raise concerns about harmful consumption are labelled wowsers.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
I can't understand why grog is still allowed to be advertised in the media. We correctly removed one drug (tobacco) from all forms of advertising yet grog continues to be advertised.

Most people must dread the coming of February each year because the beer-soaked boofheads from the various football codes are allowed out of their cages to engage in their anti-social antics.
Posted by Sage, Thursday, 10 August 2006 9:55:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the most worrying trends in modern society is nannying busybodies prying into our private lives telling us how to act and socialise.

In fact, studies show that over the last 5 years, there has been a 16-18% rise in articles 'concerned' about the way Australians do someting-or-other.

Middle-aged bureuacrats seem to be the most at-risk sector here. Previously males were predominant, but the rise of women to higher levels of bureacracy means they appear to be indulging in 'concern' as well.

Especially dangerous is the the phenomenon of 'binge worrying', where people show 'concern' about six or even seven different things in the course of a short conference.

Recognised expert in the danger of worrying, Dr T.F. Much [10 bonus points and a slab if you know where I stole that name from], said that with a bit less patronising assumption that they know better, worriers can be gently led to trust the judgement of their fellow citizens.

David Jackmanson
http://www.letstakeover.blogspot.com

What is the pseudo-Left?
http://www.lastsuperpower.net/disc/members/568578247191
Posted by David Jackmanson, Thursday, 10 August 2006 11:23:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A wowser....that must be a word coming from a non drinker! i have never used that term in my life, sounds like you dont get out too much champ.

Alcohol has been an integral part of society for hundreds of years, and just like the way you consume food or anything for that matter, moderation is the key but every person still has a right to consume to their desired levels.

If they want to blow all their money on it, its up to them. Most of society does not have a problem with alcohol, it can be a positive experience if responsible and therefore it can be managed.

Here here for the binge worrying post, the media and those on their high horse try to shock us all and question our lives continuously, and if we listen to everyone we would not consume any food, alcohol, have any social fabric, lock up our children, and never set foot out the front door.

You are not labelled a wowser for raising concerns. you are right for a small percentage of the population, but you dont see beer drinkers raising concerns about church going people who are too perfect as they may have deep rooted secrets and unhealthy desires.

Mate, you can be more productive with your time than writing articles like this i am sure.

Good Luck
Posted by Realist, Thursday, 10 August 2006 12:39:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Jackson - classic mate couldn't agree more.

Rob, hasn't the nanny state taken enough control over every single aspect of our lives?

Ironically there are much safer alternatives to alcohol for relaxation and recreational use but "Nanny says no" to those. So leave us in peace to pickle our livers thank you, or have an evidence based policy that allows the safe moderate use of far less harmful substances by free thinking adults
Posted by Daniel06, Thursday, 10 August 2006 12:53:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"increasing the minimum price" Eeek

What a load of waffle. Lets ban the advertising of everything except carrots, broccoli and brussel sprouts.

Its no wonder kids get pissed when they look at the world around them.
Posted by Steve Madden, Thursday, 10 August 2006 1:21:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree completely with the article.

Those who accuse the writer of promoting a nanny state would be the first to expect the state to nanny them and pick up the tab for the cost of excessive drinking e.g. road crashes, liver damage etc.

There is indeed a double standard in Australia. "Tough on Drugs" but don't touch alcohol and don't ban tobacco. The hypocrisy is glaring.

Yes we should be discouraging binge drinking. Companies don't spend millions on advertising for nothing. They spend it because it works. They don't have to pick up the costs of excessive drinking.

This is not being a nanny state. This is encouraging individual responsibility for actions.

I enjoy a drink myself. I am dubious about the effectiveness of increasing prices. But I do think we need to drop the hypocrisy and double standards. Alcohol is a drug. Marijuana is a drug. Tobacco is a drug. Let's minimise the harm that they do, and strip away the glamorous image promoted by the suppliers. There's nothing pretty or glamorous about a person out of control through any sort of drug use.
Posted by AMSADL, Thursday, 10 August 2006 3:27:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
At the risk of being shouted down, I think Rob Moodie has a valid point in worrying about the levels of binge-drinking.

My basic premise is that most health problems are better prevented than cured, both in terms of their health effects, the pain and suffering often implicit in treatment and the costs associated with doing so.

Pub owners aren't that cool about binge-drinking (in its worst incarnations) either...the damage done to a pub's reputation when its patrons are violent and abusive, and the property damage that can be wrought by people "taking it a bit too far" can have lasting effects on the livelihood of people in the hospitality industry too (not to mention danger to staff members who have to refuse to serve people on the basis they've had more than enough to drink).

I know some post-ers have been concerned about the price of alcohol going up or that this is in some way an overly authoritarian idea, but this is the bit I'm interested in, regarding the NT experience:

"More than 100 lives were saved, more than 2,100 hospital admissions were avoided and $124 million in health-care costs and lost productivity were saved."

Surely that's good news? Or not?

Also a disclosure: I don't know and have never met Rob Moodie. And I like a drink as well as the next person. I just don't think that considering the end-product of binge-drinking (or smoking, or having unprotected sex or driving while on cocaine, or any one of a number of things people routinely do) is inappropriate or a waste of time/space/column inches/kilobytes.
Posted by seether, Thursday, 10 August 2006 3:39:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As Homer Simpson said "Alcohol - the reason for, and the solution to - most of society's problems".

I have yet to hear of somebody smoking a half dozen Winfields and then going home to beat their wife or getting behind the wheel and killing somebody.

Lots of talk about passive smoking but nothing about the effects of passive drinking.
Posted by rache, Thursday, 10 August 2006 3:50:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Those who accuse the writer of promoting a nanny state would be the first to expect the state to nanny them and pick up the tab for the cost of excessive drinking e.g. road crashes, liver damage etc."

No, I wouldn't.

Car crashes? Fine. Alcohol locks on every car. Massive police blitzes every weekend. Ban pubs from having car parks and force people onto public transport. Long sentences for any alcohol-aggravated road death.

Liver damage? There are tests that can see if a person is a heavy drinker. Move those people to the back of the queue for any sort of treatment.

If people want to abuse alcohol, make sure they face consequences, then get out of their way.

The article is NOT about encouraging individual responsibility for actions. It is about finding ways to control people's behaviour for them, by someone who thinks he knows better. Oh, and patronising us by saying things like:

"Less alcohol, but more fun".

Mine's a pint.
Posted by David Jackmanson, Thursday, 10 August 2006 4:39:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We live in a society where individual rights and freedoms are guarded dearly (see some of the above posts), but where there is not equivalent attention given to responsibilities. I think that banning alcohol is futile, and there is a good example of that futility in the US in the 1920s.

OK, so what should you do if you are concerned about the consequences of alcohol abuse? The tax on tobacco is now high enough, I am told, that it works out over time equal to the average medical and hospital costs of the average dying lung cancer patient. I am also told that it is harder to set a value on the costs of alcohol-caused medical treatments, but I see no good reason for not setting the taxes on alcohol to a level that would probably cover such costs. Of course, that means that those of us who drink sensibly would be subsidising the medical costs of the less sensible — but then that would still be true were there no taxes on alcohol at all.

My own suggestion is that people who like to drink, and believe that they do so in a benign way, educate their children to do the same, by introducing them to wine with meals, explaining as they go why we like alcohol, and how we have to master it, and not let it master us.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Thursday, 10 August 2006 4:58:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But alcohol is good for you.

better treatment of autoimmune disease
Toni Baker
Aug. 4, 2006

A signaling molecule with an affinity for alcohol has yielded a
rapid, inexpensive way to make large numbers of immune cells that
work like beat cops to keep misguided cells from attacking the body.

The ability to easily make large numbers of these cells opens the
door to improved treatment and a better understanding of autoimmune
diseases such as type1 diabetes and arthritis, Medical College of
Georgia researchers say.

T cells are components of the immune system designed to attack
invaders such as bacteria and viruses; regulatory T cells are a small
subset that prevents the cells from also attacking body tissue.

Research published in the August issue of Nature Methods shows that,
given the option, phospholipase D, which typically mixes with water,
prefers alcohol. It's an apparently lethal choice for the signaling
molecule that, in turn, also kills T cells that need phospholipase D
to survive. Previously, it was unknown whether regulatory T cells
required the molecule.

"What we have found is that if you block this enzyme, almost all T
cells die after three days but the regulatory T cells can survive,"
says Dr. Makio Iwashima, MCG immunologist and the study's
corresponding author. "After three days, we give them some food to
grow and, in one week, you get about 90 percent pure regulatory
cells."

The approach worked with laboratory-grade alcohol, called butanol, as well as beverage-grade ethanol.
Posted by Steve Madden, Thursday, 10 August 2006 5:10:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It isn't just footballers and other sporty types who are exposed in the media as binge drinking morons, we hear quite often of one drunk politician or another groping, abusing or otherwise displaying their genuine hypocritical nature in a late night party-room piss-up.

The retail alcohol industry has been given a free reign as suppliers of Australia's only legal recreational drug.

In which other area of life do we accept such a total monopoly?

Oh, and can we stop protecting me from cannabis at some stage soon?
Posted by generic_hippie, Thursday, 10 August 2006 6:08:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Life in all its form, is there to be experienced in moderation. Sadly there are some by lifes experience, turn to the extremes, and also those sports groupies who follow the crowd. There is no easy answer and definately no need for "Another Law".
Posted by Kipp, Thursday, 10 August 2006 6:10:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Consuming alcohol has forever held a place in the minds of young people as being something that not only allows them to relax and have fun, but more importantly it makes them feel part of their social group. To go out to a pub, bar or club with friends and to not drink is almost unheard of and can often be frowned upon by others. I say this not as a "nanny" or as someone who wants the price of alcohol to increase or for more laws to be made. I write this as someone who has experienced peer pressure from others when I used to regularly go out as the designated driver.
There seems to be the common belief that unless you are drunk you cannot possibly be having a good time. I do not believe that this attitude has been developed by advertising. It seems to me that people today tend to look for quick fixes and because alcohol is so readily available and is so socially acceptable, it is seen as an easy way to feel better and escape problems. Advertising does not create this.
Maturity and life experience will hopefully teach these young people that alcohol is not the answer to life's problems. Maturity and life experience will hopefully show them that excessive consumption of alcohol is not something that they need to do to have fun and feel socially engaged with their peers. Maturity and life experience will hopefully show young people that you can drink moderately or not at all and you can still have a good time.
Posted by Michelle O, Thursday, 10 August 2006 8:37:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What we should be doing seemed so obvious after reading the article.

But after reading the posts, I just don’t know. It’s all now so confusing.

I wonder if the three bourbons I had while reading them has anything to do with it, on top of several beers??

I thingk we zhould zhust szdop tawlkin dribbl nnnnnnn all go nnn jill oud over a goldie or dwo.
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 10 August 2006 9:45:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is not a matter of implementing either a ‘nanny state’ philosophy or a freedom of choice philosophy.

We need to find the right point on the spectrum between these two.

A bit of ‘nannying’ by our governments is good...and there is a lot of it in the realms of alcohol consumption. But we need more!

Part of it should be a lot of high-profile advertising about the negative aspects of alcohol, as with anti-smoking advertising.

Michelle O makes the point that alcohol is so ingrained in our social fabric that a person can feel very ostracised if they don’t drink in a social setting. Well, it used to be like that with smoking too. We can change it. But yes, it is a very hard one to get across to the younger set. It has to be done in such a way as to not risk causing a rebellious opposite reaction.

Many people realise the foolishness of excessive consumption with maturity, but some don’t…. and some don’t reach maturity as a result of excessive consumption. And some take innocent people with them.

In fact, this is one the biggest quandaries of all, concerning alcohol – the loss of good judgement when inebriated, or the lack of good judgement in the mentally immature, to the extent that they get behind the wheel of a car…. and end up wiping themselves out…. or getting busted for DUI, which can be a hell of a thing for a young person with no prior misdemeanours (no I haven’t been through that experience). It is apparently extremely hard for some people to separate a good time where they are being supported by all those around them, from a time when they are leaving themselves open to very serious police action against them… or much worse.

The drink-driving rate is a very powerful indication that we should not only be addressing that particular issue head-on, but should be addressing the entire issue of alcohol consumption, and attempting to break down its overwhelming social acceptance. So, bring on the nannying!
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 10 August 2006 9:56:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig's second post reminds me that any effective action will take some time. I think you ought to allow a generation — 25 years — before you can see how well you have done in changing behaviour. Seat-belts and reducing smoking took about that long.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Friday, 11 August 2006 10:58:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I found it easy to be celibate in India in the early-mid ‘70s, hard not to be sexually promiscuous in the West (mainly England). Could this possibly be related to the heavy emphasis on and promotion of sex in the West, and the absence of that in India, where there was still a prevalent grasp of the underlying importance of spiritual life?

I believe (broadly) in individual choice and responsibility. But the exercise of choice and responsibility is obviously influenced by the prevailing culture, the social environment, which in Australia heavily promotes alcohol consumption. The “panca sila” moral code of many Eastern countries/religions recognises the benefits of leading a moral life and that intoxication is often a precursor to a wide range of actions which harm self and others. Surely our society can opt to put less emphasis on clearly harmful activities rather than promoting them?

I grew up in a heavy-drinking culture (north east England). Fortunately, I was never interested, and had the strength not to succumb to peer pressure.

At one time I used psychedelic drugs, which helped put me on to a very positive path of discovery. However, as a father I’ve always maintained a drug-free house (no alcohol, tobacco or other drugs). At the same time, I’ve never told my kids not to drink, smoke or take drugs; I’ve tried to bring them up to make their own decisions. Happily, none of them are attracted to drugs, if they do feel the urge it will be at an age (now 18-24) when they can have some perspective on their use, and they won’t be swayed by advertising.
Posted by Faustino, Friday, 11 August 2006 4:06:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Everybody blames advertising and/or the Government but the problem is the people/adults.

How many times have we attended barbeques or dinners where the children are present and seen parents bring enough drink to drown themselves in. Not just a couple of drinks to drink with dinner or to feel a bit relaxed, as would be sensible, but enough to put them under the table and they walk in boasting as to just how under the table they are going to be and they manage to write themselves off in front of their kids.

Children live and learn and they are a product of their environment. If we want children to learn not to drink in excess the adults have to set the example and it should start at home.

Maybe adults should start having alcohol free barbeques/dinners so that the kids can see that you don't NEED alcohol for it to be a party or to have a good time.

Parents need to teach their children by example - sure have a few drinks but be sensible and smart if you want your children to also make good choices. Children learn by example.
Posted by Jolanda, Sunday, 20 August 2006 10:08:57 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is time to change our culture.

Children who are raised in a european like atmosphere where alcohol is part of life and drank wisely, where children have occassional small drinks as they grow older, do not get into the heavy binge drinking.

I grew up like this and those I have met who grew up like this, all avoided the binge drinking. There is nothing to rebel against, nothing that is exciting to try out and see why it is so bad, so evil as it was part of our lives.

Stop making it such a big deal, make it part of life in a controlled environment. Time for lazy incompetant parents who don't really give a stuff to wake up.
Posted by Spider, Sunday, 20 August 2006 3:12:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The grog has ruined more people's lives in our little country town than any other drug, legal or not.
It killed my grandfather .
It killed most of my Aboriginal friends and is still killing their children.
By the same token it has relieved the boredom and enlivened the lives and minds of many , as they try to extract something out of life that is not found easily - uncluttered, if fleeting,uninhibited happiness.
We should not need it , we don't need it, but it is there for us .
Posted by kartiya, Tuesday, 22 August 2006 11:12:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It’s a great paradox Kartiya.

So what do we do? How do we regulate it?

Is it fair and reasonable to make restrictions in Aboriginal communities different, and a whole lot stronger, than in so-called mainstream Australian society?

How do we get people to control their booze intake, when we suspect or know that they are overindulging, especially when they are perfectly happy to continue overindulging, and strongly resist change?

How do we wean our society off this alcohol dependence? How do we overcome peer pressure to drink every time we are out with our mates?

And a million more questions.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 22 August 2006 11:47:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy