Talk:Alcoholic beverage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alcoholic beverage article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] EDIT

i fixed some awful coding on this page and made it actually look OK Austynhawkins (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Decreases reaction time?

I think the part where it says a significant BAC decreases reaction time should be changed to INCREASES reaction time. If it decreased the time, wouldn't that mean it made doing things take LESS time? If no one objects I'm gonna change it 76.5.154.115 (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Alcohol a strong psychoactive drug?

The introductory text states that "Ethanol is a strong psychoactive drug". When I think of strong psychoactive drugs, I think of heroin, LSD, Cocaine, Opium, Morphine, etc. What is the official definition of a strong psychoactive drug? If there is no official definition, then I suggest that we remove 'strong' from the wording as it sounds like POV. 209.167.191.66 12:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The neutrality and factual accuracy of the "Health" section is questionable

Many studies used as sources do not disclose or consider proxy variables (unapparent variables that significantly affect the outcome than the claimed causative variables of the study), so many of the "facts" are incorrect. For example, many studies put ex-drinkers and lifetime abstainers into one group, which makes the "abstainer" group less healthy overall.

In addition, sources and facts from this article have been removed by unregistered people. One source in particular is Alcohol -- Health Benefit or Hazard?. -Usernamefortonyd


In reality, research began addressing this problem years ago and the results remain the same. In addition, many of the mechanisms whereby alcohol reduces cardiovascular disease, the major cause of death, are clearly understood. So not only is it an established fact that alcohol in moderation reduces cardiovascular disease, but we know how it reduces them. There is consensus about this in the medical research community. Medical Man 18:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Too bad the negative health effects of alcohol (notably brain damage and liver sclerosis) outweigh the positive (lower LDL cholesterol), especially since there are safer ways to lower LDL cholesterol (exercise, a diet moderate in animal fat and calories) [1]. -Usernamefortonyd
How do the negative effects of alcohol correlate to consumption? How do the positive effects of alcohol correlate to consumption? If you only experience negatives with heavy drinking, and only positives with moderate drinking, then moderate alcohol consumption is perfectly safe. But I don't know what the actual figures are --- do you? Ninjadroid 04:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I am more convinced of the alcohol industry's consensus about the positive effects of alcohol than that of the legitimate medical community. We must seriously consider the source. In The Biochemical Basis of Neuropharmacology by Cooper Bloom and Roth, the toxicological effects of alcohol are directly implicated in a number of behavioral disorders including tardive dyskinesias. Furthermore given the addictive potential of the toxin even a moderate dose of ethyl alcohol should not to be recommended from a purely logical/academic perspective. If a consensus can be reached that the accuracy of the positive effects, outside of temporary addiction withdrawal cessation, is questionable we should consider removing such faulty claims in the interest of information integrity, in line with keeping Wikipedia a source of reliable information. I vote to remove anything that seems contradictory to scientific evidence and in this case against common sense (Alcohol toxification is a threat to the development of society). Mannaseejah|Date

[edit] Debunking the "health benefits" of alcohol

The industry would like you to think there are benefits. Check out these articles.

BBC News | Health | Alcohol Benefits Debunked

Deception in Reporting About Alcohol

-Usernamefortonyd

Apparently the only verified benefits have been from red wine due to the antioxidants in the tannins, not the alcohol. The only other benefit from alcohol, is that drinking some alcohol (i.e. wine) prior to eating will serve to kill bacteria in the food. Also, in times in the middle ages when town/city water supplies were contaminated with e. coli, it was safer to drink beer than to drink the water. --Thoric 18:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

However, alcohol in itself is indeed solely toxic. --Jobjörn 19:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

So why does the article say that moderate alcohol consumption is good for one's health? -71.50.156.132

These are rasonable questions, but there are very good reasons why the article reports that moderate drinking is good for heath. The consensus within the medical research community is that the consumption of alcohol in moderation causes better health and greater longevity than either abstaining or abusing alcohol. Well known medical authority Dean Edell, M.D., asserts that "you would have to be living on another planet not to know that alcohol -- in moderation -- is good for your health."
Research demonstrates that the risk of dying in any given year is 25 percent lower for those who consume moderate amounts of alcohol. Abstaining from alcohol is a health risk factor; that is, it increases the chance of poor health and death. That’s why the science-based Harvard Good Eating Pyramid recommends the moderate consumption of alcohol (beer, wine, distilled spirits) for everyone except those with a good reason not to drink.
Many of the mechanisms whereby alcohol leads to better heart health are understood. Among other things, drinking alcohol in modertion lowers LDL ("bad" cholesterol) and raises HDL ("good" cholesterol), reduces blood pressure, increases coronary blood flow, reduces platelet aggregation, reduces fibrinogen, and increases fibrinolysis.
Some critics suggest that the benefits of moderate drinking could be obtained from a regimen of eating a very low-fat diet, vigorously exercising regularly, eliminating salt from the diet, and losing weight. However, Dr. Eric Rimm of Harvard reports that people have increases of 10 to 30 percent in HDL ("good" cholesterol) in a week from drinking alcohol. That’s much easier for most people than following a demanding diet and exercise program. In adition, the consumption of alcohol in moderation further enhances the health benefits of a good diet, a vigorous exercise program, and successful weight loss.
Of course, the abuse of alcohol can have negative health consequences.David Justin 16:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
That's a bunch of bias and misinformation, "David Justin" (which not a real username, just a person who doesn't want to be held accountable for their post). You're trying to make eating moderately and exercising seem like a very hard thing. Weasel words, like "demanding" and "diet", are used. You also attempt to argue that eating moderately and exercising is a complicated process by increasing the number of things one can do in your contrived list of things to do ("eating a very low-fat diet, vigorously exercising regularly, eliminating salt from the diet, and losing weight") by adding unneccesary statments - "eliminating salt from the diet" and "losing weight". The "eliminating salt" statement is not factual because sodium is a vital mineral required for vital bodily functions [2]. The "losing weight" statement is obviously there to make their list seem longer - losing weight is a result of exercising and does not need to be stated. In addition, "Vigorously exercising" and "very low-fat" are weasel statements.
This kind of misleading content does not belong in an encylopedia. You alcohol-industry beneficiaries need to take your propoganda elsewhere. -Usernamefortonyd
From your combative tone of voice, Usernamefortonyd, it is clear who the biased person in this discussion is. The health benefits of moderate (1-2 drinks/day) are extremely well established in dozens of large, longitudinal studies with all kinds of cohorts. In particular, the lower risk of cardiovascular events and better retention of cognitive abilities among the elderly stand out. The studies similarly find that both abstaining and excessive consumption raise your risks. Importantly, excessive consumption can raise risks much more than abstaining, resulting in u-shaped mortality/risk curves that have their minimum (=optimum) around 1-2 d/day. So if a person can't drink in moderation, no alcohol is the better choice without question. For the majority of people, however, moderate consumption is the choice with the best expected outcomes.

4.159.164.250 10:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Alcohol Makes your Brain Grow

Alocohol 'improves IQ'

Ninjadroid 04:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Alchohol 'Could Reduce Dementia Risk' GBMorris 01:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Scientist articles

Anyone writing on alcohol should check the link I just added to a bunch of articles in the British New Scientist magazine. Seriously interesting stuff here [3] Ortolan88 19:11 Aug 18, 2002 (PDT)

[edit] Size of page

This drinks list is getting uncomfortably long. Any way we can split it up? Minimax

[edit] Spirits and liqueurs

"Spirits" get redirected here - so what is the difference ?

Spirits usually means distilled beverages and liqueurs made with them. But what are fortified wines or liqueurs made from wine? Rmhermen 00:21 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)
My American Heritage Dictionary says alcoholic beverages, esp. distilled liquors. I would redirect to liquor, except that goes to alcohol. I think alcoholic beverage is a good compromise. Wnissen 06:06 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Acetaldehyde dehydrogenase

does anyone know if there's a difference between acetaldehyde dehydrogenase and aldehyde dehydrogenase, or if they're just alternate names for the same enzyme? i've seen several articles ([4], [5]) which use the latter name for the enzyme that breaks down acetaldehyde to acetic acid, so i'd like to add a redirect or something, but i'm just a poor layman and can't figure out what the connection is. - Esk 20:55, 2004 May 2 (UTC)

[edit] Legal status in muslim countries

I deleted the statement

... with other countries most notably muslim countries heavily restricting them.

because it seemed too simplistic and possibly inaccurate. My impression was that there is no uniformity in the legal status of alcoholic beverages among "muslim" countries (whatever that means); and that even among countries that adopt the strict Islamic law as state law would allow commerce and consumption of alcoholic beverages by Christians and Jews. Is that correct?

All of these countries prohibit it. They catch you with it, the penalty is death. It is seen as a "corruption of morals", among other things. While I was in school, some teachers had been to these nations. Martial Law 00:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Now that's what I call some heavy references. "Some teachers when I was in school". I live in Islamic Republic of Mauritania, where, as in most countries that accept the term "islamic" for their state, foreigners are allowed to import alcohol through their embassies, and foreign owners of retaurants are allowed to sell alcohol to foreigners. And I'm only talking about the law here. As it is a lucrative business, practice is even cooler. I don't think you could find more than 2 countries in the world that would actually apply death penalty to locals drinking alcohol, let alone foreigners. One of my best friend was found drunk in the street in Saudi Arabia (there is hardly a more muslim country) last year, and spent one night in jail, as he would have in Nevada. Please refrain from adding on subjects you have no idea of.--SidiLemine 12:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed Buddhism. There isn't a total and general ban on alcohol among Buddhists.

Roadrunner 05:00, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Underage drinking

That's one thing that bugs me about the Federal Government, how it always loves to hang highway fund money over the heads of the state governments in order to force feed legislation down the throats of the states.

Another problem is that I don't think that kids are getting the education they need about drinking. From age 6 up to the day before their 21st birthday, the message is "don't drink, don't drink, don't drink." These government people give no thought about how to educate people on drinking other than to tell them not to until they turn 21. As a result, on their 21st birthday a lot of people go out and drink themselves sick.

In my family, I was taught to treat alchocol with respect at all times, and to never drive while under the influence. That education started while I was in high school, and continued up until I was 21. My parents made sure that I had the proper introduction to alchocol. In my mind, the home is the best way to truly teach kids about drinking, and to make sure their ready for that responsibility when the time comes. I think that one of the reasons underage drinking is such a problem these days is because the kids aren't getting the proper introduction that they need.

JesseG 05:12, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Could someone please add information about how "the difference between U.S. and German law has occasionally led to severe problems with exchange students from the U.S. who visited Germany"? BTW, JesseG, you have excellent parents, consider yourself lucky if you don't already. :-) --Cuervo 11:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They probably could get in trouble with their school in the US. I'm from Germany. When I was 16 we were buying alcohol and cigarettes at a gas station. Suddenly there was this tourist from America standing in front of us. She was totally shocked when we told her that underage drinking is legal! Finally she took several pictures of us drinking and smoking in public. I would love to get these pictures :-)). Damn, we forgot to tell her that sex under 18 and prostitution are legal too (and the possession of small amounts of weed is not punished). Thank you America, I will never forget this great moment in my life :)))

[edit] Some one messed around with the entry

Looks like some one got bored and changed some of the entry around. I fixed what I could find, but there is probably more.

[edit] Effects of Alcohol

This article's section on Effects of Alcohol should reference to the already informative article on Drunkenness and Hangover. The content of this page and Drunkenness should be merged by someone knowledgable, because this page's section has some stuff the page on drunkenness does not. --Costyn 12:45, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Intoxication

"Eight to ten drinks per hour is considered a fatal dosage for the average 120 lb person"

Not all of us are American, why is this the only measurement to not have a metric equivilant?

[edit] Conflicting etymology of brandy

This article lists it as "burnt wine" while the brandy article lists it differently as "distilled wine". Can anyone that speaks Dutch comment? Is there a place in the Dutch wikipedia it is acceptable to ask in English? - Taxman 23:06, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

"Brandy is a beverage distilled from wine or fermented fruit mash. The word is from the Dutch brandewijn, meaning burnt (or distilled) wine."David Justin 04:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Alcohol percentage

I missed a bit on this (what does the 14% vol. etc... in wines and booze in general). It may well be elsewhere, though. Pfortuny 09:30, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "not usually consumed"

re: fermented product of "potatoes/grain." This is probably true for potatoes, but for grain it is called "beer," and at my house at least it is consumed on a regular basis. Clarify this? NTK 22:02, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm new here. Hope I'm not screwing anything up, but potatoes are used to make Vodka. Vodka is a major industry in Idaho because of the availability of their potatoes. 68.2.82.106 03:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)1LBatch

[edit] The intro

I changed some stuff back in the intro.

  • "Regarded as a boon" - typically the word boon refers to a specific benefit, and is phrased "a boon to ..." its use here is awkward.
  • Chemical dependency isn't synonymous with addiction.
  • 50% of accidents where? Hope this isn't a US-only figure...
  • "Alcohol abuse" is POV
  • Not all governments regulate or restrict alcohol, do they?

Rhobite 04:37, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

We meet again? Your comments sent me to the dictionary, but . . .

  • A "boon" is a "benefit" or a "blessing" as per the Webster. Nothing specific there unless it is made out to be.
  • Idem for your second comment. I did a quick search. See how many bona fide references on "alcohol addiction" you'll find on any search engine. Why are we beating around the bush on this one?
  • You are right on #3. I'll ammend it.
  • "Alcohol abuse" is POV Please explain.
  • Name one government that does not. Haiduc 11:27, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lethal dose

This was just added to the article:

Eight to ten drinks per hour is considered a fatal dosage for the average 120 lb person. One drink is equivalent to one shot of 80 proof liquor, one 12 oz beer, or one 4-5 oz glass of wine.

Is this "drink" a standard unit? It's not very precisely specified here. How can a fatal dosage be expressed "per hour"? And do you have a reference for this figure? --Khendon 14:44, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It sounds quite inaccurate to me. Beer has about 5-8% alcohol, so a 12-ounce beer is between 0.6 and 1 ounces of alcohol. Wine is 12-14% alcohol, so a 5-ounce glass is 0.6-0.7 ounces of alcohol. 80-proof liquor is 40% alcohol, so a one-ounce shot is 0.4 ounces of alcohol. So the quantity of alcohol being described as "a drink" varies by over 100% -- from 0.4 ounces to 1 ounce.
I think we might consider Dylan Thomas's fatal eighteen straight shots of scotch to be some kind of figure here. --FOo 15:19, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've removed it now. I was thinking about it a little more; if nothing else, 8-10 units in one hour is clearly not a lethal dose. --Khendon 18:01, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Although, this does raise something that should be included in the article - a discussion of common units used to measure alcohol intake. --Khendon 18:03, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Added metric units to it with the American ones in brackets to make it consistent with the rest of the article (which uses ml)

Average fatal dose determined by weight? It's all based off of how well your liver works. Which is why someone who has a weight of 272lbs can drink 6 beers in one hour and still be below a BAC of .08, while another person with an identical build and a weight of 275lbs can drink three beers in an hour and blow over a .08. Weight is good for LEO's to make quick guesses, to determine a course of action, but it's rare that those actually come close. CPL Andy

[edit] methanol?

ummm... last time i checked, methanol is highly toxic, and can cause blindness and death. methanol was an adulterant added during prohibition to substitute for more expensive ethanol, and has NEVER been used by any legitimate producer of alcoholic beverages EVER. someone please remove it from the article. thanks -jesus shark

Actually, all alcoholic beverages contain small amounts of methanol (some more than others). Since ethanol is an antidote to methanol poisoning, a small amount of methanol in your drink will not poison you. It is the methanol that gives certain drinks their characteristic "warmth" (or burn for those with a little more methanol). For example compare a plain grain alcohol to scotch or tequilla. If an alcoholic beverage contains too much (or primarily) methanol, that is when blindness and death becomes part of the picture. --Thoric 23:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Okay, so it appears that any methanol mention has been eliminated from this article (pre-2004?), as well as fusel alcohol (which I'm not sure was ever mentioned in this article). I'd like to see both put into the article, and I'd like to know what other chemicals are in alcohol.... (and how they effect/interact with taste of the drink and health of the drinker)
~ender 2005-10-04 22:55:MST
There's a lot of things in any drink, you can't expect to list them all. all sorts of different things contribute to the flavour of the drink, although I'm not sure about the methanol being the source of the "warmth" as Thoric says. methanol and ethanol are very similar compounds and therefore take several fractional distillations to separate. However, not all fermenting mixtures will produce methanol in the first place. Vodka is usually the "purest" alcohol drink in that it is mostly ethanol and water without much else in it in any sufficient amount. However, it's impractical to purify anything that much commercially (except for use in a laboratory, and that gets very expensive). Pure ethanol and water would be colourless, flavourless (although I still think it would have that burn effect) and apparently not cause a hangover. it's the impurities which make each drink unique.--KX36 (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] religious views on alcohol consumption

I think this category should be added. Should focus on which religions oppose or forbid drinking and their reasons for doing so. Mormon, Islamic, Baptist, Free Presbyterian Church, Pentecostal, et. al.

user:ted-m 00:47, 15 Apr 2005


[edit] HDL cholosterol is a form of cholesterol

See ATPIII. Please provide a reference if you still believe that HDL cholesterol is incorrect. Nereocystis 05:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually HDL and LDL are lipoproteins, little membrane-bound micelles which transport cholesterol as well as other lipids in the aqueous medium of blood. The cholesterol contained within is the same. The important differences are in where the lipoproteins traffic the lipids to and from. In the world of marketing, HDL is 'good cholesterol' and LDL is 'bad cholesterol', but they both have their own physiological functions.--KX36 (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Better picture?

When one first sees this article, probably the first thing they will see is a picture. Which is a picture of empty bottles. Why in the world are they empty? I do not have a picture myself or I would replace it, but a glass of beer, a bottle of wine, a shotglass of vodka or whatever would be infinitly more suitable; in an article about alcoholic beverages, there should be a picture of the beverages themselves.

Follow the Commons link right bellow the picture. You should find one that pleases you. --Abu Badali 01:37, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chocolate

Should chocolate be added to the list of accepted stimulants? --Error 20:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Um...

"The difference between U.S. and German law has occasionally led to severe problems with exchange students from the U.S. who visited Germany. The problem stems from the fact that when the pupils are in Germany they are subject to German law, but as visitors from the U.S. (and pupils of an American school) they should still obey U.S. law (this argument is purely a moralistic one). Their German hosts might not have a problem serving them German beer but the pupils might be in trouble when they return to the U.S."

Is this paragraph really neccessary? It looks like some crappy anecdote more than information relevant to an encyclopedia.

It's certainly important and relevant information. I recall a news-article about some US high-school class visiting Germany, the pupils having an "a little beer is okay"-agreement, therefore drinking beer, and catching hell for it when they went back home because the powers that be reneged on the deal. On the other hand, such an anecdote might be better suited to a "don't ever trust the powers that be"-article, with a link from here. (How Americans expect kids to learn how to be responsible and civilized when they are not treated responsibly and in a civilized manner beats me, but that is certainly an observation that is not right for this particular article...) --Kaleissin 15:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I completely agree and just checked here before removing it. Whether or not it's relevant information for some purpose isn't really the point -- rather it's not relevant for an encyclopedia article on alcoholic beverages. Not only that it singles out Germany, but in fact the point holds for the majority of western countries. Beyond that suggesting that one is bound to US laws when outside of the US is (a) silly and (b) again, not encyclopedic. More relevant would be the fact that drinking is often off limits within the agreement between the exchange organization and the student. However if that information is relevant anywhere it's in an article on student exchange programs. (For reference I'm an American that had German students stay with my family while in high school and I've been living in Germany for several years.) Scott.wheeler 20:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Umm...

Theres something weird appearing at the end of the "See also" section. Appears to be a link to an article in a version of Wikipedia in another language (although to me it looks like gibberish). Couldn't figure out where it originated on page editor. See "tlh:HIq" after "Psychoactive Drug." Fuzzform 22:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It's due to an interwiki-link to the klingon wikipedia. I've removed it. Kaleissin 00:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ouzo the greek olive liquor

not metioned in the chart of items use for distilling

Ouzo is not made from olives. It is made from grapes, and is subsequently spiced with anise and other ingredients. See ouzo for details. I doubt it would be practical to make an alcoholic beverage from olives; fermentation requires sugars, not oil. --FOo 10:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of fermented beverages

The original article states "Fermented alcoholic beverages have been known since at least 4000 BC." without giving a source.

However, the article for Ethanol states "Dried residues on 9000-year-old pottery found in northern China imply the use of alcoholic beverages even among Neolithic peoples.", also without a source.

An authoritative source for the 9000 year-old statement has been found at [6].

I have thus updated the original article to be "Chemical analyses of organics absorbed and preserved in pottery jars from the Neolithic village of Jiahu, in Henan province, Northern China, have revealed that a mixed fermented beverage of rice, honey, and fruit was being produced as early as 9,000 years ago. This is approximately the same time that barley beer and grape wine were beginning to be made in the Middle East."

[edit] Potato

I saw the movie The Teahouse of the August Moon some time ago, and in that movie, it was claimed that the Okinawans used to distill some alcohol from potato. I don't recall exactly, but it could be noted if it's something particular. 惑乱 分からん 19:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Predisposition

Is the predisposition of indigenous Australians to alcohol factual? Can anyone confirm this? If not, why is it on the page? Isopropyl 04:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The "theory" goes that since the Australian natives did not have alcohol before the Europeans arrived, they are genetically unprepared to imbibe... I believe that's nonsense. Anyway, I added a "citation needed" marker; if nobody comes up with a source in a reasonable time than that claim should be removed. Dmaftei 19:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the baseless assertion, which merely reflects a prejudice. There is no evidence whatsoever of a genetic predisposition to alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence among Australian natives, so no one will be able to provide it.David Justin 19:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alcoholic beverages in public places

Article says:

In most European countries, eg. Poland, one has be 18 to legally buy, drink or possess alcoholic beverages. In most countries of central, eastern, and southern Europe it is also forbidden to drink alcoholic beverages in public places, such as streets and parks.

That would be central, eastern, and southern, leaving only "western" and "northern". Here in most of Scandinavia, it is indeed forbidden to drink alcoholic beverages in public places, leaving only "western". I'm not entirely sure, but I am quite confident it is forbidden there too. I suggest that we write just "In most countries of Europe" or "In most European countries". What do you think? Jobjörn 23:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's legal to drink in public places in Germany by the way...


It is also legal in Italy. Is that Southern Italy? 67.165.197.109 07:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Legal in Belgium too. And quite common by the way. Fred.

It's also legal in Austria Strahli82 17:11, 26 November 2007 (CET)

[edit] Legal considerations

Section needs quite a bit of cleaning up in structure terms. Also why does it talk about alcohol production being legal for personal use in new zealand? does it mean spirit production? I dont know of any countries where you can make your beer and wine. Discordance 02:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Brewing beer and making wine for personal use is legal in the United States. Only the distillation of spiirits is illegal.David Justin 16:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

sorry i typoed I meant cant make beer and wine, and the fact that you can in new zealand is non-notable, unless it means they may distill spirits. Discordance 18:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
According to [7] it is legal to distil spirits for personal use in NZ. Dmaftei 14:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
A listing of such laws by country would make a valuable contribution to Wikipedia.David Justin 16:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
It is also legal (no sources noted) to brew beer, wine and distill spirits in Australia (you mean you're not allowed to do that in other countries?). Unusually, anyone can buy the brewing equipment without being over the legal drinking age (its sold in supermarkets for beer).

[edit] The intro (again)

"Contrary to popular belief, alcohol is a drug, and is a depressant." -- is it really necessary to hammer this point home in the first paragraph? And also, what exactly is the "popular belief" about alcohol? 83.245.17.176 07:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is, as most people do not realise this. Alcohol is a psychoactive drug. It is a depressant, and therefore if you drink while taking other depressants, the effects will be multiplied. This is important information. What do you have against it? --Thoric 01:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pulque

This alcoholic beverage is made in Mexico out of a certain cactus, the smell alone will make you drunk. Then there is the more widely known Tequila, which has a dead bug in each bottle. Martial Law 00:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bacterial virulence

I moved this paragraph here from the "Uses" section because there are some problems with it. First, it doesn't really fit in the "Uses" section. Second, the mentioned study is not referenced, although it is referenced from an identical paragraph in the Acinetobacter baumannii article. Third, this paragraph doesn't properly summarize the information in that reference (which is only an abstract for an unrefereed poster at a conference-- not an authoritative work) e.g., the bacteria were fed ethanol, not the nematodes. Fourth, the bit about "common misconception" isn't really objective.

A recent study indicated that ethanol has been found to stimulate the virulence of Acinetobacter baumannii. Tests on infected nematode worms that were dosed with ethanol found that the worms laid fewer eggs and their life spans were only 80% of worms infected with a version of A. baumannii that didn't respond to ethanol. This study suggests that the common misconception that drinking alcohol kills infections is false and drinking alcohol may actually help the infection to grow.^ 

--Will.Brunner 05:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Listen up...

EVERYONE WHO DRINKS ALCOHOL MUST DIE A HORRIBLE DEATH. THEY ONLY DRINK IT TO GET DRUNK AND THEY HAVE NO RESPECT FOR THEIR HEALTH. --72.65.235.79 19:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a healthy individual drinking 28 standard drinks a week or less (no more than 6 on any one occasion), is not at risk from their alcohol consumption. Some studies have shown 2 glasses of red wine a night have beneficial cardiovascular effects - reducing the risk of heart attack, stroke, and cardiac sudden death. W.Ross 01:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

So - let me understand. One of the reasons you would like everyone who drinks alcohol is because they have no respect for their health, right? I'm looking for a stronger word than "ridiculous". As for "only drinking to get drunk", maybe you shouldn't go to that much high school and student parties. They're obviously not for you. If that can be a comfort to you, most non-drinkers in the western world end up, like you, on the internet, because they don't get out of their homes. Maybe you could make a precedent by managing to drink just a glass or two, without getting drunk, and you might actually learn something. If you don't understand what I'm saying, please say so, and I'll write it in caps.--SidiLemine 13:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, the person who wrote the above is acting absurdly, but I don't understand the urge to insult others who refrain from drinking. You assert that people who refrain from drinking tend to have no social life and end up internet addicts(funny that you, with your social life, are monitoring this talk page), but this is rather baseless. Indeed, many under the age of the majority have robust social lives that do not involve drinking. Hence, it seems absurd to posit that the same fails for those of the majority. Given such, your post is, essentially, an admission of your belief that socialization has alcohol as a prequisite. Perhaps, you should examine your own position prior to insulting a whole class of people who refrain from imbibing psychoactive toxins...oh, and if you don't understand what I'm saying, please say so, and I'll write it in substandard english chockful of mangled grammar.Phoenix1177 06:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Presence of GHB/GBL in alcoholic beverages.

Shouldn't the article mention the fact that some alcoholic beverages (especially red wines) contain small amounts of GHB and GBL? Reference: http://www.erowid.org/references/refs_view.php?A=ShowDocPartFrame&ID=6513&DocPartID=6040

Although these small amounts would have no effect if taken alone, I'm certain that it has been proven that alcohol and GHB/GBL inhibit each other's metabolism, which would cause a lowering of dosage (of both agents).

Other's opinions? --Mark PEA 20:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Actully, GHB/GBL increase the likelihood of death when combined with alchohol. It says so in my Health textbook.

[edit] Islam

The whole In Islam sections seems to be OR and conjecture to me. Qur'an is ambiguite on this issue? Really? --Striver 07:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's an allusion to the medical use authorisation?--SidiLemine 13:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hops

I can't believe that you didn't mention hops as a source of alchoholic beverages. I know for a fact that it's put in many beers and is even mentioned in the video game The Bard's Tale (in a song, no less).

Hops is primarily used as a flavouring and stabilizing agent not a fermentation basis.--SidiLemine 09:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Booze

There is a redirect to here from "Booze", and there is a village named that. is that OK? If so, there should be the diff thing on top of the page.--SidiLemine 09:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is the Booze redirect which needs to be changed, and turned into an disambiguation page. This page doesn't need to be touched. Note that to edit a redirect you click on the special link after "redirected from". Notinasnaid 11:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straight Edge?

Isn't it a little wierd with the link to this youth movement on this page? If this link should be here, we could as well add Alcoholics Anonymous, Rational Recovery, or a youth organization in favour of exessive vodka consumption? If it existed. --PeterKristo 07:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Odd indeed. There are vast numbers of articles about alcohol abuse, too many to link here, but perhaps a page collecting the links would be good (not sure what Wikipedia policies say about this). I have tidied up, added Alcoholics Anonymous and moved it and Straight Edge under teetotalism. But I have no particular attachment to them staying there. Notinasnaid 10:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Update: Category:Alcohol abuse exists, a subcategory of Category:Alcohol exists, so no link pages are needed; proper reference to the categories would be good. The real imbalance, though, seems to lie in Template:Alcoholic beverages. Notinasnaid 10:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for contributing to a more objective article. I did'nt want to delete the link without anybody agreeing. --PeterKristo 21:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chemistry

How much of the alcoholic beverages are made from Ethanol? --70.111.218.254 23:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

All alcoholic beverages (for human consumption) contain ethanol. Notinasnaid 00:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Underage picture

Not sure if this picture should be up. --70.111.218.254 23:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is useful, and in what country is it supposed to be applicable (since laws around the world vary)? Notinasnaid 00:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive beverages

Anyone see anything wrong with this: "Alcoholic beverages include low-alcohol-content beverages produced by fermentation of sugar- or starch-containing products, and high-alcohol-content beverages produced by distillation of the low-alcohol-content beverages. Sometimes, the alcohol content of low-alcohol-content beverages is increased by adding distilled products, particularly in the case of wines."? --Guinnog 19:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alcohol consumption and health section bias

While this section may only summarize what is in the actual article, it is so biased! Why does it focus so much on health benefits and not on health risks? Alcohol has far more health risks than benefits (ie destruction of brain cells, significant increase in kidney and liver disease, ect.). Look at the cocaine and meth article and there is far more negative than positive. I'm not saying alcohol is as bad as coke or meth, but it isn't too far off. Just because alcohol is legal doesn't make it a much better drug.

More needs to be said about the health risks in that section. Zachorious 13:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Then find some citations and do it. WilyD 14:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The section is neither fish nor fowl at the moment. It goes into detail on a few topics but ignores others almost completely. It needs reducing to a few bullet points and the main articles should take the burden of detail. I'll have a go. Nunquam Dormio 16:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Selling hours

Did I miss it or is there no mention of the legal selling hours of alcohol? Over here in the states it is illegal to sell alcohol at certain hours of the day. Quadzilla99 13:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] is there a concentraceon limit

i've never seen anything over 40% —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.161.21.191 (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

There are many alcoholic beverages sold in concentrations above 40% (80 proof); for instance 151 proof rum and the higher grades of Everclear. They're generally used in mixed drinks. Above a certain concentration, ethanol is hygroscopic; it isn't possible to get 100% alcohol by distillation. --FOo 08:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Drinking Age

In Australia, the age for the purchase and possession of alcohol is 18, but it may be consumed in the home or under adult supervision at any age.

Alcoholic beverage consumed in the home or under adult supervision at any age i believe is an urban myth.

Youth guide on Queensland Drinking Laws [8]

--DarkAxi0m 03:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  • It mentions exceptions - this doesn't seem crazy - in Canada it's the same if you replace or under adult supervision with under legal guardian supervision. But a 12 year old can legally drink a beer if his mom gives it to him and they're at home.

[edit] alcoholic beverages and god

my comments on such subjects are very rare, listen with care my fellow frere!alcoholic beverages are such bad thingsa on our earth and god doesnt want them because they are evil! god be with you all —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.176.215.77 (talk) 08:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

People like you really bug me. All-powerful god can't make "evil" alcohol just disappear? Or not create things that make alcohol in the first place? Get a clue. Trekphiler 22:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Six-Pack

When was beer (&/or soda) first sold that way? Trekphiler 22:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latin Hangove

I don't speak Latin, and so may be incorrect in what follows; but I thought that "crapula" was Latin for intoxication. The artilce seems to imply that it means hangover. Could someone who knows one way, or the other, clarify this?Phoenix1177 06:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alcoholic beverage (Drug)

Please be fair to other drugs and add the "drug" tag to the title. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug) for an example. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.112.196.4 (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That (drug) is there because there are several articles with the same title. Cannabis is a genus of plants, including non-psychoactive varieties. When a specific Cannabis variety is used for a specific use, then it is cannabis (drug). There is only one article about alcoholic beverages. --Vuo 11:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sale and possession restrictions

I think this section could become too unwieldy if other countries are treated with as much detail as the Nordic and U.S. countries. Perhaps it should be moved to a separate article? Discuss :) BrickMcLargeHuge 03:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a mistake to have a bunch of sections that just say, "In country foo, the legal drinking age is 21" or whatever. --FOo 09:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. BrickMcLargeHuge 17:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tolerance

I just added the line about tolerance. I felt the information there (after i corrected the arithmetic) gave a misimpression about the rarity and mechanism of (survivable) BOLs near .4%, since it's reported that .45% is LD50, and "vomiting and/or unconsciousness are triggered much sooner, so this level is rarely reached unless a large amount of alcohol is consumed very quickly". The quoted section is incorrect, at least standing alone. I worked for over a year in a drug/alcohol rehab, and routinely preformed BOL tests (by breath) on incoming clients, many of whom were long-time alcoholics. BOLs over .3% were not a daily thing, but occurred many times, incl in people who were intoxicated (oc) but surprisingly functional. We also had folks over .4%, tho much less often, and we sent them to the hospital as a matter of policy -- but death in such cases was almost unheard of. Just sharing this to explain my confidence in the information, and why i feel it's a part of an accurate picture. I'm sorry i can make time only for this, and not to search out a scholarly reference. Hope this helps, "alyosha" (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

First, sorry for the brain freeze above re "BOL" for "BAL".

Don't know if Xiaphias read the above -- i was sloppy/hasty in not linking it. And i see the link i put in edit summary didn't work; not my day. (Not alcohol-related, i can assure you. ;^) ) I bow to the feedback re subjectivity (tho it was really more vague than subjective...), but not the complete removal. First, the info as i found it was incomplete to inaccurate; and tho sourced, not checkably so. Second, my addition as it is now is both clear and unquestionable by anyone familiar with the subject -- many many chronic heavy drinkers can gradually drink themselves to very high BALs, unlike what the article had said. Third, my comrade has added unsourced material, so let's be fair... Fourth, WP norms are to *add* sources -- if nec -- to helpful additions, not to remove good info until those editors have time to find sources for every sentence. I think it's obvious which practice leads to a better encyclopedia... Finally, i changed the sentence preceding my addition so it's a bit better; but if my changes still don't please, replace them with something that keeps the article factual and informative in the way i have tried to do. Hope this helps, "alyosha" (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, well, I'm hardly an expert in the field; however, the information I added was based on my neuropsychopharmacology textbook, which elucidated very plainly in the section regarding alcohol that vomiting and/or unconsciousness precede lethality by a substantial margin, which effectively prevents lethality unless a large quantity of alcohol is consumed in a short period of time. So, barring the citation of some source which countermands this information, I'm inclined to leave the section as it was.
Again, I'm no expert, and I apologize if this issue is manifestly obvious to you -- I suppose a similar situation would arise if we were debating whether the Theodosian walls of Constantinople were ever breached prior to the Turkish conquest (I'm quite certain that they weren't, but I probably couldn't cite a specific reference for this information). As for why I deleted it: I generally fact-tag unsourced statements and delete unsourced numerical figures. As far as I know, both are acceptable according to Wikipedia policy. I do this because I'd prefer an article to have no information over wrong information (which isn't to imply that yours is necessarily incorrect).
Anyways, sorry for making an issue of it, but I really would feel more comfortable if you've some book or journal that you can link that statement too; it's entirely possible that Dr. Meyer oversimplified the issue in his book, but barring some kind of evidence to the contrary I'll have to assume that he didn't.
Cheers, --Xiaphias (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thx for the resp. All well taken. For conversation's sake:
  • Looking really quickly, i subsequently found this info at Blood_alcohol_content#Effects_at_different_levels: "For a long-time, heavy drinker, those numbers can at least double. In extreme cases, individuals have survived BACs as high as 0.914." (partially ref'd) Not an external ref, but hopefully that makes you feel more easy about the info. I assume your textbook is excellent, but was simply talking about std people in that section. Huge difference, such as why no intake at all is fine for me but potentially lethal to chronic heavy drinkers, which is another way of looking at how extreme the tolerance effect is... There's also the issue of unconsciousness before death in general, vs BAL numbers, which in this case were clearly valid only for non-heavy-drinkers.
  • Re WP practice: I'd be fine with a sourcing tag -- that's why i called attn to it in the first edit summary: to invite others and to respect the very sourced context. People vary in their deletion practices: that's what reversion and collaboration and talk pages are for. ;^) I would respectfully suggest, since you make a point of it twice, that a single source, even a great one, isn't nec justification for deleting additional good info. I'd also like to add (mindful of the irony of my typing this vs looking for a source), in defense of my and *many* people's editing practice: I've occasionally dug into time-consuming editing, esp when i first got into WP. But for a while now i've had little time. I'm basically a user who "pays it back" by making quick corrections as i run across problems -- which is frequently. (And it was unusual that i even wrote in talk: i did this, again, to respect how thickly sourced the context was.) This is subideal, and not earning me any stars -- but it is what droves of the little people do at the bottom of the pyramid, and adds up to a huge contribution. Obviously, if we deleted all unsourced info, we'd set WP back a long way; incl because the next editor is more likely to source something found in the article than found by looking thru old versions... That's why i want to defend the practice of adding sources or source tags vs deleting good but unsourced info. I cld cite WP editing guidelines, but the irony is getting too thick... ;^) Hope this helps, thx for your great WP work; peace, "alyosha" (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Loss of Inhibitions

I'm going to reword or remove some of the "alcohol causes loss of inhibition" statements. Contrary to popular perception, this notion has not been demonstrated conclusively (as far as I know). Many of the effects of the social alcohol consumption are independent of any actual chemical effects – a key point to make, one which is absent from this article. Numerous studies have repeatedly indicated that a placebo can induce similar social and psychological effects. Furthermore, observations of various indigenous peoples have shown that even after heavy alcohol consumption people will not violate local taboos -- if incest is held to be highly immoral, for instance, no amount of alcohol will induce a person to engage in this activity.

Anyways, it needs to be indicated which effects are known to be pharmacodynamic, and which are not. I'm no expert in the field; surely someone more qualified than I can comment on this.--Xiaphias (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editorializing/Biblical Interpretation

Not sure Biblical interpretation has a place in this article:

The Hebrew Bible recommends giving alcoholic drinks to those who are dying or depressed, so that they can forget their misery (Proverbs 31:6-7).

Reading this passage in context of verses 4-5 seems to indicate that the point of the author is that alcohol is favorable in limited uses, that is, for the dying/terminally ill. I don't see anywhere where it indicates that the depressed should drink their cares away.

But as this, or any other reading, is just the interpretation of whomever is editing the article at the moment, I suggest that it either be removed altogether or at least discussed. I did not edit it because I wanted some discussion here first. cluth (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirected from Liquid Courage... LOL thats a good one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.245.3 (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's what it says:
4 "It is not for kings, O Lemuel -- not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer,
5 lest they drink and forget what the law decrees, and deprive all the oppressed of their rights.
6 Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish;
7 let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more.
In other words, it's saying that rulers -- those who have to be wise and fair -- should not drink, because it might lead them to forget lawfulness and the rights of those who rule. But the dying, those in pain, and the poor should be permitted to drink, because it will make them more comfortable. --FOo (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Loser?

What does the first line mean?

"An alcoholic beverage is a loser containing ethanol, commonly known as alcohol, although in chemistry the definition of an alcohol includes many other compounds."

I'm not aware of any definition of "loser" being related to alcohol. 12.96.7.15 (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)JP

That's what we call vandalism. Please revert it when you see it. --FOo (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alcoholics, Withdrawals and Speculation

It seems people on behalf of the alcohol industry had a go at touching up this article by pointing out that alcoholics are addicted partly due to genetic reasons; instead of tackling alcohol addiction, the article instead takes a turn at talking about vitamin deficiencies and speculating theories which are not universally accepted. Alcohol can kill, is extremely addictive, has withdrawal symptoms even after a short time of use and this article should be treated equally in terms of hierarchy and bias with comparatives such as cigarettes, drugs etc. This article needs to atleast have a short dedicated subheading indicating "Addiction"/"Alcoholism", rather than a misleading heading such as "Alcohol and the Health", then leading to dedicated articles regarding alcohol withdrawal such as alcoholism. This article needs to co-adhere with the structures of similar substance articles, and needs to hold the opinion of the masses in the relative society when pointing out findings, in other words, a genetic disposition which makes one vulnerable to becoming an alcoholic is far from the accepted theory amongst the medicinal society. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)