Talk:Binge drinking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Section on Canada

Does anyone else find the section on Canada... a little weird, or skewed? Especially in contrast with the sections on other countries? I mean, it might as well be a friggin' footnote on the University of Ottawa page, since it has more to do with UoO than canadian binge drinking in general. There are hundreds of universities in Canada, and binge drinking is by no means exclusive to a small one in the middle of Ottawa. Not only that, but it is also by no means exclusive to university students at all! --137.207.238.106 08:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 5/4=

Just an anonymous reader here, not sure if I'm doing this right... but for as much as the "5/4" definition is mentioned, it is never actually said what that is. I still have no idea.

To echo what the previous anonymous reader said: I've never posted on a talk page before (and have no idea if I'm doing this correctly), but from reading the article, I don't know what the 5/4 definition or the "recognized medical/clinical definition" is. I would correct the entry if I knew the facts.
I concur with the above two... I really have no idea what the "disputable" 5/4 definition is. Why mention it at all?--Krick 04:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The 5/4 definition is defined at the top of the page:
"One of the commonly used thresholds for 'binge' drinking is 5 or more drinks for men and 4 or more for women per occasion. This definition has gained a foothold within the social sciences literature and has influenced media reporting of drinking behavior."
--137.207.238.106 08:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alcohol Tolerance

Under "binge drinking", this sentence doesn't entirely ring true to me:

The major exception to this generalization is that of alcohol tolerance in alcoholics who develop tolerance for the effects of alcohol. Therefore, an alcoholic who is legally intoxicated may show no clinical signs of intoxication.

It implies that a person with a blood alcohol level of, say, 0.15% will be perfectly capable of handling a motor vehicle so long as he is an established alcoholic. This flies in the face of research and experience -- that kind of person merely THINKS he's OK to drive.

I'm about half a step away from removing the statement. My point in what Justin David so obligingly terms a "generalization" was to dispel the notion that some people can handle it better and so should get in the car and drive when they're legally drunk. Go ahead and have fun, just don't take it on the road.Guernseykid 07:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent edit by David Justin. Guernseykid 17:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Guernseykid.David Justin 01:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
It's actually true that an individual who has tolerance to alcohol as a result of ongoing regular use is likely to be better at handling a motor vehicle at a BAL of 0.1 than he or she would be at 0.0. There's plenty of research out there showing just that. That is actually the definition of tolerance: an individual who requires a greater amount of a given drug to result in the same effects that would be obtained with a lesser amount of the drug in a non-tolerant individual. Drgitlow 02:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV problem. the first sentence of this article, although perhaps wise, is not from a neutral point of view.

[edit] npov

the first sentence of this article, although perhaps wise, does not represent a neutral point of view.

[edit] Headings

Title "Other areas" changed due to america only being a small percentage of area effected by binge drinking, so seems irrelevant to define the rest of the world as "other areas".

I've removed that level of headings entirely; it wasn't necessary.-gadfium 18:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, i would have done that. But they choose to revert what i delete.

[edit] Staying on-topic

Under the "Europe" category, there does not appear to be any discussion about binge drinking. The connection between early, responsible exposure to alcohol and prevalence of binge drinking should be explained. Do these practices successfully curtail this behavior?

[edit] Two-days

I've seen some people define binge drinking as drinking to get drunk or having more than 4 beers. On the other hand, several-day drinking sprees are benders -- I would think you could binge drink in just one night. 70.218.200.200 17:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Physicians and other clinicians have long defined a binge as a period of intoxication lasting at least two days during which time the binger neglects normal activities and responsibilities. See Binge Drinking.David Justin 19:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
That may be, but I think there's a genuine conflict between the definition in this article and that common in the UK, especially as used in the press (both by journalists and those making statements). For example, look at the quote below from the BBC (under "Crazy binge-drinking British people") which talks about "binge drinking culture". Whatever people in other countries understand by the term, the quote is not, to my British way of thinking, talking about a culture of 2-day drinking sessions. It's talking about people getting themselves drunk on nights out. That article contains an sidebar saying "Binge drinking is classed as consuming more than 10 units of alcohol in a single session for men and seven units for women", and there's an article from the British Medical Association which talks about possible definitions for "binge drinking", and certainly doesn't support the definition in the article.
This wouldn't be terribly important (since it's perfectly reasonable to have an article about 2-day drinking sessions, irrespective of what the British Government chooses to call "binge drinking"), except that the UK section then talks about "binge drinking" in universities, and legislation "intended to tackle binge drinking". The behaviour referred to in universities, and the intent of the Licensing Act 2003, is far more to do with the British definition than the article's definition, and hence the references are confusing or misleading. If anyone in future adds any British statistics on "binge drinking" then the contradiction of definitions would mean the data would almost certainly be just plain wrong. So I think that some kind of note on the different commonly-understood definition, perhaps just in the UK section, is in order. Onebyone 01:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd second the point about the cultural definition of binge drinking, from a uk point of veiw binge drinking has little if nothing to do with the time aspect of measuring inebriation and much more to do with the quantity Xuberant

Citations should be from a reliable source. Dr. Hanson has a PhD in Sociology and is not a medical clinician. In fact, binge drinking is sometimes described in the medical and scientific literature as being "consumption of half the weekly recommended units at a single session," where a standard unit is 8g of absolute alcohol. (See Descriptors and accounts of alcohol consumption: methodological issues piloted with female undergraduate drinkers in Scotland. Gill JS, Donaghy M, Guise J, Warner P. in Health Educ Res. 2006 Jun 1; [Epub ahead of print]). Generally it is described as excessive use on a single occasion, with no time limit to the duration of that occasion. I was unable to find any citations by physicians or reliable clinical sources indicating a binge to be defined as a two-day ongoing use of alcohol. Drgitlow 20:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fiction

Also, binge drinking is often a theme of classic novels, like A Farewell to Arms. It's a relatively normal thing, right? Is the term itself POV? 70.218.200.200 17:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Country order

Shouldn't the country order on this page have some system? Looks a bit random at the moment. Kansaikiwi 05:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bonkers

The section on the UK was obviously written by some Daily Mail reading fascist.

OK, we British like a drink, and admittedly that can lead to problems amongst certain people. Go to any town centre at a weekend and it looks like Dante's Inferno. But so what?

The fact that I get absolutely hammered every Friday and Saturday night, and spend the rest of the weekend in bed feeling rough is hardly cause for massive concern, is it?

[edit] Crazy binge-drinking British people!

"Britain's binge drinking culture is costing the country £20 billion a year, according to a government report. The study by the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit shows 17 million working days are lost to hangovers and drink-related illness each year. The annual cost to employers is estimated to be £6.4 billion while the cost to the NHS is in the region of £1.7bn. Billions more are spent clearing up alcohol-related crime and social problems. In addition, alcohol-related problems are responsible for 22,000 premature deaths each year. "

You should be concerned. Then again, looking at the foolish nation as a whole, binge-drinking isn't just accepted ... it's encouraged! People in their 40s boast about vomiting and being drunk. Britain is going down the pan, and most people can't see it.

The only crazy people are the ones who defend the pathetic binge-drinking culture.

Sorry, I'm a little confused. Either the binge drinking people are crazy, or the only crazy people are the ones who defend them. Unless the former is a strict subset of the latter, which to me seems unlikely since there are bound to be some binge drinkers who wouldn't actually defend it as a lifestyle, it can't be both. So exactly which people is it upon which you are passing a (no doubt professionally qualified and cooly considered without bias or emotion) mental health judgement? Onebyone 02:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, that same report conculded that the UK takes 7 bn a year in alcohol duty, and that the industry is worth 30bn per year to the UK economy (and I doubt that figure includes jobs treating alcohol-related problems). I make it that if a 30 bn a year industry is costing 20 bn a year elsewhere, we're 10 bn in profit. So the financials are in favour of drinking - best stick to the health risks if you want to dissuade people! Onebyone 02:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Research suggests that there's a net saving of lives caused by drinking alcohol in the UK [1] [2] and in other countries. [3]

[4]


Why are the points of view of a French footballer and an American actress considered important here? Are they sociologists?

[edit] Binge drinking in Australia

In Australia, a nation with a reputation for consumption of alcoholic beverages, it is estimated that 9/10 young adults aged 15-21 drink to excess at least once a month. This is despite the legal drinking age being 18 years. The subculture of drinking in Australia has been largely linked to the heritage of the country. People have always drunk heavily and the younger generations mimick the older ones. Unfortunately there is no end in sight to what experts are calling an epidemic and when high profile Australians, particularly Rugby League stars, are setting such a bad example that end doesn't appear to be getting any closer. Prime examples of this are Penrith Panthers star Craig Gower and Melbourne Storm sensation Michael Crocker.

That section has some serious problems. First of all, the legal drinking age does not apply on private property. Second of all, all this stuff about 'no end in sight' and an 'epidemic' seems a bit melodramatic. Binge drinking isn't really a major issue in the media at the moment unless you're watching A Current Affair.

I suggest cutting down on the hyperbole.MickBarnes 09:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No citation/Hearsay/non-NPOV

"...The student unions have endless drinks promotions, and are fuelling the problem."

The second part of the sentance is an unjustified statement of fact which sounds more like the opinion of the writer than somthing NPOV.

Unless there are objections, I will amend it to something like "For all the aforementioned reasons, it can be argued that they are fuelling the problem." Note the words 'can be' rather than 'is' in order to comply with a similar standard.

[edit] Situation in the Europe (vs. US)

In the section on Europe, there is the following sentence: Note that morbidity and mortality secondary to alcohol intake is much higher throughout these countries than in the United States. (referring to either Scandinavia or the Southern European countries, or both)

No source is cited for this claim. Also, the Global Status Report on Alcohol 2004 by the WHO has a table about alcohol-related mortality (page 57), and the figures there do not support the claim made here.

--zeno 07:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A nice discussion of the issues involved is available at www.weinberggroup.com/Independent-Review-Alcohol-Consumption-in-Europe-Report-12June06.pdf. One of the problems with the literature is that it is largely based upon mortality reports, as you note in the WHO report, which themselves aren't particularly useful. For example, if one dies as a result of driving while intoxicated, the cause of death is "motor vehicle accident," not "alcohol-related accident." Similarly, death due to hepatic failure secondary to alcohol intake is recorded as hepatic disease, not as alcohol-related illness. Death certificates and other retrospective data are therefore worthless in terms of their ability to assist in determining alcohol's contribution to morbidity/mortality.
The WHO notes that alcohol in Europe causes 9.2% of all ill-health and premature death. Between 40% and 60% of deaths from intentional and unintentional injury are attributable to alcohol consumption. The total societal costs of alcohol amount to between 1% and 3% of the gross domestic product in the European region. (see http://www.epha.org/a/1669).
The European Union is the heaviest drinking region of the world, with each adult drinking 11 litres of pure alcohol each year – a level over two-and-a-half times the rest of the world’s average (WHO 2004) (see http://ec.europa.eu/health-eu/news_alcoholineurope_en.htm [Chapter 4]). Chapter 5 provides the rest of the data necessary for support of my original entry into the article. Ultimately, morbidity and mortality are higher as a result of higher alcohol consumption on a per capita basis.
As an aside, I'm in the US and frequently have patients ask me why it is that Europeans seem to have a much higher intake of alcohol than we do, yet get away without significant damage. I'm not certain as to why that is their initial belief - the Europeans are doing a tremendous amount to deal with their ongoing alcohol-related morbidity - but for many decades there has been this perception of Europeans drinking alcohol without harm coming their way. The statistics tell quite a different story, and though the Americans don't seem to have noticed those, the Europeans have. Drgitlow 21:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

thank you for the quick reply (and sorry for the delay until I noticed that you replied). I still have some concerns:

  1. For example, if one dies as a result of driving while intoxicated, the cause of death is "motor vehicle accident," not "alcohol-related accident." - the WHO study takes traffic casualties into account. In Germany, for instance, drivers are tested for alcohol and other drugs after traffic accidents.
  2. The European Union is the heaviest drinking region of the world, with each adult drinking 11 litres of pure alcohol each year – a level over two-and-a-half times the rest of the world’s average (WHO 2004) - the average for the US is 8.51 litres, which is also higher than the world's average.
  3. The sources you cite deal with the high alcohol consumption in Europe and the problem of gaining good data for statistical analysis. Of course I agree on that. What is still missing is a source showing figures supporting the claim that mortality and morbidity are much higher than in the US. I have no certain opinion on that - it may be true or not - but it would be better to cite a source.

With kind regards, --zeno 13:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You make very good points. Is your primary issue with the word "much?" We know, for example, that in the EU, alcohol intake is roughly 20% higher per capita than it is in the US. We would therefore expect morbidity/mortality to be higher as well, but there could be many reasons for that not to be the case (e.g. better laws against drunk driving, a smoother distribution of alcohol intake across the population rather than high intake individuals offsetting nondrinkers, etc.) The WHO study indicates higher alcohol-related morbidity/mortality but not "much" higher and it doesn't seem to be higher by the percentage one might expect given the alcohol intake differential. Is eliminating "much" satisfactory? Thanks, Drgitlow 23:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number One on Google

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/BingeDrinking.html ranks #1 on Google for "Binge drinking"NumberOneGoogle 18:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/i/n/Talk%7EBinge_drinking_739c.html"