Suicides. Part 4

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

LYING: dry wines are healthy, "moderate" doses are harmless, "cultured" wine drinking is the key to solving the alcohol problem.

The propaganda of "moderate" doses, which began in the late 1950s and early 1960s, developed vigorously.

In speeches and articles, it was clear that alcohol consumption was almost a state policy and it was not subject to change. The whole question lies in the fight against excesses, with abuse, that is, with alcoholism.

TRUTH: it is clear to every educated person that fighting alcoholism without fighting alcohol consumption is a pointless thing. Considering that alcohol is a drug and a protoplasmic poison, its consumption will inevitably lead to alcoholism.

Fighting drunkenness without prohibiting alcohol consumption is tantamount to fighting murder in war. To say that we are not against, we are for wine, but we are against drunkenness and alcoholism is the same hypocrisy, as if politicians said that we are not against war, we are against murder in war. Meanwhile, it is quite clear that if there is a war, there will be wounded and killed, that if there is a consumption of alcoholic beverages, there will be drunkards and alcoholics. Only those who completely poisoned their brains with alcohol, or those who are satisfied with the current state of affairs, who would like to "stabilize the achieved level of consumption", can fail to understand this.

One of the luminaries of the struggle for sobriety, sociologist from Orel I. A. Krasnonosoe, in his letter gives a table of alcohol consumption, compiled on the basis of data published by the Central Statistical Office, which shows that if the level of alcohol consumption in 1950 is taken as a unit, then in 1981 the level of consumption increased more than 10 times. He writes that the per capita alcohol consumption figures published in 1940, 1964 and 1978, as in France, do not include illegal alcohol. It is (according to the French) from 50% to 100% of the legal one (Yu. P. Lisitsin and N. Ya. Kopyta).

What is "illegal" alcohol? This is stolen alcohol! Stolen drinks at wineries, moonshine, horticultural wines, surrogates, industrial spirits and, finally, state and collective farm wines ("worms"), missed on sale "above the plan".

An approximate calculation of these illegal factors of alcoholization of the population as of 1980 gives an approximate doubling of the official "per capita consumption", namely, at least 18.5 liters of absolute alcohol per capita in 1980. In the nineties, this figure became much higher.

Despite such alarming figures, even in the 1980s, the press continued to wage a stubborn struggle against those who justify the inevitability of a sober lifestyle.

Now it is already becoming clear to many people: drunkenness has taken on such proportions in our country that if you do not stop, its consequences will become irreversible.

The harm from drinking alcohol is so obvious that no one in our time can already defend it openly. Protection goes through various demagogic tricks.

The main direction along which * there is an incessant planting of drunkenness and alcoholism is the propaganda of the so-called "moderate" and "cultural" wine drinking.

It is considered an elementary rule: before a scientist begins to write on a particular issue, he must be familiar with the previous literature, with works written by at least the classics.

NE Vvedensky wrote: “To establish any consumption rates, to talk about which doses can be considered“harmless”and which ones are already harmful to the body - all these are highly conventional and illusory questions. Meanwhile, such questions are trying to divert attention from solving practical issues of combating drunkenness as a social evil, which has an extremely destructive effect on the well-being of the people, economically and morally, on their ability to work and prosperity. This kind of excites in me extreme surprise and even indignation. Elsewhere, he writes: The effect of alcohol (in all drinks containing it: vodka, liqueurs, wine, beer, etc.) on the body is generally similar to the effect of drugs and typical poisons, such as chloroform, ether, opium, etc.. P.

Like these latter, alcohol in weak doses at first acts as if in an exciting way, and later and in stronger doses - paralyzing both individual living cells and the whole organism. It is absolutely impossible to indicate the amount of alcohol at which it could act only in the first sense ….

This means that it is impossible to determine a "moderate" dose that did not immediately paralyze. How can a "moderate" dose be recommended when even a scientist cannot determine what it is!

The coryphaeus of Russian psychiatry VM Bekhterev wrote: “Since the unconditional harm of alcohol has been proven from a scientific and hygienic point of view, there can be no question of scientific approval of“small”or“moderate”doses of alcohol. the beginning is always expressed in "small" doses, which gradually turn into large and large doses, according to the law of gravitation to all narcotic poisons in general, to which alcohol belongs first of all."

All eminent people perfectly understood the sinister nature of the propaganda of "moderate" doses. You cannot write about drunkenness without first reading the works left to us by Leo Tolstoy. He very thoroughly, philosophically stated the question of "moderate" wine drinking. It couldn't be better. And most importantly, everything is correct and scientifically confirmed.

In 1890, he wrote: The consequences of the consumption of opium and hashish are terrible for individuals, as they describe to us; the familiar to us consumption of alcohol on notorious drunkards is terrible; beer and tobacco, which the majority of people, and especially the educated classes of our world, indulge in. These consequences must be dire if one admits that it is impossible not to admit that the leading activity of society - political, scientific, literary, artistic, is carried out for the most part by people, abnormal, drunk people.

A person who has drunk a bottle of wine, a glass of vodka or two mugs of beer the day before is in the usual state of hangover or oppression, following excitement, and therefore in a mentally depressed state, which is further intensified by smoking. In order for a person who smokes and drinks to gradually bring the brain back to normal, he needs to be at least a week or more without drinking and smoking. This almost never happens!"

Dimitar Bratanov, a member of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party, wrote in Rabochaya Gazeta on May 20, 1982: “We strongly oppose attempts to teach people to drink in moderation - this is an unprincipled way. the effectiveness of educational work, the importance of personal example is denied. One of the reasons that weaken the influence of our movement for sobriety is that it involves people who think they can drink "in moderation." And now there are people who again raise the question of " moderate doses."

Some zealots of drunkenness, realizing that the propaganda of "moderate" doses too clearly contradicts the data of science and life experience, are categorically against sobriety, but recommend drinking "culturally". There are more and more such adherents of "cultural" wine drinking. And they are not ashamed to write about it, although they themselves perfectly understand that this is as stupid as talking about hot ice or soft granite.

Still N. Semashko wrote: "Drunkenness and culture are two concepts mutually exclusive of each other, like ice and fire, light and darkness."

Let's try to consider this issue from a scientific point of view. First of all, none of the adherents of "cultural" wine drinking said what it is? What is meant by this term? How to reconcile these two mutually exclusive concepts: alcohol and culture?

Perhaps, by the term "cultural" wine drinking, these people mean the environment in which wine is consumed? A beautifully set table, a great snack, exquisitely dressed people, and they drink the highest grades of cognac, liqueur, Burgundy wine or kinzmarauli? Is this the culture of wine drinking?

As the scientific data published by the WHO show, such wine drinking not only does not prevent, but on the contrary, creates a more favorable environment for the development of drunkenness and alcoholism throughout the world. And according to her, recently the so-called "managerial" alcoholism, that is, the alcoholism of business people, responsible workers has come out on top in the world. And if the concept of "culture" of wine drinking is attributed to the situation, then, as we see, this does not stand up to criticism and leads us to an even greater development of drunkenness and alcoholism.

Maybe the adherents of "cultural" wine drinking mean that after taking a certain dose of wine, people become more cultured, smarter, more interesting, their conversation is more meaningful, filled with deep meaning? After taking "small" and "moderate" doses, or after taking large doses? The propagandists of "cultural" - wine drinking are silent about this. Let us examine both positions from a scientific point of view.

I. Pavlov's school proved that after the first, the smallest dose of alcohol in the cerebral cortex, those departments where the elements of education, that is, culture, are laid down. So what kind of culture of wine drinking can we talk about if after the first glass, exactly what was acquired by upbringing disappears in the brain, that is, the culture of human behavior itself disappears, the higher functions of the brain are disrupted, that is, associations that are replaced by lower forms. The latter appear in the mind completely inappropriately and stubbornly hold on. In this respect, such persistent associations resemble a purely pathological phenomenon. The change in the quality of associations explains the vulgarity of the tipsy person's thoughts, the tendency to stereotypical and trivial expressions and to empty play with words.

These are the scientific data on the state of the neuropsychic sphere of a person who has taken a "moderate" dose of alcohol. Where does "culture" appear here? There is nothing from the presented analysis that at least to some extent resembles culture, neither in thinking nor in the actions of a person who has taken any, including a "small" dose of alcohol.

I think there is no need to describe the scientific data on the behavior of a person who has taken a large dose of alcohol. There we will find even fewer moments in thinking in human behavior that would speak of culture.

As vigorously as some sociologists fight for "moderate", "cultural" drunkenness, they are just as categorically opposed to a complete ban on the production and sale of alcoholic beverages.

Engels wrote that the main reason for alcoholism is the availability of alcoholic beverages. The World Health Organization, 100 years after, having studied the experience of combating alcoholism, recognized that the spread of alcoholism is regulated by the price of alcohol, that all types of propaganda without legislative measures are not effective.

As a doctor, it is especially difficult and painful for me to hear about "moderate doses" and "cultural" wine drinking, because very often I meet with tragedies, which are based on "cultural" wine drinking and "moderate" dose. Probably everyone knows about these tragedies, but not everyone comes into contact with them as closely as doctors.

Why don't these people bring up a culture of human communication without the use of this poison? It would seem that if a person speaks of alcoholism as a disaster, then the main and only task should be to educate a person in aversion to him, and not to attribute to alcohol some cultural properties that he does not have and cannot have.

It is characteristic that all those who are fighting against the "dry" law do not give a single figure, not a single scientific fact. Only general reasoning: "more", "more often", etc.

However, the very desire of the people for a sober life is inevitable and inevitable as for a healthy, progressive way of life, for life itself, progress itself, no matter what obstacles stand in its way, goes only along the path of goodness and truth.

That is why, in spite of the fact that some organs of the press and the media are on the wrong path, advocating restrictions on the consumption of wine, a movement for the complete sobering of the people is emerging among the people more and more inevitably. Clubs, circles, sobriety societies appear, decisions are made at conferences and meetings that one must follow the path of sobriety.

LYING: wine relieves tension.

TRUTH: wine creates the illusion of stress relief. In fact, the tension in the brain and in the entire nervous system persists, and when the hops pass, the tension turns out to be even greater than before taking wine … But to this is added a weakening of will and weakness. …

LYING: wine must be taken "for fun."

TRUTH: fun and laughter are very important moments in a person's life. They give rest to the brain, distract thoughts from everyday worries, thereby strengthening the nervous system, preparing it for new works and worries. But laughter and fun are only useful when they occur to a sober person. There is no drunken fun and cannot be in the scientific and rational understanding of this state. Drunken "fun" is nothing more than arousal under anesthesia, the first stage of anesthesia, the stage of arousal that we, surgeons, observe every day when giving a patient other narcotic drugs (ether, chloroform, morphine, etc.), those that in their own way the action is identical with alcohol and, like alcohol, are related to drugs.

This stage of arousal has nothing to do with fun, and after it there is no rest for the nervous system. On the contrary, instead of rest, oppression comes with all the consequences (headache, apathy, weakness, unwillingness to work, etc.). Which is never seen in sober fun.

So alcohol is not a friend, but an enemy of fun. It negates the time that a person devotes to fun and relaxation. Instead, he gets a headache and fatigue. Alcohol works the same way for fatigue. A day off is given to a person so that he can physically and mentally rest and, with renewed vigor, with an emerging desire to work, set to work after rest.

Meanwhile, alcohol consumed on a day off deprives a person of normal rest. He has only the illusion of rest, but in fact, all fatigue not only persists, but accumulates even more, which makes Monday a "difficult" day, since the nervous system does not get any rest because of wine.

In all such cases, alcohol acts as an evil deceiver, creating the appearance of good, it does evil.

Truth is a powerful factor in sobering up the people, in ridding them of the illusions that people adhere to about wine, not noticing that hundreds of thousands and millions of people are dying from it in the most flourishing age.

From this brief comparison of the Lie and the truth about alcohol, it is clear that lies are a powerful weapon in the hands of those who would like to drink and destroy our people. Therefore, in order to protect him from drunkenness, which carries with it the degradation of the nation, it is necessary to close access to any untruth about alcohol and to speak and write only the truth. Those who, under different pretexts and under different sauce, will smuggle lies about alcohol, are regarded as the worst enemies of our people.

Many years of efforts to achieve a legislative ban on the production and sale of alcohol, that is, to repeat the experience of Russia in 1914, have so far not been crowned with success. In recent years, the efforts of fighters for sobriety have been aimed at freeing drinkers and smokers from alcohol and tobacco addiction using the Shichko method. The latter consists in the fact that lectures are given to the drinker for several days or conversations are held, where they tell the truth about the destructive effect of alcohol on a person, on his health, and on his future. Every evening listeners write diaries and answer specially asked questions in the same way.

After 7-10 days, all listeners themselves give up alcohol and tobacco and are actively fighting for the liberation of other people from drug addiction.

At the same time, all leaders of such classes, as a rule, former alcoholics, unanimously note that "moderate" drinkers do not want to attend these classes for anything and even wage a stubborn struggle to prevent others from going to these classes.

Scientists from Novosibirsk, having become interested in this issue, carefully and comprehensively studied it and established very interesting data. They found that cultural drinking is the most severe form of alcohol addiction. Hundreds of thousands of alcoholics and drunkards come to the courses to get rid of alcohol addiction. Cultural drinkers, as a rule, not only do not come to these courses, but also mock those who attend them. They boast that they, they say, drink, and do not become drunkards, therefore it is necessary to drink in a cultured way. This is what brings enormous harm to society, as it tempts young people and children to follow their example. These people are more dangerous and more harmful to society than drunkards. An alcoholic wallowing in a puddle will not make the child want to follow his example, since he sees that alcohol is a poison that brings people to a bestial state.

Meanwhile, every culture-worker demonstrating that alcohol supposedly brings only joy, seduces young people. On average, such a person for 17 years brings 10 people to drunkenness and brings one or two to death (not rarely his own son or daughter), that is, he becomes a murderer. Maybe not every cultured drinker will turn into a drunkard or an alcoholic, But every drunkard and alcoholics started with cultured drinking. That is why we have the right to consider cultural drinking as the most harmful and dangerous type of alcohol consumption.

And any kind of propaganda of "moderate" doses and cultural drinking should be regarded as a hostile action aimed not at sobering up, but at getting people drunk.

Meanwhile, the desire to decorate drunkenness, to make it not so disgusting as it really is, on the part of many alcohol lovers, or those seeking to give us a drink, do not stop.

Quite recently I received a letter from T. Merkov together with a brochure entitled "The Hygiene of Drunkenness". In the letter, the author asks for a positive review of his creation in order to reproduce this brochure.

I answered him with a letter, from which it is clear to what stupidity people go in their desire to decorate this ugly phenomenon in the life of the people, which is drunkenness.

In order not to repeat these arguments, I will quote excerpts from my letter, since it will be a response to others who want to give our people a drink.

"Dear T. A. Merkov! I have read your leaflet" The Hygiene of Drunkenness "and I cannot give a positive response, since it is based on false postulates and therefore carries a lie. And drunkenness is based on lies, which means that your brochure will support drunkenness.

You are apparently not familiar enough with the truth about alcohol and have not read the truthful anti-alcohol literature. You have a lie, every word, and our people are stuffed with this lie enough even without your brochure.

Judge for yourself - why teach people the hygiene of drunkenness, when it is necessary to teach the hygiene of sobriety. Drunkenness is evil, no matter what clothes you dress it in, and the more beautiful you dress it up, the more you will attract people to drink alcohol. It is not necessary to talk about the hygiene of drunkenness, but about the disgustingness of drunkenness, so that people feel sick at the thought of alcohol.

How can you talk about the hygiene of drunkenness, when alcohol in any dose is antihygienic. This is a mockery of people. It's like talking about the tenderness of murder or a gracious robbery.

You write that "by the hygiene of drinking you mean the culture of a person." But after all, true culture is not compatible with alcohol consumption, since even I. P. Pavlov proved that from the smallest doses of alcohol in a person's brain everything that is obtained by education, that is, culture, perishes.

In your letter, you show that you are using false data that the enemies of sobriety are instilling in us. These lies are at the heart of your entire brochure. You write that the economy has suffered from the prohibitive measures: In fact, for every ruble received from the sale of alcohol, we received 5-6 rubles of loss. This has been proven by all the prominent economists in the world. You write that the prohibitive measures have led to the cutting down of the vineyard. Have you seen at least one piece of land where an old vineyard was cut down, and not a new one was planted? It is the mafia who sheds light on this issue, and you, without checking, repeat, that is, again tell a lie. And the truth is that the government decree says: at the next replacement of the old vineyard with a new one, replace the wine varieties with sweet ones. So the mafia photographed the cutting down of the old, but did not photograph the planting of fresh, sweet grapes. And our gullible people willingly believe this lie, and propagandize it themselves.

You write that after the Decree "underground moonshine has developed." But this is also another lie, since it has been strictly scientifically proven that the development of home brewing is strictly in step with the growth of official hops; the more official hops are on sale, the more moonshine is brewed. hops production of moonshine sharply decreased.

The same must be said about poisoning with surrogates. It has been officially proven that along with a decrease in the level of alcohol consumption, the number of poisoning with surrogates has sharply decreased.

You write that after the Decree "spirituality, culture, medicine, everyday life - everything was left without attention." In your opinion, all these indicators were better while people drank more? But this is absurd. To begin with, in 1986-87, for the first time in many years, our women could see their husbands sober at home, who began to read literature, and instead of drinking beer went with their children to the theater and museum.

Do you know that in 1986-87, when alcohol consumption decreased, we had 500 thousand more children per year than in dozens of previous years, that the life expectancy of men increased by 2, 6 years, that absenteeism decreased by 30- 40%! Is this from bad living conditions and everyday life ?! No, you can't write like that! You have, every word is a lie! And based on a lie, you can write only a false work that can do nothing but harm.

Sorry for the categorical nature of my judgments. I am convinced that you are not writing with malicious intent, and not deliberately, and therefore should not be offended by the truth being told.

Have you read my books: "In captivity of illusions", "Lamechusy". If you haven't read it, try to read it. It sets out the whole truth about alcohol.

Respectfully yours F. G. Uglov

The propaganda of moderate doses, being deceitful in essence, is the main obstacle to making the only correct and inevitable decision for mankind - a complete rejection of alcoholic products, in any form and in any dose. Only then will humanity come to a normal life when it completely renounces all types of drugs in any dose and, first of all, wine and tobacco as legal drugs.

Among those troubles that drugs, and especially alcohol, carry, it is necessary to emphasize the growth of crime. For a long time the best minds of mankind, the World Health Organization, as well as statistics, have confirmed that 60 to 90% of crimes are committed while intoxicated. At the same time, inveterate alcoholics do not commit crimes so often. Significantly more often they are performed by those who drink "in moderation". "Drink for courage," so usually say those going to commit dark deeds. In fact, they often drink not for courage, but to drown out conscience, honor, shame. As Leo Tolstoy wrote: a person is ashamed to steal, kill, or do some act unworthy of a person, but he drank wine, and he is not ashamed. After drinking, he "boldly" goes to any dirty business, to a crime, to murder.

This is used by those who would like the other to do an illegal act. For this, he will give this person a drink. And he goes to any dirty deed, which, being sober, he would not go. According to many scientists, stopping the production and sale of alcohol, sobering up society, will close nine-tenths of prisons.

However, a rare government goes to this. For "a drunken nation is easier to govern." And many of those who run the country are directly or indirectly related to the alcoholic mafia, receiving considerable interest from it. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain why no one in the Government even raises the issue of sobriety. Moreover, it is strictly watching to ensure that the media does not miss anything that will raise the people to sobriety. With the coming to power of the Democrats, the Decree of the Soviet Government on the fight against drunkenness and alcoholism of 1985 was quickly compromised and nullified.

An alcoholic bacchanalia began, which over the past 2-3 years has brought to the grave dozens and maybe hundreds of thousands of those who so easily "fell for" the frantic advertising of alcohol and tobacco. Drunkenness, like nothing else, promotes and provokes crime. Along with the death of people from alcohol, the flames of the most terrible crimes, with monstrous murders of innocent people, are flaring up brighter.

The government issues decrees, ostensibly to fight crime, while leaving the drunkenness in the country untouched. For a baby it is clear that with such a rampant alcoholic lawlessness, crime will grow, no matter how many Decrees and Orders are issued. The government is not interested in destroying either one or the other. The murder organized by the authorities or by the criminals intimidates the people and allows them to be mocked with impunity, and along the way, of course, does not disinterestedly reduce the Orthodox people to please the rulers beyond the Cord. At present, the people must understand that with the current level of alcohol consumption, crime cannot be curbed, let alone stopped, it is impossible.

And the first step in the fight against crime should be a complete sobering up of the people. The experience of Russia in 1914 showed that after 3-4 weeks "the prisons were empty, the precinct cells were vacated, hooliganism vanished as if by hand", etc.

If 60-90% of crimes are committed by people who were intoxicated, then just one cessation of the production and consumption of alcohol will greatly reduce crime and create conditions for a normal fight against crime. Until we stop drinking, our country will not come to anything reasonable, and will quickly roll towards the abyss. That is why the seventh congress of the Union for the Struggle for Popular Sobriety, which was attended by 270 delegates representing 58 cities and 6 former Union republics (RF, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan), unanimously supported the demand of 1,700 doctors for the official recognition of alcohol and tobacco as drugs, extending to them the law on combating drug addiction. Their demand, once again sent to the Government and the State Duma, cannot but be supported by none of those who love their people and wish them well. Only the sworn enemies of the Russian people can remain indifferent and fail to make an appropriate decision in defense of the life and future of their people.

FG Uglov, "The Suicides", fragment.