I heard on the radio this morning (Radio 2) that someone has published findings in the Lancet that shows that as many people die from alcohol as from smoking, and recommends that the availability of alcohol be restricted more.

No smoking in pubs, and soon no drinking either, the future looks fun.

Hmmm read between the lines, not all as it seems to be.

An excess of almost anything is bad. Do we really need more restrictive legislation though?

Originally posted by nick2
No smoking in pubs, and soon no drinking either, the future looks fun.

I'm concerned how people in the 'West' describe smoking, drinking and gambling as 'fun'.

There are plenty of other things to do on a weekend :)

Yep, but a lot of people choose to have a drink, smoke or bet.

Originally posted by hotphil
Yep, but a lot of people choose to have a drink, smoke or bet.

I managed to get down to one bad habit now they want me to cut down on that too! :rant:

Originally posted by hotphil
Yep, but a lot of people choose to have a drink, smoke or bet.

And what if these things were taken away? Would they be upset? If so, would you consider them to have a dependancy?

Gambling I don't have too much of a problem with (in moderation) as it doesn't hurt them (unless obviously they get so badly in debt they can't feed themselves or their family or it leads to crime) where as smoking and drinking physically harms you.

Originally posted by Abdul
And what if these things were taken away? Would they be upset? If so, would you consider them to have a dependancy?

If they banned Sky TV I would be upset, but I don't consider I have an addiction.

I just get fed up with the government taking away peoples' right to choose! :rant: Whether people enjoy a drink socially, or end up getting liver cirrhosis, it's still up to them. The government should warn people of the risks, and then let them get on and make up their own minds!

K x

I heard this on the news this morning and it annoyed me a bit actually.

I drink and smoke in moderation, but I don't see how beer can be more damaging. What they don't seem to have taken into account is the damage smoking does to other people. Whoever heard of anyone dying from the affects of passive drinking?

Originally posted by Abdul
And what if these things were taken away? Would they be upset? If so, would you consider them to have a dependancy?

what kind of argument is that.
If you enjoy playing monopoly and that was banned you'd be upset, does that imply an addiction to monopoly?

There have been several articles recently on how beer is good for you as well (well, one on beer specifically, and the others we already know about re:red wine). Apparently beer has ingredients which reduce the chance of certain cancers.
Alcohol does amongst other things reduce the risk of heart disease and make you smarter.

Was the article in the Lancet referring to people who are addicted to alcohol, rather than people who drink in moderation? The key difference between alcohol and smoking is that alcohol is dangerous in excess, whereas smoking is dangerous full stop.

Originally posted by JBee
Whoever heard of anyone dying from the affects of passive drinking?

Please, please let there be passive drinking!

Originally posted by Cyclone
Was the article in the Lancet referring to people who are addicted to alcohol, rather than people who drink in moderation?

They just said the same number of people die from both, thats all I heard.

Originally posted by cgksheff
Please, please let there be passive drinking!

you just want to be able to hang around in a pub all evening and come out drunk without having to buy a drink. :clap:

Originally posted by Cyclone
you just want to be able to hang around in a pub all evening and come out drunk without having to buy a drink. :clap:

stand near me, i gurantee you will not leave sobre ;)

I know folk who do that already!!

Originally posted by cgksheff
Please, please let there be passive drinking!

You know what would happen if there was :

"I don't drink and I think it's disgusting that I have to passively drink other peoples beer, I come home reeking of beer and feeling dizzy, not to mention the dmamage it's doing to my kidneys. It should be banned in public".

Originally posted by nick2
You know what would happen if there was :

"I don't drink and I think it's disgusting that I have to passively drink other peoples beer, I come home reeking of beer and feeling dizzy, it should be banned in public".

To which we can reply

"shut up you wino, you're clearly p*ssed as a fart at the moment".

You would walk into a pub and all the tight gits would just be stood around waiting for you to buy a pint, I'd get a pint of Coke just to spite them.

I'm not really this fat.

It's "Passive Cellulite"!

I would say that alchohol is a lot more dangerous and damaging than smoking, there are many times that alchohol has rolled a speeding car, smashed up some ones face or even murdered some one, smoking doesnt really do these things, but cancer makes people think that smoking does more harm.

Not that I like smoking, I think smoking should be phased out, all people who smoke now should be given a permit to buy tobbaco products, and any one who doesnt have a permit cannot buy cigs.

The permit would be given out for six month and any one who doesnt have one by then, bad luck.

Tobbaco and alchohol are the first stepping stones to the drug world and we all know where that can lead.

Ban the lot.

I think here you are talking about direct and indirect effects - alcohol doesn't make people get into cars and kill people or get into fights - it does however reduce your inhibitions. Alcohol (in moderation) has many positive effects - hence recomendations that everyone have a glass or two of red wine a day. Smoking on the other hand has no beneficial effects and has a direct influence on the helth of people in the immediate locale.

The problem appears to be not so much one of alcohol = bad but more one of british attitiude towards alcohol (i.e. it is a good thing to go out and get drunk regularly) = bad. I'm not a major drinker in any way shape or form but I do enjoy the odd drink while out with a group of people or with a meal and I hope no-one decides to try and ban that!

you appear to be confused. Alcohol can't drive a car, fight or murder people.
People do these things, and people are responsible for them.

Just because some people aren't capable of doing something in moderation you'd ban it for everyone?

Some people fight, murder and crash cars without alcohol. So maybe we should ban cars altogether? Ban contact between people (solving fights and murders), anything else you'd like to ban? Eating fatty foods, not doing enough exercise, watching too much tv, how about tennis, I find it boring, lets ban it.

Originally posted by jonsastar
I would say that alchohol is a lot more dangerous and damaging than smoking, there are many times that alchohol has rolled a speeding car, smashed up some ones face or even murdered some one, smoking doesnt really do these things, but cancer makes people think that smoking does more harm.

Not that I like smoking, I think smoking should be phased out, all people who smoke now should be given a permit to buy tobbaco products, and any one who doesnt have a permit cannot buy cigs.

The permit would be given out for six month and any one who doesnt have one by then, bad luck.

Tobbaco and alchohol are the first stepping stones to the drug world and we all know where that can lead.

Ban the lot.

If people did things in moderation and loked after their bodies and their environment,there would not be such a burden on the NHS.
Surely this has to be taken in to account

Originally posted by espadrille
If people did things in moderation and loked after their bodies and their environment,there would not be such a burden on the NHS.
Surely this has to be taken in to account

It is. Thats why the government put so much tax on tobacco, supposedly to pay for the NHS (though having seen a lot of hospitals I'm not convinced thats where its going!).

And if you smoke and need an operation for a smoking related issue, e.g. unblocking veins in your leg you are told to give up. If you don't and the operation needs repeating, most surgeons won't do it, and you lose your leg.

Originally posted by Cyclone
There have been several articles recently on how beer is good for you as well (well, one on beer specifically, and the others we already know about re:red wine). Apparently beer has ingredients which reduce the chance of certain cancers.
Alcohol does amongst other things reduce the risk of heart disease and make you smarter.

I take a dim view of this argument.

I very much doubt that alcohol is good for you in [i]any /i]quantity.

A glass of red wine may aid digestion, but I would espect that is due to the effects of the grapes rather than the alcohol.

And as for alcohol making you smarter...since it's Friday night, why do you walk through the City Centre and provide us with some first hand statistics?

Just try not to get into a fight this time Cyclone.

Originally posted by Cyclone
you appear to be confused. Alcohol can't drive a car, fight or murder people.
People do these things, and people are responsible for them.

Just because some people aren't capable of doing something in moderation you'd ban it for everyone?

Some people fight, murder and crash cars without alcohol. So maybe we should ban cars altogether? Ban contact between people (solving fights and murders), anything else you'd like to ban? Eating fatty foods, not doing enough exercise, watching too much tv, how about tennis, I find it boring, lets ban it.


Very mature reaction.

I guess that all the bad that comes from using heroin is ok then,

because its the people addicted to heroin thats the problem and not heroin.:loopy:

Yes, a person who has never drunk beer in their life can crash a car... but the point is that you are much more likely to do it when you're drunk than when you're not because it effects your thought processes, your reaction times and so on.

Sorry but IMHO smoking and drinking alcohol go into the same category... dumb :loopy:

Also, I'm with Abdul on the "wine being good for you " issue - I imagine it's down to the other elements in wine (such as the grapes) and not the alcoholic content.

Originally posted by Abdul
I take a dim view of this argument.

I very much doubt that alcohol is good for you in [i]any /i]quantity.

A glass of red wine may aid digestion, but I would espect that is due to the effects of the grapes rather than the alcohol.

And as for alcohol making you smarter...since it's Friday night, why do you walk through the City Centre and provide us with some first hand statistics?

Just try not to get into a fight this time Cyclone.

lol, in the last 10 years of going out i've been involved in a fight twice, both times started by people other than myself and both times i'd rather not have been involved in it.

You clearly haven't read the details regarding red wine. it is the alcohol that is beneficial, not anything to do with grapes. The alcohol causes you to relax, which lowers your blood pressure and reduces stress on your heart.
The other study I referred too studied a large number of civil servants. No attempt was made to determine cause and effect, but more intelligent (by western psychoanalytical measurements) people in the study had a correlation with a higher intake of alcohol. they aren't smarter when they are drinking, they are smarter the rest of the time. As I say, cause and effect was not established, so maybe smart people just need the release of being drunk more...
And finally, beer has been shown (in mice anyway) to reduce the risk of colon and prostate cancer. Although to be fair, this isn't the alcohol, alcohol free beer has the same benefits.

No, heroin is pysically addictive, as is nicotine, alcohol is not (or so barely that it's not worth mentioning), caffeine is also highly physically addictive, but the withdrawal symptoms are mild.
Heroin is so dangerous because of the extreme high (which means its psychologically very addictive), it's extreme physical addictive properties and it's extreme withdrawal symptoms.
My point stands, alcohol use does not cause the affects you allude too, alcohol misuse might, but at the end of the day, people cause those things and would carry on in some cases to do so irrespective of alcohol.

Originally posted by craigb
Yes, a person who has never drunk beer in their life can crash a car... but the point is that you are much more likely to do it when you're drunk than when you're not because it effects your thought processes, your reaction times and so on.

Sorry but IMHO smoking and drinking alcohol go into the same category... dumb :loopy:

Also, I'm with Abdul on the "wine being good for you " issue - I imagine it's down to the other elements in wine (such as the grapes) and not the alcoholic content.

which is why most people don't drive whilst drinking, it is illegal you know.
Driving with my eyes closed would also be dangerous, maybe we should ban eyelids?
Your argument is very poor, ban drinking because someone might break the law and drive and thus cause an accident. How about banning pain medication and hayfever tablets, they cause drowsiness and it's illegal to drive whilst taking them (only certain types I know). Or do we trust that most people are responible enough to not drive when falling asleep?

Originally posted by Cyclone
which is why most people don't drive whilst drinking, it is illegal you know.
Driving with my eyes closed would also be dangerous, maybe we should ban eyelids?
Your argument is very poor, ban drinking because someone might break the law and drive and thus cause an accident. How about banning pain medication and hayfever tablets, they cause drowsiness and it's illegal to drive whilst taking them (only certain types I know). Or do we trust that most people are responible enough to not drive when falling asleep?
LOL - you wanna talk about poor arguments... banning eyelids?! :rolleyes:

Firstly - they are phyically part of you and a vital part of your body, so banning them would be moronic.

Secondly, it's not the closing your eyes thats the problem... it's the fact that doing that makes you unable to see and hence react properly.

With alcohol it's different as the alcohol itself physically alters the way your body is working (especially the brain) and inhibits your ability to drive.

As for medication, yes driving after taking those is illegal as it too impares your ability to drive. The difference is they have a positive and useful effect on the body when used correctly (eg not when you're about to drive), where as alcohol has only negative ones, such as damaging your body, inhibiting your brain from working properly, and causing general stupidity.

Craig wins. :heyhey:

did you just ignore the points in my posts that you didn't like?

alcohol does not only have negative effects.

reduction ad absurdum (take an argument to it's extreme), although i might have chosen a better example if i thought about it a bit more. But closing my eyes you will admit impaires my driving?

We are off topic though, drinking is less harmful (in moderation) than smoking. In excess drinking is probably more harmful.
To society I think it might be difficult to quantify, but part of this is the british way of drinking, rather than drinking itself.

<coughs>
Yeah we have kinda drifted off topic and I would definately agree that smoking is much more dangerous than alcohol, as that damages people around you not just yourself.

If people want to smoke/drink/drug themselves to death let them, it's called natural selection/survival of the fittest (or in this case, less dumb). :cool:

The point I was arguing was that alcohol is bad for you, especially given that moderation doesn't seem to be a concept most people who drink seem to be able to grasp these days.

What I DID say was that drinking is as stupid as smoking.

What I NEVER said was that I agreed with banning drink, as I don't (see 2nd paragraph), but you jumped down my throat so damn quickly that I felt the urge to defend my right to my opinion.

It was me who said ban drinking.

I dont think it would do any good though, may be there should be some refinements in the law though, may be raise the legal drink age to twentyone.

I dont know what the cost of policing on a weekend costs but I think that the law doesnt spend so much time near pubs and clubs because they like it, although I think they tend to cause trouble with drunks because they know its an easy pinch.

I have drank my fill of beer and smoked my fill of cigs, I also knew people who have died because of both.

I believe that both lead to worse things and can cause allot of sadness.

I also know that hangovers are like a day in hell, and that they can not be good for you.

And beer obviously makes people argue with stupid reasoning from some of the for arguements Ive read today.

I was responding to Jonastar I think, your post just came before my response.

Beer is not the cause of my arguments today, I've only just started drinking, and had less than a pint so far (none at all when we started this ding dong).

I would love to see you provide some evidence that either smoking or drinking lead to anything more harmful, I doubt you can provide any though.

Craig - Alcohol is good for you, in moderation. Therefore drinking per se is not dumb. It also makes social occasions easier which whilst not a measurable physical benefit, it's a benefit none the less, so another reason it's not dumb.

I expect that once all the people who are out at the moment recover from hangovers tomorrow I will have a little more support in this thread :P

Originally posted by Cyclone
II would love to see you provide some evidence that either smoking or drinking lead to anything more harmful, I doubt you can provide any though.
:P

I cant provide proof that drinking and smoking lead to drug abuse, but smoking is the first step to giving in to peer pressure (every one thought there first fag was disgusting but had another) from there we go to marijuana which a peer is smoking or says it is good, and because we smoke it seems ok to have a drag, next thing you know your smoking ganja,(which we know is an illegal drug) so the next thing we know our peers have had an E or LSD or amphetamines, do you see the chain.

And beer is ok because me dad drinks and me mum and me nan and grandad, but the first drink we have is most likely illegal and underage, same as the smoking was probably underage and illegal but it is the first step to breaking the law and towards useing drugs, that can lead eventually to a hard drug.

Craigb

I do not see drug abuse as natural selection because it somthing that is introduced into the food chain and is used for fun at first, but children are still had by drug addicts, so natural selection it isnt.

Originally posted by Cyclone
Craig - Alcohol is good for you, in moderation. Therefore drinking per se is not dumb. It also makes social occasions easier which whilst not a measurable physical benefit, it's a benefit none the less, so another reason it's not dumb.
OK - well I'm out... as I've (repeatedly) stated it is MY OPINION that drinking is TO ME a stupid thing to do and I choose not to do it, but I am not one to continously try and discuss something with someone when they refuse to even acknoledge your point of view.

I do not have anything against people who drink, I have had plenty of freinds in the past (and still do) who did drink and it was never an issue, in the same way that someone believing in God, doing drugs and so on aren't an issue either - just because I don't agree with it doesn't mean other people aren't allowed to do it... as long as they respect my choice as I have theirs.

The only one that I would say is potentially a problem is smoking, as if they smoke around me it harms me too and that is disrespectful to my choice, but as long as they don't smoke around me the world is ok :)

Beer contains massive amounts of the femail hormones Oestogen & Progesterone :suspect: added by breweries...

Look at the chronic effects logically:

You drink lots of beer regularly over many years; right?
You grow boobies, get a big fat butt and, worse still
when you've had a particularly heavy session

you talk absolute crap.

:thumbsup: I rest my case :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:

Originally posted by Don_Kiddick
You drink lots of beer regularly over many years; right?
You grow boobies, get a big fat butt
That's when you eat too much as well mate. there's plenty of people who I know who drink double the safe alcohol limit and are as thin as rakes, in their 40s. Don't confuse beerguts with going - to - the - chippy - every - night - on - the - way - home - from - the - pub guts.

Originally posted by jonsastar
there are many times that alchohol has rolled a speeding car,
That's not an argument for banning Beer, it's an argument for banning speeding cars.

smashed up some ones face or even murdered some one
That's all about agressive people who have mental problems, losing control with too much alcohol

Smoking doesnt really do these things, but cancer makes people think that smoking does more harm.

Well I know far more people who have died due to smoking than alcohol related problems. I am related to a dozen older people who had heart attacks or cancer due to smoking. And I don't know anyone who has a smashed face which is due to drinking or murdered.

This survey is not of a typical British population. There are many disinfranchised ethnic groups around the world like the Aboriginal Austrailians and Some of the Native American and Native South American Populations who are drinking themselves to death because they have no life, or property due to their slavery due to the white settlers who have taken over their homeland and left them to die. In addition, there are areas of eastern Europe where people make home made liquor from potatoes which causes them serious health problems like sterility and eyesight problems.
These peoples' experiences are far from anything which is existance in sheffield, they are skewing these results terribly and therefore we should take it with more enlightened and worldwide flavour. Beer is generally a pleasure for 99% of beer drinking population.

just as predicted in a previous posting - when they're finished with us smokers, it'll be the drinkers, then the drivers.

soon the pubs will be a sterile environment, selling non alocholic drinks and we'll all be walking to work.

The Star - "Booze is just as bad as smoking" - "related to 60 medical conditions including breast cancer and heart disease".

Maybe after this report they won't have to ban smoking in pubs after all because all those that are so concerned about passive smoking will no longer drink.


At the end of the day we will all try to defend our own bad habits whilst condeming others whose habits we do not have.

Smokers may pollute the air but so do car drivers.

Do we all really want to live in a sterile cocoon until we're 110 or get on with living in the real world.

By the way, when a total ban is imposed on smoking in pubs, and many of us stop smoking altogether, where is the extra tax going to come from that the Government won't be getting? - probably booze, - till of course they ban that too.

Well done Sally.
I for one agree with the cutting down of smoking in pubs. 3/4 of the population are non smokers, and most of them dont go to pubs because of it. Unless we get more people in pubs especially midweek, because of not stinking of smoke afterwards, then the dissappearence of pubs will continue to accelerate. That is bad.

Originally posted by muddycoffee
That's when you eat too much as well mate. there's plenty of people who I know who drink double the safe alcohol limit and are as thin as rakes, in their 40s. Don't confuse beerguts with going - to - the - chippy - every - night - on - the - way - home - from - the - pub guts.
Shhhhhh! :suspect: it was a joke.... :thumbsup:

you miss a key difference. Smoking wouldn't bother me one jot, if it didn't harm me as well.. But as someone said earlier, there's no such thing as passive drinking.

Originally posted by sally_sheff
just as predicted in a previous posting - when they're finished with us smokers, it'll be the drinkers, then the drivers.

soon the pubs will be a sterile environment, selling non alocholic drinks and we'll all be walking to work.

The Star - "Booze is just as bad as smoking" - "related to 60 medical conditions including breast cancer and heart disease".

Maybe after this report they won't have to ban smoking in pubs after all because all those that are so concerned about passive smoking will no longer drink.


At the end of the day we will all try to defend our own bad habits whilst condeming others whose habits we do not have.

Smokers may pollute the air but so do car drivers.

Do we all really want to live in a sterile cocoon until we're 110 or get on with living in the real world.

By the way, when a total ban is imposed on smoking in pubs, and many of us stop smoking altogether, where is the extra tax going to come from that the Government won't be getting? - probably booze, - till of course they ban that too.

It is now fact that drinking is equally as harmful as smoking.

If we are to get into discussions about what is harming others then the list is endless.

This thread has yet again given the anti smoking brigade another opportunity to condemn the smokers, which brings me back to the point that many will condone their own harmful habits whilst quick to condemn others.

Do you drive? - if so then you are heavily polluting those around you and the atmosphere and damaging the ozone layer. I don't see many giving up their vehicles in consideration of others.

Having said that I smoke, I drink and I drive but make no excuses.

I am sure a ban in all public places is imminent and when this happens then I will make a big effort to give up cigarettes - I am sure then without the smokers to target the emphasis will then be on the drinkers. Quote from the Star "an estimated 10% increase in alcohol prices in Britain would cut cirrhoisis deaths by 7% in men and 8.3% in women). Remember, this is how the government justified the huge tax hikes in cigarettes, for the sake of our health. Could it be that the government are now losing out on tax revenue of cigarettes and are now beginning to offset this by justifying tax hikes on drink?

Originally posted by nick2
I heard on the radio this morning (Radio 2) that someone has published findings in the Lancet that shows that as many people die from alcohol as from smoking, and recommends that the availability of alcohol be restricted more.

No smoking in pubs, and soon no drinking either, the future looks fun.

When I see things like this I wonder if the real reason is pandering to the other 'cultures' who frown upon alcohol. :(

One gets the impression we must adjust to their ways but they have done so little to adapt to the ways of the host country.

according to who? We don't have the details of what the lancet article said, so I hope you're not basing your statement on that.

Originally posted by teeb
It is now fact that drinking is equally as harmful as smoking.

If we are to get into discussions about what is harming others then the list is endless.

This thread has yet again given the anti smoking brigade another opportunity to condemn the smokers, which brings me back to the point that many will condone their own harmful habits whilst quick to condemn others.

Do you drive? - if so then you are heavily polluting those around you and the atmosphere and damaging the ozone layer. I don't see many giving up their vehicles in consideration of others.

Having said that I smoke, I drink and I drive but make no excuses.

I am sure a ban in all public places is imminent and when this happens then I will make a big effort to give up cigarettes - I am sure then without the smokers to target the emphasis will then be on the drinkers. Quote from the Star "an estimated 10% increase in alcohol prices in Britain would cut cirrhoisis deaths by 7% in men and 8.3% in women). Remember, this is how the government justified the huge tax hikes in cigarettes, for the sake of our health. Could it be that the government are now losing out on tax revenue of cigarettes and are now beginning to offset this by justifying tax hikes on drink?

I suppose if you ate too many turnips it would be bad for you

Despite the fact that people are living longer and longer and despite the fact that we are spending more on Health than ever before ,this is not the time to get complacent !
We are all doomed unless we ban things that could possibly shorten our lives. Trillions of pounds is still needed by the Government and Public Health Organisations to help and inform the Great British Public of the perils all around us.
It is quite obvious that anything in excess can lead to a complete collapse , mental and physical and the government MUST provide guidelines about what is excessive .
Anything above these guidelines will be banned immediately.
How can people reach targets , attend co-ordination meetings , analyse data , get in touch with their feelings , go for invigorating excercise in gyms or help the Developing World , if they spend all their time and money , smoking cigarettes [ugh!] , slurping back endless alcoholic drinks and gossiping in pubs all day , on top of stuffing big cream cakes and so forth down their throats ? Plus , driving round in cars all the time !
Something must be done and done quickly and Mr. Prescott , for one , is the man to do it .

yeah we are all doomed - do you really think you're gonna live forever?

Unfortunately it is inevitable that we are gonne die whether you take long walks, stop smoking, etc etc.

Life is for living - enjoy!

Originally posted by nick2
I heard on the radio this morning (Radio 2) that someone has published findings in the Lancet that shows that as many people die from alcohol as from smoking, and recommends that the availability of alcohol be restricted more.

No smoking in pubs, and soon no drinking either, the future looks fun.

When I hear comments like this from the medical profession I always have a chuckle. Having been married into the medical profession I can honstly say that doctors consume more than their fair share of the stuff. :heyhey: