Probably the biggest factor in the US is the car culture. People feel the need to get fucking every by car. So drinking in bars is kind of problematic in the US, because the patrons typically have to drive home.
I don’t hate smokers but I do consider their habit to be a health risk to themselves, to those passively exposed, and a significant cost to us all. Smoking should be discouraged; quitting encouraged. It has been … with pretty good results.
I don’t hate those who eat crap and don’t exercise but I recognize that those behaviors are major public health issues and expenses. Eating healthier and exercising regularly are to be encouraged. Major campaigns in the U.S. to encourage such, especially to prevent obesity before it starts in childhood, are appropriate, are being done, and have shown signs of having positive impact. The U.K. probably should be investing more there.
Excess drinking is the same. I don’t hate drunks (unless they are “ugly drunks”) but routine binge drinking is a public health issue of significance and should be addressed, not just a private matter.
Yes, btw, obesity related issues cost the U.K. more - about £47 billion a year compared to about £20 billion a year from excess alcohol.
But it is still up there.
This has to do with the drinking culture as defined by the OP how?
Or just the usual incorrect trash talk against AA that seems to be presented by the usual uninformed that jump on any thread about drinking? at any thread about drinking?
You have the page number where the big book says these things? I contend that is does not say it. Neither is it a definition of ‘functional’ alcoholic nor you assertion that ‘dry drunk’ is defined as that.
There is only 164 pages, should be easy to quote anything along with its context. :rolleyes:
No person speaks for AA nor has any authority to make any changes. :smack:
Bawahahaha
You may be on to something here. My current home is the very first where I’ve been able to easily walk to a bar. Taxis are expensive, and the buses don’t always run when and where you need them. I’m not inputting the right terms to see what percent of the population lives within walking distance.
I realize I’d live more years if I didn’t consume alcohol, if I ate a better diet, if I had more regular sleeping patterns, etc. I, however, have made an educated decision to choose quality over quantity of life. I’m happy with my choice.
And as with a smokers who have made similar “educated” decisions, and those who eat pretty much exclusively crap and do not exercise, you are free to make any and all of those very similar “educated” choices. I am not saying you cannot. Your freedom to chose outweighs the impact it has on the rest of us, mostly.
Still when someone asks “what’s the harm?” or claims there is none … a response is indicated. If someone is asking why someone who gets drunk regularly, who comes into work regularly hung-over, is viewed by many around here as having a problem … pointing out the huge societal and odds are personal harms is called for.
Did you know that alcoholic liver disease is the second most common indication for liver transplantation? Did you know that women who drink two or more drinks a day have a 50% increased risk of breast cancer? The list is long.
No one in this thread by the way is promoting a zero tolerance policy. This isn’t AA-think. It’s the difference between moderate consumption, say up to 1 drink per day for women and up to 2 drinks per day for men (associated with all sorts of positive outcomes), and more than that, especially getting drunk, especially with regularity, what is being described as “drinking culture” by the op, and is considered likely problem drinking by many of the rest of us, even if it is commonly done within a particular community. Ireland has been raised as a heavy drinking land … costs to others in Ireland are substantial, more than one out four people having negative impacts because of others’ excess drinking and many being impacted at work by those who are heavy drinkers not being able to adequately do their jobs. How much does that add up to in money costs? “The total cost of €3.7 billion represented 1.9% of GDP in Ireland …”
So make your “educated choice”, enjoy being a drunk, don’t worry, be happy, enjoy the cancer and liver failure that is more likely part of your future quality of life, you are free to do so … just don’t attempt to fool yourself or insult the rest of us by claiming that it isn’t harming anyone.
TLDR- Most of the common knowledge about the costs of unhealthy behaviors are based on gross cost numbers not net costs. The story can be markedly different than the common knowledge.
Some bolding added because that’s the common knowledge and the commonly cited numbers. The bandied about numbers generally are gross cost. They don’t include the positive social benefits to determine the net cost of the behavior. A news story that points at a couple studies related to smoking here and a more recent study.. ISTR a northern European based study that include a proxy for diet/exercise related to cardiovascular health in addition to smoking. Both bad habits showed similar results, but I don’t have the link anymore. **Those unhealthy choices actually tend to be a net savings to society. ** The second link does include a monetary factor for the years of life lost. I have a hard time defining that one as an externality for society. Fortunately the study breaks it out separately.
The smoker gives up €204k worth of life to contribute €134k as a net benefit to society. Health care costs actually go down for smokers across their lifetime - it costs more per year but for fewer years. There’s still good solid reason to encourage people to make sound choices (so they get the benefit of extra life.) It’s not the direct dip in to everyone’s wallet the gross cost estimate makes it out as though. Sitting on the couch with a box of Twinkies and a carton of Marlboro Reds would help Medicare and Social Security budgets. They call economics the dismal science for a reason. 
Alcohol might a different case with some pretty serious externalities (drunk driving crashes, violence, etc). It’s also a potential interesting mixed effect because there can be some health benefits from moderate use. From this review of the literature in 2009 most of the studies are gross cost not net cost though. That tells us a lot about what number is bandied about. It doesn’t tell us much about whether it’s a net cost to society though.
I put it in context if you read all my posts. AA is the stepchild of temperance and has an enormous cultural/legal/perceived influence on alcohol use in the US.
Since the AA boosters never hesitate to jump in and the discussion almost invariably sucks in AA-speak (just as it did above, which is what I was directly addressing), I don’t see why a contrarian viewpoint should bother you in the least. Touchy about something?
I’m not quite sure how you mean that… but it’s not an argument in your favor. AA is a pseudo-religion, handed down by its prophet, based on jackleg psych and Calvinist theology, subject to no review or valid clinical/scientific critique or feedback, and absolutely proud of every one of these characteristics. That like any religion it “works” for some is not a point in its favor; no one knows how many more it does not work for, and how many other valid approaches to control of alcohol it suppresses by positioning itself as the sole, go-to “solution.”
AA is exactly akin to the religious/moral abstinence movement in birth control, especially in that its founding tenets are absolute and unchallengeable.
I’ve heard the smoking bit before … because smokers tend to die young and often without prolonged illnesses (sudden cardiac deaths) they end up not costing society very much. The argument goes that from society’s POV you want people to die suddenly just as they finish paying taxes in and before they start to pull money out. Killing people suddenly just before they retire therefore is “a good thing.” People living long lives, either with some health services or even just pulling out from SSA, is “a bad thing” in that analysis.
Now drinking to excess (again, explicitly noted, not discussing moderate drinking here) is not such a circumstance. A large number of the deaths are in young adults … society has just finished investing in them and now they are killed off before they start to pay taxes back in … and many of the illnesses are prolonged and expensive ones such as cancers and liver disease. Lost productivity is also substantial. But yes some needlessly early deaths save the system some money - and your cite lists that net costs may be “12.5-14.5% lower than the gross cost estimation.” Feel free to modify the cost estimates with an up to 14.5% reduction and do not place any dollar value on quality years of life lost (QALY). The number is now “only” 1.6% of Ireland’s GDP. Sorry, still huge.
You’ll excuse my not believing your uncited claim regarding the net costs of obesity and it is immaterial to this discussion anyway.
Thank you. Cheers!
Has anybody ever tallied up the costs of everybody doing their best to prolong their lives by all means—not drinking (or drinking the beneficial 1/2 drink/day), not smoking, eating healthily, exercizing regularly—and as a consequence, living to a hundred (or however long you could reasonably expect to live in such a situation), while quitting the workforce at 65 (or thereabouts)? Increase of average age in a population is generally a severe economic drain, so maybe we should actually be encouraging an unhealthy lifestyle (at least from an economical point of view).
ETA: Sorry, hadn’t refreshed the page; I see there’s some numbers above. Still wondering about the general case, however.
And we’re back to the temperance/AA/anti-alcohol culture influence again: we’ve had it pounded into us that “drinking alone” is a B.A.D. thing, to be avoided at all costs because it means you’re an out-of-control closet drunk in denial.
So get in your car and go drink socially, like a respectable citizen. And then… :rolleyes:
If the choices were teetotalism/very infrequent social drinking and “being a drunk,” you might have a point. There is little evidence that even moderate-heavy drinking - as separate from addictive drinking or alcoholism, and no, they are NOT the same thing* - has any particularly high personal or social cost, as long as the drinker has sense to avoid things like driving or dangerous tasks while impaired.
- Recent CDC study: what percentage of “heavy” drinkers (35+ drinks per week) met DSM V standards for alcoholism?
10%.
Half Man Half Wit, there have been efforts I have read to calculate it, and vigorous debates about assumptions chosen.
How healthy are the people who are living longer? Are they working longer as well? What will be health care costs in the future?
Obesity (or the poor nutrition and lack of exercise correlated with it) has less impact on life expectancy than on quality of life - obese people often live almost as long but they are much more likely to be living with significant disability, both physical and cognitive, and much more likely to be major drains on the system during those years.
OTOH someone who at 65 is fit both physically and cognitively may very well delay retirement. A problem for the following generations as well as jobs don’t open up, but not a drain on resources if the number of years in the workforce paying into SSA and being on the tax rolls increases while the actual number of years living retired and taking out does not by as much. In fact the average age of retirement has been gradually and consistently creeping up. Average retirement age has crept up by 3 years over the past ten or so years; expected additional years of life expected for someone who has made it to 65 has over the same time period has moved up by only 1.5 years. So in net on average living longer but living fewer years retired.
In point of fact those obese when young and middle aged are more likely to retire earlier secondary to health issues. Given the expenses of caring for those with dementia the costs of those years retired early due to disability may be very high indeed. Eat healthier and exercise regularly and those costs are avoided.
The numbers associated with alcohol overuse have already been reviewed: they don’t die at the “best” (from a cost to the system perspective) time and inexpensively enough to anywhere near offset the extra costs they impose. As with obesity, high alcohol consumption is also correlated with early retirement (as is symptomatic depression, and well, just being unhealthy).
A.B. in fact you are wrong, as already cited. The evidence is deep and solid. There is a steep rise in health risks once people get beyond “moderate” alcohol consumption levels. Addictive drinking and alcoholism is not required, albeit they carry their own costs. Breast cancer rates for women go up by 50% even for moderately heavy drinking, just 2 drinks a day. That is not being a drunk or an alcoholic. Likewise for other issues like dementia - moderate consumption 1 to 6 drinks a week is associated with the lowest risk, less than half of that of those who completely abstain, while more than 2 drinks a day (moderately heavy) is associated with a risk 22% higher than abstainers and nearly three times as high as those who have the 1 to 6 drinks a week. Similar impacts for liver disease: “The nadir of the estimated relative risk of developing liver disease was observed at an alcohol intake of 1 to 6 beverages per week, and above this level a steep increase in relative risk was observed.”
Seriously, don’t just make shit up.
Cheers!
snerk That is an absolute gem of an intellectual put down and insulting reply aimed at me that contains not one verifiable fact. You make statements as fact that can not be proven in anyway except opinion.
No way can I out talk you and make those kinds of great sentences in rebuttal. You write much better than I can. That does not make you correct. Yet you have zero proof of your opinion having any substance.
Your last sentence is a very good example of the lack of knowledge you have about AA in particular and shows your opinion is flawed by what they actually print in the Big Book.
I will not get into a discussion with someone who has no or very limited knowledge about AA, addiction in general & apparently no experience with AA other than maybe one or two visits to an open meeting or know someone who could not get sober with AA. Many can get sober in different ways, church, meditation, sitting on a stump, prison, and AA never has said that it is the only way to get sober nor put down any thing that worked for any others.
Hope you never have to find out how wrong you are.
I have been here a while & I have never seen you post about AA, addiction, anything doing with drinking that had one fact in it. It is nothing but opinion.
Denial is not proof. Opinions as wrong as yours cause only grief for those that are trying every thing they can to improve their life.
One other thing, one of the original members of AA was an atheist and in my 23+ years of sobriety I know probably 100 more that are long time sober members of AA. AA does not require a belief in a God or spiritual higher power.
It just believes from years of experience that an alcoholic who really wants to get sober needs to admit truthfully that they can’t control their drinking and are ready to try the AA suggestions. Or those of any other program. Not even this is a requirement. There is NO requirement for being a member of AA. You are a member when you say you are.
I’m out. You have a locked mind on this subject. IMO. 
You’re right, I’m wrong. Bad edit. I meant to say that the individual choice to drink is not necessarily an issue for anyone but the person choosing to drink. Alcohol, like many GRAS dietary items, has downsides proportional to its intake.
As long as someone knows the risks and is prepared to deal with the consequences, there’s no argument against letting them drink.
Gus, argue all you like. I am quite familiar with AA from a number of close friends and relatives, and from what very little research ever has been done despite the we’re-not-an-org’s resistance to any form of study or analysis.
If it works for you, fine. If you don’t mind basing your life on amateur psych that’s never been validated except by its self-elected champions, power to ya.
I’ve seen too many people actively hurt by pervasive “AA think” and its disproportionate influence to listen to its preachings - and those of its disciples - at every turn without noting that it no more represents “the” cure than Jews for Jesus represents all Abrahamic religion.
With the exception that most religionists are more tolerant of criticism than AA’ers.
A.B., a person can drink without then driving impaired and a person can drink and not ever have that drinking cause them to come into work impaired the next day.
It is however just a plain simple truth that the consequences of heavy drinking, be it binge drinking or regular heavy consumption, are routinely borne not by drinkers as a group alone, even if the drinkers are the ones with the largest consequence. What part of those economic impacts, that are paid for by all of the rest of us, do you not get? The claim that heavy drinking causes no harm other than to drinkers alone is simply false.
That fact is not provoking anyone in this thread to argue for Prohibition; no one argues here against “letting them drink.” Just against the specious argument that a bias against heavy consumption is being “very uptight” and “overconcerned.” I’m willing to pay my share of drinkers’ medical costs and live with the knowledge that my share will need to all the larger because they will, on a statistical basis, not be paying in as long as I will and will be taking much more out. I don’t expect thanks either. But I won’t pretend that heavy drinking is not a problem or not something that impacts me. It is both. I don’t view it as a personal failing but I do think that society cannot ignore it as an issue of concern either.
The attitude expressed on these boards, that getting drunk with regularity is not normative, that showing up to work hung-over may represent a serious problem, that not remembering what happened while you had been drinking is a serious issue, is not reflective of AA’s influence on American society. This is more the medical establishment’s awareness of the risks and costs associated with greater than moderate consumption, which is viewed in many quarters there to be so great as to make many shy away from encouraging moderate consumption (which at least is associated with decreased health risks and costs) out fear that a few will overshoot the mark and cause more overall harm than good.
As far as AA goes, lawd knows I am no expert there. But I do know enough that it did not cause the religiously based bias against alcohol use of any kind; such had long been extant before AA was founded in 1935. It instead represents historically an early attempt to view alcoholism as a treatable problem rather than exclusively as a moral failing, and to present a treatment option that more than the wealthiest could afford or that required admission to one of a very few Federally funded facilities. Is it the most effective of the current approaches? I have no idea. It would surprise me if it was. I however doubt you have much more expert knowledge about that than I do. You seem to have some personal history though.
Corporal_Nobbs, when you say you are a “heavy drinker”, what does that mean by British standards? How many drinks per night?
I ask because there is a major difference in the definition of ‘heavy drinker’, depending on where you’re from.
This started more of a debate than I thought, My main point is why get so worked up over something that has no effect on you Dseid? I dont smoke dope, however those who do can crack on with it… im not a vegetarian, but those too can enjoy (probably not) their diet. As for being a heavy drinker, i dont do spirits often, other than times where I choose not to drink (1-2) weeks at a time 5-6 times a year I drink every day, up tp 8 pints… give or take, sometimes more…
Again, drink away.
My “worked up” though is merely correcting the same false statement you just made again. Heavy drinking by others has an effect on me, a real dollars cents effect and not a trivial one. If I had co-workers who came to work hung-over or family members whose alcohol caused dysfunction I had to deal with, there would be other impacts as well.
Reporting it to you in terms of billions of dollars or percent of GDP doesn’t seem to be too understandable to you. How about putting it this way? In the United States other people drinking to excess costs the average “me” about $746 a year. Would I prefer to spend that money on things other than the consequences of others’ poor so-called “educated” choices? Yes.
No question, the impact upon you is greater … I am not the one likely to have dementia at an early age if liver failure, cancer, heart disease or stroke doesn’t get me first … but people like me who will still be functional and working will be the ones paying for others to change your diapers and wiping your sorry butt.