![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
more articles should link to this, IMHO
I'm not sure about the current title of this article. A more scientifically rigorous one might be, say alcohol intoxication or maybe intoxication (alcohol). Right now the article is an interesting mix of the physiology of intoxication as well as it's position in society (legal, religious etc.) At the moment the section on the physiology of the topic is rather short, but given the amount of research that's been done on stuff like this, I think it might be worth while to have an article with the one of the above suggested titles that would be about the medical condition (and merge Acute alcohol intoxication into that, and then leave Drunkenness as an article about intoxication's legal/social aspects. Ce1984 ( talk) 01:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Inebrietaion is redirected here... since that implies 'drinking' rather that intoxication on substances introduced by other methods such as injection, inhalation or topical introduction, it could be a suitable title. Redirect 'drunk' and 'alcohol intoxication' to this possibly. McGootch ( talk) 06:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
is the photo really necessary? it doesn't illustrate anything nor enhance the meaning of the encyclopedia article.
I agree that the photo really doesn't contribute to the article. There is no proof this man is drunk. He might have any one of a myriad of other problems. He might just be exhausted for instance. There's got to be a better way to illustrate "Drunkenness". -- Billywhack 11:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
How is one to actually put a signature on a picture of a drunk man/woman so to speak? Someone that looks drunk, possibly is drunk This then better defines characteristics of a peson that is really drunk.
Just a thought.
JoeyGWilliams 05:30PM, 02/08/06
The photograph has clearly been included so that one individual can claim to have their picture on Wikipedia under the drunkenness article. As others have stated, it does not contribute, nor clarify any of the information contained within the article and should therefore be deleted immediately.
A picture or image should only be added if it can be said to be informative in some way. This is Wikipedia, not Facebook. 86.130.63.91 ( talk) 22:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
It IS informative. It shows a very drunk person continuing to do so. It works as an example of binge-drinking too.
Textbook I got the principle of this from didn't explain exactly *how* this affected the function of nerve cells. Do a large number of sodium ions stay out of the cell preventing nerve impulses, or do the sodium ions going outside the cell actually start an accidental impulse? -- sodium
I do not believe this is correct; it may not be worth closer investigation. - Ikkyu2 03:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
"This could be caused by heightened alpha brain waves surging across the brain. "
This is a large misnomer in my opinion. "brain waves" are hardly causal. People place far too much stock in the measurement of voltage across the head. This reveals so little information about what is actually happening to the neurons within. This probably should not even be talked about. --anon
Another one of alcohol's agreeable effects is body relaxation, possibly caused by heightened alpha brain waves surging across the brain. Alpha waves are observed (with the aid of EEGs) when the body is relaxed. Heightened pulses are thought to correspond to higher levels of enjoyment.
I agree with the above commenter; brain waves are not causal of anything. They are an electroencephalographic finding. Also, the stated correlation is not valid. If anything, alcohol's effect on the EEG is to increase the amount of beta activity, not to enhance the alpha rhythm.
After reading some of the comments here, it appears to me that this article is in need of major attention; correction of factual errors and removal of offensive and culturally insensitive text would be a good start. - Ikkyu2 03:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
It is my understanding that alcohol has NMDA antagonist properties, i.e. it blocks the activity of glutamate. See these links:
Some societies, such as those of Russia and Ireland, have cultural stereotypes associated with drunkenness--in such societies, the ability to drink vast quantities of alcohol without getting drunk is thought to be worthy of respect.
Time for national stereotypes: I was told once that there are countries/societies/subcultures where it is the length of time someone can refrain from going to the toilet rather than the quantity of alcohol itself that is "worthy of respect". Can anyone verify or falsify this? Obviously it's not very important -- I'm just curious. -- KF 23:09 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)
Why pick out Russia and Ireland?
Whiskey, guinness and vodka, of course! j/k
I believe you're referring to what I know as the 'Golden Seal'. In cultures where peeing is recognized as simply an occurence rather than a status, it's reference to the first time one has to urinate after beginning comsunption. The theory is that once you make your first trip to the bathroom, you will need to make subsequent trips more often. The major flaw is, urination is inevitible with mass liquid consumption. Basing frequency of trips on time between first drinking and first trip to the bathroom is ludicrious, as this can only be based on a physiologial trait like blader capacity or amount consumed and the timeframe in which it is done. That capacity won't be changed with the event of urination. For example... ever drink 1 or more cups of coffee before drinking? Or even water for that matter. Liquids have less nutrients and are passed through the body more rapidly. Urinating only affects the liquid that has already been processed by your system.
In terms of respect, its more of a fratboy ideaolgy that holding ones liquor is equivalent to manliness, or any other trait. It's dangerous to insinuate that that type of behaviour is required to earn respect, as if often leads to sickness, or worst case death. McGootch ( talk) 06:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
We don't need the "slangs" section, do we? The slangs are no links to articles, it's just word definition, all of it. :/ Delete that section. —Sverdrup (talk) 03:55, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Cam't that just be left to urban dictionary...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.77.188 ( talk) 05:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Nothing in this section redirects anywhere. Should be removed.
Removed It can make ugly girls more hot, for example. Didn't seem like it would make sense in an encyclopedia. - Jeshii 14:30, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
i remember seeing on msns page that scientist proved that "beer goggles" (where a woman looks more attractive to a man) are a side affect of alchol. (by beer goggles i dont mean that plastic goggles that distort your vison) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.146.222 ( talk) 02:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone think that the term high when talking about drugs shouldnt redirect here? alchohol isnt the only cause of being high
My only counter argument is that alcohol is a 'downer'.
Seems to me that the last bit about the Ancient Greek superstition doesn't really fit in with the sort of information presented by the rest of the article. But you'll have to pardon me if it DOES fit in, and my brain just isn't working properly- I've been doing shots of tequila all night, so...-- Deridolus 08:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
I have trouble with the title.
How many contributors to this talk page are drunk at the time of their post. Now thats a stastic i'd love to see! —Preceding unsigned comment added by McGootch ( talk • contribs) 06:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
It would be convenient if this article listed different stages of intoxication and how much ethanol per kg body weight constituted each stage. As a tee-totaler I am ineligible to provide this information. = ) But it would be useful nonetheless. I think I saw some kind of table with this info in an AMA publication once, but I may be mistaken. Jeeves 12:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree: Wikipedia is *not* a medical dictionary, but neither this article nor alcoholism gives a description suitable for the general observer (as you and I are (g)), story writer and "persons concerned about people they know". At what stage does "regularly becoming drunk" shade into alcoholism? 212.85.6.26 16:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Also, alcohol comsumption is based on personal statistics like metabolism, weight, tolerance, etc. It's virtually impossible to gauge intoxication in any way other that a breathalyzer or blood test. Affectation is unique to the consumer. McGootch ( talk) 06:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
An improvement to this article is basic* medical treatment of intoxicated persons. Basic warning signs when to cut off, recovery position, reasonable vital signs, and when to call an emergency response team. -GChriss
Another improvement would invovle archiving the chemistry and biology involved in achieving the state of drunkenness, the processes involved in detoxification, and the physiological consequences of drunkenness. I'm astounded that there is no science in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.95.200 ( talk) 13:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I was led to believe there is in fact a chemical formula for alcohol intoxication... it'll be here as soon as (read:if) I can find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McGootch ( talk • contribs) 06:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The management section needs rewriting. It reads as a complete checklist but is inaccurate and incomplete - UK doctor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.87.10 ( talk) 20:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I've seen this same language used in a number of articles online, but it's never accompanied by a reference. Does anyone know when/where this study was conducted, or have a link to information on it online? Seems very relevant.
Psychosematic symptoms can appear even before comsumption in the right atmosphere. Theres also the urban legend of swapping out non-alchoholic beer unbeknownst to drinkers having similar though less intense results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McGootch ( talk • contribs) 06:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
What exactly are they (g): as with the related article on alcoholism all technical and no general description (eg the general change from "pleasantly relaxed" to "falling down drunk") - and where the danger points are.
I made two main changes for this section in the interests of NPOV: I changed "leading as it often does to alcoholism" to "as it may lead to alcoholism", since the use of 'often' is vague and therefore misleading; and I toned down the bit about how being sober may be 'socially unaccceptable'. It also included the dread word 'often', and generally sounded a bit too much like it was trying to say "drunk people are often mean to sober people". Oh, and in the last paragraph I changed 'church' to 'Church' to keep it specific to the Catholics, and changed 'don't mind' to 'don't prohibit'. -- Last Malthusian 10:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
This page has a {{reqimage}} tag but I don't see any specific request for an image, and nothing sensible comes to mind. Any ideas or should we remove the request? Tim Pierce 05:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe that there should be a general intoxication page, possibly with information from the DSM-IV(-TR); The "related links" section should contain a specific link to alcohol drunkenness, or it could be listed at the top. This would present the information without having the bias. Brian 04:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, disambiguation could lead to other drugs and pharmacuticals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McGootch ( talk • contribs) 06:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I've never tried to type while intoxicated, so I can't say it's untrue that alcohol can lead to "impaired speech or impaired ability to type". But that is one odd thing to mention at the start of the article. How about juggling? Doesn't drunkenness impair your ability to juggle, hang-glide, tap-dance, and whistle? Since driving while drunk is recognized as a serious social problem, I would expect to see it mentioned there, but not typing.
It's not really an error, of course. Just...weird.
I've been drinking tonighti and for the sake of scinece i've dicided i woujld not backspace. ....at least we know its true
-- 68.35.204.107 00:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This page seems more of a joke :) than a serious article.
--- OFTEN THE CASE IN KU CLUB ON A WEEKEND
What the hell did this mean?
In anycase removed it.
"Binge drinking" is perceived as being a recent problem in the UK mostly by certain newspapers. I see little evidence in reality of it being either a problem or being new. So I've edited that clause out. DrHydeous 11:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Binge drinking is a serious problem in the United States and especially amongst college-aged populations. I believe that this section is relevant and to some individuals, the topic is relatively new in terms of being discussed openly and particularly on the national news! user:lhargrove
Unencyclopedic - will anyone object if I remove it and provide a link to wikiquote:Alcohol? riana_ dzasta 14:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I think, that this is a great plus for the page. Not only does it have abundant following and humorous entity. It also relates completely with drunkeness as a whole. To take the quotation section off this page would not be good, imho.
JoeyGWilliams 06:25PM, 02/08/06
I have deleted around four quotations from the part which were not exactly about the nature of alcoholic beverage. Now it seems more distinguished and shiny to me (and no, i'm not drunk :o)) please check it out sometime.
Angelophiliac
03:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
[1] ranks #1 on Google for "Alcoholism" NumberOneGoogle 19:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
For the Japanese proverb, I've only seen it in form of "the man drinks the first glass, the first glass drinks the second and the third glass drinks the man" It seems to make more sense the way I have heard it, not the way it is currently written. 70.64.104.35 01:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have a reference for that? Because I've seen it attributed to Voltaire. Maybe both of them said it, but then Voltaire should get the credit. Robin22 01:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
the first churchill one is in the little book of churchill quotes the second seem like a different version of the first.
are there any articles on animal drunkeness?-- Filll 16:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
i got this: http://www.cannabis.net/weblife.html Angelophiliac 03:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
If you wake up in the morning, after a night of drinking, but still remember every event that occurred during that night of drinking, are you considered drunk? Maybe this is the wrong place to be asking, lol...but either way, maybe someone could expand on it and add it in...Also, what about hang-overs, usually occurring the morning after a night of drinking, if you do not get a hang-over (usually throbbing head/headache, i guess?); was the person still considered "drunk" if they don't have a hang-over the next morning?
This depends entirely on who is defining it. In the United States over a .08 blood/alcohol content is generally considered "Drunk" at least when defining it in reference to driving. On a broader level, this is a subjective question and there is no definitively correct answer. It depends on the person/institution that is defining the term.
Cadentsoul
01:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the name of this article is poor. I think there are more clinical terms for it. Maybe "Alcohol Inebriation" or something of that sort? Anybody else have any thoughts on this? Maybe we should have a vote. Who supports a name change to "Alcohol Inebriation"? If you think this is a poor choice, please leave what you believe is a more appropriate name. I think a week is a reasonable amount of time to vote before a move. -- Billywhack 11:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Intoxication is not the same as drunkenness, it's much broader, why the hell does it link to drunkenness? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.118.33.132 ( talk • contribs)
What is with half the page being quotations. Some are barely relevant to the subject.
Also, the Japanese Proverb and the quote by F. Scott Fitzgerald are basically the same. I'm not sure they should both be there. Rajrajmarley 23:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't we add things about the symptoms of "drunkenness" and studies to that effect? As someone who is mildly drunk while adding this comment, I suggest we look into studies of drunk individuals and look at how they differ from sober individuals or themselves when sober (e.g. decreased eyesight, balance, e.t.c)* to the article? *Don't add this w/o citation, as it is merely OR based on what I'm going through at the moment. -- GracieLizzie 00:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. This article needs much more content as to why ethanol does what it does to folks. Gwen Gale ( talk) 01:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
If you want this article to be more science-oriented, then merging Acute alcohol intoxication into it would be an easy way to start that process. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 07:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This article is disgraceful! It is number one in Google's results for a search of "intoxication." As such, it ought to provide encyclopedic information, yet science is completely lacking. What chemistry goes on in the brain that produces the symptoms of drunken behavior? How is alcohol absorbed into the bloodstream? How is it eliminated? These are the real topics that need to be addressed. Law, Religion, Folklore, and Famous Drinking Quotations are incidental. Jedwards01 ( talk) 05:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
In addition to the scriptures listed in this section, Ephesians 5:18 specifically commands believers not to get drunk. 209.50.178.50 ( talk) 15:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a question/comment, but shouldn't the comments regarding the FAA apply to all pilots and not just "aircrew members?" When I was studying for my pilot's license (which I did not complete) we were told that we could not drink not just before, but on the same day we were to fly. I'm sure this was just a local law/way of doing things, but I wonder if the actual law does not state that all aircraft operators cannot operate above a certain level. Vayne ( talk) 22:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there anything known about the dawn of drunkenness? When did people start drinking (too much) alcoholics? Not only the invention of beers, wines and spirits may be elementary for this, but also the invention of pottery and other drinking and brewing vessels. Possibly someone with access to the book of Stuart Walton could write a line or two about it. Glatisant ( talk) 11:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
FYI, someone did it anyway. — BarrelProof ( talk) 19:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, so I haven't really got very long at the moment on the public terminal I'm writing this from, but I'll get the gist of it here, basically what can we do to resolve the issues?
I'd edit it, but since I'm not really sure what needs to be done, I thought I'd get consensus first rather than edit-war over it.
First issue - worldwide view: maybe we could have a separate article Laws on drunkenness worldwide or similar, and use this as an article about the topic itself.
Second issue - original research. Would this not be better being on Wikiversity or Wikibooks where there is some?? For GFDL compliance, a transwiki of this article would have to happen, and maybe this moved to a subpage of the unit e.g. Alcoholism/Drunkenness etc.
Looking for opinions, thanks! -- Litherlandsand ( talk) 10:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
MOM IS DRUNK AND THEIR ARE PHOTOS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.185.66 ( talk) 01:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Searches for "Drunks" redirect here. There is also a 1995 feature film of this name. Maybe it would be better if there was a disambiguation page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.65.124 ( talk) 04:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
This article definitely is not NPOV. There is very strong religious overtone to the whole article. Please spin off the religious stuff into a separate article titled "religious attitudes towards intoxication".
I was looking for references to the role of intoxication in society. I expected to see references to (for example) the role of intoxication in the poetry of Mughal India. There's nothing here!
I have trouble figuring out what we mean by saying that "Licensing ministers played an important role in controlling public drinking for the higher class because of their desire to control the public."
Are we saying that the higher classes licensed ministers because the higher classes desired control over the public? Or that the higher classes licensed ministers because ministers enjoyed controlling the public? Or that the licensing of ministers was an important means of controlling the drinking of the higher classes, because of the ministers' desire to control the public? Or something else altogether? 65.213.77.129 ( talk) 20:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
It only explains the effects on an observatory level but does not go much into what receptors and functions are affected or how exactly. where might i find this information? i am intoxicated at the moment, i find it fascinating that I can maintain control of my self a lot better than my friends, they all turn into different people so to speak. I wonder why I do not. 71.112.207.51 ( talk) 05:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that alcohol and cannabis articles should be merged —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.141.166 ( talk) 05:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Why? They are completely unrelated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.207.77 ( talk) 03:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I have just deleted a "citation needed" from the paragraph on Buddhism in the "Religious views" section. The article linked to, Five Moral Precepts, is quite adequately supported. IF any additional citation is needed there, it's for "Monastic precepts are even stricter"! GeorgeTSLC ( talk) 16:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
This article needs a better name. There is no need for alcohol to be in the title at all, intoxication would work just as well.- Zyrath ( talk) 00:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I would like to discuss the appropriateness of semi-protection for this page (blocking of edits by IP and new editors).
A quick count of the vandalism over the last 3 months:
November: by IP users 4 cases of vandalism and 2 useful edits
October: by IP users 7 cases of vandalism and 2 useful edits
September: by IP users 6 cases of vandalism and 4 useful edits
Vandalism is outweighing useful edits by IPs on this page and most IP edits are relating to grammar/spelling/wording etc., granted these are valid contributions, but these things would be picked up by regular users in time.
Below I have pasted the criteria for semi-protecion of a page:
I think the page meets the criteria very well.
Thoughts?
MitchMcM ( talk) 08:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
"It takes roughly 90 minutes for a healthy liver to metabolize a single ounce, approximately one hour per standard unit."
Assuming that an avoirdupois ounce is being talked about, and the density of alcohol as 0.79 g/ml as indicated on various pages around here, then an ounce is about 36 ml. This gives a "standard unit" as being 24 ml. According to what "standard" is this? It seems the only thing that comes close is the Japanese definition of a standard drink.
I probably first heard of units of alcohol from one of my school science textbooks, which I believe was British-made. This stated that a unit takes an hour for the liver to discharge, which matches with the claim here and almost with the information on Unit of alcohol. But it doesn't, by any set of definitions I've so far found, match up with the idea that an ounce takes 90 minutes.
In any case, we need to be clear on what definitions are being used. Even better, write whatever was meant in metric units, since these are recognised internationally.
That said, the statement has no citation. So for all we know, it could be something that some random editor made up. I'm going to add {{ dubious}} in the hope that we can shed light on the matter in order to correct the information, or if not then remove it. — Smjg ( talk) 21:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
This standard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_alcohol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.222.228 ( talk) 10:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The amounts are out by a factor of about 3. A standard unit is 10 ml not 50, and the rate at which alcohol is metabolised is about 10 ml/hour, so the statement in the article is very misleading. (Sorry, not posted to a talk page before, hope I'm doing it right.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feydun ( talk • contribs) 08:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I found a source for rate of metabolisation, on nhs.uk, so I replaced the conflicting statements with an edit based on that. The rate quoted matches well this more scholarly source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484320/#R1 Mccormag ( talk) 19:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I can't find anything in the article about the effects of alcohol on non-human life. This seems like a rather gross omission since there are plenty of cases of other animals getting drunk too. I would be interested in particular to know which species are susceptible to drunkenness and which aren't. CodeCat ( talk) 16:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Alcohol intoxication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1052305When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alcohol intoxication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
In 2016 we had: [2]
This book included that text and was published in 2017 by Cambridge University Press. [3]
The text was originally added in 2013 as: [4]
Our articles says
Which turned into:
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Is "alcohol intoxication" psychiatry? IMO no. Alcoholism definitely is but not really acute intoxication.
Acute intoxication is toxicology. Psychiatry is not interested in getting involved until they are sober. This is the reality is most of the world.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
07:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Somebody went through and conflated "alcohol intoxication" with "alcohol poisoning". That's not at all supported by the current sources and is 100% incorrect from a medical perspective. It's simply wrong. One's an acute medical emergency and the other's not. It seems somebody just folded the separate section into the main lede for organizational purposes. That's... not really helpful.
Does anybody want to take a stab at fixing this? It currently borders on inaccurate medical advice. J. Harrington Inchworm III ( talk) 22:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
User:FrankP if you read the source [6] it lists under synonyms "alcohol poisoning" being the same as "acute pathologic intoxication"
This source also links the two. [7] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
"Alcohol poisoning presents in two forms, acute and chronic. However, these are most often referred to as alcohol intoxication and alcohol addiction respectively." [8] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Short answer: Ethanol is not a poison but one can poison oneself with it in several ways.
Much longer answer: One usually associates the concept of a poison with a risk of death or disease. Let us exemplify this with a different substance as an introduction to the terminology as follows. We all have a certain amount of mercury in our bodies, and mercury is certainly poisonous in large enough quantities. Chronic mercury poisoning is debilitating; Erethism, also known as erethism mercurialis, mad hatter disease, or mad hatter syndrome, is a neurological disorder which affects the whole central nervous system, as well as a symptom complex, derived from mercury poisoning. Now to call mercury a poison is only slightly semantically challenged. However, it is more exactly a hazardous substance, and generally poisonous in the context of inhaled metallic vapor or ingested as the chloride, which latter is extremely toxic.
When chronic ethanol intoxication is debilitating, it is a disease. I leave it to the semanticists to define the difference between psychosocial debilitating chronic ethanol intoxication and alcoholism, but do leave a clues; As with any psychiatric condition, it is up to an external observer, and not the afflicted who therein may lack insight, to ascertain what degree of debilitation qualifies a person as an alcoholic. However, objectively organic disease resulting from chronic ethanol intoxication in some cases includes: (1) retrograde amnesia (Korsakoff's syndrome) via thiamine deficiency. (2) alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver.
Ethanol is toxic in large quantities, i.e., its toxicity is called low. Moreover, a certain concentration of naturally occurring ethanol blood level is called endogenous-normal physiologic (and sometimes is higher than normally physiological; endogenous pathophysiological).
Finally, as it naturally produced in the body, ethanol is not a poison per se. However, it is poisonous with acute or chronic (ingestion or inhalation) in large enough quantities as it can cause disease and death, and is typically toxic at lower levels than it would be thought poisonous. For example, see the 50% lethal dose (LD50) and 50% lethal concentration literature for ethanol.
From Ethyl Alcohol - Fisher Scientific
LD50/LC50: CAS# 64-17-5:
Draize test, rabbit, eye: 500 mg Severe; Draize test, rabbit, eye: 500 mg/24H Mild; Draize test, rabbit, skin: 20 mg/24H Moderate; Inhalation, mouse: LC50 = 39 gm/m3/4H; Inhalation, rat: LC50 = 20000 ppm/10H; Oral, mouse: LD50 = 3450 mg/kg; Oral, rabbit: LD50 = 6300 mg/kg; Oral, rat: LD50 = 7060 mg/kg; Oral, rat: LD50 = 9000 mg/kg;
CarlWesolowski ( talk) 01:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Fits better as a risk factor of alcohol intoxication than a complication per this source.
"Alcohol use disorder - Symptoms and causes". Mayo Clinic. Retrieved 26 November 2019.
Unless you have another source?
Basically alcohol intoxication is a complication of alcoholism does not mean that alcoholism is viewed as a complication of intoxication. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I watched this video -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gn-QZ_e06k -- and it said that since alcohol relaxes parts of the brain, if you drink a huge amount of alcohol it can relax it so much that the medulla shuts down, killing the drinker. This death due to vital functions not happening anymore/vital organs not working should be written about in the article, probably with a better source. Notice, that this death by ethanol is not caused by choking on vomit. -- User123o987name ( talk) 05:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
The consensus is against this change since it is unsourced. There is no prejudice against discussing this again if a source is found to verify the assertion that alcoholism is a complication of alcohol intoxication.
I have been involved in an edit war with @ Doc James: over the question of whether alcoholism should be included as a complication of alcohol intoxication. My position is that our own article on Alcoholism provides sufficient language to justify the notion that alcohol intoxication leads to alcoholism: subsection Alcoholism#Warning_signs states that "warning signs of alcoholism include... frequent intoxication," and subsection Alcoholism#Definition states that "the drinking will increase as more intoxication is required." The other editor insists that listing alcoholism as a risk factor is sufficient, despite the fact that language published by Wikipedia makes clear that additional alcohol intoxication is just as much of a complication—in other words, my position is that alcohol intoxication is BOTH a risk factor for, AND complication of, alcoholism. I'm saying that we should, at the least, classify it as both. Rowsdower45 ( talk) 05:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
alcohol intoxication is BOTH a risk factor for, AND complication of, alcoholism.You're not wrong, [1] and that's true for any addictive drug; you obviously can't become addicted to something to which you aren't exposed. But, dosage and timing are both relevant when you're talking about addiction risk. Chronic low-dose exposure to an addictive agent doesn't create an addiction risk, nor does an isolated high-dose exposure to one in spite of the reward-priming effects it might have. In contrast, even relatively infrequent high-dose exposure to an addictive substance creates a significant risk because ΔFosB persists in the human brain for months, increases in its expression are potentiated by positive feedback loops through c-Fos and H3K9me2, and increases in its expression progressively increase drug-seeking behavior to the point of compulsion. Hence why duration/frequency of exposure matters.
If you will allow a comment. The above question is futile in the sense that the arguments are alike to the "Which came first; the chicken or the egg?" question. That question actually has an answer, but one would not recognize it from the type of arguments used to debate it. In the chicken/egg case, in point of fact, they co-evolved so there never was a first chicken egg. At some point in the past there were proto-chickens laying proto-chicken eggs, which gradually turned into chickens and chicken eggs, or, to put it another way, at some point in the past, and although we can only do this as a thought experiment, proto-chicken mating with modern rooster would be sterile, which probably occurred at a different past epoch than infertility of mating proto-rooster with modern chicken. What is the point here? One cannot perform a substance dependency test using a proto-alcoholic who has never ever consumed alcohol, without taking that first drink (or first inhalation). It is an important step to maintaining sobriety for someone to say, "I am an alcoholic," and to pointedly omit saying "but I am on the wagon." What this implies is that alcoholism means different things to different people, such that for some there is a need to differentiate between current and past substance dependence, and for others there is a need to not distinguish between them. In point of fact, one cannot travel down that road without alcohol having been consumed at some point in time and like the chicken and egg problem, one cannot have a history of chronic substance abuse without both the substance and the abuser, and one needs both the substance and someone to abuse it to have substance abuse, whenever that occurred. CarlWesolowski ( talk) 04:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Despite the importance of numerous psychosocial factors, at its core, drug addiction involves a biological process: the ability of repeated exposure to a drug of abuse to induce changes in a vulnerable brain that drive the compulsive seeking and taking of drugs, and loss of control over drug use, that define a state of addiction. ... Drug addiction, which can be defined as the compulsive seeking and taking of drugs despite horrendous consequences or loss of control over drug use, is caused by long-lasting drug-induced changes that occur in certain brain regions.1 Only some individuals, however, succumb to addiction in the face of repeated drug exposure, while others are capable of using a drug casually and escaping an addiction syndrome. Genetic factors account for roughly 50% of this individual variability in addiction vulnerability, and this degree of heritability holds true for all major classes of addictive drugs, including stimulants, opiates, alcohol, nicotine, and cannabinoids.2 ... The other 50% of the risk for addiction is due to a host of environmental factors, occurring throughout a lifetime, that interact with an individual's genetic composition to render him or her vulnerable to addiction to a greater or lesser extent. Several types of environmental factors have been implicated in addiction, including psychosocial stresses, but by far the most powerful factor is exposure to a drug of abuse itself. ... Moreover, there is increasing evidence that, despite a range of genetic risks for addiction across the population, exposure to sufficiently high doses of a drug for long periods of time can transform someone who has relatively lower genetic loading into an addict. ... A large body of literature has demonstrated that such ΔFosB induction in D1-type [nucleus accumbens] neurons increases an animal's sensitivity to drug as well as natural rewards and promotes drug self-administration, presumably through a process of positive reinforcement ... Another ΔFosB target is cFos: as ΔFosB accumulates with repeated drug exposure it represses c-Fos and contributes to the molecular switch whereby ΔFosB is selectively induced in the chronic drug-treated state.41
The list of alcohol levels are all out by a factor of 10. 5 lots of 8 grams divided by 5 litres of blood is 8 grams per litre, 0.8 g/dL, or 800 mg/dL. The confusion arises because the reference 22 ("Alcohol & Public Health: Fact Sheets - Binge Drinking") uses the unit "grams percent" - this can only be grams per centilitre. This is the first time I've tried contributing to a Wikipedia page and don't want to do the live editing since I might foul it up - so can someone else do the actual edit. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExtremePedant ( talk • contribs) 09:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
After further research I've discovered that the blood alcohol levels are correct. The calculation takes complete body fluids into account. This means that "grams percent" makes even less sense than I thought. No edits need to be made to the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExtremePedant ( talk • contribs) 05:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
There is an active RfC underway on the Whisky talk page as to whether the article will include links to the Alcohol Intoxication wikipedia article, and similar articles Specifically: Should the whisky article provide direct links to articles about the effects of ethanol on those who consume whisky? Here is a proposed sentence with hyperlinks: Some effects of whisky consumption are due to its alcohol content. See: Alcohol intoxication, Short-term effects of alcohol consumption, Long-term effects of alcohol, and Alcohol and health. sbelknap ( talk) 21:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
more articles should link to this, IMHO
I'm not sure about the current title of this article. A more scientifically rigorous one might be, say alcohol intoxication or maybe intoxication (alcohol). Right now the article is an interesting mix of the physiology of intoxication as well as it's position in society (legal, religious etc.) At the moment the section on the physiology of the topic is rather short, but given the amount of research that's been done on stuff like this, I think it might be worth while to have an article with the one of the above suggested titles that would be about the medical condition (and merge Acute alcohol intoxication into that, and then leave Drunkenness as an article about intoxication's legal/social aspects. Ce1984 ( talk) 01:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Inebrietaion is redirected here... since that implies 'drinking' rather that intoxication on substances introduced by other methods such as injection, inhalation or topical introduction, it could be a suitable title. Redirect 'drunk' and 'alcohol intoxication' to this possibly. McGootch ( talk) 06:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
is the photo really necessary? it doesn't illustrate anything nor enhance the meaning of the encyclopedia article.
I agree that the photo really doesn't contribute to the article. There is no proof this man is drunk. He might have any one of a myriad of other problems. He might just be exhausted for instance. There's got to be a better way to illustrate "Drunkenness". -- Billywhack 11:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
How is one to actually put a signature on a picture of a drunk man/woman so to speak? Someone that looks drunk, possibly is drunk This then better defines characteristics of a peson that is really drunk.
Just a thought.
JoeyGWilliams 05:30PM, 02/08/06
The photograph has clearly been included so that one individual can claim to have their picture on Wikipedia under the drunkenness article. As others have stated, it does not contribute, nor clarify any of the information contained within the article and should therefore be deleted immediately.
A picture or image should only be added if it can be said to be informative in some way. This is Wikipedia, not Facebook. 86.130.63.91 ( talk) 22:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
It IS informative. It shows a very drunk person continuing to do so. It works as an example of binge-drinking too.
Textbook I got the principle of this from didn't explain exactly *how* this affected the function of nerve cells. Do a large number of sodium ions stay out of the cell preventing nerve impulses, or do the sodium ions going outside the cell actually start an accidental impulse? -- sodium
I do not believe this is correct; it may not be worth closer investigation. - Ikkyu2 03:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
"This could be caused by heightened alpha brain waves surging across the brain. "
This is a large misnomer in my opinion. "brain waves" are hardly causal. People place far too much stock in the measurement of voltage across the head. This reveals so little information about what is actually happening to the neurons within. This probably should not even be talked about. --anon
Another one of alcohol's agreeable effects is body relaxation, possibly caused by heightened alpha brain waves surging across the brain. Alpha waves are observed (with the aid of EEGs) when the body is relaxed. Heightened pulses are thought to correspond to higher levels of enjoyment.
I agree with the above commenter; brain waves are not causal of anything. They are an electroencephalographic finding. Also, the stated correlation is not valid. If anything, alcohol's effect on the EEG is to increase the amount of beta activity, not to enhance the alpha rhythm.
After reading some of the comments here, it appears to me that this article is in need of major attention; correction of factual errors and removal of offensive and culturally insensitive text would be a good start. - Ikkyu2 03:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
It is my understanding that alcohol has NMDA antagonist properties, i.e. it blocks the activity of glutamate. See these links:
Some societies, such as those of Russia and Ireland, have cultural stereotypes associated with drunkenness--in such societies, the ability to drink vast quantities of alcohol without getting drunk is thought to be worthy of respect.
Time for national stereotypes: I was told once that there are countries/societies/subcultures where it is the length of time someone can refrain from going to the toilet rather than the quantity of alcohol itself that is "worthy of respect". Can anyone verify or falsify this? Obviously it's not very important -- I'm just curious. -- KF 23:09 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)
Why pick out Russia and Ireland?
Whiskey, guinness and vodka, of course! j/k
I believe you're referring to what I know as the 'Golden Seal'. In cultures where peeing is recognized as simply an occurence rather than a status, it's reference to the first time one has to urinate after beginning comsunption. The theory is that once you make your first trip to the bathroom, you will need to make subsequent trips more often. The major flaw is, urination is inevitible with mass liquid consumption. Basing frequency of trips on time between first drinking and first trip to the bathroom is ludicrious, as this can only be based on a physiologial trait like blader capacity or amount consumed and the timeframe in which it is done. That capacity won't be changed with the event of urination. For example... ever drink 1 or more cups of coffee before drinking? Or even water for that matter. Liquids have less nutrients and are passed through the body more rapidly. Urinating only affects the liquid that has already been processed by your system.
In terms of respect, its more of a fratboy ideaolgy that holding ones liquor is equivalent to manliness, or any other trait. It's dangerous to insinuate that that type of behaviour is required to earn respect, as if often leads to sickness, or worst case death. McGootch ( talk) 06:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
We don't need the "slangs" section, do we? The slangs are no links to articles, it's just word definition, all of it. :/ Delete that section. —Sverdrup (talk) 03:55, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Cam't that just be left to urban dictionary...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.77.188 ( talk) 05:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Nothing in this section redirects anywhere. Should be removed.
Removed It can make ugly girls more hot, for example. Didn't seem like it would make sense in an encyclopedia. - Jeshii 14:30, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
i remember seeing on msns page that scientist proved that "beer goggles" (where a woman looks more attractive to a man) are a side affect of alchol. (by beer goggles i dont mean that plastic goggles that distort your vison) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.146.222 ( talk) 02:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone think that the term high when talking about drugs shouldnt redirect here? alchohol isnt the only cause of being high
My only counter argument is that alcohol is a 'downer'.
Seems to me that the last bit about the Ancient Greek superstition doesn't really fit in with the sort of information presented by the rest of the article. But you'll have to pardon me if it DOES fit in, and my brain just isn't working properly- I've been doing shots of tequila all night, so...-- Deridolus 08:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
I have trouble with the title.
How many contributors to this talk page are drunk at the time of their post. Now thats a stastic i'd love to see! —Preceding unsigned comment added by McGootch ( talk • contribs) 06:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
It would be convenient if this article listed different stages of intoxication and how much ethanol per kg body weight constituted each stage. As a tee-totaler I am ineligible to provide this information. = ) But it would be useful nonetheless. I think I saw some kind of table with this info in an AMA publication once, but I may be mistaken. Jeeves 12:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree: Wikipedia is *not* a medical dictionary, but neither this article nor alcoholism gives a description suitable for the general observer (as you and I are (g)), story writer and "persons concerned about people they know". At what stage does "regularly becoming drunk" shade into alcoholism? 212.85.6.26 16:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Also, alcohol comsumption is based on personal statistics like metabolism, weight, tolerance, etc. It's virtually impossible to gauge intoxication in any way other that a breathalyzer or blood test. Affectation is unique to the consumer. McGootch ( talk) 06:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
An improvement to this article is basic* medical treatment of intoxicated persons. Basic warning signs when to cut off, recovery position, reasonable vital signs, and when to call an emergency response team. -GChriss
Another improvement would invovle archiving the chemistry and biology involved in achieving the state of drunkenness, the processes involved in detoxification, and the physiological consequences of drunkenness. I'm astounded that there is no science in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.95.200 ( talk) 13:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I was led to believe there is in fact a chemical formula for alcohol intoxication... it'll be here as soon as (read:if) I can find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McGootch ( talk • contribs) 06:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The management section needs rewriting. It reads as a complete checklist but is inaccurate and incomplete - UK doctor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.87.10 ( talk) 20:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I've seen this same language used in a number of articles online, but it's never accompanied by a reference. Does anyone know when/where this study was conducted, or have a link to information on it online? Seems very relevant.
Psychosematic symptoms can appear even before comsumption in the right atmosphere. Theres also the urban legend of swapping out non-alchoholic beer unbeknownst to drinkers having similar though less intense results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McGootch ( talk • contribs) 06:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
What exactly are they (g): as with the related article on alcoholism all technical and no general description (eg the general change from "pleasantly relaxed" to "falling down drunk") - and where the danger points are.
I made two main changes for this section in the interests of NPOV: I changed "leading as it often does to alcoholism" to "as it may lead to alcoholism", since the use of 'often' is vague and therefore misleading; and I toned down the bit about how being sober may be 'socially unaccceptable'. It also included the dread word 'often', and generally sounded a bit too much like it was trying to say "drunk people are often mean to sober people". Oh, and in the last paragraph I changed 'church' to 'Church' to keep it specific to the Catholics, and changed 'don't mind' to 'don't prohibit'. -- Last Malthusian 10:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
This page has a {{reqimage}} tag but I don't see any specific request for an image, and nothing sensible comes to mind. Any ideas or should we remove the request? Tim Pierce 05:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe that there should be a general intoxication page, possibly with information from the DSM-IV(-TR); The "related links" section should contain a specific link to alcohol drunkenness, or it could be listed at the top. This would present the information without having the bias. Brian 04:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, disambiguation could lead to other drugs and pharmacuticals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McGootch ( talk • contribs) 06:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I've never tried to type while intoxicated, so I can't say it's untrue that alcohol can lead to "impaired speech or impaired ability to type". But that is one odd thing to mention at the start of the article. How about juggling? Doesn't drunkenness impair your ability to juggle, hang-glide, tap-dance, and whistle? Since driving while drunk is recognized as a serious social problem, I would expect to see it mentioned there, but not typing.
It's not really an error, of course. Just...weird.
I've been drinking tonighti and for the sake of scinece i've dicided i woujld not backspace. ....at least we know its true
-- 68.35.204.107 00:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This page seems more of a joke :) than a serious article.
--- OFTEN THE CASE IN KU CLUB ON A WEEKEND
What the hell did this mean?
In anycase removed it.
"Binge drinking" is perceived as being a recent problem in the UK mostly by certain newspapers. I see little evidence in reality of it being either a problem or being new. So I've edited that clause out. DrHydeous 11:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Binge drinking is a serious problem in the United States and especially amongst college-aged populations. I believe that this section is relevant and to some individuals, the topic is relatively new in terms of being discussed openly and particularly on the national news! user:lhargrove
Unencyclopedic - will anyone object if I remove it and provide a link to wikiquote:Alcohol? riana_ dzasta 14:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I think, that this is a great plus for the page. Not only does it have abundant following and humorous entity. It also relates completely with drunkeness as a whole. To take the quotation section off this page would not be good, imho.
JoeyGWilliams 06:25PM, 02/08/06
I have deleted around four quotations from the part which were not exactly about the nature of alcoholic beverage. Now it seems more distinguished and shiny to me (and no, i'm not drunk :o)) please check it out sometime.
Angelophiliac
03:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
[1] ranks #1 on Google for "Alcoholism" NumberOneGoogle 19:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
For the Japanese proverb, I've only seen it in form of "the man drinks the first glass, the first glass drinks the second and the third glass drinks the man" It seems to make more sense the way I have heard it, not the way it is currently written. 70.64.104.35 01:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have a reference for that? Because I've seen it attributed to Voltaire. Maybe both of them said it, but then Voltaire should get the credit. Robin22 01:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
the first churchill one is in the little book of churchill quotes the second seem like a different version of the first.
are there any articles on animal drunkeness?-- Filll 16:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
i got this: http://www.cannabis.net/weblife.html Angelophiliac 03:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
If you wake up in the morning, after a night of drinking, but still remember every event that occurred during that night of drinking, are you considered drunk? Maybe this is the wrong place to be asking, lol...but either way, maybe someone could expand on it and add it in...Also, what about hang-overs, usually occurring the morning after a night of drinking, if you do not get a hang-over (usually throbbing head/headache, i guess?); was the person still considered "drunk" if they don't have a hang-over the next morning?
This depends entirely on who is defining it. In the United States over a .08 blood/alcohol content is generally considered "Drunk" at least when defining it in reference to driving. On a broader level, this is a subjective question and there is no definitively correct answer. It depends on the person/institution that is defining the term.
Cadentsoul
01:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the name of this article is poor. I think there are more clinical terms for it. Maybe "Alcohol Inebriation" or something of that sort? Anybody else have any thoughts on this? Maybe we should have a vote. Who supports a name change to "Alcohol Inebriation"? If you think this is a poor choice, please leave what you believe is a more appropriate name. I think a week is a reasonable amount of time to vote before a move. -- Billywhack 11:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Intoxication is not the same as drunkenness, it's much broader, why the hell does it link to drunkenness? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.118.33.132 ( talk • contribs)
What is with half the page being quotations. Some are barely relevant to the subject.
Also, the Japanese Proverb and the quote by F. Scott Fitzgerald are basically the same. I'm not sure they should both be there. Rajrajmarley 23:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't we add things about the symptoms of "drunkenness" and studies to that effect? As someone who is mildly drunk while adding this comment, I suggest we look into studies of drunk individuals and look at how they differ from sober individuals or themselves when sober (e.g. decreased eyesight, balance, e.t.c)* to the article? *Don't add this w/o citation, as it is merely OR based on what I'm going through at the moment. -- GracieLizzie 00:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. This article needs much more content as to why ethanol does what it does to folks. Gwen Gale ( talk) 01:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
If you want this article to be more science-oriented, then merging Acute alcohol intoxication into it would be an easy way to start that process. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 07:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This article is disgraceful! It is number one in Google's results for a search of "intoxication." As such, it ought to provide encyclopedic information, yet science is completely lacking. What chemistry goes on in the brain that produces the symptoms of drunken behavior? How is alcohol absorbed into the bloodstream? How is it eliminated? These are the real topics that need to be addressed. Law, Religion, Folklore, and Famous Drinking Quotations are incidental. Jedwards01 ( talk) 05:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
In addition to the scriptures listed in this section, Ephesians 5:18 specifically commands believers not to get drunk. 209.50.178.50 ( talk) 15:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a question/comment, but shouldn't the comments regarding the FAA apply to all pilots and not just "aircrew members?" When I was studying for my pilot's license (which I did not complete) we were told that we could not drink not just before, but on the same day we were to fly. I'm sure this was just a local law/way of doing things, but I wonder if the actual law does not state that all aircraft operators cannot operate above a certain level. Vayne ( talk) 22:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there anything known about the dawn of drunkenness? When did people start drinking (too much) alcoholics? Not only the invention of beers, wines and spirits may be elementary for this, but also the invention of pottery and other drinking and brewing vessels. Possibly someone with access to the book of Stuart Walton could write a line or two about it. Glatisant ( talk) 11:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
FYI, someone did it anyway. — BarrelProof ( talk) 19:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, so I haven't really got very long at the moment on the public terminal I'm writing this from, but I'll get the gist of it here, basically what can we do to resolve the issues?
I'd edit it, but since I'm not really sure what needs to be done, I thought I'd get consensus first rather than edit-war over it.
First issue - worldwide view: maybe we could have a separate article Laws on drunkenness worldwide or similar, and use this as an article about the topic itself.
Second issue - original research. Would this not be better being on Wikiversity or Wikibooks where there is some?? For GFDL compliance, a transwiki of this article would have to happen, and maybe this moved to a subpage of the unit e.g. Alcoholism/Drunkenness etc.
Looking for opinions, thanks! -- Litherlandsand ( talk) 10:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
MOM IS DRUNK AND THEIR ARE PHOTOS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.185.66 ( talk) 01:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Searches for "Drunks" redirect here. There is also a 1995 feature film of this name. Maybe it would be better if there was a disambiguation page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.65.124 ( talk) 04:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
This article definitely is not NPOV. There is very strong religious overtone to the whole article. Please spin off the religious stuff into a separate article titled "religious attitudes towards intoxication".
I was looking for references to the role of intoxication in society. I expected to see references to (for example) the role of intoxication in the poetry of Mughal India. There's nothing here!
I have trouble figuring out what we mean by saying that "Licensing ministers played an important role in controlling public drinking for the higher class because of their desire to control the public."
Are we saying that the higher classes licensed ministers because the higher classes desired control over the public? Or that the higher classes licensed ministers because ministers enjoyed controlling the public? Or that the licensing of ministers was an important means of controlling the drinking of the higher classes, because of the ministers' desire to control the public? Or something else altogether? 65.213.77.129 ( talk) 20:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
It only explains the effects on an observatory level but does not go much into what receptors and functions are affected or how exactly. where might i find this information? i am intoxicated at the moment, i find it fascinating that I can maintain control of my self a lot better than my friends, they all turn into different people so to speak. I wonder why I do not. 71.112.207.51 ( talk) 05:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that alcohol and cannabis articles should be merged —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.141.166 ( talk) 05:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Why? They are completely unrelated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.207.77 ( talk) 03:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I have just deleted a "citation needed" from the paragraph on Buddhism in the "Religious views" section. The article linked to, Five Moral Precepts, is quite adequately supported. IF any additional citation is needed there, it's for "Monastic precepts are even stricter"! GeorgeTSLC ( talk) 16:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
This article needs a better name. There is no need for alcohol to be in the title at all, intoxication would work just as well.- Zyrath ( talk) 00:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I would like to discuss the appropriateness of semi-protection for this page (blocking of edits by IP and new editors).
A quick count of the vandalism over the last 3 months:
November: by IP users 4 cases of vandalism and 2 useful edits
October: by IP users 7 cases of vandalism and 2 useful edits
September: by IP users 6 cases of vandalism and 4 useful edits
Vandalism is outweighing useful edits by IPs on this page and most IP edits are relating to grammar/spelling/wording etc., granted these are valid contributions, but these things would be picked up by regular users in time.
Below I have pasted the criteria for semi-protecion of a page:
I think the page meets the criteria very well.
Thoughts?
MitchMcM ( talk) 08:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
"It takes roughly 90 minutes for a healthy liver to metabolize a single ounce, approximately one hour per standard unit."
Assuming that an avoirdupois ounce is being talked about, and the density of alcohol as 0.79 g/ml as indicated on various pages around here, then an ounce is about 36 ml. This gives a "standard unit" as being 24 ml. According to what "standard" is this? It seems the only thing that comes close is the Japanese definition of a standard drink.
I probably first heard of units of alcohol from one of my school science textbooks, which I believe was British-made. This stated that a unit takes an hour for the liver to discharge, which matches with the claim here and almost with the information on Unit of alcohol. But it doesn't, by any set of definitions I've so far found, match up with the idea that an ounce takes 90 minutes.
In any case, we need to be clear on what definitions are being used. Even better, write whatever was meant in metric units, since these are recognised internationally.
That said, the statement has no citation. So for all we know, it could be something that some random editor made up. I'm going to add {{ dubious}} in the hope that we can shed light on the matter in order to correct the information, or if not then remove it. — Smjg ( talk) 21:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
This standard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_alcohol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.222.228 ( talk) 10:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The amounts are out by a factor of about 3. A standard unit is 10 ml not 50, and the rate at which alcohol is metabolised is about 10 ml/hour, so the statement in the article is very misleading. (Sorry, not posted to a talk page before, hope I'm doing it right.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feydun ( talk • contribs) 08:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I found a source for rate of metabolisation, on nhs.uk, so I replaced the conflicting statements with an edit based on that. The rate quoted matches well this more scholarly source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484320/#R1 Mccormag ( talk) 19:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I can't find anything in the article about the effects of alcohol on non-human life. This seems like a rather gross omission since there are plenty of cases of other animals getting drunk too. I would be interested in particular to know which species are susceptible to drunkenness and which aren't. CodeCat ( talk) 16:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Alcohol intoxication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1052305When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alcohol intoxication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
In 2016 we had: [2]
This book included that text and was published in 2017 by Cambridge University Press. [3]
The text was originally added in 2013 as: [4]
Our articles says
Which turned into:
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Is "alcohol intoxication" psychiatry? IMO no. Alcoholism definitely is but not really acute intoxication.
Acute intoxication is toxicology. Psychiatry is not interested in getting involved until they are sober. This is the reality is most of the world.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
07:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Somebody went through and conflated "alcohol intoxication" with "alcohol poisoning". That's not at all supported by the current sources and is 100% incorrect from a medical perspective. It's simply wrong. One's an acute medical emergency and the other's not. It seems somebody just folded the separate section into the main lede for organizational purposes. That's... not really helpful.
Does anybody want to take a stab at fixing this? It currently borders on inaccurate medical advice. J. Harrington Inchworm III ( talk) 22:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
User:FrankP if you read the source [6] it lists under synonyms "alcohol poisoning" being the same as "acute pathologic intoxication"
This source also links the two. [7] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
"Alcohol poisoning presents in two forms, acute and chronic. However, these are most often referred to as alcohol intoxication and alcohol addiction respectively." [8] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Short answer: Ethanol is not a poison but one can poison oneself with it in several ways.
Much longer answer: One usually associates the concept of a poison with a risk of death or disease. Let us exemplify this with a different substance as an introduction to the terminology as follows. We all have a certain amount of mercury in our bodies, and mercury is certainly poisonous in large enough quantities. Chronic mercury poisoning is debilitating; Erethism, also known as erethism mercurialis, mad hatter disease, or mad hatter syndrome, is a neurological disorder which affects the whole central nervous system, as well as a symptom complex, derived from mercury poisoning. Now to call mercury a poison is only slightly semantically challenged. However, it is more exactly a hazardous substance, and generally poisonous in the context of inhaled metallic vapor or ingested as the chloride, which latter is extremely toxic.
When chronic ethanol intoxication is debilitating, it is a disease. I leave it to the semanticists to define the difference between psychosocial debilitating chronic ethanol intoxication and alcoholism, but do leave a clues; As with any psychiatric condition, it is up to an external observer, and not the afflicted who therein may lack insight, to ascertain what degree of debilitation qualifies a person as an alcoholic. However, objectively organic disease resulting from chronic ethanol intoxication in some cases includes: (1) retrograde amnesia (Korsakoff's syndrome) via thiamine deficiency. (2) alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver.
Ethanol is toxic in large quantities, i.e., its toxicity is called low. Moreover, a certain concentration of naturally occurring ethanol blood level is called endogenous-normal physiologic (and sometimes is higher than normally physiological; endogenous pathophysiological).
Finally, as it naturally produced in the body, ethanol is not a poison per se. However, it is poisonous with acute or chronic (ingestion or inhalation) in large enough quantities as it can cause disease and death, and is typically toxic at lower levels than it would be thought poisonous. For example, see the 50% lethal dose (LD50) and 50% lethal concentration literature for ethanol.
From Ethyl Alcohol - Fisher Scientific
LD50/LC50: CAS# 64-17-5:
Draize test, rabbit, eye: 500 mg Severe; Draize test, rabbit, eye: 500 mg/24H Mild; Draize test, rabbit, skin: 20 mg/24H Moderate; Inhalation, mouse: LC50 = 39 gm/m3/4H; Inhalation, rat: LC50 = 20000 ppm/10H; Oral, mouse: LD50 = 3450 mg/kg; Oral, rabbit: LD50 = 6300 mg/kg; Oral, rat: LD50 = 7060 mg/kg; Oral, rat: LD50 = 9000 mg/kg;
CarlWesolowski ( talk) 01:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Fits better as a risk factor of alcohol intoxication than a complication per this source.
"Alcohol use disorder - Symptoms and causes". Mayo Clinic. Retrieved 26 November 2019.
Unless you have another source?
Basically alcohol intoxication is a complication of alcoholism does not mean that alcoholism is viewed as a complication of intoxication. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I watched this video -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gn-QZ_e06k -- and it said that since alcohol relaxes parts of the brain, if you drink a huge amount of alcohol it can relax it so much that the medulla shuts down, killing the drinker. This death due to vital functions not happening anymore/vital organs not working should be written about in the article, probably with a better source. Notice, that this death by ethanol is not caused by choking on vomit. -- User123o987name ( talk) 05:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
The consensus is against this change since it is unsourced. There is no prejudice against discussing this again if a source is found to verify the assertion that alcoholism is a complication of alcohol intoxication.
I have been involved in an edit war with @ Doc James: over the question of whether alcoholism should be included as a complication of alcohol intoxication. My position is that our own article on Alcoholism provides sufficient language to justify the notion that alcohol intoxication leads to alcoholism: subsection Alcoholism#Warning_signs states that "warning signs of alcoholism include... frequent intoxication," and subsection Alcoholism#Definition states that "the drinking will increase as more intoxication is required." The other editor insists that listing alcoholism as a risk factor is sufficient, despite the fact that language published by Wikipedia makes clear that additional alcohol intoxication is just as much of a complication—in other words, my position is that alcohol intoxication is BOTH a risk factor for, AND complication of, alcoholism. I'm saying that we should, at the least, classify it as both. Rowsdower45 ( talk) 05:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
alcohol intoxication is BOTH a risk factor for, AND complication of, alcoholism.You're not wrong, [1] and that's true for any addictive drug; you obviously can't become addicted to something to which you aren't exposed. But, dosage and timing are both relevant when you're talking about addiction risk. Chronic low-dose exposure to an addictive agent doesn't create an addiction risk, nor does an isolated high-dose exposure to one in spite of the reward-priming effects it might have. In contrast, even relatively infrequent high-dose exposure to an addictive substance creates a significant risk because ΔFosB persists in the human brain for months, increases in its expression are potentiated by positive feedback loops through c-Fos and H3K9me2, and increases in its expression progressively increase drug-seeking behavior to the point of compulsion. Hence why duration/frequency of exposure matters.
If you will allow a comment. The above question is futile in the sense that the arguments are alike to the "Which came first; the chicken or the egg?" question. That question actually has an answer, but one would not recognize it from the type of arguments used to debate it. In the chicken/egg case, in point of fact, they co-evolved so there never was a first chicken egg. At some point in the past there were proto-chickens laying proto-chicken eggs, which gradually turned into chickens and chicken eggs, or, to put it another way, at some point in the past, and although we can only do this as a thought experiment, proto-chicken mating with modern rooster would be sterile, which probably occurred at a different past epoch than infertility of mating proto-rooster with modern chicken. What is the point here? One cannot perform a substance dependency test using a proto-alcoholic who has never ever consumed alcohol, without taking that first drink (or first inhalation). It is an important step to maintaining sobriety for someone to say, "I am an alcoholic," and to pointedly omit saying "but I am on the wagon." What this implies is that alcoholism means different things to different people, such that for some there is a need to differentiate between current and past substance dependence, and for others there is a need to not distinguish between them. In point of fact, one cannot travel down that road without alcohol having been consumed at some point in time and like the chicken and egg problem, one cannot have a history of chronic substance abuse without both the substance and the abuser, and one needs both the substance and someone to abuse it to have substance abuse, whenever that occurred. CarlWesolowski ( talk) 04:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Despite the importance of numerous psychosocial factors, at its core, drug addiction involves a biological process: the ability of repeated exposure to a drug of abuse to induce changes in a vulnerable brain that drive the compulsive seeking and taking of drugs, and loss of control over drug use, that define a state of addiction. ... Drug addiction, which can be defined as the compulsive seeking and taking of drugs despite horrendous consequences or loss of control over drug use, is caused by long-lasting drug-induced changes that occur in certain brain regions.1 Only some individuals, however, succumb to addiction in the face of repeated drug exposure, while others are capable of using a drug casually and escaping an addiction syndrome. Genetic factors account for roughly 50% of this individual variability in addiction vulnerability, and this degree of heritability holds true for all major classes of addictive drugs, including stimulants, opiates, alcohol, nicotine, and cannabinoids.2 ... The other 50% of the risk for addiction is due to a host of environmental factors, occurring throughout a lifetime, that interact with an individual's genetic composition to render him or her vulnerable to addiction to a greater or lesser extent. Several types of environmental factors have been implicated in addiction, including psychosocial stresses, but by far the most powerful factor is exposure to a drug of abuse itself. ... Moreover, there is increasing evidence that, despite a range of genetic risks for addiction across the population, exposure to sufficiently high doses of a drug for long periods of time can transform someone who has relatively lower genetic loading into an addict. ... A large body of literature has demonstrated that such ΔFosB induction in D1-type [nucleus accumbens] neurons increases an animal's sensitivity to drug as well as natural rewards and promotes drug self-administration, presumably through a process of positive reinforcement ... Another ΔFosB target is cFos: as ΔFosB accumulates with repeated drug exposure it represses c-Fos and contributes to the molecular switch whereby ΔFosB is selectively induced in the chronic drug-treated state.41
The list of alcohol levels are all out by a factor of 10. 5 lots of 8 grams divided by 5 litres of blood is 8 grams per litre, 0.8 g/dL, or 800 mg/dL. The confusion arises because the reference 22 ("Alcohol & Public Health: Fact Sheets - Binge Drinking") uses the unit "grams percent" - this can only be grams per centilitre. This is the first time I've tried contributing to a Wikipedia page and don't want to do the live editing since I might foul it up - so can someone else do the actual edit. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExtremePedant ( talk • contribs) 09:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
After further research I've discovered that the blood alcohol levels are correct. The calculation takes complete body fluids into account. This means that "grams percent" makes even less sense than I thought. No edits need to be made to the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExtremePedant ( talk • contribs) 05:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
There is an active RfC underway on the Whisky talk page as to whether the article will include links to the Alcohol Intoxication wikipedia article, and similar articles Specifically: Should the whisky article provide direct links to articles about the effects of ethanol on those who consume whisky? Here is a proposed sentence with hyperlinks: Some effects of whisky consumption are due to its alcohol content. See: Alcohol intoxication, Short-term effects of alcohol consumption, Long-term effects of alcohol, and Alcohol and health. sbelknap ( talk) 21:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)