Within a few months a policy to reduce the harmful use of alcohol intake could become a reality in Caribbean states.
The use of alcohol is being described as a “public health priority” and Executive Director of the Caribbean Public Health Agency (CARPHA) Dr. C. James Hospedales, told Dominica News Online that the process for making the policy a reality has already begun.
“We are in the process of developing it so in the coming months we will be preparing to take back to the ministers a comprehensive policy, as they have said that this is a priority for our region given the amount of damage associated to the economy, to people’s health, to people’s educational capabilities because of harmful use of alcohol,” he said.
He stated that late last year the Council of Health Ministers of the Caribbean received a paper on the need to develop a comprehensive regional policy to reduce the harmful use of alcohol and to name it a public health priority.
“I stress harmful use of alcohol. The policy will not be proposing to stop people from drinking altogether, however, the normal levels that many people drink are harmful,” he stressed.
Hospedales said three to four alcoholic drinks per day are harmful for a man while one to two drinks are harmful for a woman.
“You destroy a lot of your brain cells and you put yourself at risk of accidents of problems on the job,” he stated. “So the harmful use of alcohol is that what we are focused on as a public health priority because we see the damage that it causes in society in terms of traffic injuries, domestic violence, reduced productivity on the job, reduced learning of adolescents especially many of the boys and girls 14, 15, 16 who are drinking and it’s not good for their learning. You have problems with risky sexual behaviour, date rape … so all those are the focus of this policy.”
He went on to say that CARPHA will be looking at evidence from international sources of what works to reduce the harmful use of alcohol.
“It includes in a way like tobacco which is harmful in all its forms,” Hospedales said. “It will include restrictions on promotions, restrictions on advertising especially to young children, they will include tax and price measures to increase the price so that people who are poor and the younger people are less able to afford it.”
Additionally, some of the measures include development of, or enforcement of measures that are already been in place such as underage drinking and sale of alcohol to minors.
“Those would be the range or the sorts of measures involved in a policy to reduce the harmful use of alcohol,” Hospedales explained.
There are many good suggestions to be made.
1) Health classes in the schools could teach the dangers of alcohol consumption.
2) Up the tax on booze.
3) No alcohol sold anywhere until 12 noon.
4) Begin closing the bars earlier.
5) Police on the roads doing spot checks for drinking and driving, especially on weekends.
6) Review the legal drinking age. It must apply to private drinking and house or yard parties, any place where kids drink.
7) People who host parties of any kind where alcohol is served should provide a variety of non-alcoholic
drinks.
9) Police visits to bars and clubs looking for customers who are intoxicated, and under aged drinkers.
10) Special attention needs to be given to drinkers coming out of the clubs at closing time and getting behind the wheels of their cars.
BETTER ENGFORCEMENT
Sincerely, Rev. Donald Hill…
People need to be educated regarding alcohol.
Alcohol causes liver damage that is often fatal.
It causes cancer of the stomach and other parts of the body.
Nearly half of the fatal automobile accidents in Canada each year involve alcohol. It is reasonable to believe it would be about the same in other nations.
It lowers inhibitions and results in offensive sexual behavior and sexual crimes.
A significant percentage of murders, suicides, and other crimes are committed under the influence of alcohol.
Because they enjoy the ”high” people continue to drink even though they know these facts. This says a lot about the powerful addictive nature of alcohol. Many of them admit they are powerless to help themselves.
Even though governments know these facts they continue to license the production and sales of alcoholic beverages. This shows their greed for the tax money from the sales of these products.
Sincerely, Rev. Donald Hill. International…
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified substances and mixtures (agents) into four groups according to their potential for causing cancers when humans are exposed to them. This classification ranges from “Group 1: the agent (mixture) is definitely carcinogenic to humans,” to “Group 4: the agent (mixture) is probably not carcinogenic to humans.” (Wikipedia source)
Well, guess what. Ethanol, which is found in alcoholic beverages, is classified as a Group 1 carcinogen. This means there are very strong links between alcohol and cancer formation. This also means that alcohol ranks in the same category as plutonium and asbestos in terms of carcinogenicity.
I’m NOT saying that you can PREVENT cancer by not drinking (many people who never drink still develop cancer), but you can significantly REDUCE YOUR CANCER RISK by abstaining from the use of alcohol.
When we factor in the social problems caused by alcohol abuse, it makes sense to leave it…
Don’t be ridiculous. If alcohol really meaningfully compared with plutonium and asbestos we’d all be dead already. It’s like saying that the guy who stole a bag of yams is comparable to Adolph Hitler and Osama bin Ladin because they’re all criminals.
It’s true that those who drink way, way too much, like more than twenty-five drinks per week, have a slightly elevated risk for a few types of cancer, but the risk of that is low enough under normal conditions that physicians still often say a glass or two of something every day offers a net health benefit, not a net risk.
Well, you’re going to have to tell that to the cancer research experts. Somebody is telling us the truth; someone else is not.
The fact that everyone who consumes alcohol doesn’t drop dead in a few months or years only means that the risks are longer term, but they real nonetheless. The point about the grouping has nothing to do with how SOON a person MAY develop cancer; rather, it addresses the actual POTENTIAL, whether long-term or short-term, for causing cancer.
My 95-year-old father-in-law has been a smoker for most of his life; yet, he hasn’t developed lung cancer. This doesn’t negate the fact that cigarette smoking is the leading cause of lung cancer. Another example: people who eat burnt, charred or barbecued food expose themselves to a hydrocarbon called benzopyrene–the same agent found in coal tar and diesel exhaust fumes. Hardly anyone dies right away, but the long-term effects are well documented.
Just saying.
Speaking of truth, you said, “you can significantly REDUCE YOUR CANCER RISK by abstaining from the use of alcohol”.
This isn’t the case. You can SLIGHTLY reduce your risk of a small set of cancers by not indulging TO EXCESS. Not only is there no evidence that completely abstaining from alcohol is any better for avoiding those cancers than simply taking it in moderation, but those who completely abstain lose out on the mild health benefits that can come from moderate consumption.
If one has a religious mandate to avoid alcohol, or a personal history of alcoholism, or some other reason to choice for oneself to avoid it then of course I respect that. But medical science simply doesn’t support a position of extreme avoidance, and promotion of abstention over moderation just isn’t good policy when it comes to public health.
Many years ago i saw children as young as 7 years old with heineken beers drinking in dominica,my homeland.i met one that i did not know laying in down on the ground alone very drunk,he was not capable of walking without help..i asked a passer ,where is he living that is how i struggled to take that chid home,,he was only 10 yrs.old…i made the remark to his mother about the dangerousity of using alcohol at such an early age ,she replied in creole ,” the children are enjoying themselves”,,,to my dismay,,,i am asking the gov’t to be more involved in children’s well being in dominica ,ask the public to report through cover of anonimity,
this should not continue ,it is destroying the children’s life at an early age..no wonder the place has so many vagrants,druggies and criminals ,,,the use of alcohol by children is wrong…
Way to go CARPHA. This action is long awaited. I am happy it is coming from a health institution. F or too long alcohol has been wreaking havock in society.
No, thank you. Given how much a budgie already costs in Dominica now, the last thing we need is another tax on it. If they want to offer advice and education that’s one thing. Trying to forcibly change the way people live through taxes and regulation is quite another.
perhaps restricting the sale of alcohol first thing in the morning would help
What about not drinking and driving…
I don’t think that’s the issue at hand. Consumption is de problem. You forget de islands small, man? They can drink and walk wii. (lol) I doh need to leave Mahault and go up Possie to drink eh, I can take my strong bwilay right there without having to drive anywhere and then twibishay all my way home. Now I just have to make sure nobody jam me, u check.
I know plenty of people who drink and drive here. Bus drivers do it even. It will curb consumption.. if you know you have to drive you will drink less to sober up in time… or get your license suspended.