Is my dh being unreasonable to ask me to stop drinking wine?

[40thisisit]

I won't pretend that I don't love white wine and yes on occasion may drink too much. But it's my only vice in life. I work hard during the week (am a chemistry teacher), run twice a week, eat healthily and also have 3 dd's to look after. I see my wine time at weekends and school holidays as a little time for me to relax. He thinks I'm shortening my life and has said he's going to give up wine and wants me to join him. AIBU to tell him to go whistle???

Op please can you explain your earlier cryptic "sober mumsnetters" post?

Reading the report carefully, it addresses the issue of daily allowances vs weekly allowances, and whether there is a protective effect for low alcohol consumption.
It does mention differing views from different people, such as when it addresses the levels for women, where it says:

"Aside from a minority, such as the Association of Small Direct Wine Merchants, who stated that "suggesting 2-3 units of alcohol a day for women or 3-4 alcohol units a day for men without reference to body size [...] is akin to having driving speed limits of 20-30 MPH for women or 30-40 MPH for men",[72] most of the written submissions we received did not challenge the advice that women should be advised to drink less than men, based on health risks. In fact, it appeared that even more evidence had emerged to support this since 1995. For example, Dr Morgan explained that "since the guidelines were last considered in 1995, [...] the major body of evidence has been on the detrimental effect of alcohol and the cancer risk, particularly for breast cancer in women".[73] However, Dr Harding suggested that as women "are exposed to the risk of cardio-vascular diseases" after the menopause, "the benefit that they gain from moderate consumption after the menopause would outweigh any increased risk of cancer".[74]"

Also:
"37. We have heard sufficient concerns from experts to suggest that a thorough review of the evidence on alcohol and health risks is due. The Department of Health and the devolved health departments should establish a nationwide working group to review the evidence base and use the findings of the review to provide advice on whether the guidelines should be changed. In the meantime, we consider that there does not appear to be sufficient evidence to justify increasing the current drinking guidelines."

I read it as a summary of evidence and opinions, including opposing views, concluding that the guidelines should not be changed based on the available evidence.

So, I am feeling very stupid for missing the contradictions and please do point them out to me.

Stealth, Mumsnet Sober Workplace is one of the user interface settings. I think OP may have been making a joke that I didn't get

Thanks I do get it now :) actually now you mention it I think that's the one I use :)

Sanctimonious for asking the op who is looking after her children whilst her and her dh are both drinking heavily every weekend? [umm]

As for neglecting my dc being on mn [umm], it was my dc's nap time here.

Your liver won't lie if you are binge drinking on a regular basis so no matter how much in denial a person is about their addiction or dependency on alcohol/drugs, it really doesn't matter.

I wish you all luck and hope you enjoy your wine!

lweji

It is a review of differing opinions that practically all contradict each other. I came away with the conclusion that they haven't got much of a clue really. I'm not sure how that didn't come across?

They state that the report came about because of new evidence about coronary heart benefits and then conclude that they await full significance in further research. They decided to change the amount from a weekly total to a daily total but then go onto say that this increases the weekly amount 33% for men and 50% for women and has had concern from the health community.

At paragraph 21:they list a whole host of benefits but then end the paragraph with an however the evidence isnt strong enough to inform public policy.....

They state in paragraph 23 that the evidence is not convincing a number of experts. Sir ian Gilmore says young people get no cardio vascular benefit whatsoever. And that there are serious scientists who still believe that the apparent CV benefits are spurious.
Prof nick heather- confidence in CV effect has now largely disappeared.
Dr marsh morgan- evidence very thin. And mentions the increase in cancers- larynx, oesophagus and breast.

27: internationally scientific forum on alcohol research - moderate regular consumption within guidelines helps protect against CV disease. (Contradicts previous experts) and then says - especially post menopausal women- however if you look further up the repot at the graph of the j curve diagram, that states underneath that their is greater uncertainty for women due to lack of evidence.

And that's all I can do, because I got bored, I had to write out the points on a piece of paper due to being on phone and I spent 7 hours in a and e last night with my youngest and I've only had a few hours sleep.

I mentioned the alcohol industry as to me that isn't very scientific. I would think anything they had to contribute would be extremely biased, since they have a massive invested interest.

IMO, your reading of that report is all over the place.
The authors quoted one instance of an opinion by the wine industry who claimed that women should have higher allowances. Of course it's not reliable, and it was included to show the range of opinions received because the authors tried to get a range of opinions from different sources on the subject.

One of the main discussions in the review is about whether there are health benefits or not of drinking small amounts. The whole problem is deciding where the benefits end and the damage starts. And it's not easy to decide.
They list and weigh different sources of evidence and mention the differing strengths or faults.
It reads to me as a standard scientific analysis of available evidence.

Well we must be reading different things, because the experts don't agree, the scientific research contradicts itself and the international scientific forum on alchol studies states its chd benefits for women in one paragraph but says there isn't enough research on women to say there are any chd benefits in another paragraph.

Not sure where I quoted any wine industries unreliable (your word) data on women needing more units??? [Confused]

I think you need to read it again without having a bias opinion on alcohol consumption.

I have no bias opinion on alcohol consumption. For all I know the units they suggest in the guidelines could be too high. My point all along has been that they have come to that conclusion subjectively and not scientifically.

I do have a bias to do with shit research though. I've read and studied enough.

""You still haven't pointed out why evidence from the wine industry can't be used to support control on drinking. I would have expected the opposite.""

""The authors quoted one instance of an opinion by the wine industry who claimed that women should have higher allowances. Of course it's not reliable...........""

Do these paragraphs not contradict each other?

Yes he is being a total control freak. Fling a glass of wine at him and tell him to go xxxx himself. You are not mainlining A-class drugs, you are drinking a bottle of wine.

cheval, you seem to be unaware that alcohol is widely believed by scientists to be more dangerous than many banned substances.

This Economist article is a nice short clear guide to a scholarly article published in the Lancet four years ago that reached that conclusion.

If alcohol were to be newly discovered now, there is absolutely no way it would not be banned and classified as an A-class drug.

Mimsy

I agree that if alcohol was looked at objectively and compared to banned drugs it would be up there with side effects and deaths.

I wonder why it isn't though? Is it because it's a drink and not injected or swallowed or because it's not an instant hit like other substances, so seems less harmless?

I think personally, it's because we 'know' it, whereas with class drugs they are mostly unknown to the majority and possibly associated with lack of control and the underclass. Idk?

I have thought before about why weed is seen in such a bad light in comparison when alcohol is much worse on paper- and I hate weed (ex boyfriend and paranoia) and can't objectively agree at all.

What was a, well, sobering realisation for me was moving to another European country.

After living here for 7 years and adjusting to the different drinking patterns, I look back on the drinking culture in the UK in some cities I've lived in and it seems totally out of control. Regularly going out on thursday, friday and saturday nights in order to get smashed. "but I was drunk" being trotted out as an excuse for anything that happens as though that makes it ok. The price the kids pay. Long term health problems.

Can't remember how often we saw / scooped someone up from the road because they're lying in the middle of it dead drunk and at danger of being run over.

The drinking culture as a whole seems so disproportionate. Kind of scary. I mean, half a bottle of wine three times a week, not so bad. A beer with the meal, that's civilized. But half a bottle of vodka even before you've left the house being normal? Scary.

Alcohol is one of our oldest drugs, I suppose. Before we had tea and coffee and safe drinking water piped into our homes, drinking small beer (which I think was very weak beer) was routine for many British people with every meal - including small children. Heavy drinking has been normalised in all the northern European countries for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

My own view is that our current drugs laws make no sense at all. We should scrap the lot and start again. I'd decriminalise most of them but have tight regulation on production and sale, with sales taxes funding treatment programmes for addicts.

Meerka

I recently went to Russia and read on the internet (trip advisor, virtual tourist etc) that a, russians drink a lot and b, it's normal to see young Russians including drinking beet during the day as they see it as weak, and normal etc. We jumped on and off the underground to get around Moscow, including late at night, (last train 12.30) and no one was drunk/drinking, falling over, singing etc. It was all very civilised. Try getting the last train back from Manchester and the like and it's hideous.

Mimsy. I agree there is something totally disproportionate about the laws and the thought process behind it, and I include myself in that. I heard something on the radio the other day about how research suggests that laws or lack of, have no bearing on how many take drugs, so it would be better to legalise and yet I can't bring myself to want that. Weird really. I blame indoctrination/socialisation that just won't let me let go.

Sorry, I meant young Russians drinking beer in parks during the day. Etc as if it's soda I mean.

Brain moving faster than I can type I think!