The Globe and Mail, Toronto's national newspaper, has a very lengthy article, entitled "Alcoholics Accelerated" by Margaret Philp, on the social and medical costs of alcohol consumption in Canada. While I am not one of those who challenges every pronouncement against drinking, I do find it strange that no comment is made in the article on the health benefits of moderate consumption. But it is interesting and there is one statement that I find particularly telling:
A bigger surprise is what the survey reveals about the rest of us. In 2004, 79.3 per cent of Canadians confessed to drinking, which, contrary to our growing obsession with fitness and diet, is nearly a 10-per-cent jump from a decade ago. And these numbers tell only part of the story: The level of drinking professed in the survey accounts for just 32 per cent of the bottles actually sold in liquor stores, bars and restaurants. Whether we are deluded or deceptive, Canadians grossly underestimate the number of drinks we quaff.Because of the public nature of this blog as much as anything, I do keep track and measure myself against the national and World Health Organization guidelines for weekly alcohol consumption. And I am also, given my profession, all too aware of the problems of drunk driving - being in Court to watch a guy who blew over 0.400 explain that he needed to drive the three blocks from his house to where he was stopped because he needed a hamburger was chilling enough in itself.
But there is also a problem of one-sidedness in every discussion of the implications that "Alcoholics Accelerated" exemplifies. It is trite to say that there was no problem with drinking and driving before there were cars, but why is there no discussion of the planning restrictions causing the lack of local neighbourhood bars and the bans on selling beer and wine in corner stores? I once lived in a village on Nova Scotia's south shore where an hour's drive east or west was required to buy a six pack of beer. Surely there is a relationship between the cultural reasons for driving to alcohol and drinking and driving. Also, why is there no discussion of healthy drinking, the cardiovascular benefits for example, not to mention the relatively healthier choices people can make like learning about real ales or gentler wines with lower levels of alcohol and higher levels of flavour - compared to, say, going through the biweekly bottle of rye with a handle?
Alcohol is treated as a homogeneous and damaging thing which makes me suspect the purpose of the story and the author's understanding.
Comments
BurlingtonTom - March 25, 2007 10:41 PM
"I do find it strange that no comment is made in the article on the health benefits of moderate consumption."
Or the pleasures of moderate consumption. Beer, at least down here in America, is primarily promoted as serving one purpose - getting drunk while watching a sporting event. Which is a crying shame, of course, as good beer is worth drinking for the pleasure of doing so - flavor, aroma, mouthfeel, and so on. But as long as beer is positioned within a strict good vs. evil framework we are going to get unbalanced articles like the one you found.
Paul of Kingston - March 26, 2007 2:17 PM
Yes - the point being that it should be headlined as "the social and medical costs associated with alcohol ABUSE in Canada".
Curses to all those "black & whiters" out there. We can all make pretty long lists of products and services that provide benefits when used wisely, and risks when abused.
Is this a derivative of unethical marketing, unfortunate stereotyping or perhaps a relic of the bad old days of simplistic social authoritarianism?
Whichever, I posit that the survey results referenced indicate people's evolving sense of emancipation from religious and cultural social controls which would, in the past have caused them to publicly deny their fondness of drink - whether moderate or excessive. The results probably have little to no correlation to people's actual habits toward alcohol.
Stephen Beaumont - March 26, 2007 7:04 PM
Nothing like a lopsided article to get your blood going first thing on a Saturday, eh Alan? In addition to the health issues and black-and-white approach, as you, Tom and Paul all mention, I was bugged by the lack of corroboration and attribution, as I noted in my thatsthespirit.com blog post on the subject.
Alan - March 26, 2007 10:30 PM
I really have to apologize, Stephen, as I was clearly...or perhaps just statistically...loaded when I wrote the above, whipped up in some sort of drunken rage fueled by the demon rum or some of its Satanic kind. Here is the link to your story. I can only recommend a some Temperance hymns and perhaps a decent ice cream soda as a start. Shall we gather?
Stephen Beaumont - March 27, 2007 10:43 AM
I'd be remiss, Alan, if I didn't also point out the irony of the fact that, in that very edition of the Globe, I also had a story in the travel section called "Getaways with a glass, or two." It's about not only the demon drink, but travelling to find festivals that promote its sins and wickedness.
Corruption from within has always struck me as an effective policy.
Alan - March 27, 2007 11:41 AM
Yes and also we should mention the weekly richly written and, as I now see, dangerously attractive reviews of wine and spirits (but not beer) in Beppi Crosariol's column. I will have to curb my enthusiam for those semi-sweet sherries which he recommends which I have (I only see now) clearly foisted my family at holiday times.
blork - March 27, 2007 1:09 PM
You can see the bias of the article in the first line of the bit that you quoted" "79.3 per cent of Canadians confessed to drinking."
"Confessed?"
Nice choice of words.
danica - August 14, 2008 3:32 AM
Alcohol is a depressant slows the function of the central nervous system.Most adults drink alcoholic beverages.it leads to many problems like brain and liver damage.Thank you
==============
danica
Alcoholism Treatment