alcohol

Like England’s footballers, who overcame a decades-long inability to win on penalties, we are better off finding our courage through practice, not through alcohol.

Sports sponsorship, like Budweiser’s backing of the World Cup, and thrilling advertising images reinforce the phoney link between alcohol and courage, despite codes barring it being done explicitly.

Alcohol plays no part in the confidence of sports people, or anyone else. We all know it, but facts are not what advertising is about. Advertising connects feelings, not facts, in this case tension and alcohol relief.

Our pre-scientific alcohol lexicon provide a flimsy barrier to prevent this powerful emotional linkage. The phrase “Dutch courage” contains only an oblique reference to the Netherlands to trigger suspicion.

Own goals
Lingering misgivings about the Low Countries, alas, do little to prevent our behaviour from being influenced, so we often turn to alcohol to cocoon ourselves from anxiety and even use it to assuage our excitement.

This is doubly ironic, if not more. We watch sport stars perform feats of skill with amazing calm, focus and concentration, while consuming a substance which interferes with our ability to emulate them.

Alcohol inebriation slows our brain function, reducing our competence in activities requiring us to use our brains. This includes practically everything, even sleep.

And, of over the long term, using alcohol tends to fuel our fears and anxieties and lengthen jumpiness after stressful events, whether they end badly or well.

Practice kills nerves
The competence we developed in our jobs and sports mean we are rarely gripped by nerves. Experience teaches us, like professional sportspeople, to know our limits, estimate risk and gauge the chances of success.

Our biggest worries typically revolve around the more haphazard world of our social lives. We often worry about our ability to converse, make friends, find partners and, heaven forbid, give a speech.

We are often first faced with these types of challenges at the same time as we have our first chances to drink alcohol. And they often remain paired thereafter, seemingly inextricably linked.

Alcohol reduces our awareness of distractions which might interrupt our flow, but it does not give us any new skills. We can make fluent, jovial, spontaneous conversation just as well without alcohol. Even dancing is possible.

Social situations which do not enforce alcohol drinking are a help, though not necessary if we can slip under the radar. Like practising penalties, socialising without drinking will eventually bring results. ■

More than 3m people in the UK plan to turn their alcohol clocks to zero for a month from January 1st,  joining an increasingly popular annual initiative to realise the multiple benefits of lower levels of drinking.

Alcohol Concern’s Dry January provides information, support and extra motivation for those taking a break. There is a free app to track our progress and the chance to raise money for charity. 

The popularity of the annual lay-off is easily explained, says the charity’s chief executive Richard Piper: “The benefits are astounding”. Around half of those who take part find they lose weight, two-thirds sleep better and over three-quarters save money. It may also lift depression and anxiety.

Parents and the middle-aged were the most likely to be joining in this year, according to a survey of 2,000 people, with parents of more than two children particularly keen, as are people in full-time employment and those from the North East and Northern Ireland.

“Alcohol is the biggest cause of death, ill-health and disability for people aged 15-49 in the UK–but these tragedies are all totally avoidable,” says Piper. It is among the reasons the annual reset has the support of Public Health England.

The benefits of a mass alcohol reset can add up. It contributes significantly to an annual cost to the NHS or around £3.5bn, or £120 per taxpayer. The burden reaches its peak in December as Christmas parties end in injury, alcohol poisoning and violence.

Success is not uniform, although we can still benefit even if we do not make it to the end. In the past around two-thirds of participants made it through January without drinking any alcohol, while nearly three-quarters were sticking to lower levels of harmful drinking six months later.

Realising the full benefits of not drinking much alcohol can often take longer. Typically getting rid of withdrawal symptoms like emotional instability and memory issues takes between three months and a year. ■

by Simon C Moore, Cardiff University

As the alcohol industry continues to make healthy profits, Britain is left counting the increasing cost of its unhealthy relationship with booze. From overstretched accident and emergency departments to a steady incidence of alcohol-related disease, the cost is massive. The most recent figures reveal that alcohol-related harms cost the NHS around £3.5 billion annually.

And the problems don’t end there. Often the erratic and antisocial behaviour of intoxicated people will have an impact on others. This becomes apparent when walking down any UK high street on a Saturday night, as you dodge obstacles from aggressive drinkers to broken glass.

Alcohol issues aren’t limited to towns and cities, either. Recently, budget airline Ryanair once again called for airports to introduce “preventative measures to curb excessive drinking”, following a flight that had to land unexpectedly when three passengers became disruptive. Airports are places where high security and order are paramount to safety so, really, no alcohol should be allowed whatsoever.

Drunk on board

In recent years, there have been several high profile incidents involving drunk passengers on planes – as well as countless other unreported events. In fact, figures show 387 people were arrested for being drunk at airports between February 2016 and February 2017 – up from 255 the previous year. And a BBC Panorama investigation has found that more than half of cabin crew have seen disruptive drunken passenger behaviour at UK airports.

Problems linked to alcohol consumption in airports and on planes include passengers being too drunk to board, or being out of control on planes. Those who do not board have their bags removed, causing delays for other passengers, while those who board drunk can cause disorder and endanger passenger safety – especially pertinent in the confines of an aeroplane where other passengers can become scared.

Drunk behaviour is not just disruptive to other passengers, however. Air travel involves a tightly integrated, complex set of processes and the effects of drunk passengers can impact this infrastructure. The number of professionals required for the safe management of drunks can divert resources away from normal service, potentially affecting security and the safety of other travellers.

Drunk people have reportedly tried to open plane doors and smash windows while in flight. The extent of drunkenness has caused planes in flight to divert so that the intoxicated and disorderly can be offloaded, again affecting all other passengers’ safety and convenience.

Licensing rules

The government is examining how alcohol is sold in airports, but they stop short of banning it altogether. Instead, restrictions have been proposed to end rules which allow airport bars and pubs to operate outside UK licensing laws. Limiting the number of drinks a passenger can have, both before and during flights, would almost certainly bring this number of alcohol-related incidents down, and result in fewer delays and a more secure and pleasant trip for passengers and staff.

It’s not about being puritanical. Choice is important and many choose to make alcohol an important part of many activities, including their holidays. At the same time, choices have been made to ensure the safety of air passengers and to keep flights running on time. Airport and aeroplane staff, given the choice, would probably prefer not to mop up vomit from those who have drunk too much – or worse, potentially put themselves in harm’s way to protect other passengers.

During air travel, travellers are contained in secure areas, with no choice over their fellow passengers. Removing the irrationality of intoxication from such an activity is not the tyranny of the majority, it is simply asking people to temporarily abstain until they reach their chosen destination. Many passengers choose not to drink and, given the choice, families would likely prefer that their children are not exposed to disorderly drunks.

No one has the right to cause harm to others and it is trivial to expect abstinence while passengers make their way to their destination, whether it is an alcohol-fuelled excursion, a family holiday or a business trip. For those who use alcohol to cope with anxiety, there are more effective and safer alternatives. For those who cannot go without alcohol there are many services available to help with dependence.

Ultimately, the needs of the many must outweigh the desires of a minority who want to “start their holiday early”. ■

Simon C Moore, Professor of Public Health Research, Co-Director of Crime and Security Research Institute and Director of Alcohol & Violence Research Group, Cardiff University This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Ireland’s upper house last week passed a long-awaited bill introducing minimum alcohol prices and requiring warnings of alcohol’s cancer risks and the protection of children from marketing.

According to the bill passed on Friday drinks labels will also need to list their ingredients for the first time. Ads as well as labels will have to include warnings of the cancer risk.

To stop children being weaned onto alcohol brands, shops will be required to hide alcohol marketing behind a 1.5m-high screen.

The bill will return to the Dáil, the lower house, next year. The government first introduced the bill in December 2015 and has been the subject of fierce lobbying since.

Ireland is the second country in the world to pass laws to require alcohol is sold above a minimum price after Scotland became the first in November.

Only Canada’s Yukon has so far introduced cancer warnings, and that is in a trial. ■

Minimum alcohol unit price advocates cast doubt on recent warnings that low-level drinkers would bear the brunt of Scotland’s plan to introduce the scheme next May.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said last week it may be “better to reform duties and not have a minimum price at all”. It estimated a 50p minimum would increase the price of around 70% of off-trade alcohol units purchased, unfairly impacting low-level drinkers.

But these calculations have some shortcomings, says John Holmes of the Sheffield Alcohol Research Group, which forecast the impact of Scotland’s scheme. These mean the IFS has over-estimated the cost to people who do not overdo it.

Most importantly the IFS figures to not recognise alcohol consumption is heavily skewed towards heavy drinkers, says Holmes. The one-in-four people in Scotland who exceed the old, looser guidelines together drink around three-quarters of the alcohol.

This top-loaded consumption pattern means it is heavy drinkers who purchase the vast majority of units, and an even greater proportion of units bought for under 50p. This means it is heavy drinkers who will feel the pinch as the result of heavy consumption under minimum pricing, as the scheme intends.

And, to add to this, the number of units bought in Scotland for under 50p is probably not the 70% of the total the IFS estimates, but more like 50%, Holmes says. This “more robust”percentage comes from sales data rather than the self-reports relied on by the IFS statistic.

Another point worth considering, according to another commentator, is that raising taxes on some categories of alcoholic drinks favoured by heavy drinkers instead, as recommended by IFS, would also have an unwelcome impact on some low-level drinkers. ■