It would be better to know at what age this increases risk.
If a lifetime spent drinking delicious, delicious red wine ends up taking me out 5yrs before Alzheimer's would, so be it.
How old are you? I'm just a touch over 40 and even at this age the poignancy of life really starts to reveal itself to you.
You would trade 5 years of your life for being able to drink wine? Because it's that delicious, right? Sorry, but this is either hyperbole to the point of silliness or you have no idea the value of your life.
It depends on what you value. a lot of my life's highlights are those spent over beers with my friends. I'm unlikely to have kids. The way I've seen my relatives struggle in the later period of their lives doesn't appeal to me at all.
But you do have a decade on me and I am certain that adds some perspective. I am much wiser than I was when I was at 20. And I am certainly not pretending that it isn't doing damage.
My apologies if that came off too aggressively. It is a subject that I get emotional about due to events in my own life and the lives of my loved ones that were absolutely alcohol related.
Thinking back 10 years, I would have said exactly the same thing (about whisky or tobacco), so I see where you are coming from. I'm sure it seems hypocritical for me to be so anti-alcohol after my earlier behaviors. I think having kids made me open my eyes to it. I wasn't a heavy drinker by that time, but there were still a number of Sundays where "Daddy really feels sick today, baby. Is it okay if I just lay down and you watch a show?".
It's just no longer conducive to constructive living in my view now. To each their own, YMMV, etc.
Oh, no I didn't read it aggressively. It's strange for me to be defending behaviours which, if they aren't slowly killing me, are certainly edging the percentages the wrong way. I'm also at an odd spot in my life at the moment where I am keen to eek out joy wherever I can. I wouldn't be surprised if my perspective changes.
I hear you on that. I guess for me, when I look back and am honest with myself, what I thought was joyous excess at the time was really me being in a dark spot and excusing many of my behaviors because alcohol. When I think back on things I have done that I feel twinges of regret about or that were blatantly disgusting in hindsight, probably 80% of the time liquor was involved in some fashion.
How patronizing. I would happily trade five extra years at the very end of my life in return for fulfillment and enjoyment in the run up. Maybe by some fluke you have not, but I’ve seen advanced old age up close and personal and in most cases, it ain’t pretty. You have the luxury of being young and (presumably) relatively healthy now. Come talk to me in 40 years when you are immobile, incontinent, arthritic and/or demented. Oh, and most of your friends and siblings are dead. Medical technology has enabled us to live to an age where the quality of life is, in many cases, exceedingly low. Not everyone thinks that is “poignant“.
I wasn't intending to be patronizing, but I can take that as a fair criticism.
I have indeed experienced it up close and personal. My experience is that there is no magical "shaving X number of years off the end of your life". It doesn't work like that, unfortunately. Come talk to me in 40 years when your daughter is due with her first child in a month and you don't want to live to see that. Maybe we have too different of lives to be able to empathize with each other, but I wouldn't willingly give up those years of my life if I answer the question posed with no caveats (i.e. - well, but what if I lose my mind? What if I become incontinent? Etc.)
If you have a specific suggestion for an edit, let me know. I already posted many times that I was emotionally responding and I should have come at it differently. I don't want the way I presented myself to discount my opinion.
Don't forget that the X years always come off the back end. If you'd speak to my 90 year old grandmother about the poignancy of life right now I think she might have a thing or two to teach you about how great it is at the end.
You've also chosen wine as the enemy here, I bet for any given person earth (including you) we could find something you could have done more of (or not done at all) to improve your lifespan. Very few people trade everything off for life expectancy, and those that do often have dreams of singularity or life extension as their only goal.
One more thought...it doesn't always come off the back end. My mother is obese due to lifestyle choices. She has an artificial knee and hip. She is still a vibrant 67 year old woman, but she lost almost 2 years in rehabilitation and now does and will have mobility issues for the rest of her life. I still don't think when the end comes that she would have wanted to miss all the things that happened (good and bad) during those years, or even as she deteriorates further in the coming years.
Point taken. I was too aggresive in my dismissal and you are absolutely correct that I have the same flaws as any human. Apologies if my tone seemed condescending. As I mentioned in my reply below, I have a lot of feels when it comes to booze.
The problem is that the trade off is probabilistic. It’s not 5 fewer years, it’s a slightly
increased chance of 40 fewer years, a larger chance of 20 fewer years, or a larger still chance of 5 fewer years.
Oh, so you're lifestyle is perfect then? You aren't a single pound overweight, you wear sunscreen every day, never miss a workout, you never stay up late or sleep in, and your diet is 100% perfect?
Because if it's not then I guess you don't know how to value your life either.
The N.Y. Times once reported on the lifespans of the people of Ikaria, who apparently have the longest recorded lifespans, as a group, in the world. Their diet includes moderate amounts of wine.
“Wine — in moderation — had been shown to be good for you if consumed as part of a Mediterranean diet, because it prompts the body to absorb more flavonoids, a type of antioxidant”
Not a medical research study, but I wonder how oncologists would reconcile their recommendations with reports such as this. Presumably the studies they have reviewed control for other factors such as diet and lifestyle.
sure, it might be the alcohol in the wine, or it could be the grape itself. has there been a study that compared wine, unfermented wine, dealcoholized wine, grape juice, and grape juice + ethanol?
>> ... wondering something else is added to grapes to make it pre-wine?
I am really asking, because I don't know, and like you, would like to find out: what is this process that would "unferment" wine. If GP is not just trowing words around he/she should know.
Perhaps GP meant grapes that hashed been mashed and are in a tank, but not yet to the point of fermentation (be it by introduction of wild yeast or human intervention)? I.e. the "must".
A quick search shows it is derived from there being 2 types referenced in The Bible.
>Perhaps GP meant grapes that hashed been mashed and are in a tank, but not yet to the point of fermentation
correct. logic here being there might be a difference between grape juice and what they use to make wine. also, there might be nutritional benefits from letting the pulp sit in the juice for a while (maybe more nutrients leeches out?).
Are we sure the lifespan thing isn't just a statistical quirk? If you take a thousand small places, one is bound to have the longest-living people in the world.
There are many such long lifespan places on Earth, and they have several common characteristics, which would make statistical anomaly at least seem less likely
> “Wine — in moderation — had been shown to be good for you if consumed as part of a Mediterranean diet, because it prompts the body to absorb more flavonoids, a type of antioxidant”
> Not a medical research study, but I wonder how oncologists would reconcile their recommendations with reports such as this.
They would point to all the actual studies that show a drink a day is harmful, not beneficial.
Alcohol is definitely one of the most harmful drugs out there. In terms of addictiveness, physical side effects (short and long term), and the kind of behavior that people are likely to engage in while under the influence, the only things worse are probably IV painkillers and smoked meth/crack.
As a society we need to get our heads out of our asses and challenge our notions of what kind of drug use is and isn't acceptable. It's happening with weed, but unfortunately doesn't seem to be transferring to all/most other illegal drugs that aren't that harmful. It's perfectly fine to tell my boss that I got too drunk on Friday but if I tell him that I took psychedelic mushrooms or my friend's ADHD meds I probably wouldn't be employed much longer.
Alcoholism and propensity to addiction run through both sides of my family. Three out of four grandparents alcoholics, three out of four aunts/uncles alcoholics. I have nothing against alcohol use and drink myself, but I have to wonder how successful my family would have been if they lived in a society that hadn't (implicitly, if not explicitly) pressured them to drink, or if they had access to something they could "focus" their addiction on that wouldn't be as harmful as alcohol.
> Alcohol is definitely one of the most harmful drugs out there.
What is your definition of "harmful" here? Is it just total amount of harm caused, or total harm divided by number of users? If the former, sure, but I think that just reflects how hugely popular it is.
If the latter, I'd like to see your data. Some large fraction of the adult population consumes alcohol on a fairly regular basis so I imagine society would collapse if it was as harmful on a per capita basis as something like cocaine or heroin.
Alcohol ranks very highly because of it's severe harmful effects on the body. However, behavioral effects tend to be those which make drug users a threat to society.
But cocaine's harm is highly dependent on its form. In some pre-Colombian civilizations, as well as in some parts of modern Colombia and Peru, drinking coca tea is/was quite common, and yet life carries on without serious problems. However, smoked and snorted cocaine tend to cause severe behavioral problems in a subset of users, and high doses of cocaine can cause heart attacks. Legalizing coca leaf/tea is an approach I've toyed with to significantly reduce the profit margin of drug trafficking (hopefully) without increasing the use parenteral cocaine too much.
A big obvious difference between alcohol and other drugs that also makes it popular is that in moderation it is not all that intoxicating or impairing. Unlike marijuana and mushrooms it is easily possible to have a drink or two and function normally. This accounts for a lot of its social acceptability. Simply put, unless you really overindulge, it doesn’t “fuck you up”.
This is also generally true of hard drugs like heroin and cocaine, but here I think the addictive qualities are what makes them a social problem.
> Unlike marijuana and mushrooms it is easily possible to have a drink or two and function normally. This accounts for a lot of its social acceptability.
You are stipulating that ethanol [0] is the only psychoactive substance which can be properly dosed for its effects? Sorry, but you realize that's rather.. uneducated? It's about potency, tolerance, bio-compatibility and the resulting individual threshold.
Case in point: Your "one or two" drinks could be beer, booze shots, cocktails, wine and many other products with varying, often not even labeled, potency. You could drink them over the course of 2 hours or 5 minutes, all of that influences the final effects, especially how regularly you are having your "only one or two drinks".
That's why there are such things as "functioning alcoholics" or people who regularly consume high potency cannabis and thus don't even notice any effects when consuming low potency cannabis.
Your anecdata is incorrect. I can smoke two bowls (or even two 1/8ths) in the course of say 45 minutes, and I will more sober than if I had two IIPAs or two shots of tequila.
> Some large fraction of the adult population consumes alcohol on a fairly regular basis so I imagine society would collapse if it was as harmful on a per capita basis as something like cocaine or heroin.
That's a rather dishonest comparison to make. Alcohol consumption is very well recorded and tracked due to its legal nature, the same can't be said about cocaine, heroin and pretty much all the other illegal drugs.
For all we know addiction to illegal harder drugs might be far more widespread than most of us would ever like to admit. Especially considering the supposedly recent "opiate epidemic", where the line between "legal prescription use" and "illegal addiction use" doesn't really exist, it's rather fluid.
That illegal drug consumption is far more prevalent than many people would assume.
That's why it's dishonest to make comparisons along the lines of "If all the people drinking alcohol would instead be taking cocaine/heroine the situation would be worse" because nobody can say with any certainty how many of these people drinking are already also regular users of illegal drugs. It also doesn't say anything about responsible use, which exists for alcohol just like it does for cocaine and even heroin.
It might just be my anecdotal experience, but the vast majority of users, especially the responsible ones, are very rarely public about their use, even to friends and family.
Usually, you only find out about their habit by accident or if you share a similar "hobby" and know what to look for.
It's a common misconception that illegal drug users all are easily spotted by their lack of body hygiene/low economic standing/whatever other myths the "War on Drugs" has spread to make the illegal stuff seem so much worse than the "good" legal stuff.
Alcohol is shilled so hard in America. It's disgusting. I honestly don't know why it isn't more strictly regulated.
I used to binge drink every few nights when I was younger. Like most people that have drank more than they should have, I have lots of stories of mischief and questionable (at best, sometimes straight illegal) behavior. And these are the stories I used to trade with friends and coworkers. Oh man, they were legendary, right?
This is the thing I see most often that just disappoints menow that that's not me anymore and I have realized that alcohol is a terrible drug. The celebration of behavior that is written off to alcohol and thus, totally fine and even funny. Everyone has a story. It's like when you quit smoking and are no longer blind to cigarette butts on the ground everywhere.
One of my friends growing up had a child when he was a teenager, and he and I had a candid talk about this sort of thing once. I pointed out that he was close to his father, who would always tell him stories of all the 'legendary' and reckless mischief he made, and how he's somehow grown up to make the same kinds of mistakes, whereas I never knew my father, and thus didn't have any legendary tales to idolize, instead spending my time trying to figure out who I wanted to be on my own. And I basically said "when you go on to tell your child about all the fun you had causing mischief, make sure you understand that they're probably going to look up to you no matter what stories you tell them. Make sure you tell them ones worth hearing."
Off-topic, but this is one of the reason's I get irritated with this "child needs both parents" crap that people spout sometimes. A child needs as many good parents as they can find, and sometimes that number is 1.
If you are an American, I challenge you to start noticing:
"Oh man, I was soooo shitfaced..."
"I was so hungover..."
"Dude, I don't even know how I made it home..."
"Nah, I'm fine to drive..."
"I'm sorry, it was the booze talking..."
"I need a fuckin' drink after this..."
"One for the road..."
"I don't give a shit, I need to piss..."
"Fuuuuuck it!"
Notice the advertising in convenience stores. The standees of scantily clad women holding a frosty bottle of beer. Usually near the Slurpee section. Or maybe they came and switched it out to a football playeror a jolly Santa made out of 12 packs. Tis the season!
America needs to wake up. I don't believe in prohibition of any drug, but I believe even in the current system it should be reclassified Schedule I.
"Schedule 1 (I) drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined by the federal government as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule 1 (I) drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence."
> Alcohol is shilled so hard in America. It's disgusting. I honestly don't know why it isn't more strictly regulated.
Total drunk behaviour or total abstention are both extreme and symptoms of other, deeper issues. Alcohol can amplify existing issues, but there's also plenty of people who drink moderately, in family settings, without getting wasted or violent.
There are also tons of people that CAN'T just drink moderately. Functioning alcoholics are all alround you. I am glad that's not you, but just because it's not you doesn't mean there isn't the reality that alcohol destroys more lives than any other drug in America. Just because it isn't you, doesn't mean it's not your neighbor, or your coworker, or your cashier at the supermarket, or your nice uncle that gets a little creepy when he drinks...
Of course not. If you don't like it, you don't like it. I dislike 99.9% of all drinks myself, including the distilled ones if they are not mixed with something.
But if you like it, and you taste a drop and can't control yourself, then yes, that would mean you have issues. And most importantly, that would mean the society around you, and their lack of a good support net, healthy extended family and so on, also has issues.
Why? Because I think when people live in a good non-toxic community most of the issues with abuse stop happening, and living in a toxic community is a factor for abuse, and it is a bigger factor than the access to the drugs themselves.
I feel like it is a lot more nuanced than "taste a drop and you can't control yourself", and that's not the argument I am making anyway.
Like most things, it's a spectrum. Some people are exactly as you described. I have them in my family. Others, like me only have a problem once we tip over the point of "Yeah, I'm good. One more is fine."
Alcohol is a strange drug. I think one of things that makes it so popular in the USA is that it is a "masculine" drug. I mean it's "liquid courage", right? The image of the frat boy that can beer pong all night and then take advantage of drunk sorority girl is so common as to be a trope. Media of all sorts is rife with examples of violence and damage caused by alcohol. Barfights. Barflys. Cougars. Roofied. Broken families. One night stands. Blackouts.
Alcohol, in my view, is a drug that tends to bring out the worst sorts of base desires and behaviors once a dosage level is crossed (different for everyone of course). I see no medicinal use for it, now that we have modern anesthesia. It has a high rate of abuse and addiction. Alcoholism is a real disease, and it is progressive. I still would be interested to hear any arguments against classifying alcohol as a Schedule I substance according to the language in the FDA statute.
IDK but more than one addict has told me their habit was a symptom of a deeper (emotional?) ill. So we could ban alcohol but then what? Would that solve a problem or will something else just take its place?
It definitely is, but that doesn't mean that you can't be more likely to develop an addiction as a response to that deeper ill.
For example, suppose persons A and B are both very stressed due to work and are worried about their marriages falling apart. Individually each is definitely more likely to become an alcoholic than if they didn't have those problems. However, if person B has addictive genetics, that may mean a 40% chance of developing alcoholism (obviously this is more complicated than a simple probability) vs. person A's 5% chance.
I'm not advocating banning alcohol at all, I would actually be very opposed to that. I just think it shouldn't be the default drug of choice considering how harmful it is. Now, I have no idea how to change that, but ACCURATE and UNDERSTANDING (i.e. non-adversarial) drug education would be a good place to start.
Basically I see drug education now as analogous to abstinence-only sex education. Instead of spreading scientific information about dangers, side effects, etc. it just focuses on fear-mongering and misinformation. We currently view a "drug-user" (someone who uses drugs, not necessarily an addict) the way people saw "sluts" not so long ago.
Most addictions, or at least vice dependencies, are probably symptoms of deeper emotional issues. People wouldn't try to knock themselves out or change how they perceived the world if they were happy with how it was at the moment.
Sure, drugs like alcohol and heroin can introduce severe physical dependencies with consistent use, but I don't think many people start slamming whisky every night on a whim.
So okay, fair enough, regulating alcohol more strictly won't solve the malaise of our zeitgeist, but it might steer people towards other vices that are less likely to seriously hurt them or others in the short or long term.
Like...well, that's probably a pretty short list right now, but if we were more open-minded as a society about more victimless vices, that might change.
does not really add to the discussion. even with emotional stress, i personally prefer smoking weed vs alcohol any day and so do a lot of friends of mine.
>It's perfectly fine to tell my boss that I got too drunk on Friday
Hell if you worked at a startup, you and your boss might have both gotten drunk at the office together after raiding the "fully-stocked beer cooler". The in-office beer was part of the recruitment strategy of the company after all. Bottoms-up!
I'm a beer-drinker but I still find it astonishing that some startups are providing an addictive and risky drug to employees as a perk.
Beer is wonderful after a day of hard work, it is addictive to alcoholics, and risky in large doses. I prefer to buy it myself though, I don't really approve of these things as company perks, since you know it is really meant to bargain down salaries.
That certainly does happen a lot but in cases where people are paid fairly having free (good) booze available for responsible drinking is also pretty great.
Heheh, yeah, that's the other hard part. I've seen it go two bad directions. On one side, the cheapskates buy the beer, and they buy the stuff that's expensive enough to get something better, but which is not refreshing to nurse one or two of after some crunch time work. On the other side, the beer snobs take hold, and most of the beer becomes too bitter or too sour for most people's tastes, and again not very refreshing.
There was a thing on BBC where they rated drugs by their danger. If I remember correctly, nicotine and alcohol were way up the list, much higher than most illegal drugs.
My favourite is always Professor David Nutt, fired from his position advising the Home Office for saying ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol.
Nah. David Nutt is criminally dishonest. I've read his book (Drugs Without the Hot Air) and it is a straight up propaganda.
The guy cherry picks a lot of his evidence and it is a chapter after chapter of half truths and lies by omission.
Of the top of my head I can recall Nutt's chapter about LSD, where he claims that the LSD is very safe and even mentions Kary Mullis (a guy who invented the polymerase chain reaction and got a Nobel prize for it). Nutt builds up hype around Mullis (and to be fair, Mullis' academic accomplishments are impressive) and conveniently cites Mullis saying that he took a lot of LSD and that LSD was more important than the coursework and that he couldn't have invented PCR without LSD. What Nutt conveniently leaves out is that Kary Mullis is batshit fucking insane. Mullis denies existence of AIDS, denies climate change, believes in astrology, left science couple of times to operate a bakery and write books, talks about meeting and talking to a glowing green raccoon (yes, seriously). So... maybe... just maybe... LSD has something to do with that? Wouldn't it be at least a little bit dishonest to leave that other (weird) part of Mullis' personality?
edit: removed a paragraph with my thoughts about friends who do psychedelics.
And while most of that research is now banned, Dr Robin Carhart-Harris (who studied under David Nutt) is one of the few researchers still allowed to experiment with psychedelics.
I'd highly recommend reading / watching some of his work.
It definitely seems to be an uphill battle for those working on it. I guess as more research is conducted and evidence gathered, that leads to more acceptance and slowly the tide turns.
Here's a couple of Dr Carhart-Harris clips. The first is at the Secret Garden Party (UK festival) and the second is a debate with a psychology lecturer (which is much more philosophical).
Well, the impact is greater because the availability is much wider. Social acceptance can make most any evil the norn. Just look at obesity/diabetes. Now there's a killer no one REALLY wants to talk about.
It's VERY clear what to do about. Change our diets and change our lifestyle. The problem is, "America you're fat" is as politically toxic as "Let's raise taxes." Add in Big Food and Big Pharma profits and we have most people believing we don't know what to do about.
We have the knowledge. What we lack is the will (and the leadership).
None of that is true except the fat part. Do you really think people don't know when they're fat. Do you think they don't realize other people are fat? And leadership to do what?
I think what's missing is the general awareness about the connection between excess weight and other ills: diabetes, cancer, etc., etc.
Most people believe extra weight is natural, (socially) acceptable, and just a basic modern inconvenience. It's just not wise for established leaders to say "stop drinking soda or die young."
Not to get off topic but look at Obama and healthcare. He could have tied personal health to civic duty. Instead he let the healthcare system take the blame. "You're unhealthy and you're hurting all of us" just isn't a great campaign slogan.
Of course they know. It's not a question of knowledge.
The problem is evolution designed us to eat more than we need so we don't starve in lean times - for all of human history up to, what, 150 year ago or so the biggest threat to your life was starvation. Of course if you have the willpower you can avoid eating too much. But most people don't.
I suspect the answer will turn out to be the same for food and alcohol: have periodic breaks from both to allow the body to recover. In the case of food this is now called intermittent fasting but it applies to both. In particular to allow the immune system, which captures many incipient cancer growths, to reset. One of the reasons that smoking is so harmful I think is that people do it continuously whereas most drinkers don't drink every day.
So much of it relates to consumption, and no one makes money from people eating less. People however make money from pushing gym memberships or active wear or supplements.
Everywhere from restaurants to supermarkets to chocolate bar companies to fast food all make more money if you eat more. There's no incentive to advertise eating less.
You don't see restaurants advertising smaller or even reasonable portions - it's always giant burgers or steaks or monstrous pizzas. In fact, it's a regular critique of fancy restaurants that they have tiny, considered portions. So, people instead eat until they're well-beyond sated. Day after day.
Stop subsidizing junk food. Stop advertising junk food to children (if it's not ok for children to hear he f word it's also not ok to for them to hear about junk food). Subsidize healthy foods. Tax sugary drinks. Do you want more?
> (if it's not ok for children to hear he f word it's also not ok to for them to hear about junk food).
Those two things are pretty much completely unrelated. It is certainly bad for children to be exposed to deliberate behavior-mabipulation efforts pushing unhealthy food choices, but that's not in any way related to whether or not it's bad for them to hear words currently viewed as naughty.
I was referring to the political difficulty and courage needed. If you can ban the F word you can also ban junk food ads. Same thing. Nobody can talk about first amendment or other concerns.
> I was referring to the political difficulty and courage needed. If you can ban the F word you can also ban junk food ads.
That's even more wrong than the more literal version: restricting unpopular words takes zero political courage and has very little difficulty (and, in fact, provides political cover for advertiser-friendly actions commercial outlets would be inclined to take on their own.)
Banning advertisement that established moneyed interests engage in, OTOH, faces actual political difficulty.
There's plenty of evidence that taxing a product reduces demand for that product
> and most people aren't interested in a government that tries to dictate what they should eat.
That's true, but it just underscores the ancestor comment: Social acceptance can make most any evil the norm. People accept that the government should regulate what we drink and smoke, but not what we eat - this is partly due to cultural acceptance of obesity
People accept that the government should regulate what other people drink and smoke. The smoking prohibitions didn't come into effect until the number of smokers was small enough they couldn't stop them, and alcohol prohibition was always the cause of teetotalers and ex-alcoholics.
Yes. But as things are going it's going to be a long time before over weight ppl are the minority. It's also not politically correct to talk about such things.
Agreed. We've normalized the abnormal. Furthermore, it's not PC to mention, even in passing, that someone is hurting themselves, and in a social sense others as well.
Long to short...we want healthcare as a right, but zero responsibility related to that right (i.e., personal health). This isn't working out well.
Perhaps. But the irony of this statement is the gov's food pyramid is a direct contributor to the current obesity epidemic. It's too heavy on carbs, and too light on fats.
Dramatically increasing your risk for heart disease and other health complications is certainly a 'personal danger', but it's too taboo because no one wants to be labeled as someone who "makes fun of obese people".
There is a case to do policy that relates to dealing with addiction and public health, but I garner immediate rejection at the idea that the State should devise policy with the goals of affecting what people should or should not do with themselves.
The 'war on crime' is a modern example of what happens to both consumers and providers when the State gets between them.
I agree completely, but in reality people will just think "lol he wants to make cocaine legal, what a whack job." The war on drugs is entirely contrary to the concept of personal liberty.
In fact if you read up on the history of the war on drugs, usually it wasn't even motivated by public health. Alcohol was first made illegal largely because of anti-catholic and anti-Irish sentiments (also, interestingly, as part of the women's movement!). Marijuana was made illegal because it was associated with Mexicans. Psychedelics were cracked down on because of the hippies. Crack possession carried harsher penalties than cocaine because it was used by poor black people.
>It's perfectly fine to tell my boss that I got too drunk on Friday but if I tell him that I took psychedelic mushrooms or my friend's ADHD meds I probably wouldn't be employed much longer.
So? I ask seriously - what are you arguing for exactly.
We should gauge drugs based on how harmful they are, from a legislative and social standpoint. There's a lot of misinformation regarding the harmfulness of currently-illegal drugs, just as there is a sort of silence as to exactly how dangerous alcohol is.
Wasn't this connection pretty well known? Colon cancer and all that. Plus like cmon its no secret alcohol os tough on your body, cancer is probably the least of your worries.
As someone who has never drank and often has discussions with people about alcohol, it's amusing to see how many people go straight to defending their choice to drink alcohol in this thread.
Low doses of alcohol are a very effective anxiolytic medicine for many people.
I don’t drink too much, but when I’m extremely stressed out (e.g. when enraged, extremely scared, in shock, etc. to the point of being unable to use higher brain function, being ready to fight or flee, etc.), one drink goes incredibly far toward taking the edge off, reducing both mental and physical symptoms of anxiety, and bringing out calm, rational thinking.
Alcohol also helps a lot of people with social awkwardness/fears, which is why so many social meeting places (especially places where strangers meet) serve alcohol. It serves a real useful function there, helping people to be more trusting and open.
Obviously when people drink more than they can handle, it also can have severe negative side effects, and can cause people to have emotional breakdowns, lose their inhibitions to the point of idiocy, lose their basic coordination, suffer memory loss, etc. But the same is true for many medicines/foods/drugs.
Many problematic uses of alcohol are related to people’s other severe emotional problems (post-traumatic stress, ongoing abuse at home or work, working through the death of someone close or a bad breakup, extreme loneliness, depression, etc.). If self-medicating with large doses of alcohol was not an option, it’s not clear what alternatives they would turn to or whether those would be preferable. The real lesson IMO is that we need much better social support and mental healthcare in this country.
Is this surprising? I'm pretty sure that any HN story about "x increases risk of y", where x is a popular activity or consumption item, is going to have a flood of people justifying their partaking in x.
As long as the risks of x are acknowledged, people can make their own choice as to whether they confer enough benefit from x to accept the y level of risk.
It'd be dishonest to pretend that alcohol doesn't have any benefits (social or otherwise). After all, it's been used for millennia. We can argue about whether those benefits outweigh the risks, especially as we learn more about what the risks are (i.e. like we did with tobacco). But I don't think it's particularly surprising or amusing. I'm sure you could name an activity in your life that has some amount of risk that you still choose to partake in because you gain benefit from it (and perhaps be inclined to comment on a story about it too - but I could be wrong).
Life is not about living every single moment you can afford to live. Alcohol gave me some best memories with my friends, with my family and while it is harmful for some people, I managed to balance it so that it is not for me. Alcohol is definitely not healthy, but life is not just about health.
Or maybe he/she was a person who was always treated as an outcast for not drinking when society( in the US) constantly advertises that in order to have a good time, it involves/should involve alcohol.
Did you ever think of that before you shot from the hip?
I have read these studies before, and they’ve compelled me to drop my beer drinking down to about 1.2 standard drinks a day. Works for me: still get to drink, still get to pop a bomber of the heavy stuff once a week, and have more incentive to explore low-ABV styles like gueuze and lager. I haven’t found any studies at all that describe the risks of alcohol consumption for men at 1 standard drink per day — which isn’t to say that the risks don’t exist, but they’re probably pretty low.
However, the article implies that the size of a standard drink as 10g, whereas almost everywhere else I’ve heard it as 14g. So which is it?
Of course alcohol increases the risk of some cancers - it's a known carcinogen. On top of that it can be highly addictive.
On the other hand, though, it's something a lot of people enjoy as as social lubricant, and there is also the evidence that drinking in moderation lowers the risk of heart disease.
So like many things in life the question is whether the positive outweighs the negative - that of course depends largely on your own risk factors for cancer, heart disease, and, yes... alcoholism.
The best evidence we have suggests that there is no safe amount of alcohol from the standpoint of heart disease[1]. The data supporting the safety (or even benefit) of a small amount of alcohol came from observational studies, which are often heavily confounded. This study used Mendelian randomization (MR) to get around that limitation. MR can be confounded by pleiotropy, but this study (which suggests harm from alcohol intake) is still higher quality evidence than the observational studies done previously.
Cause or correlation? Given the (bad) dietary and lifestyle habits of the majority of people, it's too easy to attribute something to X when in fact it's likely Y or Z.
Full disclosure: I'm half way through Grain Brain (having read Wheat Belly a couple years ago) and the current "ideal diet" is anything but.
Most Americans drink very little, it seems. Being in the top quintile means something like one serving per day, about a third of Americans abstain entirely.
Slightly sarcastic, but on point: Doctors say a glass of red wine per day is good for your blood. But now, they also say it'll increase chances of getting cancer. So I guess I need to choose between these two. Too much of anything is a poison.
On balance, seems better to avoid something that is actively bad for you than seek out something that is actively good for you. Other substances/behaviors may confer the same purported benefit without the same risk.
