In my last blog I made a plea for greater use of the public
house because it is a social environment in which to consume alcohol. Arguably one of the biggest shifts in the UK
alcohol culture over recent years has been the move towards drinking away from
licensed premises. There are a number of
positive elements in the UK alcohol culture but it is questionable whether
consuming more alcohol in our homes is one of them. If there is a change I would like to see over
time it is that alcohol plays a greater role in social culture rather than
drinking filling a void because alcohol happens to be present. The purpose of this article is to suggest
that the rise of home drinking is a reflection of wider societal trends. For the record I drink both at home and in a
pub.
My research has shown that the reasons why individuals are
increasingly choosing to drink at home can be collapsed around the themes of
convenience, cost and relaxation (Foster and Ferguson 2012). There are some positive reasons for drinking
at home. These include; firstly, parents
who have young children and cannot afford childcare, secondly, not having to
drink and drive, thirdly, parties and other social occasions with friends and
family and finally, the smoking ban in licensed premises.
In 1987 Margaret Thatcher was interviewed by Woman’s Own and
made the following quote “There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there
are families.” Some readers may feel
that the best way to achieve optimal individual achievement is by reducing
state involvement. This is not a philosophy
I share and the rise of home drinking could be a reflection of the way the
England has moved further to right. I
am old enough to have seen the demise of socialism and the results of this. In my opinion these are overall greater self
interest and selfishness and a tendency to pull-up the draw bridge “so long as
I an OK”. Could home drinking be a metaphor of the rise
of an increasingly self-centred society?
Some of the research concerning home
drinking has shown that individuals like the freedom and “lack of surveillance
“(Foster et al 2010) provided by home drinking compared to rules and
regulations imposed in licensed premises.
This has been interpreted by
Holloway et al (2008) as drinkers exercising autonomy. Such phrases and the lazy cliché of the
“Nanny State” concern me for recent history suggests that untrammelled
individualism is not a good thing. I am
not sure there is empirical evidence but it strikes me that the more freedom an
individual or an organisation is given the more self-centred and atomised they
become and in time lack of regulation or boundaries can lead to increasingly
destructive behaviours. The reason why
western capitalism is in chronic crisis is not due excessive state intervention
or restrictive safeguards!
Often when I listen to libertarians I
am struck that they have a blind spot towards the fact that when exercising
individual freedoms, the cost is often borne by others. Higher
levels of drinking much of which now takes place at home increases the risk of
contracting some cancers, liver disease, hypertension and depression. These result in health costs that are
incurred by the general population either in reduced services or increased taxation.
The recently published Alcohol Strategy
made the connection that many people were now using alcohol as way of coping
with stress. Using alcohol in such a way
can take place in both licensed premises or at home, however if drinking at
home is commonplace the likelihood of it becoming a “creeping reflex” is
heightened. I do not intend as a general
rule to use this blog as a way of giving advice but on this occasion, I will
make an exception. Drug effects are the
result of a combination of three interactions.
These are a) the pharmacological effect of the drug, b) the
psychological make-up of the user including what they believe about the drug
and c) the social context in which the drug is taken. At lower doses b and c are likely to be the
most important.
The pharmacological effects of alcohol
are dose related, this means that as more alcohol is consumed the pharmacological
actions become predominant. Alcohol is a
sedative and depressant, the chemical action is not to relieve stress. If an individual believes that alcohol helps
them to relieve stress or is a reward after a hard day then this is known as an
expectancy effect, it is not a chemical property of the drug. When alcohol is used as an occasional
relaxant then it is unlikely that consumption will increase, but the stronger
the belief that alcohol helps to relieve stress the more likely such behaviour
becomes habitual. Tolerance occurs as
the body and brain become more used to the drug and higher doses of the drug
have to be taken to achieve the same effect. Thus the probability is that consumption
levels will creep upwards. If this
happens then the pharmacological effects of alcohol will become predominant,
and the individual is likely to become more depressed and anxious. Thus drinking to relieve stress can result in
greater levels of depression and anxiety-presumably the opposite of the
originally desired effect.
I will conclude with a thought about
stress levels. For previous generations
many of whom are still alive, stress may well have meant whether they survived
armed combat or a bombing raid. Isn’t
the belief that it is necessary for us to reward ourselves for having got
through the day just a little self-indulgent?
References:
Foster JH and Ferguson C. (2012).
Home Drinking in the
UK: trends and causes
Alcohol and Alcoholism,
DOI 10.1093/alcalc/ags020
Holloway
S, Jayne M and Valentine G. (2008) Sainsbury’s is my local’: English alcohol
policy, domestic drinking practices and the meaning of home. Transactions
of the Institute of British Geography, 33, 532–547.
Dr John Foster is Principal Research Fellow at the
University of Greenwich-School of Health and Social Care. This blog represents my personal opinions and
do not represent those of the University of Greenwich.
