Our Sponsors are an important foundation of our online community. Please visit their websites.
Our Associate Sponsors provide valuable support to our community and help build 'The Wall'.
Our partners help move the Wired In agenda forward.
Join our community, create your own profile page, and communicate about what matters to you.
Last night, I watched the Horizon programme ‘Do I drink too much?’ and found myself (as is often the case) shouting in frustration at my television. Don’t worry too much about my state of mind, I do know that neither the BBC nor John Marsden were able to hear me.
I had high hopes of the programme as I am well aware of John Marsden as an expert in this field and have also been encouraged by the attention that the media have given of late to alcohol issues.
There were some useful parts to the programme, most notably the work on the effects of alcohol on teenagers which presented some very worrying evidence to suggest that teenagers can drink larger amounts that adults before experiencing intoxication. They may even be able to drink amounts taking them close to overdose levels before experiencing significant intoxication, obviously a very risky situation.
This suggests that early drinking experiences could be setting young people on the road to alcohol dependence more readily than adult drinking experiences. Unfortunately, this evidence was not explored in detail and I think would be worthy of a programme in itself.
To share my frustration with other parts of the programme:
1. The scientist developing 3 (non addictive) tablets to offer an alternative to alcohol. Has anyone pointed out to him that this is how heroin was developed, as a ‘safe’ non-addictive alternative to morphine?
Do we really need another recreational psychoactive substance available? How does he consider that any substance which we take to feel good is not going to be addictive? Are we not going to want to repeat that effect again and again?
2. John checked out the effects on his health by one health check on his liver which would only have shown serious liver damage. How is his blood pressure, his heart, his kidneys, his LFT? Does he have digestive problems which could show the beginnings of gastritis, ulcers etc? Does he not understand the extent of the physical damage done by alcohol? Or is the audience not encouraged to?
‘Anyone using heroin for 30 years would be dead by now but that is not the case for drinkers,’ he said with authority. Really? Does he include in that assessment victims of road traffic accidents and violence whilst drunk? Does he include the people killed falling downstairs whilst drunk? Does he include the suicides whilst drunk?
Having worked for many years with addicts of drugs and alcohol, I have known many more alcoholics than heroin addicts die.
I am also aware that many heroin addicts will be topping up their heroin with Special Brew, benzos, zopiclone, and what is especially hazardous is this cocktail rather than the heroin itself. I would also suggest that for many heroin addicts the Special Brew add-on becomes more of a risk than the heroin itself.
Does John Marsden really not know this, or does he prefer not to see it as he tells us he does not want to cut down his own alcohol intake.
Alcohol deaths are largely hidden statistically. A drug overdose (even if it involves alcohol) will tend to be registered as that but accidents, suicides, murders and indeed heart attacks, strokes etc, even if the direct result of alcohol use will not be registered as death by alcohol.
And by the way I have known heroin users of 20+ years use who were not dead. Get real John.
What will viewers take from this programme? Will they look critically at their own drinking and question it? Or could they look at John Marsden and say ‘Well, if it is ok for him, it is ok for me.’
I shared your frustrations and I find this quite common when I watch or listen to any programme related to alcohol and the alcoholic that engage with ‘experts’ in the field. Sure, some of the scientific evidence is of interest but many of the opinions expressed were just that – opinions.
The issue for many of us is that we then see treatment solutions or legislation designed to reduce the problems introduced which are based upon the opinions of these ‘experts’. The solutions achieve no greater success rates than other methods and much of the legislation exacerbates the problems they are designed to tackle, extended opening hours as a means of making the streets safer being a classic.
Neither can I support the controlled drinking lobbywithin the NHS. The presumption that people with a drink problem are still capable of acting in a rational manner once they have had ‘two or three’ drinks or their daily unit allocation is utter nonsense. Such people are not alcoholics of my type. I will take my hat off to any alcoholic who can step up to the bar and take two or three drinks and then walk away and have no more that day. So far my hat has stayed firmly on my head.
As for the introduction of the non addictive tablets, I nearly fell off the chair. Which planet is this guy living on ?
Thanks so much for this Lisbeth. I did not see the programme as I am on over side of world, but your points are all good ones. It sounds very disappointing, a real missed opportunity. Expertise is sometimes a relative thing.
As for the heroin matter, Michael Gossop – a colleague of John Marsden I think – emphasises that some people can take heroin for many years without ill-effect, particularly if it is medical-grade heroin.
I was really interested to see this programme and ended up with more questions than answers, which may have been the intention. I did think John Marsden asked some awkward questions of himself and his relationship with alcohol and I saw the value in working through some of the issues.
For most alcoholics judging the damage done by alcohol is not about testing the consistency of one’s liver or seeing if you have a particular genetic predisposition, it is about assessing what alcohol is costing in all areas of life. Such as mental and physical health, quality of relationships, self esteem, motivation and fulfillment. Like ability to live by your values (honesty, reliability, compassion etc). Like how your life is going and how those who love you think it is going.
I was fascinated of how one woman assessed whether she had a good night out: “if I’ve got bruises and don’t know how I got them, then that must have been a good night”. The ease with which we as a society accept this kind of ‘funny’ report is tragic.
Several people reported lapses of judgement and ending up sleeping with strangers. Some couldn’t remember what had happened the night before. My feeling was that they would have had more reason to explore their relationship with alcohol than the presenter had.
Finally: the pill to replace alcohol. I fear it is doomed to failure and judging by how much John Marsden liked it, my alarm bells were buzzing. As humans we are masters at finding ways to abuse anything that makes us feel good. I suppose a ‘replacement’ for alcohol would allow us to start maintenance treatment for alcoholics.
I’m sure that would appeal to the pharmaceutical companies and some of my colleagues…
“ The ease with which we as a society accept this kind of ‘funny’ report is tragic.”
Absolutely!
In his great book; ‘Last Drink to LA’, John Sutherland quotes Fergal Keane talking about the cruel way that George Best was paraded on TV when he was clearly a very sick man (God Bless him)
