Binge drinking?

Just been pointed to an article in the Times back in late 2007 relating to safe levels of drinking.

The Times reveals today that the recommended weekly drinking limits of 21 units of alcohol for men and 14 for women, first introduced in 1987 and still in use today, had no firm scientific basis whatsoever.

That's the bad news. But then comes this:

Subsequent studies found evidence which suggested that the safety limits should be raised, but they were ignored by a succession of health ministers.

Gets even better:

One found that men drinking between 21 and 30 units of alcohol a week had the lowest mortality rate in Britain. Another concluded that a man would have to drink 63 units a week, or a bottle of wine a day, to face the same risk of death as a teetotaller.

Well that's me out to the Offie to stock up then.

It looks like the bansturbators have been running with this for some time, as the end of the article comes up with this gem:

In a further attack on Britain’s drinkers, it was revealed yesterday that a coalition of health organisations is mounting a campaign to force a 10 per cent increase in alcohol taxation.

The group, headed by the Royal College of Physicians, is also seeking to secure the support of MPs for stricter regulation of the drinks industry and warnings on alcohol advertising. A total of 21 bodies, including Alcohol Concern and the British Liver Trust, will form the Alcohol Health Alliance, according to Harpers Wine and Spirit magazine.

Nazis

Bloody BMA.

I know everyone else is ahead of me on this one, but I needed to have my say.

I've just been reading their report and consider that is most definitely a temperance movement in all by name.

Changing these excessively pro-alcohol social norms cannot be achieved by targeting irresponsible drinkers alone. We all have an obligation to balance our collective relationship with alcohol. This does not mean that we should all become abstainers. Many human behaviours carry risk and this commonly adds to their appeal; these risks need to be properly understood and appropriate precautions taken. As the World Health Organisation (WHO) reminds us, alcohol is no ordinary commodity, but a toxic and addictive drug that should be carefully regulated and controlled. Strong
measures are required at a population level to eliminate the unhealthy cues and prompts that serve to encourage alcohol consumption. By far the most important of these is the marketing and promotion of alcohol. At the same time, the choice to abstain from alcohol use should be supported as a viable
and acceptable option.

It's that last line that gives it away.

And this, Here they want to control us like lab rats:

In the case of young people, selective targeting is also likely to make alcohol more attractive by reinforcing its forbidden and adult nature – and smack of double standards. As with tobacco control policies, reducing alcohol-related harm in the UK requires a comprehensive strategy that promotes individual behaviour change across society as a whole and seeks to remove or mitigate the unhealthy and unhelpful influences on that behaviour (Berridge 2007).

More control:

As the leading professional organisation representing doctors in the UK, the BMA aims to promote the development and implementation of comprehensive alcohol control policies.

Of course, think of the children is there as well:

The frequency of heavy drinking by the mother is also associated with the occurrence of a range of completely preventable mental and physical birth defects

Naturally people are drinking more at home. Remember the smoking ban:

Recent years have seen an increasing trend among UK adults toward home-based alcohol consumption.

They still won't admit it:

This trend toward home-based alcohol consumption most likely reflects the lower cost of alcohol in off-licences compared to licensed premises in the UK.

And of course take no notice of studies that don't match the crusade:

Early attempts to measure the impact of alcohol advertising on young people relied on econometric studies,l mostly conducted in the 1980s and 1990s. These examined the correlation between the amount of advertising taking place in a particular jurisdiction (typically in terms of expenditure) and the amount of alcohol being consumed (typically in terms of sales). With one notable exception (Saffer & Chaloupka 2000), these have found little or no evidence of advertising influencing young people, which has led one author to describe the effects as ‘barely measurable’ (Duffy 1989). The fact that they are difficult to measure, however, does not mean that they are minimal or do not exist; it may just reflect inadequate research methods.

I could go on but I won't. If you want to read it all. It's here