The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Larry Jankens's picture

    Dr. WHO Says No Alcohol For You

    By Larry Jankens on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 9:45pm | Humor & Satire

     

    In interest of full disclosure, I love to drink.  I am in no way an unbiased party when discussing alcohol and alcohol consumption.  Happy hour is not just a phrase, it’s the happiest hour of my day.

    So when I heard of the World Health Organization (WHO) is launching a campaign to reduce alcohol consumption worldwide, I was not very happy about it.  The WHO claims that the negative effects of alcohol impact a growing amount of people throughout the world.   Obviously, the WHO has never had my patented Bugs Bunny (vodka and carrot juice) that  improves ocular health or my Mao Tse Yum (ginseng tea and gin) that increases mental cognition.

    My concerns with the WHO’s campaign are as follows:

    1)  Demonizing alcohol is just as dumb as demonizing cigarette smoking.  I know, smoking cigarettes is bad for you, but when did smoking become tantamount to killing puppies by sodomy?  I’m sure the WHO would like to ban drinking beer at bars, turning bars into smokeless and drinkless establishments.  My point is that we are all adults, and if we want to harm ourselves by consuming something then we should be allowed to do so.

    2)  According to the WHO’s own statistics, even though South Americans drink less than North Americans they suffer from more alcohol related illnesses.  Why?  Because they drink heavily in spurts, as opposed to North Americans who drink more steadily.  So their message shouldn’t be: don’t drink; but rather: pace yourself.

    3)  Doesn’t the WHO have anything better to do?  There is an international pig flu, increasing pollutants worldwide, starving people in Africa, and this little thing called global warming.  If the WHO had all of these things under control, they could take the time to address this issue.

    4)  It’s true, you don’t need alcohol to have a good time.  But it is also true that it friggen helps.

    Who does the WHO think they are? You can read more about their efforts to be the international wet blanket at the New Scientist: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427303.500-who-launches-worldwide-war-on-booze.html?page=1


     

    Topics: 
    Humor & Satire

    Comments

    Although I realize it's not the main thrust of your piece, are you aware that smoking bans have been linked to a decrease in heart attacks in non-smokers?


    by Nebton on Tue, 10/20/2009 - 10:22am

    If more people have to die so a bar owner can make the free decision to allow or not allow smoking in his/her bar, then good.  There are certain principles that are worth dieing over.  The freedom to do what you choose is one of those.  There is a price to pay for freedom.  Would you die on your feet or live on your knees?


    by Larry Jankens on Tue, 10/20/2009 - 5:04pm

    To the barricades!

    Wait, what are we fighting for exactly?


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 10/20/2009 - 9:51pm

    Don't ask me.  I don't give a damn.


    by DF on Tue, 10/20/2009 - 10:02pm

    The right to crunked!  C'mon, I thought the Canadians would be with me on this one.


    by Larry Jankens on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 10:57am

    Yeah, no way we'd want to reduce drinking. WTF would be the point in that, eh? Other than alcohol being a carcinogen. And drunk drivers. And domestic violence. And binge drinking. And bar-closing, late night, city center violence. But what the hay, eh? What's the annual booze tab in US? Coupla hundred thousand? Have another drink, Larry. You mutt. P.S. I come from one of the oldest brewing families in that country just to the North of you... and 7 generations of alcoholics as a side benefit.

    by quinn esq on Tue, 10/20/2009 - 11:01pm

    I'm with you on this.  I like a drink as much as the next guy.  In fact, I probably like it better than the next guy.  In fact, while he wasn't looking I downed his.  I digress.

    This is actually a really good example of why New Scientist sucks.  Look at that headline:

    WHO launches worldwide war on booze

    Sensationalize much?  A non-binding vote on recognizing a white-paper is a worldwide war?  This is nothing new for NS.  They constantly sensationalize, especially when it comes to medical findings.  I can't even count how many times I've seen shite articles in NS about the super cheap cure for cancer that BIG PHARMA doesn't want you to know about.

    This is a far, far cry from a second round of prohibition.  Alcohol can be enjoyed responsibly.  Quite often it isn't.  Societies have a right to examine and address the negative consequences of alcohol abuse.  And it's clearly abuse that the WHO is targeting.


    by DF on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 12:34am

    And bar-closing, late night, city center violence.

    Not being much of a drinker, I was blissfully unaware of the chaos that happens when bars are forced to close (of course some cities and/or states have no forced closing time). One night my wife woke up feeling really bad around 2 or 3 AM (whenever the bars close in Atlanta), so I drove her to the hospital (we lived in downtown Atlanta at the time). I was flabbergasted at the amount of traffic on the roads at that time. What's really scary is when I realized that the vast majority of them just left a bar because they were forced to leave.


    by Nebton on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 9:05am

    This is the same type of question that was posed after 9/11: security vs. freedom. We are all safer if the government imposes draconian security policies that systematically limit everyone's freedoms, however, the cost of that safety is us sacrificing our principles. 

    Yes, the entire world would be safer and less people would die if alcohol was banned or prohibitively expensive, but is that the society we want to live in?  A society that puts safety and life ahead of freedom and fun?

    If you are against the PATRIOT Act because it violates your concept of a free society, you should be against efforts to demonize and prohibit all freedoms, including the right to get  drunk. 


    by Larry Jankens on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 10:56am

    I'm with DF in that I really don't care too much about the right to get drunk (either way), but I'll play devil's (or angel's) advocate on this one.

    What about our freedom to drive recklessly? Surely you're not against prohibiting that "freedom", are you? Your freedom to swing your fists stops at my nose. That's the way it's often put. However, that leaves a lot open to interpretation. Drinking isn't literally hitting my nose, but neither is driving drunk — until you cause an accident. Does that mean we should legalize drunk driving, since we already have laws against manslaughter, etc.?

    Assuming that you don't want to legalize drunk driving, we've already established that there are lines we are willing to draw that reduce freedoms in lieu of safety. The question then becomes not whether there should be such lines, but where we should draw them. So, make your case for why the line should be drawn for where you think it should be drawn and not that there shouldn't be any lines whatsoever (unless you actually support legalizing drunk driving).

    I realize that's not easy to do, so I'l give you the out that it's similarly hard to argue specifically which rights the PATRIOT Act shouldn't be taking away, and I'm with you 100% on that one.


    by Nebton on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 11:26am

    What draconian policies is the WHO planning to implement? Is there a secret plan to ban alcohol? Your freedom is curtailed simply by living in society. You can't buy a grenade launcher, you can't run around naked in public, you can't smoke crack, you can't spray DDT, you can't drive without a license, you can't blast your music at 4am, you can't blow up your own house or even paint your trees pink, you can't threaten to kill the President, you can't build a strip club next to a school, and you can't cut off your big toe and mail it to you ex-girlfriend.

    There is no absolute freedom of choice in a community. We constantly curtail our freedoms for the common good. Our disagreements are not in whether to curtail freedom but in how far to go in curtailing it. What's the value of the trade-off?

    I certainly agree with you that an alcohol prohibition goes too far in curtailing freedom, but that is not what WHO has proposed. So which parts exactly do you object to? As for the government "demonizing" alchohol, I'm not even sure how that curtails my freedom.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 11:30am

    and you can't cut off your big toe and mail it to you ex-girlfriend.

    Actually, as long as you use UPS (for example) and not the USPS, you can. Er, not that I've tested that or anything…


    by Nebton on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 11:39am

    By the way, in retrospect, I'm fairly certain this is the reason that UPS is able to compete against the tax-payer subsidized USPS.


    by Nebton on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 11:58am

    I guess I'm a little touchy on this subject because I love me some alcohol.  I try to start my day with a bloody mary and if I'm out of that, I drink cooking sherry :P

    We can all agree there are lines that are drawn for the benefit of society.  I just don't like the idea that there is a world wide organization bent on making sure that the world doesn't drink as much alcohol.  Most people enjoy alcohol responsibly, and even though I am not one of them, I'm lookin out for them.  The WHO isn't backing an outright ban, but they are asking governments to adopt policies that adversely effect the majority of people who can drink alcohol responsibly.  Why must the majority suffer for the stupidity of the few?  For the sake of safety and security?


    by Larry Jankens on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 11:41am

    I'm not sure what policies you're referring to. I skimmed the New Scientist article and it seems that WHO is asking governments to adopt policies that adversely affect the minority (assuming your previous statement is correct) of people who drink alcohol irresponsibly.

    What specific policies that they recommend would affect those drinking responsibly?


    by Nebton on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 11:57am

    Dammit, quit replying so quickly! It was my turn to take the first swing.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 12:06pm

    1)  Raise taxes on booze

    2)  Limit the availability of booze

    Both of these are on the first page of the article.  If I were a person who drank responsibily, the higher cost and limited availability would suck. 


    by Larry Jankens on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 12:06pm

    Bah, I was too drunk to find them. Embarassed

    By the way, I like the conditional "if" in your last sentence. Laughing


    by Nebton on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 12:21pm

    I too love me some alcohol, but my objection to alchohol policy all depends on the policy, just as my objection to security policy does. It's cool for the airports to search my luggage but not for the government to arbitrarily tap my phone line. It's cool for the government to launch a "drink responsibly" campaign but not to ban drinking on Sundays. So what exactly are the WHO policies? How are they making me suffer? B/c frankly, while I don't want limits to my own drinking, I do recognize that alchoholism is a massive global problem that affects not only the drinkers themselves, but also their families (spouses, children, fetuses) and strangers who they kill on the road. I can certainly tolerate education campaigns, warning labels, severe drunk driving penalties, and tax money going to alcholism treatment if it helps with those problems.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 12:05pm

    My primary concern is similar to the smoking bans that have swept the nation.  Now it is illegal for a bar owner to make their own decision about whether or not they want to allow smoking.  Shouldn't that be the bar owners decision? 

    We agree that lines must be drawn and that to certain degree the WHO's efforts are noble, but unbridled restriction (there's an oxymoron for ya), which is the tone of the anti-smoking movement, should not be adopted toward drinking.


    by Larry Jankens on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 12:11pm

    Bars have tons of regulations that constrain bar owner's "freedom," from hygiene standards to noise limits to employment restrictions to the number of tables and chairs they can have. Due to a 1926 cabaret law, you can't dance in NYC bars. So a bar owner's freedom of choice in this case does not seem particularly important to me. Should a bar owner without employees be allowed to permit smoking in their bars? Probably. California offers that exemption, I think. But who really cares? You open a bar, you deal with bureaucratic regulations. That's the game.

    FYI, I lived in San Francisco when the smoking ban was enacted there and in NYC when it was enacted there. In each case, before the ban, there were many protests and gripes. After the ban, most people liked it--the bars no longer reeked. Personally, as a casual bar smoker, I enjoyed the excuse to go outside and mingle with smokers. And it became a heck of lot easier to get my non-smoking friends out to bars, thereby facilitating drinking, which is more fun than smoking. And of course, non-smoking bartenders liked it because it meant that they were less likely to get cancer. Many winners, few losers; I can give up the freedom to smoke in a bar for that.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 12:39pm

    FYI, you're right that CA exempts owner-operated bars, the thinking being that they aren't endangering any employees with their policy decisions.

    FWIW, even when I was a pack-a-day smoker I never smoked indoors.


    by DF on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 1:22pm

    Let me pose a conundrum to you.  What if I want to open a BBQ joint?  Except it's an indoor charcoal BBQ joint.  It's called Freedom-Q.

    Now, no one is compelled to patronize my establishment.  Of course, they will because they love freedom, tri-tip and being indoors with copious amounts of carbon monoxide.

    Should I be allowed to do this?  Should I, as a proprieter, be able to make this business decision?


    by DF on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 1:15pm

    You, DF? Sure. You should get to make that decision. But people like Genghis? NFW. Or Larry? Yeah right. The last decision that dude got right was spraying Cool Whip on his arse to "liven up" that party at his place.

    by quinn esq on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 5:36pm

    1)  The cool whip thing was a dare and I totally won $50 bucks for doing it.

    2)  You can open a place that effectively kills people and if people want to go there and kill themselves that should be their choice. 

    3)  I appreciate this discussion in so much as it has people admitting they like booze and freedom.


    by Larry Jankens on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 6:22pm

    The booze is fine, it's your freedom I hate.

    by quinn esq on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 6:27pm

    Dude. What gives? You're now talking about the WHO in black helicopter terms. A "world wide organization BENT on making sure..." etc. And the comparisons to the Patriot Act and 9/11? WTF is going on over here at DorgBog? Oprah's a Killer and WHO are out to git us? Booze. Not sure if you've noticed, but there are enormous amounts spent every year to encourage people to drink. And little old ladies at churches along with occasional public service announcements pushing the other way. A bit of straight talk from the global body tasked with protecting our HEALTH is probably not way outside their mandate. I GET that you dislike of the maniacs who pushed the anti-smoking thing. I was a smoker, and had to watch otherwise rational people go apeshit. But. Smoking was, and is, bad for me, and for others. As for booze, well, my argument about smoking always was that booze is worse. Which it was, and IS. But how much do people know about booze? Shit, most don't even know it's a carcinogen. They know 1/10th of what they know about smoking. I'm not against drinking, or getting drunk, or drunken brawling. I used to do lots of all three. But would I tax it more, restrict it more, run PR against it more, and clamp the ass off its more irresponsible usages? Damn straight. And if you don't like it, c'mon over here and I'll puke on you, throw a few wild haymakers at you, then back over you in my car before emptying your wallet to help pay for my fetal alcohol-damaged kid.

    by quinn esq on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 5:48pm

    Point well taken, but I think the WHO should allocate its resources to attack issues that are more pressing and leave it up to individual govs to determine what they want to do with drinking - which in my view is not much.

    But then again, I'm of the persuasion that all drugs should be legal everywhere. 


    by Larry Jankens on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 6:27pm