Driven to drink (part two)
Wednesday, October 22, 2008 Postscript to the Westminster Health Forum seminar on 'Alcohol and Responsibility' (see below). There were several things I didn't get a chance to say in my presentation or during the Q&A session that followed. Here's a couple:
There are numerous examples of scaremongering. Last year, for example, a report in the British Medical Journal said that binge drinking has increased to such an extent that cases of “exploding bladders” are on the rise in the UK.
Exploding bladders? Even Alcohol Concern had the grace to admit that these are few and far between - in fact there seem to be only three documented cases in the entire world – but a spokesman went on to say that “this new development certainly highlights the facts that the risks of heavy drinking go way beyond liver cirrhosis”. Hmmm.
On Monday I was tickled to read the following promotion in the Daily Telegraph: "Win an iPod and one year’s free supply of gin". Hilarious. My only query is: how much is a year’s supply?
If it was based on my consumption of gin (at home), half a dozen bottles would do nicely. For someone else, however, a year's supply might be 52 bottles - one for every week of the year - or more. Then again, if I was given six bottles as a prize, who’s to say I wouldn’t knock them back inside a month.
The point is, what represents a year’s supply is for me to decide – not the government, not the healthy lobby, nor - if I may say so - the Daily Telegraph.
My full presentation, including the bits I didn't say because I ran out of time, can be found HERE.
Simon Clark
Before I forget I must mention Chief Inspector Shaun de Souza Brady of the Metropolitan Police who spoke in the session that followed mine. Having explained the problems that can be caused by late licences and drunken, rowdy behaviour, he described one highly successful problem-solving model in Haringay, north London.
Asked whether he would welcome more legislative powers, his reply should be read by every politician throughout Britain. "Legislation," he said, "wouldn't really help unless things were really falling apart, and I don't see that at this moment."
Legislation, he added, imposes on people. What is needed are strong partnerships and local area agreements involving the police, local residents and local businesses (notably pubs and clubs), with the police held to account.
I couldn't agree more. This is the future, not more and more laws, many of them prohibitive. But is anyone listening?
Reader Comments (11)
My wife and I work hard and pay a lot in tax and since we have no children we receive nothing back from the State. We do not complain about that but find the increasing interference in all walks of life to be getting beyond a joke.
We both smoke and like a drink. I like to bet on football and she likes to do the lottery so I suppose we have all the vices[we have even been known to go to the races so are probably doomed to Hell].
At work I am not allowed to smoke, drink or gamble but in my own time I believe I should be able to unwind. My wife and I rarely eat out or go to the pub anymore and have found entertaining friends to be as satisfying and a lot cheaper. Now they want to restrict the amount of alcohol we can purchase and already they have warnings in pubs, off licences and billboards.
My wife is self employed and government red tape stops her from expanding. She is afraid to hire any staff in case she breaks one of the myriad discrimination laws. For example, if she hired a young woman she is not allowed to even ask if this woman is pregnant or considering a family so runs the risk of hiring someone who is in the office 5 minutes before taking 9-12 months maternity leave.
I agree that there is too much legislation and government interference in our lives but few are actually prepared to even say that never mind do anything about it.
First they came for the motorists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a motorist.
Then they came for the smokers
and I did not speak out
because I was not a smoker.
Then they came for the drinkers
and I did not speak out
because I was not a drinker.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
(with acknowledgement to Pastor Martin Niemöller)
My wife is self employed and government red tape stops her from expanding. - Michael Peoples
There are rather a lot of expanding wives about these days!
It's good to learn that government red tape is an effective preventive measure. A new secret weapon in the anti-obesity campaign?
"It's good to learn that government red tape is an effective preventive measure. A new secret weapon in the anti-obesity campaign?"
I wish Idlex - I have managed to put on 3 stone since the smoking ban came in and I don't even eat a huge amount, but I do find I pick now IF and when we do go out, because of not being able to smoke! I also tend to drink more because I am not smoking, so the hand to mouth habit is taken over by the glass of wine!
To my mind, the government exacerbated the obesity problem with bringing in a total ban on smoking in enclosed public places plus all the nasty and vindictive comments that some anti's spout at smokers! It has also helped with the binge drinking I fear, as IF I go out nowadays, I drink 2 or 3 large glasses of wine, whereas my norm had always been 1 orperhaps 2 small glasses A WEEK!
This government, as many before, it is fair to say, seem to continuously shoot themselves in the foot with all the new laws and regulations, only serving to cause other problems with one law that then takes upteen more to try and control!
Whats an MP to do? Follow the trnd until the trend changes direction? At the moment they are following the health trend which includes Smoking drinking and eating. So they think of ways of maximinising their impact. (Or interfering as much as possible, depending on which side of the fence you find yourself)
So they see TC doing well and so adopt the same ideas, and introduce new products, 'Binge Drinking' and 'Obesisty'.
For example, reducing drinking by adopting the divide and conquer strategy, just as with smoking.
They have introduced the idea of 'binge' drinking based on a set of arbitrary limits. The divide comes from the idea that we don't binge, they do. As the idea gains support, the limits change so that there are more and more 'others'. So add in the idea of damage to others. Attempts to use the phrase 'passive drinking' hasn't caught on ... yet.
The obesity crisis is slightly different. It's more 'for the children'. We need to manufacture a crisis though, because a crisis is what we can solve.
A crisis is easy to manufacture, as with alcohol, let's set limits. So if your BMI is greater than 33 then we can call that obese. Not enough of a crisis? Let's make BMI greater than 27 obese, that'll work. Have they changed the limits? (hint: they may have though the linits chosen here are illustrative).
Smoking is a more mature product and has used a mixture of techniques, the ultimate level -'Zero level' together with 'The Children' and 'Others'. So each aspect of the drinking/obesity campains are covered by the TC blueprint.
Just for a moment let's examine TC from a product life cycle point of view. There are essentially 4 stages.
Stage 1:Introduction. This began in the 50s with early adopters.
Stage 2: Growth. This is the rapid adoption by the majority.
Stage 3: Maturation: This is an area of consolidation.
Stage 4: Decline: This is where the momentum declines.
It is arguable, though plausible, that we are in stage 3. It is at this time that new products are needed. This maybe why we are seeing TC making more exagerated claims and lean more and more towards NRT to keep the momentum going. This is also perhaps why we are seeing the new products, 'Binge Drinking', 'Obesity' in the market place. This time there is also another new product and for want of a better description it could be called 'Live and let live'.
The LandL product is still in the early adoption phase. This is frustrating. Still as more people join and the TC decline begins that momentum will swing quickly.
Other environmental factors are in play (intentional humour). The decline of PC and economic slowdown to name but two. (not to mention AGW)
The Alcohol and Obesity campaigns are using the tried and tested TC blue print. Once TC declines, it is likely these 'products' will decline with TC and so it is worth pointing out that the people supporting TC are the same as those supporting restrictions on drinking, eating etc.
What does this all mean for MPs? They are riding the life cycle wave. The wave they ride is at the maturity stage and so they are late to the party. As the wave breaks more will switch until the need to switch waves becomes obvious. The switch is tough for them, they will try and hold fast, since they were late, it takes them time to figure out that it is time to go home. They also need some weasle words to aid the switch.
It seems we are coming to this point as the challenge to the SGs report goes to show.
Just to help MPs along, poverty is one of the main causes of health inequality. Lack of freedom and control in peoples lives also contribute hugely.
So the MP who realises that TC is creating more ill health than it solves will have the edge. Indeed MPs have a moral duty to articlate this.
Just a thought, is this all really about the Baby Boomers coming to terms (or not) with there own mortality? After all they never had these restrictions and seem to have lived for ever already.
west
----
"I agree that there is too much legislation and government interference in our lives but few are actually prepared to even say that never mind do anything about it."
Michael Peoples, you might be interested in this, I'm in:
http://tinyurl.com/5d7xjy
west2. Today I have eaten a lovely Indian feast, drunk two bottles of wine and smoked extravagently (is that how you spell extravagently, it doesn't look right). It is 2.40am, and I really enjoyed reading what you said. Excellent.
Sorry Lyn. I just couldn't resist Michael Peoples' "expanding wife." Sometimes, in all this misery, a little humour peeps though.
Nothing to apologise for Idlex - I think this just shows how the smoking ban has adversely affected me in so many other ways, now being attacked by the government. I am certain I can't be the only one suffering in this way, either, so it was just an opportunity to put it across.
Cheers
Why is it considered unacceptable to 'binge drink' by the health lobbyists but ok to promote gambling by legalising the adverting of it on TV? Surely the affects of gambling addiction has a greater affect on society then a few boisterous lads out on a Saturday night?
The government seems to have double standards. Due to massive debt and the praying of the vulnerable in society by credit companies etc which has partly led to the 'credit crunch' what does the government do? Not reduce the problem by protecting the public from this but to pick on drinkers and smokers. Now we have heard of the 'passive smoking' and 'passive gambling' argument will we likely to have a 'passive gambling' argument. I'd like to know how many families have suffered do to gambling addiction.
Mike, not only the advertising of gambling on TV, etc, but the fact that many smokers now do not go out to play Bingo, as they used to, they now stay at home and play on the PC or interactive TV! As they are paying for this with credit and debit cards, instead of cold hard cash in the hand, many people will be spending far more than they realise!
I used to enjoy going to bingo, but don't go now, however I am terrified of losing control of expenditure by getting involved in online bingo!
Not only bingo, of course, but for a long time now people have also been able to bet on just about anything that bookmakers will take a bet for, online.
To me this is just so dangerous, as I say above, it is far too easy to overspend by a large amount, without realising it until it is too late. For some this just means gambling more in order to try and win back what they have lost in order to pay their debts; as we all know, this rarely, if ever, happens!
Of course, don't forget that the government get a fair bit of income from gambling, especially whilst they double tax bingo!