I am wondering what everyone’s opinion on health warnings and nutritional information on alcohol products are. For those on waiting lists how about foodstuffs?
What does drinkaware actually say and what are your opinions. Have a look at the advice on cirrhosis. For those of you abroad, your contributions are most welcome.
It should be the same as cigarettes, preferably including the grim images. At the moment everybody knows about the dangers of smoking but when it comes to drinking, not only is it not considered as harmful, it's actually encouraged. You don't see an entire isle at Tesco dedicated to Marlboro but when it comes to booze, the choice and colours are endless.
Hi,
Trust you to be controversial (in a good way).
Drinkaware is funded by the drink industry. They discussed it this week on the BBC Inside Health programme with Dr Mark Porter. The topic was 'Conflict of interest.'
Good idea for a debate.
Jim
Waiting on list.
What about make up bags and other items totally unrelated to alcohol with the words on it in gold “ it’s Prosecco time! “
It’s everywhere. Aimed at the young as well.
The first thing I saw when entering the doors at the entrance of Sainsbury this morning, was a huge display showing really pretty eye catching boxes with chocolate and Prosecco in.
As someone has rightly said already there are complete aisles of alcohol.
On the sides, and now at the front.
My personal opinion only, is I think it carries the same risks to everyone as smoking. Smoking kills, well surely so does alcohol?
Why does the packaging not state at minimum, excess drinking causes liver damage. ??
Yes it should not be so much in your face. Or maybe just less of it.
TV programs showing kids drinking, storylines revolving around either drink or drugs. It is too late for some, but for the young it’s a huge peer pressure thing. If no one shows the danger how do they learn. ? The manufacturer is not going to. It’s all about the money.
Oh dear sorry if I have said too much.
Jaycee
I wouldn't say so. Alcohol is a killer the same as cigarettes, in fact more so in some ways. No one has ever died, I wouldn't think, from heavy smoking over a few hours. The same cannot be said of alcohol. It is about money. They discourage us from any smoking and to drink sensibly but have failed to fully protect children being exposed, especially historically.
Coralsun
I'm totally on board with the warning labels and info on the products. If the government is going to sell something that can do to a person what it has done to us then it should be their obligation to warn people of the dangers. People have the right to make informed decisions. Nobody on earth can say they didnt know smoking caused cancer after all the warnings and education given to them in the modern day and drinking should be the same. I really think it would make a massive difference. That being said I'm not much of a believer in minimum unit pricing. My only reason for this is that I feel that no matter how many warning labels are on bottle or how much education and awareness is raised you will always have the drink till I'm dead types that will never ever put the bottle down. We know there are people with full blown decompensated cirrhosis with all the comorbidities of it that are so close to death they can smell it and still wont stop drinking. Raising unit prices wont stop those types of alcoholics at all. In fact I think it would encourage worse behaviour like stealing and conning to get the extra cost to get it. I think the minimum unit pricing will only stick it to the responsible drinker and that's not the effect we are looking for. In Canada we lowered the driving alcohol limit from 0.08 to 0.05 and the government claimed it would help stop drunk driving. Well since the drunk drivers were about 3 to 4 times the legal limits when pulled over it proved to do nothing to affect them. What it did do though is take the responsible drinkers who abided by the 0.08 law and and turned them into people with criminal records by pinching them for being at 0.05. The drunk drivers still drove drunk. The tried and true alcoholics will still get their booze.
There should be warning labels, like with cigarettes. Alcohol sections in supermarkets should be screened off, and only those 18 or over allowed in.
It's terrible to see mums and dads taking their children onto those aisles.
Alcohol is WAY more harmful than tobacco yet tobacco gets all the restrictions and warnings.
At the same time, ecstasy is much less harmful than both of them.
If you remember Leah Betts that died "from ecstasy" (she actually died from excess water consumption) in the mid 90's then you might also remember a scientist called David Nutt who was fired as a government advisor after suggesting that horse riding was more dangerous than ecstacy (it is).
It's all about public perception rather than the dangers of drugs. No political party will base drug laws on science because it would lose them too many votes.
Dave,
Interesting point, the question, if alcohol had arrived on the ‘party’ scene at the same time as Ecstasy, what would it’s legal status be?
Mark
Interestingly, at the time of Leah Betts death there was a huge public awareness campaign against ecstasy known as 'Sorted'. This was paid for by advertising agencies who's major clients were drinks companies. (Young people were increasingly using the drug in preference to alcohol and a new drink on the market, red bull...)
I was teaching at the time of Leah Betts death and we had a training day regarding drugs use and how to look for it etc. Interestingly, her parents campaigned for more awareness regarding the use of the tablets that she was supplied with and rather surprisingly it had the opposite effect to the one that her parents anticipated.
How do I know this? The training day was provided by the Police and they told us that after the awareness was raised through the press, the price of the tablet she took increased because it was publicised that she had taken a tablet that was pure and not "cut" with anything. In addition, demand for that particular tablet went up. Awareness does not always have the effect that we anticipate that it will, which is why stories such as Leah's do not always get covered in a way that it is thought by the public to be a good idea.
Just thought I'd add my bit of knowledge to this discussion for what it's worth 
Due to the impact on alcohol sales, the clubs turned up the heating, switched the taps in the bathrooms off and bumped up the price of bottled water. The stupidity of this move quickly became apparent, safe areas were introduced with plentiful supplies of water.
Is alcohol really more harmful than tobacco though? I don't think so.
One could argue that a glass of red wine with your meals has some health benefits but nobody in their right mind could say that a cigarette a day is good for you. We all know that only 10-20% of heavy drinkers will get cirrhosis and even then it can take decades to develop. Most people are not addicts and assuming they drink within the recommended guidelines, they should in theory not have any complications arising from drinking, certainly not liver disease. Of course any existing conditions like hepatitis will greatly amplify any liver damage caused by drinking. Not trying to downplay the harms of alcohol here but if I absolutely had to choose between these 2 drugs, it wouldn't be smoking.
That's not taking in to account the societal impact though. People don't go out starting fights, vandalising or running people over after smoking one too many cigarettes.
There should be a creche right next door where the children are educated about alcohol while their parents buy it
A bit far fetched maybe. The parent's could always buy their booze while their kids aren't there
You dont need labels to point out the dangers... you know its not good for you. All you need is to gain will power and self control. All the advertising and warnings dont do jack! Like anyone reads them anyway. Its your brain. Use it thats what its there for. Its not jumping off the shelves and pouring it down your neck!! You put it there.
Tormented.. you make it sound as if the dangers of alcoholism are clearly noted and readily understood by the general public and further that these things should be common sense. I'm guessing I should be safe to assume that you knew all about alcoholic liver disease before you were diagnosed with it then? Let's step back a moment here before you go painting a picture with such broad strokes. The average person if asked if they even know where their liver is inside their body doesnt. Even more pointed if they are asked what the liver does they are clueless to it. Many people have never heard of cirrhosis or know what it is and for those who have they assume it's a liver problem old people get after a lifetime of drinking booze. You yourself being a person with alcoholic cirrhosis knows better than that.
What the general public knows about alcohol is the things they are told. We all know that driving while drunk causes fatal car crashes worldwide. We know that because it publicized and shoved down our throats and In our faces everywhere we go. The bars have warnings up about it. The liquor stores have warnings up about it. It's to the point of being so publically understood that you know youd be just ridiculed to death if you even attempted doing it. Yet nowhere says anything to anyone about liver disease. Your gonna sit there and tell me that when you first walked in a pub for the first time you knew alcohol causes liver disease? Bullshit you did.
Like yourself I quit drinking the minute I found out I had liver disease. Good for us. Pats on the back all around. According to you though we dont deserve such a pat on the back because we should have known it was coming. Well I certainly didnt and it not for lack of using my brain because I'm quite intelligent thank you very much. It was for lack of knowledge. When I was diagnosed and started researching liver disease and cirrhosis It blew me away. The complexity of it all and then plethora of comorbidities associated with it were just so vast that I couldnt believe I had never once seen any of this mentioned anywhere in general day to day literature or heard any of it ever discussed around me. Even some of the symptoms that I now recognize I had then went completely ignored at the time because it never even dawned on me that I had a liver problem or that these symptoms were apart of it. I cant imagine your story on this front is much different.
Putting warning labels on alcohol and educating the public on liver disease is not an attempt to make dedicated alcoholics open their eyes to the risks. It's to allow people (especially our youth) to make informed decisions about what they do. Using your brain and common sense is not a factor here at all. Common sense is not drinking the same liquid you use to remove stains out of your porcelain toilet. Common sense is not eating the little packet that comes in your new leather shoes to keep them moist. Common sense is also not thinking a beverage served on a menu at a restaurant right beside the orange juice is going to cause you potential harm to the point of chronic illness and potential fatality. Common sense is assuming that the drink you've grown up watching your parents and their friends guzzle down at parties restaurants baseball games etc. Is probably pretty safe to consume as it has never caused them any harm. Even without all the cigarette warnings and campaigns (which have proven effective to the new generation) one can use common sense to deduce that watching a smoker cough and hack and be short of breath walking fast is a sign of bad health from cigarettes. Again YOU KNOW that isnt the case with alcohol. Firstly alcohol suppresses and masks Ill feelings and shows no symptoms until it's to late. All of us with liver disease from alcohol know this NOW. Not then. NOBODY that isnt a doctor or had to watch someone go through alcoholic liver disease knows a goddamn thing about this at all. It's their right to know and keeping it from them so the big wigs can keep lining their pockets is just ridiculous. So again saying it's about using your head is just malarky and more so your whole comment seems to lean toward the idea that this is a campaign designed to place the blame on someone else for the illnesses we have acquired from alcohol. You have taken the wrong turn at the proverbial junction. It's about preventing people from ending up here because of lack of education. Yea some are gonna drink themselves to death no matter how informed they are or no matter how sick from the drink they get. But this approach isnt for their benifit. It Never was.
Hear hear, brilliant reply!
Bravo, Phoenix. Your moving essay seriously needs to be a 1-page op-ed in every major newspaper in the world. (I am one of those who didn't know where the liver was or what it did.) Just PROVIDE THE INFORMATION and people will eventually use their heads, as they now do with cigarettes. Keep up the good fight, everyone.
Exactly MaryLynn!
Also Tormented let me put a quote here that you yourself wrote on another post.
"Alcohol is a demon. The worst easiest addiction. Its legall readily available. It grabs u without knowing."
Bit of a contradiction to what your saying on this post isnt it?
Well said!
I tried some 0.0 % Gin, what is your opinion on this, is it safe? I didn't drink usually that much, a wise choice considering my condition.
If your liver condition was in any way related to alcohol and you were potentially moving towards transplant assessement it would be a strict no no.
That isn't my situation. But it still has ethanol in it, that would also be as bad?
The interesting point is there were many that lived into their late 90s, drank, smoked, after wars and poverty. While at the same time people born after 1980s, were dying.
Alcohol induced cirrhosis 
Those with alcoholic liver disease
Hepatitis B and alcohol 
Non-alcoholic beer with compensated cirrhosis 
Alcohol and non alcohol related liver disease
