In Praise of Binge Drinking (Brit Edition)

Jennie Bristow makes a strong case for occasionally getting wasted over at the always-entertaining Spiked:

Britain 2005 is hardly a hotbed of inebriated violence….What we do have is a society in which sometimes, and for a variety of reasons, people like to drink to get drunk….because they want to get off the plane of existence that is normal, humdrum, everyday life, and into that parallel universe of inebriation. What's wrong with doing that once in a while? Nothing. Indeed, there is a good deal that is very right about it.

Especially worth reading on the Sunday before a national holiday--and a few days before a presidential inauguration.

Whole thing here.

Comments

[methedrine face]

Huh, drinking is good. Pumping methamphetamine into your veins for two weeks straight, sans sleep? Now that's 18-wheel inter-dimensional travel!

[Ken Shultz]

"...because they want to get off the plane of existence that is normal, humdrum, everyday life, and into that parallel universe of inebriation. What's wrong with doing that once in a while?"

"Huh, drinking is good. Pumping methamphetamine into your veins for two weeks straight, sans sleep? Now that's 18-wheel inter-dimensional travel!"

Yes, you see, drinking can be a gateway to methamphetamine induced inter-dimensional travel as well as heavy petting, which, as we all know, can lead in turn to the spread of incurable STDs.

[Pavel]

"You Yanks are a funny lot; you drink whiskey to keep them warm, then put some ice in it to keep it cool; you put some sugar in it to make it sweet, and then put a slice of lemon in it to make it sour. Then you say 'Here?s to you' and drink it yourselves."
-Best Thing Overheard in a London Pub

[Ruthless]

Who knows what the drug of choice would be if consumers had unobstructed choice?
I doubt it would be alcohol.
Oh, if only the Founders had foreseen the insanity of the War on Drugs.

The first of the Bill of Rights is appropriate, and in there because the Founders had witnessed the problems associatated with not having the freedom to put what one wishes into ones head.
That was, for sure, a gutsy move on the part of those Founders wanting a Bill of Rights.

Sadly two through ten dropped off precipitously, even though gun rights advocates may disagree.

The Second Amendment--if the Founders could have predicted the future--should have tried to protect the right to put what one pleases into ones body.

Until the Twentieth Century, alcohol, would probably have continued to be the drug of choice because of it's cheapness and tradition. But during the Twentieth Century, the world missed an important transition that, who knows, could even have prevented wars?

Not that most would have settled on an "upper" versus a "depressant," but who knows?

I write above under the influence of a violence-inducing depressant, but what else is new?

[David]

Wow, an honest article that states that a night of drinking isn't alchohol abuse.

If two pints is binge drinking, then by all right, I should be dead tens times over from my nights of six or seven when I was young.

Who comes up wih these standards? Why are they taken seriously?

[Todd Fletcher]

Didn't George Washington smoke pot? I heard that on this one public access show about hemp, or something.

[raymond]

The Second Amendment--if the Founders could have predicted the future--should have tried to protect the right to put what one pleases into ones body.

They did. Bullets.

[kevrob]

Quoting - yes, I know it's gauche - myself:

If anybody missed it, the U.S. government's definition of "binge drinking" has been changed. They now say:

A "binge" is a pattern of drinking alcohol that brings blood alcohol concentration (BAC) to 0.08 gram percent or above. For the typical adult, this pattern corresponds to consuming 5 or more drinks (male), or 4 or more drinks (female), in about 2 hours. Binge drinking is clearly dangerous for the drinker and for society.*

The major impovement is that they now include a time period and a BAC figure, the latter being the level the Feds have forced the states to adopt as the threshold for DWI arrests. Their old version didn't discriminate between 5 beers imbibed on a Sunday while watching 10 hours of football, and someone downing three doubles before the prices change at the end of Happy Hour. [/self-quote]

The British standard is tighter than ours, and does not seem to have a time limit.

I will agree that a spree, now and again, is good for your mental health. The trick is to realize when you are doing it just for the fun of it, and not falling into the trap of the "weekend alcoholic" (sic). Bad behavior while drunk that could wind up in an arrest is one clue that your may have strayed over the line from partying hearty to abuse. Unfortunately, many are not convinced they have behaved that badly until the cuffs have been slapped on them. I owe my life to the fact that my best friend throughout my younger days was a non-drinker. I drank, he drove, and he also got to tell humiliating anecdotes about Kevrob in his cups. Embarrassment would ususally keep me in line for a while.

Kevin
Moderation in all things - including moderation!
* http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/Newsletter/winter2004/Newsletter_Number3.htm#council

[pigwiggle]

?They did. Bullets.?

You misunderstood, those are meant to be put in another?s body.

[Call me snake]

After watching the recent c-span/reason affair, I'm still not sure whether Gillespie looks like a young Reni Santoni (from Dirty Harry) or a young Robert Forster (from Disney's Black Hole)

[Doug Allen]

Binge drinking, by itself, is fine if that's your thing (even though I don't generally partake in it). But the worst part about a binge drinker is when a slurring, stumbling drunk, sometimes reeking of his own vomit, tries to pull everyone else around him into his "parallel universe of inebriation" at a bar or party. Few things are more annoying than a drunk trying desperately to be the center of all attention.

Like most people who frequent Hit and Run, I'm of the opinion that people should be allowed to make their own decisions on intake such as alcohol. However, I don't share Jennie's Hollywood-esque view that drunks are "sexier, funnier, more honest and more sociable". I've come across many over the years who generally demonstrate the polar opposite of that description.

[David]

True enough, Doug, But is every person who's has a few at the bar a complete menace, or just the few that leave a lasting impression? I think that most people are simply trying to have a good time, and we just notice the really bad ones.

[Doug Allen]

Good points, David, and I do agree. Most tend to want to unwind and maybe get a nice buzz going. Though I was focusing more on the individuals who consume more than "just a few" at one sitting (i.e. those who literally could not walk on their own power without staggering around and crashing into things).

[AJS]

I tend to agree with Doug. What people put into their bodies is their own decision, as long as they aren't hurting anyone else. However, there are plenty of occasions when intoxicated individuals *do* step over that boundary (they are far from the majority, but they obviously stand out more). I'll admit to getting rather tired of the annoying behaviour of drug taking aquaintances when I was younger (and that includes folks imbibing copious quantities of booze too), which has probably coloured my view somwehat. I don't share the view that frequent intoxication is particularly glamorous. I don't mind the occasional drinkie, though 🙂

[JJK]

Who knows what the drug of choice would be if consumers had unobstructed choice?
I doubt it would be alcohol.
Oh, if only the Founders had foreseen the insanity of the War on Drugs.

Yes, alcohol can generally be used safely. It has a long history of safe use. Less than one or two drinks a day if fine, above that is abuse.

Drugs are different in that any use is abuse, they have a high potential for abuse and cannot be used safely, even under medical supervision. We have the DEA to make these expert determinations for us. No one has the right to put society at risk so they can get high.

The founders lived in a different world than us, they didn't have a war on drugs that needed to be fought.

[R C Dean]

Drugs are different in that any use is abuse, they have a high potential for abuse and cannot be used safely, even under medical supervision. .

This is irony, right?

[Ayatollah Usoe]

I think the founders' drug of choice would have been weed. There were a lot of hemp growers. Sure, I was told that it was grown for fabric, but I recall stories about passing the peace pipe. Tobacco's not something you take a drag off and pass around. I bet we got the Indian translation a little wrong, and that it was really called a mellow pipe.
Just as the word corn was used to describe all grain, I bet the word tobacco was used to describe all smoked leaf. Just a guess; I await the scholars' responses.

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

Read Eric Burns history of alcohol. The founder's drug of choice was alcohol, even with others available.

[raymond]

You misunderstood, those are meant to be put in another?s body.

When one really really wants to mess with his own ability to choose, bullets do a fine job.

(I think getting stoned is generally not a wise thing to do. Unless one has secured his environment first.)

[JJK]

(I think getting stoned is generally not a wise thing to do. Unless one has secured his environment first.)

It is never a good idea, no one has the right to break any law, ever, for any reason. You do not have the right to endanger society by smoking week.

[Bokonon]

"It is never a good idea, no one has the right to break any law, ever, for any reason. You do not have the right to endanger society by smoking week."

Please, stop. You're hurting me.

[Isaac Bartram]

Except that one hears similar crap* from our fearless leaders on a regular basis I would be certain that JJK's scribbles were satire.

*Since it comes from both sides I like to call it bipartsanshit.

[Douglas Fletcher]

I composed a really good comment for this thread yesterday but somehow between knocking down a pint & a half of good porter & writing the comment I managed to crash my computer. Don't have any idea today what the comment was.

[pococurante]

Silly rabbits. I suspect it's "Juanita" (quote-unquote) again, and his/her/its quotes about "smoking week" and "Less than one or two drinks a day if [sic] fine, above that is abuse" lead me to suspect that those were written while not sober. (I'm disputing the content of the second one, not just the syntax.)

[methedrine face]

(Under the pretense yr not bein some kind of strange, funny guy...)

--Drugs are different in that any use is abuse,--

This is the internal dialogue that attempts to distinguish one intoxicating chemical from another, without any particular supporting evidence except what the general consensus of society has sloppily molded together.

Worth noting, and once said in a Bad Religion song, too, none the less, "consensus is not a fact based exercise."

Pharmaceutical chemistry, however, is a bit more down that particular, factual line of thinking... And my brain is just packed full of it.

Summary: Unsubstantiated blabber and internal dialogue. Ethanol is not significantly less habit forming than anything else. It is, however, certainly quite toxic (though I stress that "toxic" requires some generous degree of different context, such as amount and length of continuous ingestion, established LD50, etc. which all need to be kept well in mind). That said, we're still back where we started and your drinking versus my drug use is still no further rationalized.

NEXT.

--they have a high potential for abuse and cannot be used safely,--

Uhm, citation, "plz"?

Ethanol, from the societal spam, er, standpoint you seem to wade in, is notoriously habit forming, more so than drugs by some. The truth is totally beyond the scope of someone who subscribes to either particular stance (at least in most cases), so I'll bite my tongue on that one for now.

Whether such can really be proven, especially in sketchy chemical comparison, is an argument you would do best to avoid, because it's never pretty, fun, nor particularly productive.

-- even under medical supervision.--

Define medical supervision. A doctor? A paramedic? A psychiatrist? A pharamacy technician?

Oh, and of which drug do you speak? Has it occured to you that several (or, perhaps more honestly, "uh, well ...several... actually") widely prescribed (and of noteworthy efficacy) anxiolytics/tranquilizers have a mechanism of action, more specifically, an effect of varrying levels on gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA), all but identical to your sacred brew? Oh, and are considered prominent recreational drugs?

Huh, that's the tip of this iceberg, of course. Surely you've considered such things, or are you drawing off unreliable subjective experience that can't really be substantiated?.... Ever? Be honest now.

--We have the DEA to make these expert determinations for us.--

A prankster... Or a very forward narc?

Oh, internet, you have such possibility!

--No one has the right to put society at risk so they can get high--

1) Yes, they do. If they become honest to god threatening, you also have the right to defend yourself. Then again, alcohol, proportionately, has the highest rate of related incidents of violence, but don't get the wrong idea here. These statistics are admittedly sketchy. In addition, I certainly don't hold it against ethanol, a mere chemical of remarkably wide subjective effects, but generally, habitually careless consumption/consumers.

2) A threat to "society" -- not drugs, a real one -- will be hard pressed to live on in a free society. That society tends to find better things -- like drugs, or alcohol, or extreme sports. Whatever pleases you. Drugs survive because they often fill an essential role. Each individual often with slightly different roles to be filled. Prohibiting them to all is no different than prohibiting all kinds of food except green vegetables and, with a prescription, un-ripened fruit.

On a more relative political level (suppose that's what I'd call it), their continual existence represents the barest, most obvious, undeniable pieces of evidence for the veracity and power of the market. It even provides some insight into the framework of various subtle bits normally only found digging through any number of social sciences (mainly, sociology, I'd think). I'm feeling a bit nauseated and, to be entirely honest, would rather get stoned than dig any further into this muck than I already have here.

Point and case: Only imbeciles fight legitimate markets with archaic social structures (i.e. government), or with brute force. The market can, will and certainly is at this very second, conjuring force only in response to past aggression on the part of, well, government (among oher things). Yet, the market never loses. It might not win, but it doesn't really have to.

That's the long and short of it, of course. Much more could be added to this particular speck of rambling, but so long as the commoditity is in consistent demand, which it is, will be in the forseeable future, and has been ...forever before... It will continue to exist, thrive, expand, and so on. It's damage to society is a consequence of drugs laws, a reply. Such laws begging for answers to questions like "How do you repress an essential commodity catering to an essential escape from the world, or an essential boost in energy, etc? Even if the group that knows or considers essential is relatively minor... Well, then again, in a population of 6 billion."

Oh, actually, you don't... You can try, but you won't get anywhere, and add special, imaginary traits to your favorite source of joy, more bluntly, debasing one substance in attempts to defend another, will do no good either.

Your fears of a dangerous, drugged society on the edge, are (at best) fantasy. Or bland humor. I don't think less of you for it either way, just so you know.

Assuming you are just some kind of funny guy, good work: You've managed to agree with me and make me look like an equally bland ass. It's my hope this statement will subtract from any relevant ass-itude.

Otherwise.... I think we're done here. 🙂

[Kevin Carson]

According to the broad definitions of "alcoholism" by savants like the late Ann Landers, anyone who enjoys the taste of alcohol, let alone occasionally gets a buzz on, is an alcoholic. The only non-alcoholics, apparently, are those who have the stuff forcibly poured down their throats with a funnel.

That's an odd understanding of "alcoholism." It's just common sense that human beings wouldn't have gone to the time and trouble of fermenting naturally occurring sugars unless ethanol produced some effect that they desired for its own sake. That's something recognized at least as early as the Old Testament, which refers repeatedly to the fact that wine "maketh merry" or "maketh glad the heart of man."

There's a big difference between deliberately cultivating a buzz every now and then, and getting shitfaced, falling-down drunk so often that it interferes with normal life.

[NoJoSteve-O (NoStar)]

I find it helps to secure my environment if I first hire an Objectivist to check my premises.

Then I have someone to drink with. Here's to Ayn, good buddy, clink.

[Stevo Darkly]

In this thread, comment by JJK at January 17, 2005 11:23 AM: "The founders lived in a different world than us, they didn't have a war on drugs that needed to be fought."
-------------

I thought that sounded familiar. In another thread, in reponse to someone who said: "While we're on the subject, they should burn the Constitution because it's printed on hemp paper. It sends the wrong message to our kids. The 'rights' described are outdated, anyway.. relics of our colonial past."

... responded Juanita at January 14, 2005 12:02 PM: "An exageration, but in some ways, yes, they [meaning the writers of the Constitution] didn't have a drug war that needed to be fought. -- J"

--------
I reports, youse decides.

[Ruthless]

Stevo Darkly,
Give Juanita/JJK credit for a great idea.
But we could do it even better.
I've been busy today, but I had been thinking of being Consuello from Lima.

Next question is where is the best place to post for maximum hilarity?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"The only non-alcoholics, apparently, are those who have the stuff forcibly poured down their throats with a funnel."

You're talking about beer bongs, right? I never did one. I always found the practice revolting. Chugging, on the other hand, was a pretty standard "guy" thing to do.

But I do think there is a chemical pre-disposition towards alcohol. I have people in my family who love the taste of it. I personally think all alcohol tastes like piss, and I've drunk pretty much everything.

I like to think of myself as a one-girl guy. I'm in love with that gal with the sweet green eyes.

[Joel]

Alcohol is probably the most pointless drug out there. As a pain killer opiates and opioids are much more effective and less intoxicating (they can be more euphoric, but most people don't like pain killers). As an anti-anxiety drug benzodiazepines are more effective than alcohol, while also being less intoxication (they have no euphoric properties alone, however). As a sleeping-inducer barbiturates or anti-psychotics are much more effective than alcohol. Anti-psychotics are less intoxicating than alcohol as well; I've never tried barbiturates since they're basically non-existent today...I hear they're the same as alcohol in effects they produce (relieve anxiety and have euphoria, unlike benzos). My point is that alcohol is the most pointless drug in the world. Period. The ONLY thing that makes it "safer" than all the other drugs is dosage. It's much easier to take 500mg of Seconal or 20mg of Xanax and almost die than to drink a 12 pack of beer. That doesn't matter, though. All drugs can be drank if they are diluted in a liquid like alcohol, but pills (and powder for illegal drugs) are the way of life in Western culture. Marijuana and alcohol can't be compared, they have nothing to do with eachother and alcohol is far more euphoric and intoxicating.

[Philip]

Alcohol is probably the most pointless drug out there...

And as an anesthetic, halogenated inhalational anesthetics are more effective. As a stimulant caffeine is more effective, alcohol is a depresant. As a mood booster, SSRIs are more effective. As a mind alterant, marijuana and halucinogens are more effective.

Also, as far as physiological damage is concerned, alcohol is the most harmful drug, and as far as societal effects are concerned, alcohol is the worst due to inducing violence.

[kevrob]

One thing about alcohol is that it is a drug humanity has thousands of years of experience with. The overwhelming majority of us are capable of moderate use, which actually has health benefits. Yes, abuse can be a problem, but taking a drink is nowhere near the crapshoot that buying drugs the law has forbidden. Now, a Len Bias-style incident the first time one uses cocaine can be fatal, and a first-time drinker could die of alcohol poisoning. Both are unlikely, but killing yourself with booze first time out takes some effort. Street drugs, thanks to our genius solons, are often adulterated, just as bathtub gin was during Prohibition.

If all drugs were legal for recreational use, the stigma on alcohol as "most destructive" would change, as there are undoubtedly some folks who avoid the illegal stuff who would otherwise give it a try. I suspect one's ability to be a long-term alcohol abuser is easier to manage than extended use of other drugs, if for no other reason than social acceptance of booze. You don't have to be a criminal to be a drunk, even if getting drunk lowers inhibitions that keep waverers on the right side of the law. We've all heard stories of wealthy heroin addicts who can afford to cop anytime, so aren't driven to a life of muggings or prostitution. (OK, some of David Bowie's albums were a kind of whoring.) But the nexus of outlawed drugs with other crime is partly a function of their being outlawed. Remove these bans and the crime rate could decline as it did after alcohol prohibition was ended.

Kevin

[Joel]

Yes, the crime rate would drop but that's one of hundreds of benefits from ending prohibition. So far the only benefits (some could see them as benefits) are higher prices, lower amount of users, and less availability. The higher prices can be thought of as good, but in fact just cause crime and destroy hard-core addicts' lives. Less availability is only in the formal sense, because drugs are everywhere. The reduction in usage definately isn't worth the cost on society since use (and even addiction) isn't necessarily bad...a market economy relies on addiction. The pharmaceutical industry simply took over when most drugs were made illegal. Why even take heroin? There's Percocet or Oxycontin. Why take cocaine? Adderall, which is actually the most rewarding chemical out there, is available from almost any doctor. The point is that any illegal drug has a very legal counterpart that costs a lot more. All these new drugs that don't create an instant high like Prozac and Zoloft are probably more dangerous and unhealthy than evil heroin. Nobody really knows since they've only been out for a few years.