4 pints of beer = "hazardous drinking" now...

TerrorFirmer

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

And honestly mate, it was worth every penny as it was the best weekend of my life.

There's good reason why people joke about 'booze, hookers and coke' with regards to wealth.

InTheTrees

Sorry to say it my hard drinking boardsie pals but four pints is excessive.

I mean forget about the alcohol, thats a lot of sugar and carbs and crap you're consuming, which you will pay for later.

Yes yes yes, you can do whatever you want whenever you want, enjoy yourself etc etc blah blah blah.

I'm just saying.

Helix

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Did I state anywere in my post that drinking was a competition? I clearly stated that people should know there limits. I said that it wasn't about getting pissed it was about having casually drinks with the lads.

There's always going to be lightweights as I said before 4 pints is light in most peoples eyes even on this thread.

You're talking about lads "keeping up" and using derogatory terms like lightweight. When I was in Ireland I'd routinely put away 20-25 drinks a night from cans to pints to shots. Then I realised that it was moronic carry on when I moved away from the country and there says is be drunk on 4. I still drink occasionally, last night I had 5 pints in fact, and I'm in no way anti booze, but the bravado that goes on in oreland with what would be considered alcoholism in most countries is disturbing

I think one part of the problem is that Irish people don't know what drunk actually is. You're drunk long before you're falling around the place

TerrorFirmer

Helix wrote: »

So without getting drunk it wouldn't have been any good then? Do you think you might have a dependency on booze in a social setting then? What is it? Low self confidence? Poor social skills?

Jesus man sorry, but you've some stick up your arse. Let it go, let the man enjoy what it is he enjoys, as do millions of others, without resorting to attempting to belittle him....confidence problems, seriously? Get a grip, and simply agree to disagree.

Shanotheslayer

Helix wrote: »

So without getting drunk it wouldn't have been any good then? Do you think you might have a dependency on booze in a social setting then? What is it? Low self confidence? Poor social skills?

I don't know if it wouldn't have been as good considering as I was drunk so I cannot compare the to. Me and the lads went for a drinking weekend, and you I was hardly going on a 'drinking weekend' without drinking? Defeats the purpose no?

I've not got Low self confidence or poor social skills. I enjoy drinking alcohol put that somehow puts me in that category? I've gone to pubs and watched matches without drinking and it was enjoyable if that's what your asking. It depends on my mood if I wanna drink or not.

Shanotheslayer

Helix wrote: »

You're talking about lads "keeping up" and using derogatory terms like lightweight. When I was in Ireland I'd routinely put away 20-25 drinks a night from cans to pints to shots. Then I realised that it was moronic carry on when I moved away from the country and there says is be drunk on 4. I still drink occasionally, last night I had 5 pints in fact, and I'm in no way anti booze, but the bravado that goes on in oreland with what would be considered alcoholism in most countries is disturbing

I think one part of the problem is that Irish people don't know what drunk actually is. You're drunk long before you're falling around the place

I said there's nothing worse then lads trying to keep up! I don't look up to people who drink more to me, or think there more of a man then I am. I'd consider them a heavyweight which is what they would be. Just like I'd consider a person a lightweight if they drank 4 pints.

Helix

Why would your mates be shamed if they were drunk after 4 if you dont think drinking more makes yia bigger men or something equally thick?

Shanotheslayer

Helix wrote: »

Why would your mates be shamed if they were drunk after 4 if you dont think drinking more makes yia bigger men or something equally thick?

They'd be slagged no doubt for being 'pissed' on 4 pints. The term pissed in my eyes is puking there guts up and not knowing whats going on. And yes, if someone is like that at 4 pints I would have the craic and slag them, but if someone was like that at 22 pints(Example of number) there is more reason for it to happen. But at 4? I don't know anyone who gets that bad on 4 who is a regular drinker.

amacachi

Helix wrote: »

Why would your mates be shamed if they were drunk after 4 if you dont think drinking more makes yia bigger men or something equally thick?

It's along the same lines of crying if you get a paper cut IMO.

Helix

Helix wrote: »

YThen I realised that it was moronic carry on when I moved away from the country

The thought of living somewhere where no one is up for the craic and going out and getting polluted is rather depressing.

Also I dont get why you are questioning a lad dranking his fill on a drinking weekend in Liverpool. Last time I was in Liverpool with the lads was for 4 nights (3 days), we had 6 pints before we even left the pub here to go to the airport and barely left the pub for the next 3 days except to go to a liverpool match and sleep.

Dodd

When I see this kind of talk on the news and people posting that one point = 2 units I just think it makes no sense.
It depends on the alcohol percentage of the drink.
I did a quick google and found this calculator
http://www.drinkaware.co.uk/tips-and-tools/drink-diary/.

Rawhead

InTheTrees wrote: »

Sorry to say it my hard drinking boardsie pals but four pints is excessive.

I mean forget about the alcohol, thats a lot of sugar and carbs and crap you're consuming, which you will pay for later.

Yes yes yes, you can do whatever you want whenever you want, enjoy yourself etc etc blah blah blah.

I'm just saying.

Only a monkey doesn't know that excessive alcohol is a bad idea. Having assholes tell me that 4 pints is excessive makes me incandescent with rage.
I work hard, pay my taxes, obey all the rules, stay in shape, look after my family and yet some ****ing academic clown tells me that having 4 funking pints after a weeks work is hazardous.
It's great to see that the government has it's priorities in order.
1 Go after hazardous 4 pint drinkers.
2 Europe collapsing
3 Population in penury
4 Treasonous bankers and regulators
etc etc etc

I bet your colleagues "forget" to invite you to the office parties. Your great craic I'd say.

BrokenArrows

****, 4 pints i would consider a quiet night relaxing in the pub.

Temptamperu

Drinking is boring, Crack now on the other hand I could go for four cracks right now...

du Maurier

Helix wrote: »

You're talking about lads "keeping up" and using derogatory terms like lightweight. When I was in Ireland I'd routinely put away 20-25 drinks a night from cans to pints to shots. Then I realised that it was moronic carry on when I moved away from the country and there says is be drunk on 4. I still drink occasionally, last night I had 5 pints in fact, and I'm in no way anti booze, but the bravado that goes on in oreland with what would be considered alcoholism in most countries is disturbing

I think one part of the problem is that Irish people don't know what drunk actually is. You're drunk long before you're falling around the place

I think I would concur with this point. One wouldn't necessarily be roaring drunk at the 4 pint mark (not at all, really), but it can be an insatiable trigger to consume a lot more. Decisions and judgment can start to go out the window at that point.

The King of Moo

Surely with such a study they have to err on the side of caution as individuals react differently to alcohol and give a figure that's lower than what might constitute enough to get most people drunk.

They couldn't very well say that 4 pints is ok when some people, even if they're a minority, would get drunk on that.

But I have to agree with others and say that we do have a skewed view of being drunk in this country.

Sure, 4 pints might only make you "tipsy" if it has any effect on you, but tipsy is still drunk, if not exactly hazardous.

And even though most Irish parents with four pints in them would be fine around their kids, I think they'd still be better off being completely sober.

Shattered Dreamer

This so-called study is just the governments way of finding fault in the things we as a nation enjoy so they can charge us more for it simple as.

And btw if 1/2 million children are in such danger then the Department of Health & Children is doing a lousy job.

marketty

Kairo Noisy Nutmeg wrote: »

That's one big baby.

Small turkey though.

Goose81

InTheTrees wrote: »

Sorry to say it my hard drinking boardsie pals but four pints is excessive.

I mean forget about the alcohol, thats a lot of sugar and carbs and crap you're consuming, which you will pay for later.

Yes yes yes, you can do whatever you want whenever you want, enjoy yourself etc etc blah blah blah.

I'm just saying.

Ah, the life and soul of the party has arrived.How are you,was the September star wars convention as good as last years?

TheyKnowMyIP

Correlation does not imply causation. This is a stealth tax incentive masquerading as legitimate concern about the welfare of our citizens. Do you really think the government gives a toss about mary from Tallaght who skulls back a case of beer every night of the week? No. Didn't think so.

DEFTLEFTHAND

How could one be satisfied with four pints, for me once I start I will usually drink till I'm inebriated, the first 4-6 pints serve only to wet the beak and loosen up.
However I can abstain during the week and not touch a drop.

syklops

lord lucan wrote: »

This is the exact same crap they started with smoking,Continually linking it with a myriad of diseases and medical conditions. Keep pushing the message until it becomes part of the public psyche. Look at Smokers now,regarded as pariahs of society (but cash cows to the Government) . Myths(depending on who you believe) such as second hand smoke and lately third hand smoke have become part of society and the way people think.

Alcohol is now being targeted and this will only ramp up over time. I fully expect alcohol to be linked with all manner of conditions over the coming years. And lets not forget the assault on "sugary drinks" and "fatty foods". It's only the start of things imo.

I disagree slightly, in that cigarettes are different. If a man stands next to me at a bus stop and takes a swig from a hip flask, I probably cant smell it(him maybe, but thats a whole different can of worms), but not the drink, where as if he lights a fag, I can. And I breathe in the smell, and breathe in some of his smoke, and later, I can still smell his smoke on me. I don't breathe in his alcohol. It does spread to others. Also, the act of drinking does not make things uncomfortable for other people, where as the act of smoking does, e.g. smell, smoke, cigarette butts, plus possible fire hazard. By the way, I say all this as an ex-smoker.

I read and heard this earlier, and I would say the media has summarised a decent sized report, and we are getting the soundbites.

Anyone else think, we have nearly half a million on the dole, by being on the dole, they have less money than normal people, each person probably has a kid aswell, if not more than one, ergo, half a million kids at risk of not getting enough to eat, or schooled properly, because they are spending some of their dole money on drink.

To back up those undeniable facts, out of half a million people, no-one can deny that some get verbally abusive when drunk, and no-one can either prove nor disprove that some get physically abusive. It seems to me, the numbers are too close together for it to be fact.

I'd also like to see the results of a study where 100 irish families both rural and urban go drink free for six months, all of them from the 12 year old to the 55 year old, and see how many get killed.

I also think that the results of this study are actually irresponsible. For an organisation, be it government supported or not, to set the bar for alcoholism so low, is irresponsible.

In my experience and I have grown up and lived with them, and been out with them and can tell you there is more than one type of alcoholic.

There is the alco who drinks every night but does not get drunk.
There is the alco who drinks and gets drunk every night.
There is the alco who goes out once a week but gets paralytic when he does.
There is the alco who drinks very rarely(Christmas etc.) but when he does, he gets very drunk every time
There is the alco who only ever got drunk once or twice in their life but know that another drop passing their lips and they will get drunk again.

There are also the people who drink everyday, or drink a few times a week, or drink once a week, who, if told they can't anymore, would and do stop.

Does this report now say that anyone who ever imbibed 4 pints together at one time is now an alcoholic?

tl;dr version: Report is ludicrous.

syklops

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

How could one be satisfied with four pints, for me once I start I will usually drink till I'm inebriated, the first 4-6 pints serve only to wet the beak and loosen up.
However I can abstain during the week and not touch a drop.

You illustrate my point perfectly, though I am not suggesting you are an alcoholic, but I have a friend who definitely is, but he only drinks one or two nights of the week.

TheyKnowMyIP

The health freaks will soon proclaim Alcoholism is once again a "disease" and urge people to seek treatment, all the while laughing their way to the bank while pushing "treatments" of questionable efficacy to cure "the disease". Mark my words.

All of this without any sort of scientifically reputable evidence, of course. Alcoholism is only bad if you aren't one of them.

mikom

syklops wrote: »

Also, the act of drinking does not make things uncomfortable for other people,

I have Guinness farts holding on line 2 for you.

Jumpy

Wertz wrote: »

Third hand smoke? How the hell does that work?

Dont ask.

http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/7/79/The_human_centipede_diagram.jpg

Wertz

TheyKnowMyIP wrote: »

Alcoholism is only bad if you aren't one of them.

Care to expand on that? Alcoholism is a horrible condition for anyone or a family member or loved one of theirs... watching someone you love destroy their life and their body on a daily basis and being unable to help them or them being unable or unwilling to help themselves is soul destroying.

TheyKnowMyIP

Wertz wrote: »

Care to expand on that? Alcoholism is a horrible condition for anyone or a family member or loved one of theirs... watching someone you love destroy their life and their body on a daily basis and being unable to help them or them being unable or unwilling to help themselves is soul destroying.

It's a horrible affliction. I know quite a few who never really recovered. It's not really a disease in itself though, as politically incorrect as that may sound. It leads to disease, like cirrhosis, which is frankly devestating:( Calling it a disease won't help these people.

We need to take this issue far more seriously than simply clinging to the belief that it's a disease. That mantra is acceptable for drug companies only, not society as a whole. I think I need to take some f.u.c.k.i.t.o.l after writing that.

Wertz

It's a predisposed medical condition which may be as much genetically triggered as socially or culturally triggered and it exists in many forms. Cirrhosis, associated encephalitis and whatever are symtoms of the secondary "infection".

I prefer to think of it as a disease but not one you can beat with some pill. It makes it easier to blame something other than the sufferer in my experience...

TheyKnowMyIP

Wertz wrote: »

prefer to think of it as a disease but not one you can beat with some pill. It makes it easier to blame something other than the sufferer in my experience...

Preferring to think it's a disease, does not actually make it a disease. I never implied it's not a serious condition, just that it isn't actually a clinical disease in diagnostic terms. The research will agree with this view.

Now I am no Doctor, but I have done enough research on the matter to state confidently that it isn't actually a disease. Ask your GP. If he is half reputable, he will tell you the same.

Good way of sussing if a doctor is simply a pharma shilll, or is actually a quality practitioner. Anybody in this capacity who tells you otherwise probably should not have recieved a medical degree.