Wednesday, I chronicled on alcohol1. We must drink less, if we rely on the synthesis of more than 150 studies on the effect of alcohol on health. The more we drink, the more we are at risk of developing cancer, cardiovascular disease and stroke.
Beyond seven drinks per week, we enter an increasingly risky zone, according to the increase in consumption, according to this report from the Canadian Center on Addiction and Substance Use.
Because after 17 years of writing in The Press, I know you well, rascal readers, I also wrote these words: “I hear you howling from here! »
And you screamed, my God you screamed!
You yelled at government, you yelled at science-that-says-one-thing-and-its-opposite…
And you also yelled at me calling me a puritan, a killjoy and even a priest.
Amen. Would you like some mass wine?
So I knew you were going to scream. Alcohol is like school: each of us thinks we are experts on the subject. Everyone has their certainties.
But about these recommendations, based on evidence, some have missed some important passages of this column. Like this one, where I now feel better informed by this study: “I’m going to govern myself accordingly… Or not. »
And I also wrote: “People are free to adapt – or not – their consumption. But what is essential is that the information reaches citizens, so that we can make informed choices. »
It seems to me that the priests of little Jesus of my childhood were less conciliatory with dogma…
Sorry to quote me twice in the same column, but so many of you read my Wednesday paper screaming that some obviously missed bits!
Me, it’s simple, I want to know. I want to know everything. In all areas of my life. I want the data, the information, the statistics and context, to get an idea. To help me decide. To make informed choices. That’s what this study does: it gives the current dive bottle shopping score, based on over 150 studies.
But hey, to paraphrase a general who was said to love champagne: “Quebecers, I heard you! » You do not intend to reduce your consumption of beer, wine, gin, crème de menthe, Sex on the Beach or B-52 shots. Nobody will tell you what to drink, how much to drink, because-you-have-to-die-of-something, let me manage my risks, it will do, the government, mom, Mr. heart…, uh, the chronicler !
Come on, I give you my blessing.
All I’m saying, and that’s kind of what this study from the Canadian Center on Substance Use and Addiction is saying, is give Canadians the real score on alcohol and its risks . And govern yourself accordingly.
Both of your parents died before the age of 60 from heart disease? Maybe 15 glasses of wine a week isn’t a good idea.
You do six marathons a year and your healthy 90-year-old parents still organize cross-country skiing expeditions in Scandinavia? Well, maybe 15 glasses of wine isn’t such a big deal in your case…
That’s also managing your risks: getting to know yourself. But to manage risk, you need to have the real score, the best possible data. I delicately submit this to you: an analysis of 150 scientific studies is more reliable than clinging to the anecdote of this nun in France who drank her daily little glass of port until she was 127 years old.
I will surprise you: on alcohol, I do not intend to radically change my consumption. I happen to exceed the threshold of seven drinks, on occasion. Not often, but sometimes. I drink little because I become a cocktail quickly, which is great: it costs me less and I go to bed earlier.
Disclaimer: I celebrate my birthday, at the weekend, my hair may hurt the next morning. There will probably be big gin, tequila, a martini-shaken-not-stirred (or two)…
And if I really feel wildit’s quite possible that two or three bottles of my favorite sparkling wine – the Baby Duck – end up in the recycling bin.
I assume it, I assume the risk of exceeding the suggested limit. But I know the risk now. And you too. So, let’s govern ourselves accordingly…
Either way, heavy drinkers or not, we’re all going to die waiting for a doctor in the emergency room at the local hospital, our diapers half-full, while the nurses are on sit in of protest. Data from the last 30 years is quite clear on this.
But seriously, I’m still amazed by your visceral reactions to this study. It’s as if you had been told that the SAQ was going to start rationing alcohol, like the USSR rationed bread and potatoes…
I assure you: this is not the case. Well, I don’t think so.
But it may be that in our lifetime the SAQ will be forced to slacken the pulley on the advertising and marketing of the substance which, of all drugs, is the most harmful for oneself and for others.2.
By the way, have you noticed that the Société québécoise du cannabis (SQDC) is not authorized to advertise its products?
I’m not saying it’s good or bad.
I say that there is no reason to allow the SAQ to do what is prohibited at the SQDC, which sells a drug that is less harmful than alcohol for individuals and for society. A drug that I don’t use, before you accused me of being a naughty potty priest…
Am I a heretic to raise this double standard?
Well, on that, I’ll let you know that today is Thursday and it’s still 5 a.m. somewhere…
And if you drive, don’t drink. But I’m not telling you to fasten your seat belt, plans for you to call me John Paul II.
Cheers, everyone!