Alcohol

[Iggy]

For what it is worth, I got this information from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (link is below)

<snip> Moderate drinking is one drink a day for women or anyone over 65, and two drinks a day for men under 65.
<snip> Binge drinking - drinking five or more drinks at one time - can damage your health and increase your risk for accidents, injuries and assault. Years of heavy drinking can lead to liver disease, heart disease, cancer and pancreatitis. It can also cause problems at home, at work and with friends.
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

From: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/alcoholconsumption.html

For beer, the approximate number of standard drinks in
• 12 oz. = 1 • 22 oz. = 2
• 16 oz. = 1.3 • 40 oz. = 3.3

For malt liquor, the approximate number of standard drinks in
• 12 oz. = 1.5 • 22 oz. = 2.5
• 16 oz. = 2 •40 oz. = 4.5

For table wine, the approximate number of standard drinks in
• a standard 750-ml (25-oz.) bottle = 5
For 80-proof spirits, or “hard liquor,” the approximate number of standard drinks in
• a mixed drink = 1 or more* • a fifth (25 oz.) = 17
• a pint (16 oz.) = 11 • 1.75 L (59 oz.) = 39

</SPAN>

Bold and in red are mine.

Because you are in the UK sjdean, your pint is probably malt liquor. You have 5 of those and 3 Jack Daniels and then a Bailey's. That totals 14 drinks in one sitting. Doesn't matter if you have those with a meal in the middle, if I was your bartender I would be taking away your car keys and calling a cab.

I owned a tavern for 8 1/2 years, then after that I bartended in a cocktail lounge for 12 years. Per the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, I was more than qualified to discern whether someone was drunk or not. Not only by how much they had consumed during the time they were in my bar, but also by their appearance, actions, talk, etc.

I can tell you that had you consumed 5 pints of American beer (which equals 6.5 average drinks), 3 Jack Daniels and a Baileys and coke you are drunk. In my bar, I would have cut you off after the Th pint. These amounts are NOT moderate drinking. You can go ahead and tell yourself this, but you are incorrect. You are the one who is fooling yourself and consequently you are the one who is a danger to others.

Don't believe me, go to your nearest Police Station after you have consumed your 5 pints, 3 Jack Daniels and your Baileys and coke and request that they give you a Breathalyzer. OR better yet go to your Dr if s/he is open that late and have a blood test or even a urinalyses done and see what your blood alcohol level is.

In the US, if your BA is .08 or higher, you are legally drunk and you are in a world of hurt!

[sjdean]

Originally Posted by Iggy

Because you are in the UK sjdean, your pint is probably malt liquor. You have 5 of those and 3 Jack Daniels and then a Bailey's. That totals 14 drinks in one sitting. Doesn't matter if you have those with a meal in the middle, if I was your bartender I would be taking away your car keys and calling a cab.

A pint is probably malt liquor? I have no idea what malt liquor is, sounds strong, so I'll just clarify to say that a pint, is typically beer or cider of 4 to 5%. Oh and most unlike the US, in the UK, a JD and Coke roughly translates to around a cap full, one shot, or, 25ml or something of JD.

But Im curious, why would you think I would be driving to the bar to have a few drinks? Why would I need a cab when I was quite capable of walking home? If you tried to take away my car keys, I would probably call the police and have you arrested for assault and theft.

Originally Posted by Iggy

I owned a tavern for 8 1/2 years, then after that I bartended in a cocktail lounge for 12 years. Per the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, I was more than qualified to discern whether someone was drunk or not. Not only by how much they had consumed during the time they were in my bar, but also by their appearance, actions, talk, etc.

You seem to know what everybodies behaviour is. Can you tell me what my behaviour is after I've had a few drinks? That's actually a serious question if you don't mind?

I've said time and time again that Im a responsible drinker. As such I always maintain lucidity.

For a little anecdote, even after a few drinks, I was sharper than the person behind the bar. £2.70 for a pint of Stella Artois, I got 2 £1 coins and 2 50p pieces making £3.00 in total, and the lady behind the bar had to recount.

Originally Posted by Iggy

I can tell you that had you consumed 5 pints of American beer (which equals 6.5 average drinks), 3 Jack Daniels and a Baileys and coke you are drunk. In my bar, I would have cut you off after the Th pint. These amounts are NOT moderate drinking. You can go ahead and tell yourself this, but you are incorrect. You are the one who is fooling yourself and consequently you are the one who is a danger to others.

See Snow, this is the kind of attitude I absolutely hate, that a certain amount of drinks will lead to a certain behaviour.

I can see this culture creeping into the UK from the US, and I despise it. It gives different people the same limits.

I call it moderate because I don't drink every day or every week for that matter. When I leave a venue, I leave with my head held high in pride that I maintained dignity and decorum and still have the mental capacity to be able to look after those around me - like ensuring my friends can get home safely if they're paralytic despite drinking less than me.

Is that what you expect from someone under the influence?

Why am I a danger to others? What am I doing to be a danger?

I can guarantee you, that anything you think I was doing is incorrect, unless you have a different definition of the word Danger.

Originally Posted by Iggy

Don't believe me, go to your nearest Police Station after you have consumed your 5 pints, 3 Jack Daniels and your Baileys and coke and request that they give you a Breathalyzer. OR better yet go to your Dr if s/he is open that late and have a blood test or even a urinalyses done and see what your blood alcohol level is.

Why would I not believe you over my own intoxification, and why on earth would I need to go to the police station to confirm that Im intoxicated when I already know I am?

Addition:

Thanks for the mutual understanding Snow. Iggy, I should have did what I promised before and not said anything else. You clearly think Im abusive to others when Im intoxicated. This is an accusation I categorically deny. Please do not use stereotypes and accuse someone of a certain behaviour unless you have met them. Im more than willing to continue to discussing in a polite and rational manner, but please refrain from accusing me of things Im not guilty of.

As I've stated time and time again, we're all different, we all have different limits, alcohol affects people in different ways, some people become abusive, a large percentage do not - and I would love you to recognise as I do, that everyone is uniquely different and capable, and if you have to judge, then judge them on their own (de)merits instead of the (de)merits of others.

[Snow]

Originally Posted by sjdean

Can we bury this now?

We sound like we're singing from the same hymn sheet, even if we seem to find it impossible to write it down at times!

No hard feelings ?

Cheers
Simon

Absolutely. No hard feelings. I apologize if I came across as implying your behavior was irresponsible. I have no personal knowledge on the matter.

Regards.

[rayhale]

I’ll go along with what some of the posts have said about the reason that we, as the church, don’t drink, that is, the people that make the stuff makes money off of people getting drunk, and it’s only recently that the beer company’s have made an effort to spread the word about alcohol abuse.
At church they just about always talk about how if you put a frog into boiling water, it will jump right out, but if you slowly turn up the heat, the frog will boil to death. It just illustrates that some people are the same way. I’ve read, and have seen, report after report of all the drunk driving ‘accidents’ that have happened, and the drunk driver will tell the police that they didn’t drink much, just 1-2, or that they didn’t ‘feel drunk’. People, mainly in America, are very independent, people, as a whole, don’t want to ask for a ride, or admit they are too drunk to drive.
If you read in the Old Testament, it says that they used some form of chemicals in the temples, in some Native Indian tribes; there is the peace pipe, and other, what we now know as, mind-altering chemicals. Jesus and the Apostles drank wine. What has changed? Why are these subances banned today when they were part of worshiping back then? I can’t say that I know for sure, but as the Word of Wisdom says about evil men, I agree with that, just think of cigarettes for a moment, cigarette companies have known for decades that cigarettes were bad for you. I watched the CEO’s of these companies lie and try to say that they didn’t think that cigarettes were additive. In the meantime they not only knew that cigarettes were additive for you but they worked on ways to make cigarettes even more additive than they normally are. I would not doubt for a second that beer companies have done the same thing; I would not doubt that they have put something in the beer that makes beer even more addictive than it normally is.
As for the illegal drugs, it is just a matter of fact that we have harder and more refined drugs today, then at any other time in history.

[Hemidakota]

We are entering a phase where nanobot type drugs maybe the next evolutionary step.

[Hemidakota]

There is a book just dedicated to this topic - WoW that was written back in 1950 by John A. Widtsoe called "The Word of Wisdom, A Modern Interpretation"

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Hemidakota

There is a book just dedicated to this topic - WoW that was written back in 1950 by John A. Widtsoe called "The Word of Wisdom, A Modern Interpretation"

Yeap...that is it. In essence, we have revelation on the matter. There is no need to theorize about it. Understanding of the revelation comes by faith and obedience to the commandment, not philosophical introspection or logic. Just a thought.

[roytucker]

I know I'm coming in way late on this topic, but here are my thoughts:

All we (LDS) have to go on is the actual revelation itself. All the conjecture about scientific studies is just going to get us in trouble, because we jump to conclusions that might ultimately be wrong.

I find it interesting that the Lord distinguishes 'wine' from 'strong drink'. He says that "strong drinks are not for the belly" (89:7) but doesn't say the same about wine. In addition, wine is still OK for the sacrament.

We're told that the word of wisdom is given because of "evils and designs ... in the hearts of conspiring men" (89:4). Once again, we don't know exactly what this means and we're only guessing if we think we do.

But the conclusion I reach about wine is that the Lord is not saying that wine is bad for you. He is saying don't drink it because of the "conspiring men" and that if you can make it yourself, then you can still use it for the sacrament. Jesus also mentions drinking wine in the life hereafter (Matt 26:29). So, basically, if you're LDS, you can keep a wine cellar, just don't crack it open until the Millenium!

As a side note, I've always had a bit of a problem with the coffee and tea interpretation of 89:9. It simply says "hot drinks". We always say a prophet has later interpreted that as coffee and tea. Well, if that is the case, then we should canonize that statement because to me, there is nothing confusing about the term "hot drinks".

And don't get me started on why we ignore the rest of the revelation

Roy

[CliffieDuckie]

I'm also coming in late to this... My family is Evangelical (me, not so much) and this is the excuse they ALL give: Jesus drank wine, therefore it's ok for us to do so. You're just not supposed to drink it in EXCESS... which to them means you can get drunk as long as you're not drunk every night.

[sjdean]

Originally Posted by roytucker

As a side note, I've always had a bit of a problem with the coffee and tea interpretation of 89:9. It simply says "hot drinks". We always say a prophet has later interpreted that as coffee and tea. Well, if that is the case, then we should canonize that statement because to me, there is nothing confusing about the term "hot drinks".

Roy

I too would love to see that to avoid any ambiguity. Any person joining the Mormon Church looks up Word of Wisdom, goes out and finds D&C 89. But the words that are written, are different to what is actually practiced today. Not that I have a problem with changing the teaching from time to time...