UKC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35151246

A while ago I heard that alcohol related liver disease is on the increase in people in their 20s, and now this pops up in the news

We're got to sort it out as a country.

In reply to Timmd:


Agreed. We need to call a spade, a spade. I.e. the double-standard where alcohol abuse is not as bad as other drug abuse. Alcohol abuse _is_ drug abuse, and should be called as such. We'd all throw our toys out the cot if advertisers were allowed to advertise "Stay classy, drink GHB".

But we won't.








This post sponsored by Carling cider - ahhhhhh, refreshingly smooth.

In reply to Timmd:

As alcohol consumption has been on decline for years, particularly amongst the young I'm very surprised by this. I wonder where they get their figures from?

In reply to Timmd:
I thought there had been a decrease too. This data is 3 years put of date but seems to suggest a decline. http://www.ias.org.uk/Alcohol-knowledge-centre/Consumption/Factsheets/Drink...

In reply to Timmd:

None thus surprises me. Compared to when I was in my 20s alcohol appears dirty cheap in relation to wages.

Cheers

In reply to Timmd:


One guy with an actual suggestion - my hero Prof Nutt - unfortunately never gets listened to.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11350365/Pop-a-sober-up-pill-o...

In reply to ceri:

I would be wary of that data as it self reported.

If we're seeing a rise in hospital admissions then it's on the increase.

It's certainly more acceptable to see a young girl paralytic being sick in a gutter than it was when I was 18.

Maybe the decrease in boys doing it is masking an increase in girls doing it.

The alcohol abuse is a symptom of something. People aren't just getting drunk because they enjoy being drunk.

In reply to Timmd:

Just thoughts...

there's a GOOD cultural change towards gender equality but that does mean that it's less frowned upon if a woman goes out drinking heavily like the lads do. That sadly will mean regardless of a potential decrease overall, a potential increase in incidents for women.

Could the raise in liver disease be a delayed thing - so people who were getting smashed at a young age (teens) now suffering, and therefore a problem based on 10 years ago drinking?

Or is it related to why the smaller number of people are drinking. Worse off economically, higher stress, leading to higher drug and alcohol abuse. So not related to more people drinking irresponsibly, but that situations are worse for the few most at risk?

Just thoughts, I don't know if any are true, just wondering. IT's the problem with taking one or two statistics in isolation

In reply to DancingOnRock:


I'm not sure about that. When I was 14 - 21, getting shitfaced was just what you did at any possible opportunity (unless you were getting f^cked up on drugs instead, in which case the amount of booze would be tempered a little). It wasn't because we were deeply traumatised, we were just young.

In reply to ceri:

These charts are interesting - thanks for the link!
The huge decline in on-trade drinking as opposed to off-trade staying steady is no surprise I guess. Our village pub struggles.

My experience is slanted by the amount of pre-loading that goes on in my kitchen (I'm going out tonight and leaving them to it) so I guess I'm just surprised it isn't higher.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


David Nutt is brilliant, but this latest venture is totally deceitful. "but without being addictive or causing withdrawal symptoms, he claims."

Maybe he didn't say that, but it's totally dishonest and false. Anything that is enjoyable, can be addictive - it's that simple! If you consider that gambling addiction is recognized as a valid addiction, and you don't drink/eat/breathe in anything - then this "wonder drug" can be addictive too. It's interesting to note that heroin was originally sold over the counter for almost 2 decades as being a non-addictive replacement to morphine.

In reply to Timmd:

It would be interesting to hear the split of 15-19 year olds affected and what proportion is accounted for by underage drinkers. Anecdotally I thought underage drinking was on the decrease. When I was in my early teens alcohol was cheap and readily availible to minors (13/14+), by the time everyone got to drinking age they'd had enough of lying around in gutters and went for a quiet celebratory pint with their dad. These days people get ID'd more in their 30's than they did in their teens and when kids hit 18 and suddenly can legally buy all the alcohol they want they go nuts.

In reply to SenzuBean:



I think in the context of drugs "non-addictive" has a pretty specific meaning. And you can expect with Nutt that what he actually said was accurate. I doubt that this drug would work for most people, it's basically a z-drug (sleepy/anti-anxiety thing) and would be more like taking valium than getting pissed. I wouldn't say no after a long day, but if I'm out eating and drinking with friends I would much rather get pissed, I'm sure.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I don't believe that to be the case - but even then it's still totally dishonest to present that to the public where the general meaning of addictive differs from the clinical meaning. Valium is well known to be addictive and habit forming, and other benzodiazepines are well known anecdotally to be _extremely_ difficult to quit, much more so than valium (I think there's some limited clinical research as well these days) - so I'm not sure how his team's one is going to be any different in that respect. I can agree that they will be less toxic to the liver and probably other organs, so maybe he thinks that is worth lying for?

In reply to SenzuBean:

You're accusing Nutt of lying on the basis of sloppy journalism in the Telegraph - which doesn't even quote him directly.

Everyone knows benzos are addictive, and the drug in question isn't a benzo, it's Pagoclone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagoclone

I think if you want to pick a fight with David Nutt, you would be wise to get your facts absolutely straight, because the guy knows what he's talking about and is known not to mince his words.

In reply to Sharp:


Having a 21, a 19 and a nearly 18yr old, I totally agree. In the late 70's and 80's we kind of did an apprenticeship in your dad's pub, where you'd get a drink if you behaved. Then you got sozzled at a party somewhere, and as you say, had kind of got it all in context by 18.

My kids and their mates just can't wait to be 18, so they can go and get mortal on these shot things. Groo! It's only when they realise a decent night out doesn't/shouldn't result in the gutter that they learn to appreciate a drink.

I am really uncomfortable with the desire to legislate everything, make it harder, penalise reasonable folk who like a pint, charge them more for the privilege due to folks who's problems are probably more to do with poverty, unemployment and lack of decent education than an all-out desire to get pished.

In reply to Jon Stewart:





Well you said:
Which I took to mean that his quote in the telegraph was accurate.

Secondly - many of the "z-drugs" are also well known (anecdotally and in clinical research) to be addictive. The crux of my argument - that saying "here's a wonder drug that's non addictive" is irresponsible - still stands.

In reply to SenzuBean:


I think Nutt will have looked rather closer at the data on Pagoclone than you, and based his work on that.


But when did he say that? You're making assumptions on the basis of crap journalism, not dealing with the facts.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Yes, because I thought you said the journalism was accurate - which I tried to explain in my previous post.

In reply to Timmd:


No.

In reply to JohnnyW:




Funnily enough, my daughter and her crowd are very anti-intoxication of all forms. I'm not saying she's a "goody-goody" or a saint, but the ethos amongst her and her peers seems to be one of "get my degree first, then party afterwards."

Though I know this is not typical, it's interesting, (and boy am I glad of it!!)


My stance exactly.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
I also see binge drinking young women as nothing new. I was 14 the first time I get so drunk in the woods my Mum called the doctor when my friends returned me home and as we got older we would regularly end up vomiting into the manicured flowerbeds of Harrogate. Only 2 of my friends ever ended up in hospital before we left school...
We were well brought up, high achieving kids who should have known better.

In reply to Jon Stewart:






The problem is that nobody really knows the potential for abuse and addiction until it is out there in the wild! It is a narcotic with some potential for the full range of effects for the syndrome we call addiction.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


No doubt - but still, I'd love to have a stock of the stuff so I could get inebriated on weeknight and not have a hangover, it sounds brilliant. Way better than booze or benzos!

In reply to Scarab9:


Young females nowadays seem to insist on proving their equality (and more so) in all areas, and this includes drinking.
As they generally have less body mass then they have less body to soak up alcohol.
Plus a greater tendency toward spirits than males, for whom beer is still a major drink.
Throughout history the willingness to imbibe spirits has led to alcoholic problems, be they illness or dependency - witness the gin palaces and the phrase "mothers ruin" from (I believe) the Victorian era.

In reply to fred99:


Maybe it's less political than that - they just like getting wrecked.

In reply to SenzuBean:

Doesn't mean it wasn't known it was addictive. Pharma companies at the time wouldn't have had anything in the way of today's sophisticated legal framework to claim efficacy or safety of a product.

D