May 18, 2016

Sorry, nanny statists, alcohol is good for you

Despite regular evidence of the benefits of alcohol for cardiovascular disease and diabetes, the public health lobby remains in denial.

Bernard Keane — Politics editor

Bernard Keane

Politics editor

As yet another anti-alcohol campaign is launched by a nanny state body, efforts by the public health lobby to demonise alcohol have been dealt a blow by a slew of recent studies confirming that moderate consumption of alcohol is an important protector against a variety of diseases.


Leave a comment

15 thoughts on “Sorry, nanny statists, alcohol is good for you

  1. Cobba Stevens

    Damned if I do, damned if I don’t… bit overwhelming… I think I need a drink

  2. Ken Lambert

    Some of the worst people are/were non drinkers. Hitler ….Trump… To name but just two.

  3. Northy

    Calling the lockout laws a “fiasco” is about as blatantly misleading as it gets. Of course, Bernard is no impartial observer, regularly appearing at anti-lockout rallies. The reality is the laws have led to an unprecedented drop in assaults and anti-social behaviour in inner-city Sydney. And the hype around business closures is bogus. A survey found a significant number of new businesses have opened in the Cross and surrounding areas in the years following the introduction of the laws. They are diverse businesses too — not just dodgy nightclubs and convenience stores. Even venue operators have admitted the laws are leading to a stronger focus on food and entertainment rather than alcohol.

  4. Jim O'Pines

    Everything in moderation, including moderation.

    1. MAC TEZ

      Damn you Jim O’Pines you’ve beaten me to the punch(line
      ) with your comment, I am so upset I”ll need to have “just the one
      ” mid-strength beer now !

  5. archibald

    Many studies comparing health outcomes of drinkers and non-drinkers included people who had to give up drinking because of health problems in the “non-drinkers” category. It is not really surprising that these people have a higher risk of dying and tend to skew the results for the non-drinkers in an adverse direction.

  6. john ferris

    Northy – the lock out laws killed off ppl actually coming into the Sydney CBD and Kings Cross. So with 80% down in ppl actually coming to the area, having a 50% reduction in violence is a bad result. It means that more people are being assaulted. And yet there’s less people even coming! Sure shut everything and there won’t be anything to report on. And like before the lock outs, assaults are no necessarily the result of alcohol. The king hits that were the catalyst for the lock outs were not due to alcohol but due to individuals with other issues and these assaults occurred outside club hours. All the lock out laws have done is kill off entertainment venues and not helped with reducing violence at home or the streets. The laws are purely and simply created to help the Casino’s profits and fits in perfectly with the moralistic, paternalist, fascism of christians, wowsers and certain Police (Scott Weber and Andrew Scipioni) who actaully say they want us in bed early. There have been over 45 venues, bars and restaurants closed in the Cross and Oxford Street since the laws came in and under rights do you have to call all these business ‘dodgy’? I would call laws introduced in secret ‘dodgy’, I would call casino’s who are somewhat exclsuded from laws to curb alcohol as ‘dodgy’. I would call people wanting to impose their views on someone elses private behaviour as ‘dodgy’. I would call doctors dodgy who report ‘dodgy’ figures to promote a presonal agenda. And how many people die from going to a hospiatal from dodgy doctors? A hell of a lot more than dies from going to a club in Kings Cross!!!

    1. Kevin Herbert

      What dross you spout.

      The Cross is a far more hospitable place for both tourists & locals since the lockouts.

      Tell me another place outside Australia that allows the kind of alcohol filled anti social behaviour that was the norm at the Cross. I lived there for 10 years & saw the drunken idiots destroy the street life.

  7. Migraine

    Bugger the evidence, I’m not about to take up drinking at 52!

  8. Itsarort

    It’s all the genes; some people can gobble it up, others go belly-up. So I say, “live it up”! Because “… nothing ‘gainst time’s scythe…”.

  9. hamish.barker

    I find your anti-anti-alcohol rants strangely at odds with the rest of your well-reasoned political commentaries. As the grandson of a man who drank and smoked himself to death, and now seeing the extended good health that laying off the booze completely in later years has given my father, I applaud the anti alcohol messages while still enjoying a drink.
    The trouble with “drink moderately” is that it’s very easy to err on the harmful side of moderation. While if the health message is “don’t drink”, then drinking a little is at least not causing as much harm.
    On the other hand, as an avid paraglider and skydiver, I am all for reeling in the nanny state which will probably ban my favourite sports eventually!

  10. Nicholas

    I doubt that this article accurately characterizes the research. It sounds like these studies find clinically insignificant effects that scientifically illiterate journalists trumpet as proof that something generally understood as bad is actually good. At most, these studies support the conclusion that moderate amounts of alcohol, while not actually good for you are compatible with good health.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details