Talk:Binge drinking

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2a02:8109:a2c0:29b0:7029:91fe:9a60:7ad5 (talk) at 22:05, 8 August 2014 (→‎Extremely biased). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Not Very Good

Surely an article about binge drinking should just be about the phenomenon of binge drinking itself rather than an excuse for people to complain about specific countries drinking habits. There must be binge drinking in every country, so whats the point in going through just a select few of them and making it sound like the entire population enjoy going out and getting completely legless every weekend. The whole article reads like an excuse for people to have a go at countries they don't like. I'm definitely not impressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.197.8 (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article requires serious editing. Much of it is too colloquial, or unsupported. Some sentences are so bad that they read as though the author was on a binge at the time.JohnC (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need a history section. Does anyone have statistics of alcohol consumptions in the past. Was there a binge drinking culture among teenagers 100 years ago? What was the effect of the temperance movement, and prohibition in the USA?JohnC (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above points. "The UK binge drinking culture is also evidenced by the rather unique social phenomena of relatively large groups (8–15) of men/women (of vary different ages) going, without their partners, on a holiday abroad (typically to Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany or other traditional beer countries) with the main purpose of getting drunk together, often in broad daylight." This sentence is a definite dig at the UK! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.4.220 (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions increased risk of alcoholism in later life too many times, under Effects on teenagers. 58.161.195.77 (talk) 10:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The intro is wrong. "Binge drinking" is not a definition! It is the terms which then needs to be defined.124.197.15.138 (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section on Canada

Does anyone else find the section on Canada... a little weird, or skewed? Especially in contrast with the sections on other countries? I mean, it might as well be a friggin' footnote on the University of Ottawa page, since it has more to do with UoO than canadian binge drinking in general. There are hundreds of universities in Canada, and binge drinking is by no means exclusive to a small one in the middle of Ottawa. Not only that, but it is also by no means exclusive to university students at all! --137.207.238.106 08:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5/4

Just an anonymous reader here, not sure if I'm doing this right... but for as much as the "5/4" definition is mentioned, it is never actually said what that is. I still have no idea.

To echo what the previous anonymous reader said: I've never posted on a talk page before (and have no idea if I'm doing this correctly), but from reading the article, I don't know what the 5/4 definition or the "recognized medical/clinical definition" is. I would correct the entry if I knew the facts.
I concur with the above two... I really have no idea what the "disputable" 5/4 definition is. Why mention it at all?--Krick 04:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The 5/4 definition is defined at the top of the page:
"One of the commonly used thresholds for 'binge' drinking is 5 or more drinks for men and 4 or more for women per occasion. This definition has gained a foothold within the social sciences literature and has influenced media reporting of drinking behavior."
--137.207.238.106 08:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol Tolerance

Under "binge drinking", this sentence doesn't entirely ring true to me:

The major exception to this generalization is that of alcohol tolerance in alcoholics who develop tolerance for the effects of alcohol. Therefore, an alcoholic who is legally intoxicated may show no clinical signs of intoxication. totttaly i do dudee It implies that a person with a blood alcohol level of, say, 0.15% will be perfectly capable of handling a motor vehicle so long as he is an established alcoholic. This flies in the face of research and experience -- that kind of person merely THINKS he's OK to drive.

I'm about half a step away from removing the statement. My point in what Justin David so obligingly terms a "generalization" was to dispel the notion that some people can handle it better and so should get in the car and drive when they're legally drunk. Go ahead and have fun, just don't take it on the road.Guernseykid 07:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent edit by David Justin. Guernseykid 17:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Guernseykid.David Justin 01:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually true that an individual who has tolerance to alcohol as a result of ongoing regular use is likely to be better at handling a motor vehicle at a BAL of 0.1 than he or she would be at 0.0. There's plenty of research out there showing just that. That is actually the definition of tolerance: an individual who requires a greater amount of a given drug to result in the same effects that would be obtained with a lesser amount of the drug in a non-tolerant individual. Drgitlow 02:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV problem. the first sentence of this article, although perhaps wise, is not from a neutral point of view.

npov

the first sentence of this article, although perhaps wise, does not represent a neutral point of view.

I think there are more points where de text is not neutral. It is better that the text should point out in what damage Binge drink results than expression why Binge drinking is wrong. Stick to the facts and let the reader conclude what he/she thinks about heavily drinking! Scafloc 21:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Headings

Title "Other areas" changed due to america only being a small percentage of area effected by binge drinking, so seems irrelevant to define the rest of the world as "other areas".

I've removed that level of headings entirely; it wasn't necessary.-gadfium 18:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, i would have done that. But they choose to revert what i delete.

Staying on-topic

Under the "Europe" category, there does not appear to be any discussion about binge drinking. The connection between early, responsible exposure to alcohol and prevalence of binge drinking should be explained. Do these practices successfully curtail this behavior?

Two-days

I've seen some people define binge drinking as drinking to get drunk or having more than 4 beers. On the other hand, several-day drinking sprees are benders -- I would think you could binge drink in just one night. 70.218.200.200 17:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Physicians and other clinicians have long defined a binge as a period of intoxication lasting at least two days during which time the binger neglects normal activities and responsibilities. See Binge Drinking.David Justin 19:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That may be, but I think there's a genuine conflict between the definition in this article and that common in the UK, especially as used in the press (both by journalists and those making statements). For example, look at the quote below from the BBC (under "Crazy binge-drinking British people") which talks about "binge drinking culture". Whatever people in other countries understand by the term, the quote is not, to my British way of thinking, talking about a culture of 2-day drinking sessions. It's talking about people getting themselves drunk on nights out. That article contains an sidebar saying "Binge drinking is classed as consuming more than 10 units of alcohol in a single session for men and seven units for women", and there's an article from the British Medical Association which talks about possible definitions for "binge drinking", and certainly doesn't support the definition in the article.
This wouldn't be terribly important (since it's perfectly reasonable to have an article about 2-day drinking sessions, irrespective of what the British Government chooses to call "binge drinking"), except that the UK section then talks about "binge drinking" in universities, and legislation "intended to tackle binge drinking". The behaviour referred to in universities, and the intent of the Licensing Act 2003, is far more to do with the British definition than the article's definition, and hence the references are confusing or misleading. If anyone in future adds any British statistics on "binge drinking" then the contradiction of definitions would mean the data would almost certainly be just plain wrong. So I think that some kind of note on the different commonly-understood definition, perhaps just in the UK section, is in order. Onebyone 01:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd second the point about the cultural definition of binge drinking, from a uk point of veiw binge drinking has little if nothing to do with the time aspect of measuring inebriation and much more to do with the quantity Xuberant

Citations should be from a reliable source. Dr. Hanson has a PhD in Sociology and is not a medical clinician. In fact, binge drinking is sometimes described in the medical and scientific literature as being "consumption of half the weekly recommended units at a single session," where a standard unit is 8g of absolute alcohol. (See Descriptors and accounts of alcohol consumption: methodological issues piloted with female undergraduate drinkers in Scotland. Gill JS, Donaghy M, Guise J, Warner P. in Health Educ Res. 2006 Jun 1; [Epub ahead of print]). Generally it is described as excessive use on a single occasion, with no time limit to the duration of that occasion. I was unable to find any citations by physicians or reliable clinical sources indicating a binge to be defined as a two-day ongoing use of alcohol. Drgitlow 20:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I third this opinion. I know that "binge drinking" started out as a description of the pattern alcoholics usually follow, but I think among college age kids there's a very different connotation. as someone said earlier, "drinking to get drunk", or fully intoxicated. playing drinking "games" comes to mind

The term 'binge drinking' has an important historical dimension that illuminates the debate going on here. For centuries in the US and UK (and I presume then-Commonweath countries, certainly Australia), binge drinking did indeed mean maintaining an intoxicated state for several days. This applies during the twentieth century also - the founder of AA, for instance, describes his binges - days of intoxication, not five standard drinks in an evening. That medical associations want to determine healthy levels of alcohol consumption, or that the media wants to demonise youth, matters not at all to the definition of 'binge drinking.' The term does not describe what medical associations use it for. It has never meant the number of standard drinks consumed. It has always meant maintaining intoxication over several days. Descriptions of appropriate levels of alcohol consumption require a separate entry, since binge drinking has had, and continues to have, a meaning independent of medical usage, even if medical associations seem hell-bent on co-opting the term. Indeed, the news-media and medical assocations use the term 'binge drinking' rather than, say 'excessive drinking' precisely because the term 'binge' is more spectacular, and it is so because of its historical meaning. This, of course, only further proves the point.

Fiction

Also, binge drinking is often a theme of classic novels, like A Farewell to Arms. It's a relatively normal thing, right? Is the term itself POV? 70.218.200.200 17:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point. This article needs an historical account of the term.

Country order

Shouldn't the country order on this page have some system? Looks a bit random at the moment. Kansaikiwi 05:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonkers

The section on the UK was obviously written by some Daily Mail reading fascist.

OK, we British like a drink, and admittedly that can lead to problems amongst certain people. Go to any town centre at a weekend and it looks like Dante's Inferno. But so what?

The fact that I get absolutely hammered every Friday and Saturday night, and spend the rest of the weekend in bed feeling rough is hardly cause for massive concern, is it?

Crazy binge-drinking British people!

"Britain's binge drinking culture is costing the country £20 billion a year, according to a government report. The study by the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit shows 17 million working days are lost to hangovers and drink-related illness each year. The annual cost to employers is estimated to be £6.4 billion while the cost to the NHS is in the region of £1.7bn. Billions more are spent clearing up alcohol-related crime and social problems. In addition, alcohol-related problems are responsible for 22,000 premature deaths each year. "

You should be concerned. Then again, looking at the foolish nation as a whole, binge-drinking isn't just accepted ... it's encouraged! People in their 40s boast about vomiting and being drunk. Britain is going down the pan, and most people can't see it.

The only crazy people are the ones who defend the pathetic binge-drinking culture.

Sorry, I'm a little confused. Either the binge drinking people are crazy, or the only crazy people are the ones who defend them. Unless the former is a strict subset of the latter, which to me seems unlikely since there are bound to be some binge drinkers who wouldn't actually defend it as a lifestyle, it can't be both. So exactly which people is it upon which you are passing a (no doubt professionally qualified and cooly considered without bias or emotion) mental health judgement? Onebyone 02:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, that same report concluded that the UK takes 7 bn a year in alcohol duty, and that the industry is worth 30bn per year to the UK economy (and I doubt that figure includes jobs treating alcohol-related problems). I make it that if a 30 bn a year industry is costing 20 bn a year elsewhere, we're 10 bn in profit. So the financials are in favour of drinking - best stick to the health risks if you want to dissuade people! Onebyone 02:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Research suggests that there's a net saving of lives caused by drinking alcohol in the UK [1] [2] and in other countries. [3]

[4]

Why are the points of view of a French footballer and an American actress considered important here? Are they sociologists?

I think the points of view as mentioned above are not altogether that relevant - the quote from the footballer has not even been referenced. Including these quotes add a bias to this section. (Emiwee 17:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The quotes in question are utterly out of place. Ginola's quote is more alarming for its misogynism than its condemnation of binge drinking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.254.242.117 (talk) 05:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Binge drinking in Australia

In Australia, a nation with a reputation for consumption of alcoholic beverages, it is estimated that 9/10 young adults aged 15-21 drink to excess at least once a month. This is despite the legal drinking age being 18 years. The subculture of drinking in Australia has been largely linked to the heritage of the country. People have always drunk heavily and the younger generations mimick the older ones. Unfortunately there is no end in sight to what experts are calling an epidemic and when high profile Australians, particularly Rugby League stars, are setting such a bad example that end doesn't appear to be getting any closer. Prime examples of this are Penrith Panthers star Craig Gower and Melbourne Storm sensation Michael Crocker.

That section has some serious problems. First of all, the legal drinking age does not apply on private property. Second of all, all this stuff about 'no end in sight' and an 'epidemic' seems a bit melodramatic. Binge drinking isn't really a major issue in the media at the moment unless you're watching A Current Affair.

I suggest cutting down on the hyperbole.MickBarnes 09:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No citation/Hearsay/non-NPOV

"...The student unions have endless drinks promotions, and are fuelling the problem."

The second part of the sentance is an unjustified statement of fact which sounds more like the opinion of the writer than somthing NPOV.

Unless there are objections, I will amend it to something like "For all the aforementioned reasons, it can be argued that they are fuelling the problem." Note the words 'can be' rather than 'is' in order to comply with a similar standard.

Situation in the Europe (vs. US)

In the section on Europe, there is the following sentence: Note that morbidity and mortality secondary to alcohol intake is much higher throughout these countries than in the United States. (referring to either Scandinavia or the Southern European countries, or both)

No source is cited for this claim. Also, the Global Status Report on Alcohol 2004 by the WHO has a table about alcohol-related mortality (page 57), and the figures there do not support the claim made here.

--zeno 07:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A nice discussion of the issues involved is available at www.weinberggroup.com/Independent-Review-Alcohol-Consumption-in-Europe-Report-12June06.pdf. One of the problems with the literature is that it is largely based upon mortality reports, as you note in the WHO report, which themselves aren't particularly useful. For example, if one dies as a result of driving while intoxicated, the cause of death is "motor vehicle accident," not "alcohol-related accident." Similarly, death due to hepatic failure secondary to alcohol intake is recorded as hepatic disease, not as alcohol-related illness. Death certificates and other retrospective data are therefore worthless in terms of their ability to assist in determining alcohol's contribution to morbidity/mortality.
The WHO notes that alcohol in Europe causes 9.2% of all ill-health and premature death. Between 40% and 60% of deaths from intentional and unintentional injury are attributable to alcohol consumption. The total societal costs of alcohol amount to between 1% and 3% of the gross domestic product in the European region. (see http://www.epha.org/a/1669).
The European Union is the heaviest drinking region of the world, with each adult drinking 11 litres of pure alcohol each year – a level over two-and-a-half times the rest of the world’s average (WHO 2004) (see http://ec.europa.eu/health-eu/news_alcoholineurope_en.htm [Chapter 4]). Chapter 5 provides the rest of the data necessary for support of my original entry into the article. Ultimately, morbidity and mortality are higher as a result of higher alcohol consumption on a per capita basis.
As an aside, I'm in the US and frequently have patients ask me why it is that Europeans seem to have a much higher intake of alcohol than we do, yet get away without significant damage. I'm not certain as to why that is their initial belief - the Europeans are doing a tremendous amount to deal with their ongoing alcohol-related morbidity - but for many decades there has been this perception of Europeans drinking alcohol without harm coming their way. The statistics tell quite a different story, and though the Americans don't seem to have noticed those, the Europeans have. Drgitlow 21:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

thank you for the quick reply (and sorry for the delay until I noticed that you replied). I still have some concerns:

  1. For example, if one dies as a result of driving while intoxicated, the cause of death is "motor vehicle accident," not "alcohol-related accident." - the WHO study takes traffic casualties into account. In Germany, for instance, drivers are tested for alcohol and other drugs after traffic accidents.
  2. The European Union is the heaviest drinking region of the world, with each adult drinking 11 litres of pure alcohol each year – a level over two-and-a-half times the rest of the world’s average (WHO 2004) - the average for the US is 8.51 litres, which is also higher than the world's average.
  3. The sources you cite deal with the high alcohol consumption in Europe and the problem of gaining good data for statistical analysis. Of course I agree on that. What is still missing is a source showing figures supporting the claim that mortality and morbidity are much higher than in the US. I have no certain opinion on that - it may be true or not - but it would be better to cite a source.

With kind regards, --zeno 13:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You make very good points. Is your primary issue with the word "much?" We know, for example, that in the EU, alcohol intake is roughly 20% higher per capita than it is in the US. We would therefore expect morbidity/mortality to be higher as well, but there could be many reasons for that not to be the case (e.g. better laws against drunk driving, a smoother distribution of alcohol intake across the population rather than high intake individuals offsetting nondrinkers, etc.) The WHO study indicates higher alcohol-related morbidity/mortality but not "much" higher and it doesn't seem to be higher by the percentage one might expect given the alcohol intake differential. Is eliminating "much" satisfactory? Thanks, Drgitlow 23:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comparisons to the US

Everything here seems to be written in comparison to the US. Every country should be considered individually, not in comparison to America. Obviously this article was originally written by an American, but the article should be less centred around the US. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Notch (talk • contribs) 23:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

NPOV in U.S. section

There are a LOT of opinion statements and it is difficult to understand. I am tempted to delete anything without a citation. CelticLabyrinth 03:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

I am really disapointed with the quality of this entry, why is it divide by country? I would wonder if anyone else agrees. Also, it says PREVELANCE of binge drinking in these countries, not every little minute detail of everyones opinion on binge drinking. I would imagine prevelance could be displayed in a chart. This article really, really needs some work.CelticLabyrinth 03:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree - how come the US is a sub-section of the UK? The UK also escapes the European paragraph... Very strange.Faltenin 12:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, there's no real dispute in this article at all. Everyone seems to agree that it has not got a NPOV and is generally littered with irrelevant bits of biased and unsubstantiated "facts". I have cleared out one of the "major" offenders from the UK section as consequence, but I agree that this entire article needs a rewrite. -- Sarah 14:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why a "record" in the Australia section?

The unsourced line "Such a person that is held in this regard is John Wharton,17, of Townsville who was able to drink 40 shots of vodka in only 4 hours" not only doesn't meet standards (no reference, adds nothing to the article) but is also dangerous, prompting readers to "beat the record". I suggest the line simply be deleted. Faltenin 12:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the line yesterday and thought about it later. A Google search for '"john wharton' townsville vodka' brings up nothing, except the Wikipedia article. Unless a citation can be found soon, it should be deleted, as it looks like vandalism, and even if it isn't, it's irrelevant and (as Faltenin points out) possibly dangerous. And 40 shots of vodka in 4 hours? That's around 1.2-1.8l of alcohol. I find it hard to believe. Edward Wakelin 19:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of the Further Reading section?

This section adds nothing to the binge drinking article. It is just an argument of the legal US drinking age and has nothing to do with the act of binge drinking itself. I believe this should be deleted. Furthermore, its not written according to Wikipedia standards. --Geniustwin 17:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed some references to "most" European countries having moderate intakes

It's really only most of the Beneleux and Mediterranean countries which don't binge drink (there're exceptions in both camps) - pretty much everywhere else binge drinks. 82.16.78.145 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 08:43, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

First paragraph

The first paragraph made no sense, probably due to a missed symbol of some kind while inserting image and reference, soo I have deleted it. Someone more wiki-savvy than me (ie not a complete novice!) would probably be able to sort it out though, so the deletion wasn't meant to be permanent. Sabrage (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the article with a historical perspective on "binge drinking"

Looking at this it seems unclear what people are trying to write an article about. This subject is of interest to me as I'm interested in moral panics, and there seems to be one underway about alcohol at the moment- a neo-prohibitionist drive, effectively. To have an article about binge drinking one needs to discuss where the idea of "binge drinking" has come from all of a sudden. Everybody now talks about "binge" drinking.

I'm British and until very recently, "binge" here meant to get absolutely hammered, a serious, serious drinking session, synonymous with a "bender"; just as say "binging" on food would mean the overeating a bulimic does (without the purging :) Now suddenly all over the media a "binge" is just more drink than doctors recommend, more than a feeble two or three pints, which to the average bloke on an evening out is just getting started so's to speak. It's clear that there has been a concerted campaign to redefine the word "binge", and it's happened across the western world.

So far as I can tell in my feeble researches on t'internet, the term traces back to one Henry Wechsler, who has a wiki page, and has made a career out of talking up a campus drinking scare in the USA. He's at nanny central, Harvard, and has had some $6.5M in funding from the temperance orientated Robert Wood Johnson Foundation which reports, again on the internet, indicate have funded anti-alcohol health campaigning to the tune of upwards of a quarter of a billion dollars(!) so best guess it that their network has pushed the term "binge drinking" on his behalf. There seems to be a concerted, very well funded effort to denormalise even moderate drinking via the health networks. Of course this is my "original research" but clearly there is something interesting to write an article about here regarding the origin of the term and demonisation of "binge".

At least I think there is anyway. Ha.82.71.30.178 (talk) 03:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What you are writing is really interesting. This article says that binge drinking is drinking two 500ml 6% beers. Industrial-strength bingeing means drinking four beers. But isn't it in reality two-three-four beers just a light daily/every other daily dose of alcohol? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Any460 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What

So binge drinking, in other words, is just drinking with the intention of becoming intoxicated..

Whoa, how unusual. I thought that binge drinking was something like chain smoking. --nlitement [talk] 15:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more! I've discussed it below in the section "definition of binge drinking" XQx (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems have become conservative in recent times http://www.politics.co.uk/briefings-guides/issue-briefs/health/binge-drinking-$481506.htm XQx (talk) 07:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect references

Reference #13 is incorrect. Correct reference is

Title: Underage College Students' Drinking Behavior, Access to Alcohol, and the Influence of Deterrence Policies: Findings from the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study.

Authors: Wechsler, Henry; Lee, Jae Eun; Nelson, Toben F.; Kuo, Meichun

Journal of American College Health, v50 n5 p223-36 Mar 2002

Suggest checking all references.

131.247.142.72 (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amethyst Initiative

I removed a large section related to the Amethyst Initiative since much of it was POV and mostly unrelated to this article. I replaced the section with brief information sourced to a WSJ article and two internal links that will take interested readers to much more detailed info at AI's main article. Flowanda | Talk 23:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict with Alcoholic beverage

This article conflicts with Alcoholic beverage. Here it is stated that legal drinking age in Denmark is 16. In Alcoholic beverage it is stated that it is 15. --Ysangkok (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The internet seems just as confused about it. I've found several pages that claim the drinking age to be 16 and several to be 18. The most conclusive answer I found (If not entirely reliable) is this wikianswers page here (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Whats_the_drinking_age_in_Denmark) which states that one has to be 18 to buy alcohol but there is no legal required age for which to drink it. Where's a Danish lawyer when you need one? 81.101.36.95 (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's 16 to buy it in a shop, but 18 to drink in a bar.146.186.189.35 (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard Stick?

I'm from British Columbia and I've never heard of wizard stick....must be eastern Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.197.133 (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "binge drinking"

Is a college study (as referred to in the article) really sufficient evidence to say 'binge drinking often means 4 - 5 drinks'?

Being that the dictionary definition of "binge" is 'A period of excessive or uncontrolled indulgence in food or drink:' (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/binge) and most rational people would not consider 4 to 5 standard drinks "excessive and uncontrolled" I think this article (currently) propagates the ultra-conservative views of the medical associations, rather than public consensus - because it doesn't highlight that the fact that most people do not define "binge drinking" the way the AMA does (nor the fact that the research that uses AMA definitions would drastically overstate the 'problem' because of this ultra-conservative definition).

Perhaps this would be more balanced with reference to studies that were conducted that defined binge drinking as 'excessive and uncontrolled drinking', rather than 4 - 5 standard drinks in a sitting.XQx (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is in terrible shape and actually needs a full rewrite. To address your point though, this is not generally a liberal versus conservative issue, your point is actually defined by what is considered healthy and what is considered unhealthy via extensive peer reviewed research. If you have references for societal views and cultural views and so forth, please feel welcome to add them. No one seems enthusiastic to develop this article, so please feel welcome to develop the article. What we must be careful not to do is to reinterpret the peer reviewed literaature according to our own, moral, personal opinions etc; see WP:NOR.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what universe is four pints of ale in a night considered binge drinking? User Literaturegeek, the issue here is that a portion of the medical establishment (not all of it, judging from the behaviour of many doctors I know) has established a hyper-aggressive definition of binge drinking which they are trying to impose on society. The only effect of this is to make perfectly normal people view the medical establishment as a bunch of loons; if you give silly advice you will be ignored. By the message of the article (which you support), the bulk of English people are raging alcoholics going to an early grave, whereas in fact people have been drinking heavily in many societies since we learnt how to make alcoholic drinks in Sumerian times - there is a lot of evidence for this, literary and archaeological. Get a grip and a sense of proportion! It would be more useful to have an article that is aware of the background of this phenomenon and which tries to compare modern drinking patterns to historical ones, rather than citing hysterical journalism about students getting smashed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.102.120 (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In our universe. :) Well, I don't think if someone drinkings 4 pints in one night a few times a month is going to end up brain damaged and alcoholic. It is all about volume and frequency and individual sensitivity. I think you need to appreciate that I can only write an article based on reliable sources and what they say; I have not used any journalist sources, any sources cited to journalist were added by other editors before I came to this article. All sources that I have used are peer reviewed secondary sources from the medical literature. It is a work in progress. You are welcome to find your own reliable sources and summarise them in the article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit biased and alarmist, no?

Not only is the article much longer that it was a few months ago, much of what has been added is highly debatable, especially the rather novel idea that binge drinking is more neurotoxic than chronic alcoholism, and the some of the stuff about adolescents. There seems to be exaggeration of some of these effects as well. Lots of rat studies are cited that have not been conclusively demonstrated in humans, leading to unwarranted extrapolation, and the levels of alcohol needed to produce some of these effects are unrealistically high in some cases.

The tone appears to be inappropriate for Wikipedia as well.Ajax151 (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. The article as you have noted has recently went under a big update. What I did was read through all the reviews for the past 10 years on binge drinking on pubmed and summarised them on this article. The article does need some refining. Information on things such as mechanism of action/toxicity will always come from animal studies as a neurotoxic study on humans, especially adolescent humans would never get through ethical approval. However, I will read over the article in the next few days to see if any reviews of animal studies have been used inappropriately. With regard to binge drinking being more neurotoxic than alcoholism; is it your opinion that it is debatable or are there sources that say that it is debatable or come to a different conclusion? Please also note, the article does say that it is regular binge drinking which is worse. I will see if I can improve sourcing to make it clear that it is heavy and regular binge drinking is where the risk of brain damage occurs. What stuff about adolescents do you disagree with? There are human studies and reviews which do find evidence of neurotoxic effects in humans. Please remember this is a work in process and the article is far from being fully developed.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the article being alarmist; no medical source that I read talked about binge drinking in favourable terms or neutral terms, all were documenting harm. As editors we are meant to reflect what reliable sources say; if reliable sources are all or mostly negative about binge drinking then this is going to be reflected in the article. I do understand and appreciate that many people binge drink during their adolescence and even as adults for recreational purposes, deriving pleasure from doing so and without any long-lasting adverse medical consequences; also the recreational abuse of alcohol is more socially acceptable than say recreational abuse of stimulants or cannabis etc. You are welcome to contribute and add sources if you have them which say binge drinking is relatively safe or sources which have differing viewpoints to existing sources to add balance but be mindful of WP:UNDUE and WP:MEDRS. In a lot of respects alcohol is one of the most toxic recreational drugs of abuse, in terms of organ toxicity and brain damage. The developing central nervous system is especially sensitive to alcohol abuse, with good evidence for fetal alcohol syndrome and emerging evidence for increased risk of neurotoxicity in children and adolescents. The general public unfortunately often view alcohol as "not that bad" because it is a legal recreational drug.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course no medical source would talk about it in favorable or neutral terms. I am not claiming that such behavior is safe, just that in recent years the harms have been exaggerated by various anti-alcohol forces, particularly by "defining down" binge drinking. Four or five drinks in an evening, even occasionally, is a binge? Come on. What about the context or speed of drinking? And the other definition of 0.08 BAC, while it is potentially lethal when behind the wheel or operating machinery, is otherwise not very dangerous. As for the claims about adolescents, I would not doubt that heavy drinking is harmful, especially in early adolescence but what exactly is the threshold? And as far as drinking in late adolescence being significantly more dangerous than for adults, that is not entirely clear either. In terms of neurotoxicity, the only study (Demir et al.) that directly compares those who began abusing alcohol before 20 with those who started after 20 (and controlled for number of years of drinking and amount drunk) showed no significant differences between the groups in terms of long term cognitive impairments.[5][6] Otherwise we are looking at rat studies, and retrospective studies of truly heavy drinkers with no older comparison group, often with small (single or double digit) sample sizes, and these facts need to be known so the reader can understand the limitations of the current research. I made several edits because many of the claims and the tone appeared to be unscientific and/or redundant.Ajax151 (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point, and it's appreciated. Nevertheless, I'd caution you against relying on your own evident knowledge in this area, even if it is meant to tone-down what seem egregious passages. For example, if a reliable source says "X causes Y", and there's no source saying otherwise, we have to write "X causes Y", not "It is believed that X may cause Y", because we have reservations about the way the source expresses itself. We need to find equally good sources that express our doubt and marshal them to show that we should modify the original source. Similarly, a statement "X" from a review or study that is not contradicted elsewhere needs to be written as a fact, not "Some studies/reviews/researchers believe X" – the latter formulation is reserved for statements that contradict other sources' conclusions, since we should then be attributing them as opinion, rather than fact. --RexxS (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ajax, I cannot help what is medically defined as binge drinking. I do not think binge drinking a couple of times a month is likely to cause neurotoxicity. Now heavy binge drinking 2 - 3 times a week over a long period of time probably would cause at least some neurotoxicity. The problem is is that this is my original research. Speed of drinking I think is mentioned in this article and I am sure that you or we could find further sources which discuss speed of drinking. the article does mention drinking alcohol with the result or aim of becoming intoxicated. That study comparing people who were early onset alcoholics versus late onset alcoholics is quite interesting. It was a very small study, it would be interesting to see larger scale studies to see if the results are replicated. It is not appropriate for this article though as this article is on binge drinking, not alcoholism.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source I mentioned is no less appropriate than the studies of adolescents with alcohol use disorders, whose effects are generalized to binge drinking or even teen drinking in general. As long as age of onset of (binge) drinking is discussed at all in the article, which was not the case a few months ago, the source should be included in the article to avoid giving undue weight to the apparent pseudo-consensus about the effects of age.Ajax151 (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

The problem with this edit is that it is a primary source from 1999 being used to cast doubt on a 2009 review paper. Using a primary source which is more than 10 years old to cast doubt on a 2009 review paper is a violation of WP:MEDRS.

Sorry about that. I just fixed it by adding a citation for a 2008 review that discussed the controversy.Ajax151 (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This content was deleted even though it was cited to a recent review paper. The reason for deletion was given in edit summary that it was not a world wide view that brief interventions and raising alcohol age reduced alcohol morbidity and harm. Instead what should have been done was if other recent secondary peer reviewed sources existed, they should have been added to give another viewpoint. Please do not remove well sourced content.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know it has a supposedly reliable source, and I guess we have to agree to disagree on the merits of the claim. The brief intervention part is likely true and is a worldwide view; the drinking age part though is dubious. So I will not attempt to remove it again, but I did clarify it better.Ajax151 (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see wat you are saying. Raising the drinking age may not be the best treatment, who knows, but like I say feel free to add in well sourced differing opinions. We can agree to differ. I deleted this addition. The first source was from 1999 as explained above. The additional source that you added did not reflect the text summary so I deleted it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just add that it can be a confusing process for newer editors when they are confronted with all sorts of acronyms linked to Wikipedia policies. That's particularly true when articles have medical content, because there's a consensus only to use the very best of sources in this area. That results in a real preference for secondary sources – meta-analyses and reviews, or top-quality published medical books – and we have a rule that primary sources (e.g. individual studies) can't be used to contradict a later, secondary source. It's all laid out in WP:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles), but I'll happily do my best to explain anything that isn't clear in there. --RexxS (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it again, this time using a new 2010 review paper (reliable secondary source). No rules against that. Not only does it discuss the 1999 source, but also discusses new research (involving rhesus monkeys) to study age at first drink vis-a-vis later development of alcoholism. Long story short, this new research supports (or more propely stated, fails to reject) the null hypothesis as well. The new source added does not conflict with Wikipedia policy. I was more careful about that this time. Please don't undo my revision again without discussing it on the talk page. Thank youAjax151 (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good source and it's appreciated. I hope you don't mind me tweaking the {{cite journal}} templates, but if I can be helpful: all parameters should be lower case; there's no need to supply a url if you give a pmid because the template will use the pubmed url to link the title anyway, unless there's a different url (like Elsever) that can lead to full text; and always supply a pmc if there's a PubmedCentral full text version available - the reader then has the choice of which link to follow. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Good to know.Ajax151 (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rats and small sample sizes

The paragraph "However, most studies that have found evidence of significant brain damage from binge drinking were done on rats, or were retrospective studies done on heavy drinkers with alcohol use disorders, often with small sample sizes" is an assertion not made in the source (Courtney 2009). Although it is tempting to analyse a secondary source and then draw a criticism from it, that constitutes original research and it's simply not the way we write articles. If a reliable source can be found that makes the assertions about most studies being on rats, or that the sample sizes were small, then please cite it to support that paragraph. If not, it is likely to be removed. --RexxS (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. New sources were added, but what I wrote was common knowledge. Rats are not little people, and generalizing from those with alcohol use disorders to those who occasionally have 5 or so drinks is a bit presumptuous. And small sample sizes can bias results as well. Nothing controversial about that.Ajax151 (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the "Choose Responsibility" source. Sadly we're not allowed to write wikipedia from common knowledge, and we need to assemble sources, then reflect what they say, citing them if challenged (have a look at the example in WP:OR: "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for that sentence exist). Nevertheless, the conclusion from the source you gave does indeed contradict the implications drawn from rat studies, so it is perfectly proper to give weight to those conclusions. I still couldn't find anything criticising small sample sizes in the studies, but the retrospectives on humans seem compelling - it makes you wonder why anybody does trials on rats if the results have no implications for us. I think there's a point where binge drinking on a regular basis does cross over into alcohol abuse, and some material make eventually be better placed there. But for the moment, as LG says, it's a work in progress. Btw, I don't assume this article should only cover the issue of an occasional 5 drinks; there's a lot of work out there on the effects of binge drinking on an all-too-regular basis, but I guess it's the editors' job to crystallise those sort of distinctions as the article progresses. --RexxS (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been thinking about this and I am not sure that the Choose Responsibility source contradicts anything; the early versus late onset alcoholism brain scans, were only measuring "brain volume". The concerns about adolescents being more sensitive to neurotoxicity were not arguing that they have a higher risk of brain volume loss, but rather the concerns were focused on developmental processes in synapses, and inter-neuronal connections etc. Neurodegeneration and dysfunction can occur without a loss of brain tissue mass, which would require a PET scan to detect. Other problems include it being a very small single study, it being on alcoholics when this article is about binge drinking and Choose Responsibility is not subject to peer review.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at the source that Choose Responsibility cites and its results seem to focus on hypoperfusion in different areas of the brain, rather than "brain volume", but I think I understand what you are saying. That study is cited by 26 others according to Google Scholar, so it might be useful to look at those to see if other secondary sources reach the same conclusions as CR. If you get a chance, LG, is this something you could do, as it's pushing the limits of my expertise? If you're busy, don't worry, I'll set aside some time this week to try to understand as much as I can from those 26 sources. I agree that CR doesn't display any reputation for peer-review or editorial oversight, but it has a Wikipedia article and is obviously concerned precisely with the topic of the effects of alcohol on the 18-20 year-old group. Bear in mind that here in the UK, I'm used to alcohol being legally supplied to 18 year-olds, so I don't see CR as having a fringe opinion. It's possible that US editors may view it in a different light. Anyway, to be cautious, I think we may be best to explore other reviews for comparison. Would others agree? --RexxS (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I was writing from memory, I should have reread the paper before posting that. Ah 26 studies, I am a bit pushed for time over the next few days. I have to do a submission for funding and it has to be tip top in the recession and cuts in spending climate etc. OH, no I don't think that CR are fringe; actually they do have a point; while reducing the age limit from 21 to 18 may cause some increase in alcohol abuse, I think education and also culture and society's attitude towards alcohol is probably more important with regard to the harm of misuse of alcohol. As you probably know some european countries have lower age limits than the UK but less of an alcohol abuse problem so clearly other factors are important. I don't have a problem with citing the viewpoint of the CR organisation, I was just querying whether their reviews of the peer reviewed literature is reliable as their reviews are not subject to peer review.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason I even brought up that particular study was not about blood flow and volume loss, but long-term performance impairment on neuropsychological tests. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if they cogitate with their adenoids, it is how they perform. And it was the only human study I could find that compared those who began abusing alcohol before 20 with those who did so after. Most studies of binge drinking adolescents do not have an adult comparison group, thus the effects of age have not been adequately tested in humans. And you make a good point about fringe beliefs--outside of the USA, Choose Responsibility's beliefs are not considered fringe. We need to maintain a worldwide view.Ajax151 (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the pathophysiology section really necessary?

The pathophysiology section seems to be redundant (the gist is already mentioned in other sections) and seems a bit too techincal for Wikipedia. Any thoughts?Ajax151 (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know what you're saying (I'm not a medic myself), but there's pretty general agreement that a mechanism or pathophysiology section is required to complete a medically-related article. I guess the point is that Wikipedia is actually used by real physicians as well as read by the lay audience, and anyone can always skip a section they find too technical. Again, there's a manual of style specifically agreed for use in medicine at Manual of Style (medicine-related articles), and recommended guidelines for sections at the Sections part of it. I suppose you could say that if there are sources discussing the mechanism, then we write about it. I'd be tempted to cut LG some slack on repeated information, though. As the article expands, it will duplicate stuff, and there's usually a point at which the editors agree that it's time to copyedit the whole article with a view to culling any redundancy, but let's not rush there yet :) In the meantime, I'm going to review WP:JARGON and later on, I'll try to explain as much as I can of the article in plainer English. Perhaps you'd like to join me in that task? --RexxS (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and it needs to be shorter as well.Ajax151 (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks RexxS. Yes there is some redundancy in the article and I do intend to prune things within a week or 2. There is no need to rush things. The article will still be here tomorrow to edit.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no need to rush. Looks like we can agree on something.Ajax151 (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed a few things, but there is still much more to go.Ajax151 (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, thank you.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Binge drinking...redefine?

Someone earlier stated that this article seems a bit alarmist and I have to agree with that. There is very little talk of binge drinking on university campuses and the level of actual binging that goes on there. This article makes it seem like a few mixed drinks on a Saturday night and you're an alcoholic. Where is the explanation of the effects (or lack thereof) of having a few shots of tequila on weekends or a few times a month? This article's sole purpose (it seems like) is to deter people from having little more than a glass of red at dinner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickedxjade (talk • contribs) 06:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article only recently got a major rewrite and I expect that it will be refined and improved on over time. I did most of the rewrite; what I did was put binge drinking into quotes and searched a medical search engine and read all the review articles on there and summarised them. From what I can tell just about all scholarly including medical sources talk about binge drinking in terms of negative impacts; so it is not so much that the editors here are biased but rather the medical literature is predominantly negative on binge drinking, almost universally so. Try finding a medical source which talks about the safety and benefitial effects of binge drinking and you will see what I mean. While this may seem biased, we can only reflect what reliable sources say. If you feel that the article is biased against binge drinking, you are welcome to find reliable sources and use them to add balance to the article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Wickedxjade was trying to say that the definition of binge drinking is flawed, and I agree with that. 4-5 drinks, even once or twice a month, is a binge? Come on! Many people can do so without even getting drunk (and 0.08 BAC is NOT drunk, just pleasantly buzzed, but notably still dangerous if behind the wheel or operating machinery) given enough time to pace themselves. Those who do that get lumped in with those who have, say, 10 drinks in an evening, and/or pound 5+ shots of liquor in a few minutes, which IS truly dangerous (but relatively common in some subcultures) so of course the medical literature would be negative on the entire group. It's just driven by the more extreme drinkers who skew the results. And many who say they only have 4-5 have significantly more than that. I'm not saying that 4-5 drinks is completely safe, and in some contexts can be dangerous, but it seems an arbitrary place to draw the line, and pathologizes relatively normative behavior without taking the context into account. Just my 2 cents, but worth much more.Ajax151 (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand where you are coming from, in that having 4 or 5 drinks in one session a couple of times per month is not harmful in most instances (except such as driving etc). Similar arguments are made for people who take other recreational drugs. I agree that extreme drinkers are the ones who cause the most harm to themselves and others but this is how the medical literature and health bureaucracies define binge drinking.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Necessity of Expanding the Approach to this Phenomenon

Am I the only person who has looked up Wikipedia's binge drinking page after a night of binge drinking? Perhaps. However, I think it is a mistake to approach binge drinking from a purely medical perspective. Binge drinking is as much a psychological and social phenomenon as it is a medical phenomenon. Considering alternative approaches to binge drinking would very likely result in an article that is not so negatively biased against binge drinking. 173.180.197.244 (talk) 11:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot of people look up these articles when drunk (due to vandalism levels) or after a drinking session. Yes I understand that the article is almost entirely negative on binge drinking which as you seem to know from reading the talk page here is due to the medical literature not talking about it in positive terms. If you have reliable sources which you would like to use to add a different viewpoint for neutrality feel welcome to edit the article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible Article

This is really a terrible article. A hysterical diatribe against drinking. No attempt to explore the reasons why its done, for example the need to, well, PARTY! The social release people get while drinking, the ice breaking effects. I totally endorse the comment above. Could we nominate this for Worst Wikipedia Article? Special category: Bias? Opinionated? Dutchdavey (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the article is essentially 100 percent negative on the recreational use of alcohol. The problem is that the medical literature does not discuss binge drinking in positive terms. Other reliable sources such as academic books and the media are similar. If you can find a reliable source which discusses binge drinking in positive terms feel welcome to add it. It is not the article that is biased but the medical literature. Your criticism is misdirected but rather you should direct your criticisms at the medical literature.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong, the reasons for binge drinking are actually discussed in this section,Binge_drinking#Cause.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I found that bit. It was hidden under a PostIt on my screen.

Funnily enough, the Dutch and German articles are much more balanced, though worse written. A basic discussion of the historical origns of binge drinking, together with a piece on its contemporary forms. (Dutchdavey) 167.202.201.3 (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DutchDavey, welcome back. If there are parts of the german or dutch articles which are reliably sourced which you think could bring neutrality to this article then why not translate these parts and add them to this article? By the way within the next week or two or maybe less I intend to start shifting some of the kindling stuff over to more focused articles, such as kindling (substance withdrawal), which should resolve some of the weight issues given to some viewpoints and additionally it should remove excess technical detail by moving it over to a more technical and focused article. So stay tuned. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Ok, I have moved a lot of content regarding kindling, neurotoxicity and mechanisms to a more relevant article. Hopefully this will address some of the major concerns other editors have raised. As I stated earlier this article was only very recently rewritten and is a work in progress. Feedback is welcome on how the article can be improved. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One small way to improve the neutrality of this article would be to reduce its reliance on what is referred to as "Youth Drinking Rates and Problems: A Comparison of European Countries and the United States (Sources: 2003 ESPAD Survey and 2003 United States Monitoring the Future Survey)" as a source. This document is in fact produced by the U.S. Department of Justice as a justification for maintaining current U.S. legislation on alcohol sale and similar measures. It is not a study itself; it merely repeats certain statistics chosen from proper studies carried out in different countries. However it is used extensively throughout the article, so for example as of right now, the only reference supporting the article section on the country Spain, is this very brief policy paper produced by the U.S. Department of Justice which is discussing how policy should be formed in the USA, and is itself not intended to make observations or recommendations about the situation in Spain at all. The same document is used similarly in five other places in the article. If the sources cited by this policy document are indeed legitimate reliable sources, it would be far better to cite material from them directly for those countries that they consider. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Easier said than done; would probably need to find a reliable source that will enevitably be written in Spanish, a language of which I do not know. I see the text has been moved along with other text to this article, Epidemiology of binge drinking.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

Nowhere in the first paragraph is a clear definition of binge drinking given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.159.180.63 (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably because there is really no international consensus on a definition of "binge" drinking. The junk science 5/4 definition began with Henry Wechsler in 1993; before that, a "binge" typically meant a multi-day bender in which the drinker engages in extreme intoxication and/or other reckless behavior.Ajax151 (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it.

This article seems to imply that it's apparently more safe to get drunk and abuse alcohol for long periods of time as opposed to short periods. 71.215.78.77 (talk) 18:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only in some respects. Problematic binge drinking is more damaging to the brain than alcoholism,,, but alcoholism/non-stop drinking more commonly results in damage to say the liver. I have added in some more content that better explains this. See this edit as well as this edit.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. To say that binge drinking is more dangerous than alcoholism is minimizing the disease. It's like we are saying that alcoholism is not so bad after all. It's quite amazing that the medical class states that getting drunk on a single occasion is worst than being addicted to alcohol... when we all hear that alcoholics are addicted because their brain suffered neuro-chemical damage due to the drinking — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.250.110.88 (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It's quite amazing that the medical class states that getting drunk on a single occasion is worst than being addicted to alcohol."
Who or what medical class has said that?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the article on alcoholism as well as long-term effects of alcohol and this article, you will see that what the articles on wikipedia and the medical science is saying is that all forms of alcohol abuse are destructive but mild to moderate drinking is generally okay for people who have no past history of dependency.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Binge drinking has the propensity to result in brain damage faster as well as more severely than chronic drinking (alcoholism), due to the neurotoxic effects of the repeated rebound withdrawal effects" - that's were I read it. The source is mentioned no nº8. One single study agaisnt several that speak of the neurological effects of alchoolism. Do not say that I misread this article or that I must compare it to the alcoholism article. People who come to this page must have exact information on the subject without consulting outher pages. And what they read here is this - which goes against the commom knoledge that we have on alcoholism. So consider if you should have this isolated study mentioned in this way or if the text is misleading. Remember there are already 2 people under the "wrong impression" that this seens to minimize alcoholism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.94.238 (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that the article is not properly representing the sources, some ideas for dealing with this include;
  • Devise a new version of the contested section, and propose it via a semi-protected edit request here;
  • Ask for assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine in helping to make this section of the article better meet WP:MEDRS by properly reflecting appropriate sources;
  • Request unprotection of the page at WP:RFPP so that unregistered users like yourself can edit it;
  • Register a WP:ACCOUNT so that you will soon be able to edit the article yourself --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem is that it seems to imply that alcoholism and binge drinking are mutually exclusive, which is not true since many alcoholics (especially early-stage ones) drink in binges (and experience frequent, severe hangovers) rather than get continuously drunk 24/7. Coupled with the low redefinition of binge drinking as merely 4/5 drinks, implying that doing so even occasionally is worse for the brain than alcoholism it is rather misleading to say the least.Ajax151 (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The alcoholism article discusses the neurotoxic effects of multiple periods of withdrawal. I think the majority of readers would work out that the more severe the binge drinking, the more severe the brain damage and risk of brain damage.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which units?

When this article references units of alcohol, it omits to mention which type of units it is referring to. As noted elsewhere on wikipedia, the size of a unit can vary drastically from country to country. A translation into grams would help. 217.42.22.218 (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't all binge behavior be combined into one article?

Wikipedia has separate articles for binge drinking, binge eating, and drug binges. Doesn't all binge behavior have many underlying characteristics in common? It would make more sense to have one article about binge behavior, rather than separate articles for each type of binge behavior. Cwgmpls (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but most of the reliable sources (or at least, the ones used here) treat them separately. So it would be very difficult to arrange a cohesive treatment of the overall subject. In addition, a combined article might be too long to be practical. Possibly there needs to be (or already is?) a separate article covering binge behaviour in general? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV-check

While the article has factual content, it is phrased in a non-POV manner. It takes for granted that the subject matter is wrong and harmful, rather than merely asserting it exists. As expressed therein, not all instances of the activity result in harm or wrongdoing, yet it seems judgemental and attempts to proscribe the behaviour rather than describe it. It would benefit from a rewrite in a more NPOV fashion. wolfe (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your views on the article and I can see where you are coming from. It is true that a lot of people binge drink to a certain level without ever experiencing any demonstratable medical or other adverse consequences and if a source addressing this point can be found please feel welcome to add it. Much of the article summarises the medical 'facts' and talks about the harm. Sure it is a recreational drug and people binge drink for pleasure, but the problem is society as a whole and importantly reliable sources and authoritative bodies from what I have read always describe binge drinking as a 'wrong' or harmful behaviour. Wikipedia summarises reliable and preferably recent sources and what they say. It is easy to request a rewrite but if there are no reliable sources (see WP:MEDRS for what constitutes reliable sources) that talk favourably about binge drinking then the article IS infact neutral, (see WP:NPOV to understand how wikipedia defines neutrality). Seeing as all reliable sources that I have read describe binge drinking/recreational intoxicating use of alcohol as being harmful and wrong/antisocial, I see no reason why a banner should be used to flag the article as biased. Unless evidence (in the form of reliable sources) is shown that the article unfairly describes binge drinking I think the banner should be removed. I have no problem with the article being made less 'biased' if reliable sources can be found to do so and you are welcome to edit and fix any errors you see, using reliable sources but we shouldn't rewrite an article because some editors or readers WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.--MrADHD | T@1k? 23:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of authority linking binge drinking to violence and death. Not that something horrible happens every time someone gets drunk. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible bias with introduction?

The bulk of the first three introductory paragraphs are about the harm of binge drinking. I am concerned that, while accurately cited and peer reviewed, that this may represent a bias towards a single aspect of the topic.

Maybe something about binge drinking being filling and fun? User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Adding in content about the recreational effects of pleasure and social benefits would be of value.--MrADHD | T@1k? 21:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely biased

I agree with the people who find this article judgmental, alarmist, and POV. Within the next month or two I'll be researching the context of the statements in the article (such as the one I deleted), as well as how much of the damage is really permanent, as the article suggests, and the extreme weight put on health consequences. Discussion and collaboration are appreciated. Le kasydzu (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you will find is that there is a scientific consensus that binge drinking is very harmful to health, that alcohol is a potent neurotoxin when abused excessively and is a major cause of strokes etc. The statement that you tried to delete is actually a good explanation for why people complain on this talk page about the scientific POV that this article reflects. Most alcohol abusers do not appreciate the nature of the dangers of binge drinking. See WP:MEDRS to help you editing this article.--MrADHD | T@1k? 21:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinary drinking and binge drinking are entirely different. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick web search and it seems to me that this article does not reflect the scientific consensus at all. Most of the cited sources are not even the original studies. The mounting consensus in the field is that even severe long term alcohol abuse does not cause significant irreversible damage. Here are a few studies conducted on HUMANS not rats and actually published in leading scientific journals backing what i just wrote: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16930216: No long term impairment in abstinent alcoholics. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9500305: Metastudy. No cognitive impairment at all in humans below a dosis of 17 standard drinks per Week. http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/130/1/36.short http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/content/34/4/567.short: Quick Recovery of alcohol induced damages in the brain. It seems to me that this article is alarmist cherry picking of bad science. Also the articles suggestion that the withdrawal episodes do the damage to the brain is outdated. Please include in the article that there is strong evidence against the irreversibility of alcohol induced brain damage and against any impairments of recreational alcohol consumption(less than 17 standard drinks per Week), binge drinking or not.

Photo removed

I accidently made this edit without leaving a full edit summary. My rationale for removing the photo is that it seems to be a fairly serious violation of WP:BLP to display a photo of a clearly recognizable person labeling them a binge drinker without any kind of supporting evidence whatsoever. The use of this photo could realistically have very negative consequences for the individual, and there seems no good reason to include it. Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Binge_drinking&oldid=620428738"