|
|
 |
 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
154,913 registered members
|
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
'Alcohol policies not working'
[Posted: Wed 03/05/2006 www.irishhealth.com]
Public policies aimed at curbing alcohol abuse are not working, according to a leading expert.
Prof Griffith Edwards of the University of London told a meeting in Dublin that among the 'bad' alcohol policies are education programmes in schools and colleges, public service messages, warning labels and voluntary codes of practice by the drinks industry.
He told a meeting in TCD that best practices in addressing alcohol abuse include graduated licensing for learner drivers, Government monopoly of retail sales, minimum legal purchase age, restrictions on hours or days of sale, sobriety checkpoints and brief interventions for hazardous drinkers.
Prof Edwards, delivering the White Social Policy Annual Lecture, said there should be a more evidence based approach to alcohol policy.
He said the impact of education and persuasion programmes tends to be small at best and deterrence based approaches including random breath testing and other drink driving measures, as well as pricing policies, are more effective in terms of reducing alcohol related harm.
It has been revealed that Ireland has recorded its worst road fatality figures in the first four months of this year since 2000.
P(PRafter) Posted:
04/05/2006 15:14 |
| 'Reading a regional newspaper recently I was concerned by the plethora of criminal and public-order offences, all alcohol-fuelled, and many involving actual bodily harm. In every case the defendant was in an "intoxicated state" at the time and some were "a danger to themselves and others". Then, on turning the page, I was confronted by a large, colourful, full-page ad for Smithwicks which made the connection between alcohol and crime with the included phrase "Not the usual suspects". The absolute total brazenness and cynicism of it just stunned me! What have we come to, as a society, that this kind of thing is *allowed* to happen? Are we completely, totally, raving lunatic? If I were reading an article on say, gun-crime and the terrible injuries it causes, I'd be expected to be horrified by an ad for firearms on the next page but ads for alcohol alongside reports of its many serious adverse effects aren't expected to cause even raised eyebrows. Cannabis too, was mentioned in a few cases but these related to fines for simple possession only. I've yet to see cannabis implicated in one single "incident" of any kind. What a crazy upside-down world! Thank you. |
|
fifi Posted:
04/05/2006 17:02 |
| We are a nation of alcoholics. No getting around it. We love our drink. We used to love the craic in the pubs until the smoking ban was introduced. Those who now drink in the comfy confines of their own homes rather than venturing to the pub because it is cheaper still drink to excess. Why? Who knows? We just love it. I think its our escapism from a world gone very wrong and very pressurised. |
|
P(PRafter) Posted:
04/05/2006 19:30 |
| But you'd still sooner drink alcohol than smoke cannabis, eh, fifi. Thank you. |
|
fifi Posted:
05/05/2006 09:56 |
| Indeed I would Prafter. I leave the bevvie's until the weekend when its my time to relax. It doesnt affect my work or my many interests. Dare I say you use your substance on a daily basis? |
|
P(PRafter) Posted:
05/05/2006 12:29 |
| Nightly basis, fifi. I use the safest drug on the planet; you use the most dangerous one. It's that simple. Do it in moderation and do moderation in moderation. Thank you. |
|
Mary Posted:
05/05/2006 12:29 |
| p rafter, tht may be a classic case of Paper never refusing ink - or indeed ads. |
|
Mary Posted:
05/05/2006 14:18 |
| Compared to say, Crack cocaine, heroin or even certaib sleeping meds, I hardly think a fw beers consititutes the most dangerous drung on the planet. |
|
faith Posted:
06/05/2006 11:13 |
| ofcourse Alcohol policies are not working.Why would they? it's not about policies. it's about people feeling good enough about themselves. If everybody had good self worth, we would not need any mood altering substance fo feel relaxed. I aggree with mary. iit's nice to unwind with a beer or glass of wine in good company. Sure Jesus himself used the old vino to celebrate his own last meal. I do not smoke (anything) Tried it as a teenager, but decided my body works better when I put oxygen in my lungs not carbon dioxide. It's the same with alcohol. I watch my intake, because I love my liver and I love my kidneys and stomach and like the love of a mother for a child I would do nothing to harm them. Thank you |
|
Certain Posted:
06/05/2006 13:51 |
| Faith, how can you be certain that you love your kidneys, stomach and liver when you don't know what is in the air that you breath, what is in the food that you eat or what is in the drink that you drink? |
|
P(PRafter) Posted:
07/05/2006 15:57 |
| When I say alcohol is the most dangerous drug, it's because I know alcohol does far more damage than all other drugs combined. Anyone with even half a brain should be able to understand this simple fact. Thank you. |
|
Certain Posted:
07/05/2006 18:47 |
| Does it really Rafter? Sorry, I thought that I have a full brain but maybe those with only half-brains know better! |
|
P(PRafter) Posted:
07/05/2006 23:38 |
| Certain, your post seems nonsensical. What are you trying to say, if you don't mind me asking. Thank you. |
|
faith Posted:
08/05/2006 09:39 |
| Hi certain, I "certainly" still love them and do everything that's "within my control" to look after them! I read all labels and spend oodles of time by the beautiful Atlantic ocean( yea, yea I know it's polluted too) and in the beautiful fields and parks. And it's a bit like the kids, sure we still love them even when they don't function like we'd want them too!! ( at least I do) cheers! |
|
Certain Posted:
13/05/2006 03:28 |
| Rafter, if Faith was able to understand what I meant than you should too. And I hope that Faith realises that mostly every body feels the same about their bodies to what they feel is their control too. My point was that none of us are certain whether we have control over what we put into our bodies especially when we cannot see the air that we breath. There could be anything in it. None of us have this kind of knowledge therefore none of us can be certain of how our bodies are faring out at all. |
|
P(PRafter) Posted:
16/05/2006 22:35 |
| Look, Certain, it should be fairly obvious even to you that Faith was reponding to the first of your, less-than-useful posts. Thank you. |
|
faith Posted:
19/05/2006 14:16 |
| hi everybody. I " certainly" hope there are not people out there who would not go go for a nice long walk in the reasonably freash air, incase there are a few particles in it? Sure is'nt that what the hairs in our noses are for and our immune system, if we look after our bodies by not abusing them with too much alcohol! cheers |
|
Louise Posted:
20/05/2006 12:34 |
| I agree with PRafter that in this country alcoholic causes far more damage than any other drug. I don't believe all the awareness 'programmes' under the sun will have the slightest impact, but deterrance programmes can curtail it to some damage - i.e. drink driving. But we can't police the impact it has on thousands of homes around the country, where nightly wives, husbands, children, mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers suffer the consequences of alcohol abuse. Domestic violence and psychological abuse, both equally horrenduous, are endemic in Ireland. Or maybe that should be 'epidemic'? Yes, drug abuse impacts, but statistically you'll find not even close to the extent of alcohol abuse. And we're talking 'abuse' here, not 'use'. I have no earthly idea how as a society we can address this problem with alcohol, but I do know that government policies are not effective. Whoever gave up the sauce because they saw a government sponsored "Infomercial" on the subject? "DRINK ALCOHOL SENSIBLY", says Diagio. Gimme a break! Lob off the 'sensibly', and you have what people hear!! |
|
P(PRafter) Posted:
23/05/2006 18:45 |
| Thanks for that, Louise. The problem, I think, with government anti-alcohol policies is that they're made by drunks, by and large. We've all read about their, er, *extravagances* in that area, of late. Regular readers will know I favour the legalisation of cannabis because it's demonstrably less damaging than alcohol, and can cure severe alcohol addiction. What I've found, is that people who're heavy drinkers don't even want cannabis discussed when they're sober; when they're well drunk, they'll ingest almost anything without a thought, and have no recollection of it next day. The levels of resistance politicians show to cannabis legalisation probably mirrors the levels of their "involvement" in the drunk culture. Any politician who has real problems with our over-acceptance of alcohol will be more accepting of cannabis as a safe substitute for alcohol. The fact that they're more or less united in their irrational hatred of cannabis, speaks volumes. It should be remembered too, that cannabis has been used recreationally for more than ten thousand years; its criminal prohibition will be all of seventy years old, next year. Thank you. |
|
Edge Posted:
24/05/2006 11:21 |
| P., why swap one (potentially) addictive substance for another. surely that's just swapping one bundle of trouble for another? |
|
P(PRafter) Posted:
24/05/2006 12:12 |
| Edge, It's swapping a bundle of unmanageable trouble for a bundle of easily managed trouble; cannabis is far safer and far less damaging than alcohol. I can't say it more clearly than that. Thank you. |
|
Certain Posted:
24/05/2006 16:18 |
| P(rafter) You cannot substitute cannibas with alcohol. You use the two of them in entirely different ways. You smoke cannibas or sprinkle it all over your food. You drink alcohol. Now if you wanted a smoker to switch over to cannibas then you have some chance but you stand no chance of switching a drinker over to cannibas. Of that I am certain. If I was to pack up smoking in the morning there is no way would I take up drinking alcohol instead. The same would apply to a drinker. |
|
P(PRafter) Posted:
24/05/2006 18:40 |
| Certain, you've obviously figured everything out, except cannibas[sic]. Thank you. |
|
Certain Posted:
24/05/2006 22:13 |
| Hey, what's that supposed to mean P(PRafter)?? Could you use an easier user name as well? |
|
P(PRafter) Posted:
25/05/2006 14:03 |
| Certain, misspelling cannabis *four* times is hardly a typo and would suggest you know considerably less about cannabis than you would have us believe. Thank you. |
|
Certain Posted:
25/05/2006 16:38 |
| P(PRafter) You have two typo mistakes in your 18.45 post! Take a look! Thank you. |
|
P(PRafter) Posted:
25/05/2006 22:24 |
| 'Sorry, Certain, I may disagree with you but I shouldn't have stooped to nitpicking, even if they're four-in-a-row in one post. I've had a good look at 18.45 and can't find the two typos you mentioned. I'm curious, you'll have to point them out to me? As for drinkers switching to cannabis, it's happening now, albeit on a small scale. With legalisation, many drinkers will realise cannabis is a realistic and safe alternative to a very dangerous and highly addictive substance. Thank you. |
|
P(PRafter) Posted:
02/06/2006 18:11 |
| Certain, why the new-found reticence; you found two typos and won't now tell what they are? I wonder why! Thank you. |
|
Certain Posted:
14/06/2006 03:32 |
| Rafter, Couldn't find this topic for ages. Sorry. Your two typo errors are: you are missing a 't' in demonstratably and you said drunk culture when it should be drink culture. Thank you. |
|
SL Posted:
14/06/2006 10:29 |
| Ehm Certain, drunk culture is a valid statement - it means those who drink to get drunk! |
|
Mary Posted:
14/06/2006 10:44 |
| Ran it through spell-check and demonstrably was spelled correctly. There is no such word as demonstratably. Now is there any chance we could stop debating semantics and start debating the topic again? |
|
Certain Posted:
14/06/2006 12:35 |
| 'Drunk culture' is bad English. It's definately 'drink culture'. Of that I am certain. Cannot find your demonstrably in my dictionary at all. My one definately has a 't'. Thank you. |
|
Mary Posted:
14/06/2006 13:44 |
| Again, is there any chance we could stop debating semantics and start debating the topic again? |
|
Anonymous
Posted:
14/06/2006 13:50 |
| Please define your spelling with the 't'. Without the 't' it means obviously. |
|
Mary Posted:
14/06/2006 16:49 |
| Is there any chance AT ALL we could stop debating semantics and start debating the topic again? |
|
Certain Posted:
14/06/2006 22:49 |
| Anon, My dictionary says 'showing' for demonstratably at home but there seems to be a problem with the online on alright. If you look up 'All research sites' though you will see my spelling of it at the end of the first column. There seems to be a mix-up so I'll leave you off that one this time. However I will watch out for any more mistakes in the future! |
|
fifi Posted:
16/06/2006 11:50 |
| Certain.. good on ya. Love your dry wit and I love the way you end your sentance like a mutual friend of ours with " thank you" |
| To join the discussion, register by clicking here |
|
QUICK LINKS: asthma | arthritis | psoriasis | crohn's | heart | epilepsy | eczema | osteoporosis | pregnancy | depression | alzheimer | cancer | anxiety | overweight |
 |
About Irishhealth.com | Privacy Policy | Contact us | Why Register? | Terms of Use/Disclaimer | Site Map |  |
| Copyright © 2013. All rights reserved. We subscribe to the principles of the Health On the Net Foundation |
