Dear G.P

My husband drinks a lot of beer.What are the health risks for this.

Mrs X

Dear Mrs X,

For thousands of years, man has poured litres of alcohol  down his neck.There has been lots of research done on the health benefits and risks of taking  alcohol.One thing scientists agree on is alcohol may be beneficial if taken in moderation and detrimental if taken in excess.
There is not a one-size-fits-all answer to this.

Nothing is absolutely safe for everybody, I think there is a sensible level of drinking and sensible doesn’t mean “saving up” whatever number of drinks is deemed reasonable per week and drinking them all at once at a single sitting on the weekends. That’s binge drinking, and is well documented as to having severe adverse effects on a person’s health.

Immediate Health Risks of excessive Alcohol consumption

Hangovers-Headaches, nausea, vomiting, aches and pains all result from drinking too much. Drinking to the point of drunkenness makes you sick.

Excessive alcohol use has immediate effects that increase the risk of many harmful health conditions. These immediate effects are most often the result of binge drinking and include the following—

Unintentional injuries– road trattfic accidents, falls, drownings, burns, fights

Violence, including intimate partner violence and child maltreatment.

Risky sexual behaviors, including unprotected sex, sex with multiple partners, and increased risk of sexual assault. These behaviors can result in unintended pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases

Alcohol poisoning, a medical emergency that results from high blood alcohol levels that suppress the central nervous system and can cause loss of consciousness, low blood pressure and body temperature, coma, respiratory depression, or death

Long-Term Health Risks

–Weight gain. Alcohol is not water. A beer has about 150 “empty” calories that provide few if any nutrients.This leads to a beer belly.Some research suggests thatt the Beer Belly can be attributed not to drinking beer, but to drinking a lot of beer… quickly.

–Depressed immune system. Impaired immunity makes you more likely to contract viral illnesses such as flu and infections.

–Heart disease
In men over 40 and women past the menopause, small amounts of alcohol (a couple of drinks a day) may reduce the risk of heart disease. For everyone else, too much alcohol is likely to cause weight gain, prevent proper exercise and be a cause of heart disease.

–Sexual health problems
Too much alcohol shrinks genitals and lowers fertility. Being drunk can loosen inhibitions and affect your judgement. This can make you less likely to use a condom or other protection properly (or at all) and so increase the risk of a sexually transmitted infection or unintended pregnancy

–Liver diseases including

Alcoholic hepatitis.
Liver Cirrhosis
Among persons with Hepatitis C virus, worsening of liver function and interference with medications used to treat this condition.

–Pancreatitis
Long-term heavy drinkers can develop this painful condition. The pancreas makes insulin and other substances needed to properly digest food. If left untreated, pancreatitis causes malnutrition and can lead to diabetes

Diabetes
Regular heavy drinkers are often overweight and, as with all overweight people, can go on to develop diabetes. Though manageable, people with diabetes don’t live as long and have to eat restricted diets and take medicines daily or inject themselves with insulin.

–Neurological problems

Not only can people fail to remember what went on during a heavy session, persistent heavy drinkers can develop memory loss problems. A dementia-like illness called Wernicke-Korsakoff Syndrome is caused by vitamin B1 deficiency. This is caused by poor absorption and storage of thiamine brought on by too much alcohol over too long a period.

-Strokes are caused either by blood clots clogging arteries in the brain (ischaemic stroke) or by blood vessels bursting and leaking into the brain (haemorrhagic stroke). A very heavy session (more than eight units for men, six for women) causes dehydration and makes the blood thicker and more likely to form clots in the brain and elsewhere. Prolonged heavy use of alcohol also raises blood pressure and can be another cause of stroke.
–Psychiatric problems, including depression, anxiety, and suicide.
–Social problems, including unemployment, lost productivity, and family problems

–Cancer
Cancer of the mouth, throat, esophagus, liver, colon.. In general, the risk of cancer increases with increasing amounts of alcohol.

–Thread veins and brittle nails– Alcoholic drinks contain lots and lots of calories so weight gain among people who don’t drink sensibly is common. Alcohol affects the circulation by expanding blood vessels. This causes thread veins, often on the face, and purple, bulbous ‘drinker’s nose’. Heavy drinkers usually don’t eat properly and too much alcohol stops the body absorbing the nutrients it needs. This leads to poor skin and brittle hair and nails.

Finally, lets not forget alcoholism. Alcoholism is a disease to which some people seem predisposed. Alcoholics are unable to control their drinking–how much, when, and if. Alcoholism puts you at great risk for other health problems, and it can shorten your life by more than 10 years. Alcoholism cannot be cured, but it can be treated. Through education, treatment, and self-help support such as AA, people can learn to live alcohol-free .

Recommendations

If you drink alcohol, it is best to do so in moderation. This is defined as not causing intoxication, and consuming no more than 1 beer, 1 glass of wine, or 1 shot of liquor per day if you are a woman and no more than 2 if you are a man.

Eat a meal before you drink. Food in the stomach will slow the entrance of alcohol into your bloodstream by preventing it from entering your small intestine which absorbs alcohol faster than the stomach. High protein foods, like cheese, are best at slowing down the effects of alcohol, and thus help prevent a hangover

Responsible drinking

Here are some ways to drink responsibly, provided you DO NOT have a drinking problem, are of legal age to drink alcohol, and are not pregnant:

• NEVER drink alcohol and drive a car. Have someone designated to drive if you’re going to drink, or plan an alternative way home, such as a taxi or bus.
• DO NOT drink on an empty stomach. Snack before and while drinking alcohol.
• Drink slowly to avoid becoming intoxicated and ONLY in moderation.
• If you are taking medication, including over-the-counter drugs, check with your pharmacist before drinking alcohol. Alcohol can intensify the effects of many drugs and can interact with other drugs, making them ineffective or dangerous, or making you sick.
• DO NOT drink at all if you have a history of alcohol abuse.

If alcoholism runs in your family, you may be at increased risk of developing alcoholism yourself, and may want to avoid drinking alcohol altogether.

Being drunk decreases your inhibitions, making you more likely to do things you may regret later. When intoxicated, you are significantly more likely to endanger your health or that of others, more likely to catch a sexually transmitted disease, more likely to be involved in an automobile accident, and more likely to become permanently injured or die.

United Party for National Development (UPND) spokesperson Charles Kakoma said the PF had no ability to foster economic development in Zambia because its leadership was recycled and had little or no knowledge about economic liberation.

Mr Kakoma said it would be suicidal for Zambians to vote for a PF Government in the 2011 elections.

He said in an interview in Kitwe yesterday that the PF leadership was dominated by recycled politicians, some of whom had worked as informers of the colonialists and were now failing to understand modern politics.

“When you look at the PF leadership, you will find that those recycled politicians are the ones who dominate the party and promote dictatorial tendencies.

“When someone tries to bring modern politics of articulating issues of national development, they do not entertain him,” Mr Kakoma said.

And UPND president Hakainde Hichilema’s special advisor and spokesperson Douglas Syakalima said the PF should not apportion blame on anyone if they had failed to convince the Zambian people to vote for their party and its leader Michael Sata in this year’s elections.

Meanwhile,THE Foundation for Democratic Process (FODEP) has said the Patriotic Front (PF) is jittery and crying foul against the United Party for National Development (UPND) because they have foreseen that they are losing this year’s elections.

FODEP executive director Macdonald Chipenzi said the statement by PF secretary general Wynter Kabimba had come too early when the Zambian voters had not yet started voting and it amounted to crying foul after the party mishandled the alliance with UPND.

Mr Kabimba on Monday was quoted as saying the UPND was playing the role of a spoiler in this year’s elections.

He said the UPND was working to spoil PF leader Michael Sata’s chances of winning the elections.

Mr Chipenzi said the PF and UPND had an opportunity to hold the alliance firm but it collapsed due to lack of mutual respect and the parties involved must stop crying foul.

“Next time alliances should be formed on mutual trust and respect.
These two parties were insincere to each other with one calling the other as inferior and the PF is now crying foul.

“What the PF are saying basically is that their future depended on the alliance. What they are doing now amounts to being jittery and crying foul,” Mr Chipenzi said.

A WITNESS yesterday told the Lusaka chief resident magistrate Joshua Banda that former Defence minister George Mpombo allegedly falsified three receipts when he was asked to retire imprest.

And magistrate Banda yesterday ordered that trial should proceed even when the accused’s lawyer Wynter Kabimba was not present in court yesterday because he was in court when his client’s matter was adjourned to yesterday’s date.

Mr. Mooya Haalwindi, a soldier who was Mpombo’s ADC in 2008, testified that he got the receipts from a named Ndola man to produce the three receipts amounting to K18 million and paid him K250,000 as a token of appreciation.

He said the man gave him one receipt for Luangwa Lodge in Eastern Province amounting to K10 million, another for Ndola’s Chabanga Lodge worth K5 million with the last for Kanjaba Lodge worth K3 million.

This is in a case in which Mpombo is charged with theft by public servant contrary to Section 277, forgery contrary to sections 342 and 347 and uttering a false document contrary to Section 352 of the Penal Code Chapter 87 of the Laws of Zambia.

Mr. Haalwindi said it was not in order for Mpombo, 57, a farmer of house number 4 Katonte Farm, Ndola Rural to falsify information when trying to retire the imprest.

Mr Haalwindi said in 2008, Mpombo received a letter from the then permanent secretary reminding him to retire imprest and he called him (Haalwindi) and asked him why he did not manage to retire his imprest.

He was then given some receipts which he also handed over to Marble Mangala, Mildred Mulawo and Idah Shabwanga, all from Defence Ministry’s accounts department to retire the imprest on his behalf.

Mr Haalwindi said Mpombo then directed him to call a Mr Ignatius Lungu who was then his protocol officer while in Ndola who also in turn directed him to a named man whom he met the following day with Mpombo at Chabanga Lodge in Ndola where he produced three receipts from various lodges.

Magistrate Banda has adjourned the matter to July 1 for cross-examination because Mpombo’s lawyer Kabimba was not in court.

Mpombo informed the court when the matter came up for cross-examination in the afternoon yesterday that his lawyer could not be present before the court because he had travelled out of the country for a funeral.“My lawyer received an unexpected bereavement in the United Kingdom and he flew out of the country last night, so he cannot be before this court,” said Mpombo.

Mpombo told the court that his lawyer’s law firm was in the process of preparing a notice of adjournment.

When asked by the State prosecutor when his lawyer would return, Mpombo said his lawyer would be returning at the weekend.

Particulars of the offence are that Mpombo jointly and while working together with other known persons, being a public servant as minister of Defence, stole K18 million which came into his possession by virtue of his employment.

The offence is alleged to have been committed on unknown dates but between June and September 2008 in Lusaka.

Magistrate Banda adjourned the matter to July 1 for cross-examination.
[ Times of Zambia ]

Three children of Mulenga Township in Kitwe are admitted to Kitwe Central Hospital after an acid tanker crushed into the house they were sleeping in Monday night.

Kitwe Central Hospital Spokesperson Grey Chishimba told ZNBC News that one of the children sustained a fractured skull while the other two are reported to be fine.

The three children were all rescued from the debris of the extensively damaged house.

Mr. Chishimba named the three as Regina Chisenga aged two years, Theresa Chisenga, 11, and Sara Chisenga one year and five months old.

The accident happened after the acid tanker hit into a truck which had broken down and then careered off the road and landed on the house where the children were sleeping.

By Tuesday morning the acid tanker was still parked at the damaged house while the other truck was parked along the Kitwe Ndola Dual Carriageway.
[ ZNBC ]

Another pastor has been arrested by the Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC) for possessing five million kwacha of counterfeit notes.

On Sunday the DEC arrested two clergymen for being in possession of Seventy thousand US dollars of counterfeit notes.

DEC Public Relations Manager John Nyawali says Pastor Quicny Edmond Kakompe from Tabernacle of Influence Church in Lusaka was arrested for being in possession of five million Kwacha of counterfeit notes.

Mr. Nyawali has disclosed that Quincy Edmond Kakompe aged 30 years was arrested within Long Acres area with counterfeits in fifty thousand kwacha notes.

He says Pastor Kakompe was also carrying a Bible and has been arrested together with Francis Mwela, a freelance Cameraman.

This arrest comes few days after two other Pastors from Bethel City Church in Lusaka were arrested for being in possession of counterfeit notes.

Mr. Nyawali says the Commission is saddened with clergymen who are perpetuating criminal activities.
[ MUVI ]

By Elias Munshya wa Munshya

A Mr. Milton Phiri, who is described as a former ambassador in the Chiluba regime has written the Chief Justice of Zambia alleging that President Rupiah Banda breached the provisions of Article 34 (3) (b) when he claimed that both his parents were citizens of Zambia by birth or descent. Mr. Phiri claims that Rupiah Banda’s father, Mr. Bwezani Banda, Snr. was born in Nyasaland. He then came to Northern Rhodesian town of Fort Jameson (now Chipata) in the 1930s to work at a farm there. From Chipata he moved to Gwanda (Rhodesia) where he sired several children including Rupiah Banda. Mr. Banda Snr. then returned to Nyasaland in 1962. However, between 1963 and 1964, Mr. Bwezani Banda came back to Fort Jameson where he settled until his death.

Assuming that these facts were correct as presented by Mr. Milton Phiri, I will argue that the relevant laws currently applicable in Zambia do not rob Mr Bwezani Banda Snr of Zambian citizenship by birth or descent. The relevant laws to help in this interpretation is Article 34 itself as interpreted in the Supreme Court cases of Lewanika and Others v Chiluba, Zambia Democratic Congress v Attorney General, and Mushota and Katyoka v Kaunda. I will attempt to show that Mr. Milton Phiri’s interpretation of Article 34 is flawed.

Article 34 (3) (b) of the Constitution of Zambia, reads: A person shall be qualified to be a candidate for election as President if “… both his parents are Zambians by birth or descent…” The electoral laws of Zambia do require that every presidential candidate file an affidavit with the returning officer attesting compliance with these provisions. All presidential candidates, since 1996, have had to swear this affidavit. These candidates would include: Chiluba, Mung’omba, Mwanawasa, Sata, and Mumba among others.

While it is true, as held by Mr Phiri, that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, the courts of law have the competence to interpret it. It is also true that the courts of law cannot strike down the constitution. They can only provide an interpretation of the contentious issues found in the constitution. As such, unlike secondary legislation, which can be struck down by the High Court, constitutional provisions are sacrosanct. They can only be repealed by the people through parliament.

It is prudent when reading laws that after you have read a law or a constitutional article, you must ask yourself whether there is any relevant case law that has expanded or interpreted the meaning of the said law. In this case then, we must ask ourselves whether there is case law in existence that has interpreted the said Article 34 (3) (b). The rule of stare decisis states that where the courts have ruled on a matter, that ruling must stand and it must be followed in the subsequent cases, unless the new case can be distinguished from the original case.

It was in the case of Lewanika and others v Chiluba where the Supreme Court interpreted Article 34 (3) (b). The case of Lewanika and Others v Chiluba, was a presidential election petition in which the petitioners challenged the election of one Frederick Chiluba as president of the Republic of Zambia in 1996. They presented several grounds for the petition. One ground that is relevant to this article concerned their argument that Chiluba, did not satisfy Article 34 (3) (b) of the constitution since both his parents were not citizens of Zambia by birth or descent. They argued that Chiluba’s parent may have been a Mr. Kafupi who they claimed was a Congolese citizen at the time of Chiluba’s birth and that Chiluba was himself born at Chibambo CMML Mission Hospital in the Congo. They also argued that Chiluba’s parentage was at most questionable and as such did not satisfy the said constitutional provision.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court proffered the most far reaching interpretation of citizenship for those who were born before Zambia’s independence in 1964. First, the Supreme Court held that there were “no persons known as citizens of Zambia prior to 24th October, 1964.” What the Supreme Court did here is that Article 34 cannot be sued to demand that people like Mr. Bwezani Banda Snr, Reverend David Kaunda or even Kafupi Chabala be Zambian citizens. This provision of the law would only apply to those to whom it applies: that is citizens of a definite republic of Zambia after 1964.

Secondly, it does not matter where these old people were born. If they had enjoyed protection under the British Crown as people belonging to Northern Rhodesia, they became citizens of Zambia at independence. The question, therefore, would be did Mr. Bwezani Banda Snr belong to Northern Rhodesia? Since he lived in Northern Rhodesia, then the answer would be yes he belonged here. It does not matter that he was born in Nyasaland or was born in Congo as the case was with Mr. Chabala Kafupi. According to Mr. Phiri’s own account Mr. Bwezani Banda Snr lived in Northern Rhodesia for a number of years and in fact settled in Chipata from 1963. In the case of Mushota and Katyoka v Kaunda, the Supreme Court again ruled on the matter. It did not matter that Kaunda’s father was born in Malawi nor that Kaunda himself was born in Malawi, if he was ordinarily resident in Zambia and belonged to Northern Rhodesia then he qualified as citizen.

Thirdly, the Supreme Court in interpreting Article 34 even went further to declare in the words of Justice Ngulube that even an ethnically Chinese baby adopted by a person who belonged to Northern Rhodesia would satisfy the requirements of Article 34. From the judgment: “…the provision would not disqualify for example a person born in Northern Rhodesia or in present day Zambia 35 years ago of Chinese parents (say who died) who has since been adopted by Zambian parents who are Zambian by birth or by decent.”

Fourthly, the Supreme Court then held that the expectation that for a person to qualify under Article 34 they ought to be indigenous to Zambia is just not in the constitution. Article 34 does not say so. Judge Ngulube continued, “We doubt if the framers of the amendments had these problems in mind. If the aim was to provide for indigenous presidents only as suggested by counsel, then quite clearly the language of the amendments actually employed did not and could not achieve this.”

This, therefore, brings us to the obvious question, what did Chiluba and his cohorts want to achieve when they introduced these amendments? Wasn’t it their motive to deny Kenneth Kaunda the right to stand as presidential candidate? This presents the greatest paradox in law. When judges interpret legislation they do not go to the motives of the framers of the law. Judges are not mind readers. They cannot discern what were Chiluba and his parliament’s motive. They can only interpret written intent. Intent in judicial interpretation is never identical to motives. Regardless of what the motives were, the judges interpreted intent of the constitutional amendment following the literal rule. And so, if Chiluba and his parliament had the motive to disqualify Kaunda, the courts did not read those motives at all. As such, by the ruling of the court Kaunda could stand as president and so can anyone from places like China or India.

Mr. Milton Phiri’s act of writing to the Chief Justice instead of commencing legal proceedings against Rupiah Bwezani Banda just goes to show that it is not law that he is interested in. Rather, it is politics. And we have seen the politics of citizenship played against many leaders. It was played against Kaunda (Malawi), then against Chiluba (Congo and Mozambique), and then against Sata (Tanzania) and the latest victim is Rupiah. Zambia must put to rest its ghosts that keep haunting us concerning citizenship.

If it is a game of politics, Milton Phiri is welcome to play. But if it is a game of law, he has already lost the battle.