Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday April 20 2019, @03:42PM   Printer-friendly
from the Isssh-nothing-to-be-proud-of,-hic,-hic dept.

Submitted via IRC for Bytram

Aussies, Yanks may think they're big drinkers – but Brits easily booze them under the table

The top ten per cent of Australia's boozy population downs more than half of the alcohol consumed in the country, according to new research – and the Brits are even worse.

Two researchers from the La Trobe University, Australia, uncovered the eye popping statistic from two surveys: the 2013 International Alcohol Control Study and the 2016 National Drug Strategy Household Survey, as well as more recent research work.

"We found that the heaviest drinking 10 per cent of Australians drink 54.4 per cent of all alcohol consumed in Australia," said Michael Livingston, co-author of the paper published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health and an alcohol policy expert at La Trobe University, on Thursday this week.

The paper also highlighted the intoxicating habits of other countries too. The US fares slightly worse. Ten per cent of America's population guzzled about 55 per cent of all the boozy beverages. But it looked even more diabolical for the Brits - just four per cent of its population glugged a whopping 30 per cent of all its alcohol and they easily outpace Aussies and Americans.

Livingston and his colleague Sarah Callinan, also a researcher at La Trobe's Centre for Alcohol Policy Research, found that Australia's top alcoholics were more likely to be middle-aged men living in rural areas.

"We know that rural areas have disproportionately high levels of consumption and alcohol-related harm compared to metropolitan areas. We found that 16 per cent of this heavy-drinking subset live in outer regional and remote areas, compared with 10 per cent of other drinkers."

[...] "Clearly government has a responsibility to address the problem of cheap alcohol by fixing the way alcohol is taxed, introducing floor prices and halting the proliferation of harm-causing packaged alcohol sales," he said./p>

Sponsored: Becoming a Pragmatic Security Leader


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by ledow on Saturday April 20 2019, @04:13PM (31 children)

    by ledow (5567) on Saturday April 20 2019, @04:13PM (#832613) Homepage

    What would you suggest? When drinking is a big problem, costs a lot of money and causes a lot of trouble for the police, the NHS, etc. what do you think you need to do?

    If you banned it, it would be worse. If you don't tax it, alcohol manufacturers have shown they are happy to drop prices to levels where it's cheaper to buy strong cider than orange juice or cola, causing childhood drinking to go through the roof. Any other regulation would do the same.

    What's your solution? Just let them do what they like?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Tokolosh on Saturday April 20 2019, @04:18PM (21 children)

    by Tokolosh (585) on Saturday April 20 2019, @04:18PM (#832617)

    The solution is staring you in the face. Don't let someone else's drinking be your problem. It is his choice to drink, it is your choice to make it your problem.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ledow on Saturday April 20 2019, @04:43PM (9 children)

      by ledow (5567) on Saturday April 20 2019, @04:43PM (#832621) Homepage

      Great, so I won't go into town at night, especially near chucking-out time, will just ignore all the street vomit in the morning, and let them piss up all the local gardens when they stagger home at 3am yelling, screaming and fighting e.
      h other.
      I think you have no idea the problem of drinking in the UK especially.

      • (Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday April 20 2019, @04:55PM

        by Bot (3902) on Saturday April 20 2019, @04:55PM (#832625) Journal

        I'd say the bigger problem is drunkyards at the wheel. Anyway, taxation is not going to make people less miserable, but more, which doesn't strike me as a very effective thing towards the goal of less drunk people. They will just be more of a burden on their family. Oppa Bureaucrat style.

        --
        Account abandoned.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20 2019, @05:17PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20 2019, @05:17PM (#832634)

        Great, so I won't go into town at night, especially near chucking-out time, will just ignore all the street vomit in the morning

        Binge drinking is not heavy drinking. Heavy drinking is the guy with the middle class job who consumes a full bottle of wine or the workman who drinks 4 beers every night.

        stagger home at 3am yelling, screaming and fighting e.
        h other.

        Alcohol lowers social inhibition; it doesn't cause non-violent people to become violent any more than it causes quiet, thoughtful people to begin bellowing like cretins.

        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday April 20 2019, @07:14PM (2 children)

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 20 2019, @07:14PM (#832670) Journal

          ....full bottle of wine or the workman who drinks 4 beers every night.

          That's not even getting warmed up for a night out! Where are those levels defined as heavy drinking? A quick search reveals the following advice [drinkaware.co.uk]for the UK:

          In terms of the unit amount, the UK Chief Medical Officers recommend that men and women should not regularly (defined as most weeks) drink more than 14 units a week. Drinking at this level is considered to be ‘low risk’, and adults who regularly drink up to this amount are advised to spread their drinking over three or more days. Above this level is considered to be ‘increased risk’. The more you drink above this level, the higher the risk. While the low risk guidelines are the same for men and women, it is important to be aware that drinking at a higher level (beyond the low risk guidelines) more quickly causes severe health problems to women.

          Notice that this is not related to a 'number of beers' but to units of alcohol. A beer can be anything from 250ml to 1000ml, with alcohol contents in the range of 3.0% to 7.5% approximately.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20 2019, @08:46PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20 2019, @08:46PM (#832693)

            That's not even getting warmed up for a night out!

            🍻

            Where are those levels defined as heavy drinking?

            They're my recollection of articles on middle class alcoholism a decade or so back. 4 beers (440mm or a pint) is around 12 units a night or 84 units a week - four times higher than recommended weekly amount. It's also classed as "binge drinking". [www.nhs.uk] Most drinkers consume the recommended weekly units in a single session and that amount was considered a working lunch within our lifetimes.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @01:01AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @01:01AM (#832805)

              Let's be honest: entire research centers dedicated to studying the problems of alcohol abuse are pretty much by their nature going to consider no drinking at all to be the goal.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Saturday April 20 2019, @06:25PM (3 children)

        by fyngyrz (6567) on Saturday April 20 2019, @06:25PM (#832653) Journal

        I think you have no idea the problem of drinking in the UK especially.

        If the problem is vomiting in the street, then arrest and significantly fine the offenders for doing that.

        If the problem is pissing in the gardens, then arrest and significantly fine the offenders for doing that.

        If the problem is disturbing the peace, then arrest and significantly fine the offenders for doing that.

        If the problem is non-consensual violence, then arrest, incarcerate for assault, and significantly fine the offenders for doing that.

        etc.

        There's no good reason to interfere with someone who is not causing a problem or putting non-consenting others at direct risk of harm. It is an outright travesty of liberty.

        The urge to regulate informed, personal or consensual behavior because someone else is a fuckup (or worse) is a common, and highly toxic, legislative malady.

        ---

        Also, if your beer wasn't so murky and foul-tasting that your pub-goers are inspired to drink until they outright can't taste it, that might help too. 😊

        --
        The second line of this sig is hilarious.
        The first line of this sig was misinformed.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Saturday April 20 2019, @09:23PM (1 child)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 20 2019, @09:23PM (#832711) Journal

          LOL "Arrest" means "more money from taxes spent to contain a behavior" and does nothing to address the causes. "More money" means "more taxes".

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 2) by Tokolosh on Sunday April 21 2019, @05:02PM

            by Tokolosh (585) on Sunday April 21 2019, @05:02PM (#833013)

            Raising taxes on alcohol does nothing to address the cause, either. But it punishes those who drink in moderation.

            Why do people drink to excess? Why are some anti-social when they do? I believe there are some root causes that are ignored or not understood.

            If you are convicted of behaviour that infringes on the rights of others, then you should be liable for the costs you incurred on others.

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @12:47AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @12:47AM (#832802)

          Right. Create the conditions for drunkenness to happen (the proudly, internationally touted, hip nightlife zones), and then SET THEM ON FIRE when they do get drunk!
          Gee, could all those bars and nightclubs have ANYTHING to do with this? I mean, what the hell do you expect to happen?

          Nevermind, city officials, keep collecting all that tax money and pretend you had nothing to do with it.

    • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday April 20 2019, @06:02PM (8 children)

      by RS3 (6367) on Saturday April 20 2019, @06:02PM (#832648)

      Drunk driving is a huge problem. Semi-socialized medicine (govt. and insurance) costs society (that's you and me) hugely in health degradation, diseases, accidents of all kinds, assaults, on and on, due to alcohol.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by fyngyrz on Saturday April 20 2019, @06:32PM (5 children)

        by fyngyrz (6567) on Saturday April 20 2019, @06:32PM (#832657) Journal

        Drunk driving is a huge problem ...  due to alcohol  due to driving while drunk.

        FTFY

        And, of course, the correct answer is to severely fine and incarcerate these criminals for proactively putting non-consenting others at risk of harm. There's no good reason at all that society should tolerate such behavior even slightly.

        To the dumbasses among us: If you've been drinking, Do. Not. Drive.

        Interfering with people who are not putting others at risk with their behavior is simply tyranny.

        --
        "You the bomb."
        "No, you the bomb.
        ...
        A complement in the USA.
        An argument in the middle east.

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by RS3 on Saturday April 20 2019, @07:58PM (2 children)

          by RS3 (6367) on Saturday April 20 2019, @07:58PM (#832676)

          1) I don't understand what happens to people's minds on these Internet forums. I've guessed for years that people do in their minds what you just did in print- you took what I wrote, changed it, then commented on it, as if I wrote it, and what I wrote needed fixing. There's a period after "problem" in what I wrote. You fixed what you imagined. Please do not change what I wrote and then fix it.

          2) I think most people agree with you, as I certainly do, and it seems pretty much obvious. The problem: when there's alcohol in a person, they are unable to think clearly, which is partly why they end up drinking too much. Mature, responsible people hand their car keys to someone else before drinking.

          I've had a bit of exposure to alcoholics, treatments, Al-anon, etc. There is a serious true chemical dependency problem in many people. My hope has been that medical science will somehow figure out the mechanism and find a biological cure. Part of the problem: to an alcoholic, drinking is not a special or unusual thing; rather, it's normal, and not having alcohol is unusual.

          Somewhere I recently read that car manufacturers will start putting breathalyzers in all cars. I hope they're foolproof.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @04:28PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @04:28PM (#832987)

            Somewhere I recently read that car manufacturers will start putting breathalyzers in all cars. I hope they're foolproof.

            Yup, yessir, foolproof! These here gadgawhatchamacallits, they're perfect, just like everything else on a modern car. Electric windows that never fail, aircon that's cold as the arctic, heat that never blows in the wrong direction, sound systems that integrate perfectly with every new generation of electronics ...

            While we're talking, I don't want a car. I want a pegasus, so I can fly over the traffic.

            And make it foolproof.

            • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Sunday April 21 2019, @07:54PM

              by RS3 (6367) on Sunday April 21 2019, @07:54PM (#833094)

              Is there such a thing as a partial "whooosh"?

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @06:13AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @06:13AM (#832868)

          re: your sig.
          Complement - something that meshes well with something else
          Compliment - say something nice about someone

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Saturday April 20 2019, @08:43PM

        by hemocyanin (186) on Saturday April 20 2019, @08:43PM (#832689) Journal

        Ban skis.
        Ban bicycles, especially mountain bikes.
        Ban jogging.
        Ban boating.
        Ban walking on the road.
        Ban back country hiking.
        Ban driving on snowy roads, wet roads, roads at sundown/sunset in the direction of the setting/rising sun.
        blah blah blah blah

        The whole argument along the lines of "X costs me money via medical services or whatever" is just a slightly more evolved way of being a nosy insufferable moralistic hypocritical prick while doing things that cost other people money. I drink approximately 2 units of alcohol per month -- I don't have a dog in this fight -- but it isn't my place to tell other people how to risk their health whether that be by jogging up to knee replacements or drowning in booze. That's their business.

      • (Score: 2) by Tokolosh on Sunday April 21 2019, @04:54PM

        by Tokolosh (585) on Sunday April 21 2019, @04:54PM (#833004)

        "...costs society..." Why is that. Because the Harm Principle has been contravened. Two wrongs don't make a right.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20 2019, @10:03PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20 2019, @10:03PM (#832730)

      It's not your problem until a drunk driver runs over you or some relative.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @01:05AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @01:05AM (#832806)

        At least in the US, drunk drivers are not a big problem anymore.
        DISTRACTED drivers (smart phone users) are a far more common occurrence.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by RandomFactor on Saturday April 20 2019, @05:19PM

    by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 20 2019, @05:19PM (#832636) Journal

    Taxing the heck out of it has its own consequences.
     
    May your moonshine always be clear.

    --
    В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Saturday April 20 2019, @08:08PM

    by hemocyanin (186) on Saturday April 20 2019, @08:08PM (#832678) Journal

    Yes -- let them do what they like. If they commit a crime while doing it, arrest them. If they just get blotto and don't do anything criminal -- their choice.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by leftover on Saturday April 20 2019, @09:30PM (6 children)

    by leftover (2448) on Saturday April 20 2019, @09:30PM (#832715)

    Perhaps societies, acting through their civil service organizations, could notice and act on knowledge. Specifically the knowledge from psychology that drug abuse and addiction are caused by hopelessness. Reasons for their hopelessness are also common knowledge. If people are considered valuable at all, anyone who has lost all hope deserves help instead of prosecution.

    Don't hold your breath ...

    --
    Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday April 21 2019, @12:38AM (5 children)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday April 21 2019, @12:38AM (#832798) Journal

      That sort of thinking doesn't appeal to our loudest assholes (Runaway, Hallow, J-Mo, etc). It doesn't appeal because they want others they deem unworthy to suffer, and suffer for its own sake rather than to truly learn anything. We're dealing with some real pieces of work in this place...

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @06:20AM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @06:20AM (#832870)

        You're projecting rather malevolent motivations there. It's more likely that they are in favor of more personal responsibility, a la libertarianism, and don't see why other people should suffer for some drunk's inability to control himself.
        Taken to extremes that viewpoint says that forcing taxpayers to pay to fix up hopeless cases is an unwarranted imposition on those who are not fucked up. It's not a very charitable position, but it's not evil for the sake of evil either.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday April 21 2019, @05:31PM (3 children)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday April 21 2019, @05:31PM (#833032) Journal

          We've tried that. "Personal responsibility" is all well and good for people like you and I, but some of us simply don't have it, and what then? Then, we have to go into a mode that protects the rest of society.

          People who refuse to see that, sorry, *are* malevolent. We need to treat this like the public health crisis it is, with emphasis on preventive methods. It'll cost less in the end, even if you're speaking only of cash flow. Yes, there's going to be a Pareto-type split, where a lot of the funding is used by a few of the cases, but Pareto splits and power laws show up *everywhere* in nature.

          The people who hide behind the veil of small-L-libertarianism and shouts of "personal responsibility" just want to see others suffer, and are willing to pay more and make all of us pay more, in ways that extend well beyond currency, to see that this suffering happens.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @11:31PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @11:31PM (#833182)

            One on one, I think they would all be willing to give someone a hand to get his/her life back together. They're all Heinlein fans for a start. http://www.awakin.org/read/view.php?tid=468 [awakin.org]
            They just don't believe that government programs are an effective solution. They've got a fair bit of evidence on their side that government departments perpetuate the problems that they were created to solve.
            If you think that qualifies as evil then I think you have never met 'true evil'.

            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 22 2019, @12:37AM (1 child)

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday April 22 2019, @12:37AM (#833207) Journal

              Sometimes the programs do, sometimes they don't. Often when they don't, I've found, it's down to either corruption or not actually understanding what the problem is, or sometimes, good ol' Law of Unintended Consequences.

              There's no simple solution to any of this, because it's not a simple problem. The root causes are deeply ingrained in US culture, and until that changes--and it will not until at least the Boomers are dead--I fear we're not going to get anywhere.

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @09:34PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @09:34PM (#833533)

                Don't forget crippling the programs with excessive attempts at "accountability" that prevent people from getting the help or that put stupid restrictions on the aid which creates a welfare trap.

                Usually these methods are put in place by conservative opponents of "free handouts" and then the failures they created as proof the system doesn't work.

                /puke