Thursday, September 02, 2010
drinking is good for you
no, really. Moderate drinkers are healthier and less likely to die than non-drinkers.
If you want the maths of that, you should have come to our Edinburgh Fringe show, Your Days Are Numbered; the maths of death. "Exponentially funny", as one of our (4) four star reviews said. Or perhaps you tried and it was sold out! It's now available for touring and actuaries' Christmas parties, so you may get another chance.
Anyway, Scottish government proposals to set minimum per-unit-of-alcohol prices for booze ignore a number of important points.
First, The more affluent, who are less likely to be put off by a jump in the price of cheap cider, already tend to drink more than the poor, and are less likely to abstain.
Second, the medically harmful effects of alcohol take effect at relatively high levels of drinking; to give yourself liver cirrhosis, you would probably need to imbibe around 20 units a day for at least 5 years. That's a couple of bottles of wine every day.
Third, as I mention above, moderate drinking (up to 4 units a day for men, slightly less for women) actually has a protective effect on the heart, so it's better for you to have a drink or two every day than not at all. It's this kind of light, recreational drinking that would cost at least a pound a day under new government minimum-price proposals. Anything else that gave this degree of proven health benefit in such a popular and palatable form would be offered on NHS prescription, not prohibitively taxed.
Finally, and most important, we don't decide our drinking habits, or any other aspects of our lives, mainly for the benefits of our doctors. Or, for that matter, NHS accountants. If we choose to increase our risk levels by drinking - or cycling, or being pregnant, or not being married, all of which increase your chances of dying - that is absolutely our business. Our lives belong to us, not our GP, let alone our MP.
I'm going to be speaking at a Battle of Ideas satellite event on October 18th: Public Health - should evidence always dictate policy? I daresay we'll be having some of these arguments there.
If you want the maths of that, you should have come to our Edinburgh Fringe show, Your Days Are Numbered; the maths of death. "Exponentially funny", as one of our (4) four star reviews said. Or perhaps you tried and it was sold out! It's now available for touring and actuaries' Christmas parties, so you may get another chance.
Anyway, Scottish government proposals to set minimum per-unit-of-alcohol prices for booze ignore a number of important points.
First, The more affluent, who are less likely to be put off by a jump in the price of cheap cider, already tend to drink more than the poor, and are less likely to abstain.
Second, the medically harmful effects of alcohol take effect at relatively high levels of drinking; to give yourself liver cirrhosis, you would probably need to imbibe around 20 units a day for at least 5 years. That's a couple of bottles of wine every day.
Third, as I mention above, moderate drinking (up to 4 units a day for men, slightly less for women) actually has a protective effect on the heart, so it's better for you to have a drink or two every day than not at all. It's this kind of light, recreational drinking that would cost at least a pound a day under new government minimum-price proposals. Anything else that gave this degree of proven health benefit in such a popular and palatable form would be offered on NHS prescription, not prohibitively taxed.
Finally, and most important, we don't decide our drinking habits, or any other aspects of our lives, mainly for the benefits of our doctors. Or, for that matter, NHS accountants. If we choose to increase our risk levels by drinking - or cycling, or being pregnant, or not being married, all of which increase your chances of dying - that is absolutely our business. Our lives belong to us, not our GP, let alone our MP.
I'm going to be speaking at a Battle of Ideas satellite event on October 18th: Public Health - should evidence always dictate policy? I daresay we'll be having some of these arguments there.
