Reply to: Is wine addictive?

[sasguru]

Fair point, but the NHS is one sacred cow that no party will pledge to get rid of, certainly not in the next 30 years at least I'd wager.

True it will be forced on the party in power by economic circumstances.

[Ruprect]

My point exactly. If you suck on the tit of the nanny state you can't complain if the nanny state smacks you around and controls you.

Abolish the NHS, let everyone get their own private health insurance. The premiums WILL be based on lifestyle. Then people are entitled to do what they want to do.

PS It will take a few years but it will happen. The country is bankrupt and the NHS is growing. Eventually it will all explode.

Fair point, but the NHS is one sacred cow that no party will pledge to get rid of, certainly not in the next 30 years at least I'd wager.

[sasguru]

bloody nanny state. bah.

My point exactly. If you suck on the tit of the nanny state you can't complain if the nanny state smacks you around and controls you.

Abolish the NHS, let everyone get their own private health insurance. The premiums WILL be based on lifestyle. Then people are entitled to do what they want to do.

PS It will take a few years but it will happen. The country is bankrupt and the NHS is growing. Eventually it will all explode.

[Ruprect]

bloody nanny state. bah.

[Iron Condor]

London, Jan 23 (ANI): Britons who are used to enjoying evenings at home with a bottle of wine should now think twice before taking that extra sip of alcohol, for a Government survey has claimed that such regular drinking is putting the lives of over 7 million middle-class drinkers at risk.

The new General Household Survey is a poll of the adults in almost 13,000 homes, and is conducted by the Office for National Statistics.

And the survey has claimed that middle aged, professional Britons have a higher tendency to exceed recommended daily levels of alcohol consumption than the working-classes, with twice as many drinking every night of the week.

But, keeping in mind the increasing strength of alcoholic drinks and the trend for larger measures, the government has put in place new measurements to calculate the intake of alcohol.

Thus, one large glass of wine now counts as three units, a medium glass as two and a small glass as one-and-a-half.

Men are advised to consume no more than three or four units in any one day, while women are told not to have more than two or three.

However, the survey revealed that 37 per cent of adults regularly exceed this benchmark.

According to the researchers, many middle class drinkers insist they know what the safe level of alcohol consumption is, which means that they do not believe they are drinking too much

The study also claimed that middle class drinkers are more likely to indulge in “heavy” drinking, which means drinking double the recommended daily limit on a given evening.

In the survey, almost one in four middle-class drinkers admitted to drinking to this level at least once a week, which equates to a man having three pints of strong lager or a woman drinking two large glasses of wine.

However, many middle class professionals are unlikely to regard half a bottle of wine a night as heavy drinking.

[DieScum]

I absolutely, absolutely love wine.

I really enjoy a night in by myself with a good bottle of wine. Really love it.

It is addictive though and can lead to bad health so I am careful with it.

I only allow myself to drink on my own once in a while as a treat and I try and be careful with social drinking.

My family have had various health problems so it is something I just can't be casual about.

[sasguru]

So you would penalise people for travelling in cars. That is clearly implied by what you said, unless you would use the phrase "essential for ... life in general" to cover what you judge acceptable, like riding in cars, but not what you judge unacceptable, like drinking (and what about bacon rolls?). It's arbitrary, and pretending otherwise is weaselly, sorry, I don't mean to be rude. That was my first problem.

But you missed the point about what I called my second problem: how can you tell that a condition is caused by behaviour? You say "Consistently drinking more than safe levels after being told not to, then expecting to be treated for it" but what is "it"? It is not drinking that comes for treatment, it is medical conditions that may or may not be cause by a person's drinking. Alcohol consumption is a risk factor for oesophageal cancer, but most oesophageal cancer is not caused by drinking: do you penalise all sufferers who happen to drink, even if that's not the cause?

And you ignored my third and fourth problems completely. Good thing you're not trying to convince me

This is the problem with socialised medicine, isn't it? No wonder the NHS is the 3rd largest employer in the world (after the Chinese Army and Indian Railways).
This is what "service industry" in the UK consists of. People over eat processed food and drink too much leading to epidemics of diabetes, obesity and liver disease.
Then the NHS has to expand to cope.
I suppose its a job creation scheme of sorts, except that not enough to people can be bothered to become doctors so we have to import them.
Of course these same obese people complain about immigrants in the pub, fag on lip.

[expat]

SallyAnne

Just wait until you have kids, you will be cracking open the bottle as soon as the little darlings go to bed (and sod the meal). That's what me and the mrs do

Then as they get older and go to bed later and later, you'll find yourself unaccountable more and more stressed, until you realise that you've been pushing your first drink back. Then you make the decsion to drink in front of them. Everybody does eventually.

[techno]

...I want wine every night, and I can't see the point in having a meal without it!
I dont want any other booze, and I dont need a whole bottle (although it's getting there!!), but I'm starting to wonder if wine is actually addictive? I've never felt this dependant on something since I smoked.
I seriously couldn't imagine not having a drink when I get in tonight

Anyone else the same?

SallyAnne

Just wait until you have kids, you will be cracking open the bottle as soon as the little darlings go to bed (and sod the meal). That's what me and the mrs do

[expat]

Its not that difficult. I suppose everyone should be allowed a warning.
Consistently drinking more than safe levels after being told not to, then expecting to be treated for it is clearly unfair to other people who contribute to the NHS and look after themselves.
Any dangerous activity (and it's not that hard to define this - to some extent it's already done by insurance companies) that's not essential for earning your living or life in general should and must be penalised.
A health service cannot be a universal panacea for everyone's bad habits or it will collapse. The NHS is well on the way to doing so in some areas.

So you would penalise people for travelling in cars. That is clearly implied by what you said, unless you would use the phrase "essential for ... life in general" to cover what you judge acceptable, like riding in cars, but not what you judge unacceptable, like drinking (and what about bacon rolls?). It's arbitrary, and pretending otherwise is weaselly, sorry, I don't mean to be rude. That was my first problem.

But you missed the point about what I called my second problem: how can you tell that a condition is caused by behaviour? You say "Consistently drinking more than safe levels after being told not to, then expecting to be treated for it" but what is "it"? It is not drinking that comes for treatment, it is medical conditions that may or may not be cause by a person's drinking. Alcohol consumption is a risk factor for oesophageal cancer, but most oesophageal cancer is not caused by drinking: do you penalise all sufferers who happen to drink, even if that's not the cause?

And you ignored my third and fourth problems completely. Good thing you're not trying to convince me

[ratewhore]

Not necessarily

ah - touche...

[Jubber]

(ahem) Getting back on topic - Is Wine Addictive?

As I mentioned earlier - it is the alcohol in the wine that is highly addictive to some people, not all. Some people can drink like trojans and never have many problems, others seem to have issues with alcohol from day one.

I personally think this quote is the great test of whether you should give your 'wine' drinking a closer look...

If, when you honestly want to, you find you cannot quit entirely, or if when drinking, you have little control over the amount you take, you are probably alcoholic.

Can you easily have a glass or two of wine out of the bottle and leave the rest for tomorrow? Or do you just have to finish the bottle and maybe open another? Do you sit at work and dream of the first drink tonight? Can't wait to get to the pub after work and neglect other things/people because of it?

Unfortunately, most alcoholics (many people do not like that word as there is a stereotype) generally have to go through the usual chaos

e.g

Broken relationships, lost jobs, financial difficulties, poor health

before they ask for help, but there is plenty of good help out there if it is needed.

[sasguru]

What's a self-inflicted condition?

My first problem, a really serious one, is that most voluntary activities carry risks. Who is to say that some activities are "normal", whereas others are beyond the pale? Travelling in a car is very dangerous: should we charge for all motor vehicle injuries? Or do we just apply some arbitrary moral judgement, preferably yours, to all?

My second problem comes from how alcohol (for example) causes medical conditions. If drinking 5 units a day makes, say, oesophageal cancer 20% more likely, and I drink that amount, and I get oesophageal cancer, do I have a self-inflicted condition? I say 4-to-1 I don't (OK I know that's not how probability works, but you know what I mean). The condition can be caused by alcohol but most often it isn't.

My third problem with it would be how it would be almost certain to be applied: you drink, so you're not covered. Arbitrary.

My fourth problem with it would be the dishonesty of taking people's taxes including that which covers the NHS, and then denying coverage without a refund. This is punitive, and that is wrong (since the contributions are compulsory). Or do you imagine that I could testify in advance that I drink, and get reduced taxes to offset the fact that the treatment they pay for is now unavailable? Then just watch the drink figures go!

Its not that difficult. I suppose everyone should be allowed a warning.
Consistently drinking more than safe levels after being told not to, then expecting to be treated for it is clearly unfair to other people who contribute to the NHS and look after themselves.
Any dangerous activity (and it's not that hard to define this - to some extent it's already done by insurance companies) that's not essential for earning your living or life in general should and must be penalised.
A health service cannot be a universal panacea for everyone's bad habits or it will collapse. The NHS is well on the way to doing so in some areas.

[expat]

friction burns on yer knob...

Not necessarily

[ratewhore]

What's a self-inflicted condition?

friction burns on yer knob...