Nanny state on booze

[Dworkin]

Hi,

The chief medical officer of the UK Tory government has cut recommended alcohol limits for men. This was 21 units per week and was reduced (earlier this year) to 14 units per week. Why? Other European countries are far more liberal, with recommendations in most countries ranging from 21 units to 31 units per week. Why do we get the nanny state?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38466507

A sinister development is the medical officer's recent remarks on the similarity between alcohol and smoking. She says, “This plan is a great start. This is a journey. Look at tobacco.” What journey is she talking about? Prohibition?

I don't know how other people feel, but I'm sick of the nanny state telling me what I can and cannot do with my own money.

D.

[Warpy]

1. Various recommendations are issued by public health organizations

in most countries. Few have the force of law. Your nanny state argument is invalid.

[Dworkin]

2. Questions raised in the OP

Hi Warpy,

Thanks for your quick reply.

There are two substantive questions raised in the OP.

1. Why has the UK Tory government taken this line when most other European countries have much more liberal recommendations?

2. Why has the chief medical officer compared alcohol to smoking, the latter being the subject of progressively restrictive laws in the UK?

D.

[LeftishBrit]

4. Governments make health recommendations all the time...

Which are mostly ignored, except by those who would be doing/avoiding these things anyway.

There is not the slightest chance, IMO, that alcohol will be prohibited. There is already the awful warning from 1920s America of what's likely to happen if you do that; and essentially no British people, even those who disapprove of alcohol, would support prohibition.

The possible 'nanny state' danger these days is not of making alcohol, etc. illegal. It is of restricting NHS facilities, or charging for them, or denying disability payments, etc. if people are seen to be suffering from 'self-inflicted' illnesses. I don't think that even this is likely (as opposed to overall cuts in these services), but it's something we need to guard against, and the danger is not from government health recommendations, but from the more self-righteous among those who wish to cut public services anyway.

I'm obviously not Warpy, but as regards your questions, my view is:

(1) I think the difference may be at least in part due to real behavioural differences between British people and those in some other Europaean countries. Although people in some other countries may drink more frequently than the British do, the British are particularly prone to *binge-drinking*: and to basically drinking themselves under the table at any one time. Therefore, governments here may be more preoccupied with recommending limitations on how much people should drink at any one time.

(2) I think this is a reference, not to laws but to changes in public attitudes. Laws about smoking are not for the sake of the individual but for others around them, so that smoking is restricted or banned in indoor public places, but not in people's private homes, or in the street. Nevertheless, smoking is also less approved by individuals than it was in the past, due mainly to negative publicity rather than laws; so that for example many people will ask visitors not to smoke in their homes, even though it's not illegal. The government advisors are not, I am sure, planning to make binge-drinking illegal (this could never go through); but hoping to make it less fashionable and acceptable among the public.

[T_i_B]

5. I think that the way people drink is changing right now

At one end of the scale, a lot of people are staying away from pubs due to high prices and resorting to cheap supermarket booze instead.

At the other end of the scale you've got more people drinking strong, expensive beers from the likes of Wild Beer Co & Cloudwater, but in smaller quantities. The traditional thing of downing several pints in the pub after a long day at work is on the wane thanks not to the chief medical officer, but to high prices in pubs and also many of the same changes affecting much of the retail sector.

[LeftishBrit]

6. Good point!

[Dworkin]

11. Hard science

Hi Leftish,

Regarding (1).

I understand medical recommendations to be based on hard science, in this case biochemistry. Now, there are two problems.

Firstly, if there are such wide variations in medical recommendations from different countries, what is the status of the science? We might expect agreement among medical professionals, but world comparisons show the recommendations to be variable.

Secondly, how could the recommendations be based on behaviour? Surely the science comes first and then this may affect behaviour, not the other way around? If the CMO is changing a medical recommendation because of behaviour, then what's going on?Are we to assume that if there were not so many binge drinkers in the UK, then she would not have tightened the recommendation?

D.

[Warpy]

7. Gee, let me take a guess

1. It's not the Tory government, it's health professionals. The guidelines are still more generous than those in the US. However, they're guidelines, not laws. Big difference.

2. It's the job of public health officials to mitigate harm. What's excessively restrictive to people who want to smoke everywhere is protective to nonsmoikers. IOW, light that thing outside, we'll both be happier.

The UK has always tried to control alcohol consumption with varying degrees of success. The attempt in the 1700s to get rural people to switch from weak ale to tea was quite successful (you didn't have to make tea by the barrel once a week), but resulted in widespread malnutrition since the ale produced on farms was a major source of nutrition. Other attempts have been to limit pub hours and severely restrict off license terms. Neither of those have worked to decrease the havoc caused by heavy drinking. They're probably hoping guidelines will work because people over 25 who haven't completely pickled their brains will catch a clue and abide by them.

[Dworkin]

8. Alcohol

Warpy,

Regarding international comparisons:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2016/jan/08/how-do-the-uks-new-alcohol-guidelines-compare-with-the-rest-of-the-worlds

Regarding my second question. You have correctly pointed out that recommendations are not laws. However, my question is about why the CMO has compared her recommendations to laws. My suspicion is that she may have a restrictive agenda, and the comparison serves that agenda.

D.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. She didn't compare alcohol to smoking. She compared obesity to smoking.

That remark is about the sugar tax. And in Britain, 77% of men and 63% of women in middle age are overweight or obese. She is looking at the major health problem in England.

[Warpy]

10. The law is thus

If you consistently exceed the recommendations, you will run into trouble. No government intervention is on the horizon.

[Dworkin]

12. Agreed

Warpy,

Yes, I tend to agree with your historical synopsis and your allusion to the nourishing qualities of beer and other alcoholic drinks.

Of course the finger waggers have been with us at all points in history, with more or less success.

D.

[T_i_B]

3. This is what Chief Medical Officers do

Whenever the Chief Medical Officer is in the news, it's always for stuff like this. The trouble is, this is only a recomendation, which for most people counts for much less then the recomendation of a good pub selling cask ale.

[Dworkin]

13. nanny state

Hi TiB,

This CMO is also in the news for wanting to ban all diesel cars from the roads and her complaint that the term 'nanny state' is a personal sexist reference.

But, I will refrain from joining such ad hominem criticisms as others might indulge.

D.

[T_i_B]

14. Not much different to Sir Liam Donaldson then

In case you are wondering, Sir Liam Donaldson was her predecessor as chief medical officer. We heard a lot of very similar stuff from him at the time.

[Dworkin]

15. Epilogue

Hi,

As an epilogue to this thread I visited my GP recently.

She said "The recommendation was 21 units and it is moving more towards 14 units."

What a nice bit of diplomacy! As a result I might "move more towards" drinking a bit less.

D.