Different countries recommend different maximum quantities. For most countries, the maximum quantity for men is 140 g–210 g per week. For women, the range is 84 g–140 g per week. Most countries recommend total abstinence during pregnancy and lactation.

The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) is considered the most accurate alcohol screening tool for identifying potential alcohol misuse, including dependence. It was developed by the World Health Organisation, designed initially for use in primary healthcare settings with supporting guidance.

Medical organizations strongly discourage drinking alcohol during pregnancy. Alcohol passes easily from the mother's bloodstream through the placenta and into the bloodstream of the fetus, which interferes with brain and organ development. Alcohol can affect the fetus at any stage during pregnancy, but the level of risk depends on the amount and frequency of alcohol consumed. Regular heavy drinking and binge drinking (four or more drinks on any one occasion) pose the greatest risk for harm, but lesser amounts can cause problems as well. There is no known safe amount or safe time to drink during pregnancy.

Prenatal alcohol exposure can lead to fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASDs). The most severe form of FASD is fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS). Problems associated with FASD include facial anomalies, low birth weight, stunted growth, small head size, delayed or uncoordinated motor skills, hearing or vision problems, learning disabilities, behavior problems, and inappropriate social skills compared to same-age peers. Those affected are more likely to have trouble in school, legal problems, participate in high-risk behaviors, and develop substance use disorders themselves.

Preventing or reducing the harm has been called for via increased taxation of alcohol, stricter regulation of alcohol advertising and the provision of brief Interventions. Brief Interventions for alcohol abuse reduce the incidence of unsafe sex, sexual violence, unplanned pregnancy and, likely, STD transmission. Information and education on social norms and the harms associated with alcohol abuse delivered via the internet or face-to-face has not been found to result in any meaningful benefit in changing harmful drinking behaviours in young people.

According to European law, individuals who are suffering from alcohol abuse or other related problems cannot be given a license, or if in possession of a license cannot get it renewed. This is a way to prevent individuals driving under the influence of alcohol, but does not prevent alcohol abuse per se.

An individual's need for alcohol can depend on their family's alcohol use history. For instance, if it is discovered that their family history with alcohol has a strong pattern, there might be a need for education to be set in place to reduce the likelihood of reoccurrence (Powers, 2007). However, studies have established that those with alcohol abuse tend to have family members who try to provide help. In many of these occasions the family members would try to help the individual to change or to help improve the individual's lifestyle.

A study published in August 2010 in the journal, “Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research,” followed 1,824 participants between the ages of 55 and 65 and found that even after adjusting for all suspected covariates, abstainers and heavy drinkers continued to show increased mortality risks of 51 and 45%, respectively, compared to moderate drinkers. A follow-up study lists several cautions in interpreting the findings. For example, the results do not address nor endorse initiation of drinking among nondrinkers, and persons who have medical conditions which would be worsened by alcohol consumption should not drink alcohol.

Over-consumption of alcohol causes many deaths worldwide. The overall mortality from alcohol use was found to be similar to that of the effect of physical inactivity. A review in 2009 found that "the net effect of alcohol consumption on health is detrimental, with an estimated 3.8% of all global deaths and 4.6% of global disability-adjusted life-years attributable to alcohol."

Extensive research of Western cultures has consistently shown increased survival associated with light to moderate alcohol consumption. A 23-year prospective study of 12,000 male British physicians aged 48–78, found that overall mortality was significantly lower in current drinkers compared to non-drinkers even after correction for ex-drinkers. This benefit was strongest for ischemic heart disease, but was also noted for other vascular disease and respiratory disease. Death rate amongst current drinkers was higher for 'alcohol augmentable' disease such as liver disease and oral cancers, but these deaths were much less common than cardiovascular and respiratory deaths. The lowest mortality rate was found for consumption of 8 to 14 'units' per week. In the UK a unit is defined as 10ml or 8g of pure alcohol. Higher consumption increased overall mortality rate, but not above that of non-drinkers. Other studies have found age-dependent mortality risks of low-to-moderate alcohol use: an increased risk for individuals aged 16–34 (due to increased risk of cancers, accidents, liver disease, and other factors), but a decreased risk for individuals ages 55+ (due to lower incidence of ischemic heart disease).

This is consistent with other research that found a J-curve dependency between alcohol consumption and total mortality among middle aged and older men. While the mortality rates of ex-drinkers and heavy drinkers are significantly elevated, the all-cause mortality rates may be 15-18% lower among moderate drinkers. Although the definition of a drink varies between studies and countries, this meta-analysis found that low levels of alcohol intake, defined as 1-2 drinks per day for women and 2-4 drinks per day for men, was associated with lower mortality than abstainers. This claim was challenged by another study that found that in certain low quality studies occasional drinkers or ex-drinkers were included as abstainers, resulting in the increased mortality in that group. However, the J-curve for total and CHD mortality was reconfirmed by studies that took the mentioned confounders into account. There seems to be little discussion of what proportion of individuals classified as abstainers are those already at greater risk of mortality due to chronic conditions and do not or cannot consume alcohol for reasons of health or harmful interactions with medication.

The observed decrease in mortality of light-to-moderate drinkers compared to never drinkers might be partially explained by superior health and social status of the drinking group; however, the protective effect of alcohol in light to moderate drinkers remains significant even after adjusting for these confounders. Additionally, confounders such as underreporting of alcohol intake might lead to the underestimation of how much mortality is reduced in light-to-moderate drinkers.

A 2010 study confirmed the beneficial effect of moderate alcohol consumption on mortality. Subjects were grouped into abstainers, light, moderate, and heavy drinkers. The order of mortality rates from lowest to highest were moderate, light, heavy, and abstainers. The increased risk for abstainers was twice the mortality rate as for moderate drinkers. This study specifically sought to control for confounding factors including the problem of ex-drinkers considered as non-drinkers. According to another study, drinkers with heavy drinking occasions (six or more drinks at a time) have a 57% higher all-cause mortality than drinkers without heavy drinking occasions.

Mortality is lowest among young abstainers and highest among young heavy drinkers.

In contrast to studies of Western cultures, research in other cultures has yielded some opposite findings. The landmark INTERHEART Study has revealed that alcohol consumption in South Asians was not protective against CAD in sharp contrast to other populations who benefit from it. In fact Asian Indians who consume alcohol had a 60% higher risk of heart attack which was greater with local spirits (80%) than branded spirits (50%). The harm was observed in alcohol users classified as occasional as well as regular light, moderate, and heavy consumers.

Another large study of 4465 subjects in India also confirmed the possible harm of alcohol consumption on coronary risk in men. Compared to lifetime abstainers, alcohol users had higher blood sugar (2 mg/dl), blood pressure (2 mm Hg) levels, and the HDL-C levels (2 mg/dl) and significantly higher tobacco use (63% vs. 21%).

Many countries collect statistics on alcohol-related deaths. While some categories relate to short-term effects, such as accidents, many relate to long-term effects of alcohol.

While little detailed genetic research has been done, it has been shown that alcoholism tends to run in families with possible involvement of differences in alcohol metabolism and the genotype of alcohol-metabolizing enzymes.

The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) is considered the most accurate alcohol screening tool for identifying potential alcohol misuse, including dependence. It was developed by the World Health Organisation, designed initially for use in primary healthcare settings with supporting guidance.

AUDIT has replaced older screening tools such as CAGE but there are many shorter alcohol screening tools, mostly derived from the AUDIT. The Severity of Alcohol Dependence Questionnaire (SAD-Q) is a more specific twenty-item inventory for assessing the presence and severity of alcohol dependence.

According to the National Institutes of Health, researchers now understand that drinking moderate amounts of alcohol can protect the hearts of some people from the risks of coronary artery disease.

But, it's not possible to predict in which people alcoholism will become a problem. Given these and other risks, the American Heart Association cautions people not to start drinking.

For many adopted or adults and children in foster care, records or other reliable sources may not be available for review. Reporting alcohol use during pregnancy can also be stigmatizing to birth mothers, especially if alcohol use is ongoing. In these cases, all diagnostic systems use an unknown prenatal alcohol exposure designation. A diagnosis of FAS is still possible with an unknown exposure level if other key features of FASD are present at clinical levels.

There are several different screening tools that have been validated for use with adolescents such as the CRAFFT Screening Test and in adults the CAGE questionnaire.

Some recommendations for screening tools for substance misuse in pregnancy include that they take less than 10 minutes, should be used routinely, include an educational component. Tools suitable for pregnant women include i.a. 4Ps, T-ACE, TWEAK, TQDH (Ten-Question Drinking History), and AUDIT.

Amount, frequency, and timing of prenatal alcohol use can dramatically impact the other three key features of FASD. While consensus exists that alcohol is a teratogen, there is no clear consensus as to what level of exposure is toxic. The CDC guidelines are silent on these elements diagnostically. The IOM and Canadian guidelines explore this further, acknowledging the importance of significant alcohol exposure from regular or heavy episodic alcohol consumption in determining, but offer no standard for diagnosis. Canadian guidelines discuss this lack of clarity and parenthetically point out that "heavy alcohol use" is defined by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism as five or more drinks per episode on five or more days during a 30-day period.

"The 4-Digit Diagnostic Code" ranking system distinguishes between levels of prenatal alcohol exposure as "high risk" and "some risk". It operationalizes high risk exposure as a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) greater than 100 mg/dL delivered at least weekly in early pregnancy. This BAC level is typically reached by a 55 kg female drinking six to eight beers in one sitting.

For the purpose of identifying an alcohol use disorder when assessing binge drinking, using a time frame of the past 6 months eliminates false negatives. For example, it has been found that using a narrow 2 week window for assessment of binge drinking habits leads to 30 percent of heavy regular binge drinkers wrongly being classed as not having an alcohol use disorder. However, the same researchers also note that recall bias is somewhat enhanced when longer timeframes are used.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization has classified alcohol as a Group 1 carcinogen.

Drunkorexia is not a medically diagnosed disorder therefore there is no specific treatment. However, as drunkorexia is a combination of two different disorders, binge drinking and eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia the treatment will need to address both.

It is common for individuals with drugs use disorder to have other psychological problems. The terms “dual diagnosis” or “co-occurring disorders,” refer to having a mental health and substance use disorder at the same time. According to the British Association for Psychopharmacology (BAP), “symptoms of psychiatric disorders such as depression, anxiety and psychosis are the rule rather than the exception in patients misusing drugs and/or alcohol.”

Individuals who have a comorbid psychological disorder often have a poor prognosis if either disorder is untreated. Historically most individuals with dual diagnosis either received treatment only for one of their disorders or they didn’t receive any treatment all. However, since the 1980s, there has been a push towards integrating mental health and addiction treatment. In this method, neither condition is considered primary and both are treated simultaneously by the same provider.

Drunkorexia consists of 3 major aspects: alcohol use/abuse, food intake restriction, and excessive physical activity. It is commonly summarised in the following activities:

- Counting daily calorie intake (commonly known as "calorie counting") to ensure no weight will be gained when consuming alcohol.

- Missing or skipping meals to conserve calories for consumption of alcoholic beverages.

- Over exercising to counterweigh for calories consumed from alcoholic beverages.

- Consuming an extreme amount of alcohol to vomit previously digested food.

Binge drinking is considered harmful, regardless of a person's age, and there have been calls for healthcare professionals to give increased attention to their patients drinking habits, especially binge drinking. Some researchers believe that raising the legal drinking age and screening brief interventions by healthcare providers are the most effective means of reducing morbidity and mortality rates associated with binge drinking. Programs in the United States have thought of numerous ways to help prevent binge drinking. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests increasing the cost of alcohol or the excise taxes, restricting the number of stores who may obtain a license to sell liquor (reducing "outlet density"), and implementing stricter law enforcement of underage drinking laws. There are also a number of individual counseling approaches, such as motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioral approaches, that have been shown to reduce drinking among heavy drinking college students. In 2006, the Wisconsin Initiative to Promote Healthy Lifestyles implemented a program that helps primary care physicians identify and address binge drinking problems in patients. In August 2008, a group of college presidents calling itself the Amethyst Initiative asserted that lowering the legal drinking age to 18 (presumably) was one way to curb the "culture of dangerous binge drinking" among college students. This idea is currently the subject of controversy. Proponents argue that the 21 law forces drinking underground and makes it more dangerous than it has to be, while opponents have claimed that lowering the age would only make the situation worse. Despite health warnings, most Australian women drink at least one night a week. But experts are warning they are not only damaging their bodies but are also at risk of attracting sexual predators.

The health effects of wine are mainly determined by its active ingredient alcohol. Some studies found that drinking small quantities of alcohol (up to one standard drink per day for women and one to two drinks per day for men) is associated with a decreased risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome and early death. However, other studies found no such effect. Drinking more than the standard drink amount increases the risk of heart disease, high blood pressure, atrial fibrillation, stroke and cancer. Mixed results are also observed in light drinking and cancer mortality.

Risk is greater in younger people due to binge drinking which may result in violence or accidents. About 88,000 deaths in the US are estimated to be due to alcohol each year. Alcoholism reduces a person's life expectancy by around ten years and excessive alcohol use is the third leading cause of early death in the United States. According to systematic reviews and medical associations, people who are nondrinkers should not start drinking wine.

Wine has a long history of use as an early form of medication, being recommended variously as a safe alternative to drinking water, an antiseptic for treating wounds, a digestive aid, and as a cure for a wide range of ailments including lethargy, diarrhea and pain from child birth. Ancient Egyptian papyri and Sumerian tablets dating back to 2200 BC detail the medicinal role of wine, making it the world's oldest documented human-made medicine. Wine continued to play a major role in medicine until the late 19th and early 20th century, when changing opinions and medical research on alcohol and alcoholism cast doubt on its role as part of a healthy lifestyle.

Confirming the presence of withdrawal in the neonate can be assessed from obtained a detailed medical history from the mother. In some cases neonatal drug withdrawal can be mistaken for central nervous system disorders. Typically the tests that are ordered are CBC, hair analysis, drug screen (of mother and infant), thyroid levels, electrolytes, and blood glucose. Chest x-rays can confirm or infirm the presence of heart defects. The diagnosis for babies with signs of withdrawal may be confirmed with drug tests of the baby's urine or stool. The mother's urine will also be tested.

There are at least two different scoring systems for neonatal withdrawal syndrome. One difficulty with both is that were developed to assess opiate withdrawal. The Finnegan scoring system is more widely used.

Neonatal withdrawal is prevented by the mother abstaining from substance abuse. In some cases, a prescribed medication may have to be discontinued during the pregnancy to prevent addiction by the baby. Early pre-natal care can identify addictive behaviors in the mother and family system. Referrals to treatment centers is appropriate. Some prescribed medicines should not be stopped without medical supervision, or harm may result. Women can discuss all medicines, and alcohol and tobacco use with their health care provider and get assistance to help stop drug use as soon as possible. Indications that a woman needs help if she is:

- Using drugs non-medically

- Using drugs not prescribed to you

- Using alcohol or tobacco

If she is already pregnant and takes medicines or drugs not prescribed to her, she can talk to a health care provider about the best way to keep to keep the baby safe. Some medicines should not be stopped without medical supervision, or harm may result. Your health care provider will know how best to manage the risks.

Alcohol dependence is not prerequisite to blackouts (either en bloc or fragmentary). Students in one study who reported blackouts were demographically similar to other drinking students. Importantly, however, students reporting blackouts drank more, and had other symptoms of alcoholic drinking, even though they did not fall into the alcoholic range on the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST). Half of the students reported having had a blackout during their drinking careers, which closely followed other research findings.

In another study 25% of healthy college students reported being familiar with alcoholic blackouts. 51% of the students reported that they had had at least one blackout. Blackouts were reported during activities such as spending money (27%), sexual conduct (24%), fighting (16%), vandalism (16%), unprotected intercourse (6%), and driving a car (3%). So a significant number of students were engaged in a range of possibly hazardous activities during blackouts.

Of 545 individuals in another study, 161 (29.5%) reported driving drunk, 139 (25.5%) reported a regretted sexual situation, 67 (12.3%) reported unprotected sex, 60 (11%) reported having damaged property, 55 (10.1%) reported getting into a physical fight, and 29 (5.3%) reported injuring someone while under the influence of alcohol in the past 6 months.

Blackouts are commonly associated with the consumption of large amounts of alcohol; however, surveys of drinkers experiencing blackouts have indicated that they are not directly related to the amount of alcohol consumed. Respondents reported they frequently recalled having "drunk as much or more without memory loss," compared to instances of blacking out. Subsequent research has indicated that blackouts are most likely caused by a rapid increase in a person's blood-alcohol concentration. One study, in particular, resulted in subjects being stratified easily into two groups, those who consumed alcohol very quickly, and blacked out, and those who did not black out by drinking alcohol slowly, despite being extremely intoxicated by the end of the study.

In another study hospital file data showed, that of 67 participants, 39 had reported a blackout. The presence or absence of blackouts was cross-tabulated against various measures of alcohol problem severity. The presence of blackouts was associated to some degree with some indications of severity such as withdrawal and loss of control, but not with duration of problem drinking, physical complications or abnormal liver function.

The presence of blackouts was related to some measures of severity of the problem – withdrawal symptoms and loss of control. The hypotheses that blackouts either reflect a general vulnerability to the cerebral consequences of alcohol abuse or are associated with other forms of more enduring cognitive impairment did not receive any support.

In another study which looked at subjective responses to alcohol as a prime for 21st birthday alcohol consumption, subjective responses to the initial drink were viewed as a prime for more alcohol consumption during 21st birthday celebrations. Current findings show that subjective responses to alcohol have direct effects on both the final BAC achieved and on the experiences of blackouts and hangover that are not explained by level of intoxication. Where a variety of social factors, such as peer pressure and 21st birthday traditions such as 21 shots may influence the amount of alcohol people consume, their subjective experiences with alcohol have clear influences on both consumption and the physiological consequences of drinking. These physiological responses to alcohol may have a biological vulnerability that extends beyond the dose-dependent effects of alcohol.

Self reports from another study showed that 63% of patients in the study gulped their drinks rather than sipped. Five patients recollected vomiting during the drinking episode while 32 drank on an empty stomach and 41 drank more than originally planned. During the drinking episode 31% subjects described blackouts, 20% described brownouts, and 49% reported no amnesic episode.