N.Z. eyes blind to epidemic of ‘alcohol disease’

Press, 17 July 1980, Page 15

N.Z. eyes blind to epidemic of ‘alcohol disease’

Over the past 20 to 30 years an extremely serious epidemic ipr pandemic to be more accurate) has been developing slowly and insidiously in almost every country in the world. It has now reached “grave” proportions in many nations, according to a recent. World Health Organisation report; Yet, because of the insidious growth, and other factors, there seems to be a lack of recognition of the situation; in fact, it is almost as if there is a reluctance or a refusal to recognise it, even .• among many; health and welfare professionals and politicians >. who could and should be playing a major role in combating the epidemic.

What is this epidemic? It is a combination of what has become known as alcohol disease and alco h o l-related problems and it is so severe in New Zealand that it has been estimated to cost the nation morethan $4OO million a year — a very large sum indeed for a small country already in dire financial straits. And this.; does rot take into account the great amount of misery also produced, quite immeasurable in money terms.

- It is of great importance to stress at this juncture, when the politicians are introducing a Bill further to liberalise alcohol use, and to lower the legal drinking age officially to widen the drinking popuation, that anything which will tend to increase drinking will most certainly increase these problems. It has been clearly and conclusively proven that alcohol problems bear a direct relationship to the consumption levels in any country. If consumption goes up, problems go up, and this has been demonstrated in almost every country.

Finland showed it very clearly 10 years ago when it introduced two Acts of Parliament ’liberalising alcohol use and increasing

the number of outlets. It was absolutely disastrous; Finland’s alcohol-related problems rose, by more than 50 per cent in the first year. 7 There has been a great increase in alcohol consumption in virtually every country in the past 30 years; in some countries, this increase has been huge, by up to.. 500 per cent, with catastrophic results. In New Zealand, there has been a. steady upward trend, and a doubling of deaths from “alcohol disease” in the past 10 years. ... ... . ■ -.- -

(In the term, “alcohol disease” I include cirrhosis and other forms of damage to various organs and systems of the body, virtually all of which can be damaged, with different susceptibilities in different people.)

There has been concern expressed about the misuse and abuse of alcohol for a long time in New Zealand. This culminated in the formation of the Alcoholic Liquor Advisory Council (A.L.A.C.) three years ago. In that short time the council has achieved a great deal to raise the awareness level regarding alcohol-related problems and to provide education and information about alcohol, how it should be used, the part it plays in social and marital distress, road crashes, violent’crimes, losses in industry and business, physical and mental disease, delinquency, vandalism, sexual irresponsibility, etc.

The aims of the A.L.A.C. are “to encourage and promote moderation in the use of alcohol, dis-

A.L.A.C and would prefer that they had been worded something along the lines of “encourage and promote responsible decisions about the use of alcohol” rather than - its “moderation.” The simple reason for this is that we need to “upgrade the image,” as it were, of the abstainer — and this applies all over the world. Also that “moderation” is a word which means very different things to different people. If you ask any group of people to raise their hands if they ate moderate drinkers, you will find that virtually every hand . will be raised.

There are people who do not like alcohol, or who find they react badly in some way to it (e.g. get headaches), who have had hepatitis or other liver diseases, or who for a whole variety of personal, religious, or health reasons do not wish to drink alcohol. It is quite wrong that strong pressure should be brought to bear on them to drink alcohol. It is also ■ thoroughly bad — although it is often' just pure thoughtlessness — that all sorts of functions are held, throughout New Zealand, .where nothing but alcohol is made available. This applies to organisations that really ought to know better, including professional organisations in the health, education or welfare field. I was told that at the recent Foundation Dinner of the new College of Community Medciine, there was nothing but alcohol for the guests; a woman told me that she

thoughtful and considerate enough to remember that there are those who become upset by thick tobacco smoke wafting into their faces, drinkers, including hosts and those organising functions where food and drink are provided, should make sure'that there are alternatives to alcohol for those wish to abstain. ■ , - Why should they be put to the trouble and embarrassement of going out to the kitchen to look for water? It’s bad enough that they have to subsidise the drinkers to the extent they do at almost every function they attend. The two points I would like to emphasise are: 1. Alcohol-related problems rise and fall with consumption; to reduce alcohol-related problems we must reduce consumption. 2. Every single one of us can help in this battle

drinker, there’s no need for me to reduce — two drinks a day never hurt ln fact “they” say it helps to reduce heart disease”; or some variation on that theme. I agree that that amount will not do any harm — unless it is two’ full tumblers of some distilled spirit. But would it really do .any harm to reduce a little to two drinks three or four days a week instead of every day, or to one on some days? The people for whom it is really important to reduce consumption are the heavy drinkers, especially those up in the “hazard levels” where their alcohol intake is undoubtedly going to damage them sooner or later, however incredulous they choose to be about this. Hazard level drinking is at the level of over 80 g of absolute alcohol a day, which is more than three jugs of beer, one-third of a bottle of spirits, two-thirds of a bottle of sherry (or fortified wine), one bottle of wine.

(Women would be well advised not to exceed about half of this level. If pregnant, they should not exceed about two drinks a day).

People consistently drinking up to these levels should be made fully aware of what they are doing to themselves, as

well as be made to realise that throwing this sort of money' away daily is bordering on the lunatic, and is certainly anything but “manly.” Talking about “lunatic behaviour” reminds me of a story of an ancient test for sanity used in Cornwall many years ago. The person being tested was put into a room with a sink of water overflowing and water flowing into it from a tap. They were told to dry the floor, and were provided with cloths, a mop, and ■ a bucket. Those who failed the test just used the cloths, mop, and bucket, and did not turn-off the tap. This is a fairly close analogy to what we, along with most other countries, are doing about alcohol-re lated problems. We go on trying to produce more alcoholism treatment units, more welfare facilities for those suffering from any of the alcbhol-related problems, more traffic blitzes to pick up drunken drivers, and do little or nothing about the “tap” which is producing more “material” to be mopped up all the time, and at a very much faster rate, so that the ‘flood” gets worse in spite of all our efforts.

Tomorrow: What we can do to “turn off the tap.”