[HN Gopher] No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says Wor...
___________________________________________________________________
No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart
Federation
Author : caaqil
Score : 120 points
Date : 2022-01-20 14:48 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com)
| pmdulaney wrote:
| They're focused on heart health so they don't address the fact
| that alcohol is also a carcinogen. This is sort of a "The sky is
| falling!" kind of article, but it comes down to, as always: Be
| aware of the risks in some intuitive way and decide what you want
| to do.
| atarian wrote:
| Glad to see them calling it out but let's be honest.. we all knew
| it was BS.
| asdfsd234234444 wrote:
| This has been obvious for a long time.
| jasonhansel wrote:
| In this thread: a lot of people trying to justify their
| preexisting choice to drink or remain sober.
| pcrh wrote:
| Also many pointing out that the notion that avoiding _any_
| consumption of alcohol is a ridiculous notion, as implied by
| the article, given that it 's a common component of many foods.
| tapas73 wrote:
| Sane people find arguments for stuff they do. If they don't
| have reasoning (scientific or emotional) for their behaviour,
| they either change or they aren't sane.
| llamajams wrote:
| Yeah but it's good for the mind .
| known wrote:
| kstrauser wrote:
| Although I live in a place where weed is legal, I don't use it. I
| enjoy the occasional glass of a nice scotch, though, and I love a
| good stout or porter beer. This is where it gets a little strange
| for me: by every metric I can think of, I'd be better off
| replacing alcohol with weed. There seem to be fewer negative
| effects, it's not a source of empty calories, and looks like a
| better recreational drug in every way.
|
| And still, growing up with "Just Say No", I can't quite bring
| myself to. In the back of my mind, a little voice asks if that's
| the example I want to set for my kids, which is silly when
| they've seen me (responsibly) using alcohol for years. I just
| can't imagine using a vape or popping an edible in the same way I
| might pour a little glass of whisky before settling down for the
| evening.
| notatoad wrote:
| i'd recommend trying weed before putting too much more thought
| into this.
|
| they're really not interchangeable as recreational intoxicants.
| i find marijuana a very different experience to alcohol, and
| personally i much prefer the alcohol. i had had the same
| thought as you, that maybe marijuana would be better for me,
| but ultimately i don't think it matters if it's better if i
| don't like it.
|
| also, beer and whiskey are delicious and it's more about the
| enjoyment of consuming them for me than the effects of the
| alcohol. weed isn't very enjoyable - smoking is terrible, and
| edibles are just worse version of sugary treats.
| avgcorrection wrote:
| Imagine being haunted by Nancy Reagan in 2022.
| kstrauser wrote:
| "You had to be there, man."
|
| It wasn't just her, but that the US went all-out stigmatizing
| weed. According to the DARE program, after 2 marijuanas you
| might as well be shooting up heroin. (Note: this
| spectacularly backfired, as plenty of kids tried weed and
| didn't die, figured the whole thing was a lie, and then tried
| harder drugs that are much less forgiving.)
|
| I don't think a thing about other people using weed. I'm sure
| plenty of my friends and coworkers in the Bay Area do, and
| they're all awesome and productive people. It still feels
| weird _for me_ , though, after a lifetime of being told it
| was bad.
| [deleted]
| kbrannigan wrote:
| I once fell into the trap of thinking that, this sticky green
| leaf was just a fun harmless substance.
|
| It's a silent killer,compared to alcohol it's so easily
| abusable because you can never have too much.
|
| What was half a roll after a long day of work became 2 or 3
| rolls a day.
|
| It makes you okay with being mediocre, and comes with a lot of
| sneaky short and long term mental side effects that are yet to
| be studied.
|
| Lately I would rather have a scotch and 24 hour later have it
| out of my system, than live with a thin daily mental fog.
|
| Yeah I stay clear of it these days
| darod wrote:
| "it's not a source of empty calories"
|
| Until you get the munchies...
| redisman wrote:
| Healthy food tastes better too. Honestly I've grown sick of
| simple snack foods by now. I'd much rather eat a nice meal
| Broken_Hippo wrote:
| I wish more folks realized this. I tend to eat healthier if
| I smoke regularly because of this.
| kstrauser wrote:
| Hah, fair point. The Jack in the Box around the corner
| advertises:
|
| - Late night "munchie meals"
| (https://jackinthebox.fandom.com/wiki/Jack%27s_Munchie_Meal)
|
| - Delivery until 3 AM.
|
| That can't be a healthy combination.
| hi_im_miles wrote:
| For me as a daily weed user, this "type" of munchies only
| persisted for so long. Curious to hear of others
| experiences, but after about a year of developing the
| habit, I became almost repulsed by very salty/greasy/sweet
| foods and started to crave simpler meals comprised of more
| fruits and vegetables.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| I avoid the munchies mostly by drinking a crap load of
| water, which I need to do anyway to keep my sensitive
| throat from getting sore.
|
| Microwave popcorn is also only about 400 calories a bag!
| weedontwee wrote:
| Weed isn't legal where I live however its easy enough to
| access. A thing i really dislike about weed is in my (and most
| of my friends) experience its possible to just accidentally get
| to high and have a panic attack or freak out.
|
| While this is possible with drinking, I find its much more
| difficult especially when drinking beer as I do. It has to be a
| much more conscious decision for me to get wasted drunk than
| for me to accidentally get so stoned I hide in my room.
| redisman wrote:
| Weed these days is so strong, smoking a full sized joint is
| much like drinking a glass of vodka. If you do it more often
| you learn your limits and dosage to get that two beers vibe
| consistently
| txsoftwaredev wrote:
| A good alternative with similar results is Delta 8. Lower
| potency and less likely to cause any freak out moments.
| thefz wrote:
| > I just can't imagine using a vape or popping an edible in the
| same way I might pour a little glass of whisky before settling
| down for the evening.
|
| Every drug has its uses, I guess. Different effects for
| different situations. I can't imagine a social setting smoking
| weed to, it has to be alcohol for me.
| leonidasv wrote:
| Well, media has been recently overwhelmed by studies showcasing
| the benefits of weed so that the disadvantages of using it
| appear to be lower or none at all, but that's not really the
| case.
|
| If smoked, you're smoking tar and volatile compounds that can
| harm the lungs, much like a regular cigarette - although you're
| probably not going to smoke a pack of 20 joints in a single day
| like the moderate-to-heavy smoker next door do.
|
| There's also an association between weed and schizophrenia (and
| depression) in adults. I'm not going to say "weed causes
| schizophrenia" (or depression), but the correlation exists and
| some will argue it implies causation here. Weed is also
| associated with some memory problems in adults too, although
| they seem to wean off if you stop using it.
|
| There are cardiovascular risks associated with THC too, since
| it can cause abnormal heart rhythms and elevated heart rate.
| And, again, it's even worse if smoked since carbon dioxide and
| smoke compounds are known for affecting the heart.
|
| So, yeah, weed has benefits, plenty of them, but I wouldn't say
| it's necessarily "safer". Don't get me wrong, alcohol is toxic,
| it's broken down in the liver into Acetaldehyde, a known
| carcinogenic. This stuff can't be healthy. But, for weed, we
| have less data on how it impacts the body - see how much time
| did it take to scientists finally admit alcohol is toxic? -.
| Similar studies on cannabis are still ongoing and we don't know
| yet all the risks it poses, but we already can see they do
| exist.
|
| Maybe the real healthy thing is not switching from one drug to
| another, but cutting back on the overall consumption.
| appletrotter wrote:
| I think that the relationship between marijuana smoking and
| lung damange isn't so cut and dry bad as smoking nicotine is.
| Here's a blurb:
|
| > Regular smoking of marijuana by itself causes visible and
| microscopic injury to the large airways that is consistently
| associated with an increased likelihood of symptoms of
| chronic bronchitis that subside after cessation of use. On
| the other hand, habitual use of marijuana alone does not
| appear to lead to significant abnormalities in lung function
| when assessed either cross-sectionally or longitudinally,
| except for possible increases in lung volumes and modest
| increases in airway resistance of unclear clinical
| significance. Therefore, no clear link to chronic obstructive
| pulmonary disease has been established. Although marijuana
| smoke contains a number of carcinogens and cocarcinogens,
| findings from a limited number of well-designed
| epidemiological studies do not suggest an increased risk for
| the development of either lung or upper airway cancer from
| light or moderate use, although evidence is mixed concerning
| possible carcinogenic risks of heavy, long-term use.
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23802821/
| pydry wrote:
| The schizophrenia and memory loss part seems to be for very
| heavy usage.
|
| AFAIK infrequent use of edibles has no down sides.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| See, I'm of the opinion that problem drinking and/or weed is
| escapism or a form of self-harm, and unless the underlying
| issues are solved you'd just find an alternative.
|
| Anecdotal, but I drink less now that I'm in a comitted
| relationship / living together. I still drink, but it's
| social. I've only been sort of hung over once in the past
| year.
| kstrauser wrote:
| Those are all good points. I still think evidence shows that
| weed is _likely_ the _less harmful_ option of the two. In the
| spirit of harm reduction, if I _had_ to choose one of them to
| start with, weed appears to be the rational choice. But
| there's no one telling me I have to use either of them.
|
| Coffee is still my favorite drug, and I'll fight for that
| one.
| carlmr wrote:
| But humans aren't rational, we decide based on emotions
| most of the time. Alcohol and coffee have rituals you've
| been familiar with since childhood. Society says it's ok so
| you feel ok about it.
|
| Also maybe you prefer one of the highs over the other? I
| don't drink alcohol before doing sports or going to work,
| but I might have a coffee.
|
| Granted weed is a depressant like alcohol. But maybe the
| high is not as enjoyable for you. Maybe you don't find the
| relaxation after work that you expect from the scotch.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| You're already giving a bad example to your kids by drinking
| alcohol.
|
| That's fine. They'll grow up and decide what to do. If they'll
| drink themselves senseless there must be a bigger problem than
| seeing you drink alcohol in small quantities.
|
| I certainly am not doing all the mistakes I saw my father's
| doing and I hope my kids will grow up to be responsible adults
| which will make their own decisions.
|
| I never lived in a place where weed was legal but for a couple
| of years I used it as an antidepressant and as a way to unwind.
| I bought a vaporiser (the healthiest, quickest and hassle-free
| way to absorb weed - very little smell lingering and you're not
| smoking paper) and vaped nearly every evening (after kids
| bedtime) and it was great to survive a hard period of my life.
| After 2 years I didn't feel the need anymore and I stopped. I
| can't be bothered to go to onion to buy weed anymore and just
| drink a beer every once and then when I want to unwind - but if
| weed was easy to buy I'd definitely buy it and treat it like I
| treat beers. I'm glad I didn't use alcohol in the same way,
| merely for the extra calories and for the liver damage.
|
| Still, there is a good reason you're fine drinking a beer in
| front of your kids but you should avoid vaping in front of your
| kids - and that's merely to avoid exposing them to passive
| vapour.
| kstrauser wrote:
| I'm torn on the setting an example bit. My parents never
| drank at all, that I know of. Growing up I was led to believe
| that you drank either _never_ or _always_ , like there was no
| middle ground. I wish someone had told me or demonstrated
| that it's OK and normal to have the occasional drink and then
| stop.
|
| We're fortunate to live in a house with a yard. If I were
| going to smoke or vape, it'd be on the back deck. I wouldn't
| use it inside any more than I'd use tobacco smoke or vape in
| my living room. More likely, I'd use an edible.
|
| The downside to doing it secretly is that I'm pretty sure my
| kids in high school know what a stoned person looks like. The
| last thing I'd want is to have them notice I was under the
| influence, then come to their own (and wrong) conclusions
| like "huh, does Dad do this every night? Has he always?"
| freedom2099 wrote:
| My parents drink wine at every meal... there is never water
| at their table! And yet I have never seen them drink any
| alcohol without food... my perception when I was young was
| that wine was just another beverage. As an adult now I
| pretty much follow their example... I don't drink if I am
| not dining... but unlike them I do it onto certain or twice
| a week.
| ilaksh wrote:
| Best example is to do neither and find something that actually
| is interesting or sort of fun to do at night.
| paraph1n wrote:
| Sounds like you already realize the error of your reasoning.
|
| Don't be so set in your ways. As we get older, it's harder and
| harder to convince ourselves to try new things. You should
| actively fight that to keep life fresh and full of excitement.
| Don't let the words that were burned into you as a kid
| influence your rational adult decisions.
| kstrauser wrote:
| Specific subject aside, I totally agree with you. Life's too
| short and the world is too amazing to get stuck in a rut, and
| I'm ready to give it all a try. You've got a vacation planned
| to live with shepherds in the Alps for a couple of weeks?
| Save me a space in your yurt. Let's do this.
|
| But truthfully, the third alternative in alcohol vs weed is
| "none of the above". I'm not obligated to choose a vice, and
| if I _had_ to give up alcohol today, say for health reasons,
| it'd be a small bummer but I don't know that I'd rush to
| replace it.
| allturtles wrote:
| Setting aside tradition/ritual, which I don't think should
| count for nothing, I can think of many objective metrics on
| which alcohol is superior:
|
| - Flavor
|
| - Fills the stomach (can be a disadvantage too, but is
| advantageous in some situations, e.g. while waiting for dinner
| to be served at a party)
|
| - Doesn't consume itself (i.e you can set down a drink and come
| back to it 30 minutes later)
|
| - Easy to consume a small amount without substantially altering
| your mental state.
|
| - No fire/burn risk
|
| - Doesn't generate smoke/odor, which is unpleasant for other
| people and gets in your clothes/furniture
| railsgirls112 wrote:
| > _- Flavor_
|
| This is obviously not an objective metric of superiority.
|
| > _- Fills the stomach (can be a disadvantage too, but is
| advantageous in some situations, e.g. while waiting for
| dinner to be served at a party)_
|
| Also subjective, as you realize its inconveniences and give
| one positive use case. In my experience this bloat is largely
| uncomfortable and inconvenient.
|
| > _- Doesn 't consume itself (i.e you can set down a drink
| and come back to it 30 minutes later)_
|
| This is only true if you leave something lit that is burning,
| something I doubt most would do on purpose
|
| > _- Easy to consume a small amount without substantially
| altering your mental state._
|
| Sister comment addresses this well
|
| > _- No fire /burn risk_
|
| Valid concern, but there are many common ways to consume weed
| that don't carry that risk
|
| > _- Doesn 't generate smoke/odor, which is unpleasant for
| other people and gets in your clothes/furniture_
|
| Same as above
|
| Ironically I think the traditions and rituals around alcohol
| is the best thing it has going for it, on most "objective"
| measures weed is regarded superior.
| thebean11 wrote:
| How can flavor possibly considered an objective metric?
| allturtles wrote:
| In the sense that alcohol beverages sit on your tongue and
| most have a designed flavor, of which there are many
| varieties to enjoy. But I suppose you're right, marijuana
| smoke does have a flavor, and you may prefer that to any
| alcoholic beverage.
|
| But granting that it's not objective, it still something
| one could point to (and I would) as a reason for preferring
| alcoholic drinks.
| jjcm wrote:
| Most people looking for flavor aren't smoking. Vape
| products these days are designed with specific flavor
| profiles. I'm not talking about the strange
| mango/bubblegum/etc flavors, I'm saying most weed itself
| has designed flavor for extracts these days. In the same
| way that orange juice is a design flavor (manufacturers
| will work with the brand to combine
| sugar/juice/oils/scents/pulp ratios), most dab vape
| concentrates are reduced to their bare components then
| recombined to achieve a flavor profile desired. Want it
| more skunky? More piney? Sharper? Softer? It's all
| achievable and designed.
|
| The industry has changed drastically in the last decade.
| Consider smoked weed to be analogous to moonshine when
| comparing it with alcohol. That's not a dis towards
| flower, but many products are just as heavily designed as
| a bottled beer or scotch is these days.
| kstrauser wrote:
| There are lots of ways to consume weed that don't have those
| drawbacks. There's a dispensary around the block from me, and
| even though I don't use it, I went in to look around to see
| what our new neighborhood shop looked like. They had a wide
| selection of edible candies, vape pens, and even drinks. It
| looks like it'd be very easy to get a consistent dose without
| burning anything. I know how much alcohol I can drink to get
| a pleasant effect without getting drunk, and I'm supposing I
| could do the same for weed if I wanted. (Or maybe not: it
| looks like the effects greatly vary based on strain, or how
| much CBD you take with it, etc. The "how much should I take
| to relax?" formula looks quite a bit more complicated.)
| benatkin wrote:
| I prefer edibles. Maybe it's because I don't really want
| the full experience, at least right now (perhaps I'll
| benefit from a higher level later on for medical reasons).
| I learned I like CBD and am glad to be in a state where I
| can have THC as well, at any ratio to CBD. It isn't a
| consistent dose, but it's easy to dial in what the top dose
| I might have is, and I like the randomness below the top
| dose.
| allturtles wrote:
| Fair point, I was thinking of just smoking, and not other
| forms of consumption.
| kstrauser wrote:
| I get it. When I think of weed, my first mental image is
| still of someone passing a joint or bong around. I was
| surprised at how many measured dose options there were,
| though. Want a bag of watermelon gummy candies with X mg
| of THC? They've got you covered.
|
| I do wonder how much variance there is in those. Is that
| 5.0 mg += .1mg, or "eh, about 5 on average". It's easy to
| dose alcohol as you know how much alcohol is in an ounce
| of whisky. If you find one that's stronger than another,
| your taste buds will let you know quickly.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Worth noting, for many people there is a significant
| difference in experience with edibles vs smoked/vaped
| weed.
|
| My recommendation is to not overthink it. If you're
| curious at all, go spend $7 on a single pre-roll, light
| it up, and try it out. There's plenty of unpleasant-ness
| in it for a first timer, but if you like being high, then
| you'll probably want to do it again.
|
| Dosing for smoking is pretty easy; take a few puffs and
| wait ten minutes. If you don't feel what you want, take a
| few more puffs. You don't need to understand your mg dose
| unless you become pretty habitual
| criddell wrote:
| Alcohol is pretty versatile. Not every use of it is for
| intoxication. For example, nobody is getting a buzz from
| deglazing a sauce pan with red wine.
| benatkin wrote:
| erm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp
| [deleted]
| redisman wrote:
| Just get a vape pen. It's even more convenient than a beer.
| Fits in your pocket. You can take a tiny puff and put it back
| if you wish. Barely any smell
| josefresco wrote:
| > Flavor
|
| I vape flower cannabis, flavor is a key component of this
| process.
|
| > Fills the stomach
|
| Cannabis stimulates my appetite. This is welcome and paired
| with a glass of wine (on an empty stomach) before dinner
| makes the experience amazing!
|
| > Doesn't consume itself
|
| My vape shuts off with inactivity - it doesn't "consume
| itself. Neither would a "bowl" of cannabis. Even a "joint"
| would stop burning if you put it down.
|
| > Easy to consume a small amount without substantially
| altering your mental state.
|
| This is one of the major advantages of consuming cannabis via
| the vaping/smoking vs. edibles (also alcohol). The effects
| are felt in seconds which allows you to eaasily regulate
| dosage. Edibles and alcohol can easily be overconsumed
| because of the delay involved in stomach/liver process.
|
| > No fire/burn risk
|
| My vape is electric, the risk of fire would be similar to
| using any of my other electronic devices with heat, such as a
| wax melt device etc.
|
| > Doesn't generate smoke/odor, which is unpleasant for other
| people and gets in your clothes/furniture
|
| While the vape does create an odor, it's short lived and
| doesn't smell like smoked cannabis.
| Broken_Hippo wrote:
| Each of of these can be solved with a either edibles, vaping
| (or a number of non-fire options), or a pipe with small bowl.
| dokem wrote:
| Personal anecdote but I disagree. I started smoking pot
| regularly after college and moving to a state where it was
| legal. It mostly displaced alcohol in my social circle. I
| thought it was harmless and 'superior' to drinking. I cannot
| have pot around anymore and was somewhat difficult to finally
| quit. While the consequences of pot addiction and difficulty in
| quitting are much lower than that of alcohol; the barrier to
| forming an addiction is also much lower. Pot undermined my
| life, mental health, social life, and motivation while using
| it. It's just too easy to get high, and too easy to tell
| yourself 'it's only pot, and it's not harmful.' Now I'll drink
| a couple beers after work some days, or some days I wont. But I
| don't think about how I want to go home and drink while I'm at
| work and it doesn't leave me in a groggy anti-social haze for
| 24 hours after using it. For me, alcohol is a much healthier
| drug.
| kbrannigan wrote:
| Exactly, with alcohol I know play that's my 2 drinks of the
| night on weekends, call it a day.
|
| Weed : the effects can last for days, paranoia, delusion,
| short term memory loss, not wanting to socialize, depression.
|
| Sample size of one, I know! Your mileage may vary .
| kstrauser wrote:
| I appreciate that. And again, I have little experience with
| pot so I can't counter that with a personal story. I'm a
| little surprised, though, as it's _so_ easy to stumble across
| alcohol with it being sold in every store and restaurant. I'd
| have to go out of my way to acquire pot, but I could pick up
| a 6-pack of beer on my way to the cheese section of the
| grocery store.
|
| I wonder what the relative numbers are of people who
| occasionally use pot vs weed and become addicted to it.
| m463 wrote:
| My parents were responsible cigarette smokers. They were not
| chain smokers or even pack-a-day smokers. My father quit cold
| turkey when the surgeon general warning came out for tobacco.
|
| I wonder how accurate or fair a comparison my statement makes?
| tedmiston wrote:
| For anyone curious to collect, explore, and becoming mindful of
| their own personal data more, there's a nice free alcohol tracker
| app called Less (iOS only) [1][2] from the same company that
| created the fasting app Zero.
|
| [1]: https://lessdrinks.com/
|
| [2]: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/less-alcohol-
| tracker/id1484828...
| quantumloophole wrote:
| great, now they will want to ban alcohol
| mmastrac wrote:
| Alcohol is one of the worst "drugs" on a personal/societal harm
| scale - if we're going to tolerate this at large, we should
| probably consider legalizing everything else that's less harmful
| to at least be consistent.
|
| While we're at it, let's de-stigmatize the abuse of substances
| and treat it like a real mental health issue.
| drinchev wrote:
| Well I think there are far more dangerous substances than
| alcohol which are considered legal and advertised.
|
| Eating sugar for example in excessive amounts leads to way
| worse diseases - https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/features/how-
| sugar-affects-yo....
| kingkawn wrote:
| Alcohol is legal because the population would tear the society
| down if it weren't. That's it. None of the other drugs have
| that kind of following.
| mnw21cam wrote:
| Agreed. Banning it has been tried at least once, in the USA,
| and apparently it didn't work very well. There were too many
| people that wanted alcohol and were willing to defy
| government to have it. Government is at least partially (more
| in some countries than others) by consent of the governed.
|
| But also on the contrary to your "none of the other drugs"
| point, I can't think of any possible reason why cigarettes
| weren't outright banned 40 years ago, except that they have
| exactly the same mechanism keeping them legal.
| mc32 wrote:
| There is such thing as a slippery slope and a dam that
| overruneth.
|
| We've inherited use of alcohol over millennia --it'd be an
| uphill battle to rid ourselves of it short of fundamentalist
| dogmatism.
|
| Some places in Central Asia have socialized opiate usage --but
| they too have unwritten rules about usage, or at least
| traditionally had them observed (it was a 'luxury' of old age).
|
| If you allow an anything goes policy, you'll end up with a
| decaying society. While I don't propose prosecuting consumption
| because it's the wrong focus, we should prosecute production
| and distribution of hard drugs.
|
| Else you may end up with the likes of XIX century in China, or
| huffers in metro Manila.
| jeffbee wrote:
| The worst thing about alcohol today is how America is letting
| alcoholics dictate pandemic responses, as if we believe that
| bars are more important than schools.
| caeril wrote:
| Counterpoint: alcohol is one of the best drugs on the planet
| for anyone on the spectrum of introversion to crippling social
| anxiety.
|
| In all my (many) years, I have found no better path to becoming
| socially acceptable (even likable) to neurotypicals/extroverts
| than 3-4 shots of vodka. This is an unfortunate, but very real
| fact for many of us. I've heard good things about Phenibut, but
| (1) it's very difficult to obtain, and (2) it is also
| apparently habit-forming.
| the_only_law wrote:
| I've recently taken to trying Kava, which seems to be
| relatively popular among people trying to quit
| alcohol/benzos/etc.
|
| Supposedly it also helps with disinhibition and
| socialization, but admittedly I haven't tried it in a social
| setting so I'm not sure myself. It certainly does relax me
| and chill me out though without the dumbing down of alcohol.
|
| Of course, by the things I've seen in those "pop-medical"
| sites that fill Google search results, you'd think it's much
| more dangerous than alcohol.
| tsol wrote:
| I love kava. I used to use a lot of substances when I was
| younger, but quit for health reasons. Still, I get bothered
| by stress pretty often. Kava at the end of a long day is
| exactly what I need. Bonus points that there's no
| habituation.
| pmlamotte wrote:
| Can definitely second kava. I went to a kava bar several
| times a few months ago and found it to be a great alcohol
| alternative. It also filled the niche of being a place
| where the atmosphere was more similar to a cafe so I could
| read a book or work on something in isolation, but without
| the downside of caffeine where you can't do that in the
| evening without ruining sleep quality. The social effects
| were definitely there.
|
| Like you said, the crowd was largely people trying to quit
| or who had quit alcohol or benzos along with a fair amount
| of neurodivergent people. Being able to set aside some of
| my social anxiety and talk with them is part of what led to
| me getting assessed and diagnosed for autism recently.
|
| The grandparent comment also mentioned phenibut which I
| find even more enjoyable, but like they said it can be
| habit forming and has a tolerance build up that limits safe
| use to once or twice a week.
| jsonne wrote:
| Kava is great and for sure is wonderful in a social
| setting. I've taken to Kava recently and enjoy it casually
| (1 to 2 times a week) as its a shorter duration than
| alcohol, I get no hangover, and while I relax I don't lose
| my inhibitions. I also have drank it at a kava bar and find
| it to be an enjoyable social experience where the
| atmosphere is very bar like. I'm not totally against
| alcohol but Kava for sure is underrated and scratches many
| of the same itches as it were. Highly recommended.
| Tenoke wrote:
| GHB is probably an even better replacement than Phenibut as
| it's safer, has less of a hangover/rebound and can be used
| more often to no detriment but it has a worse reputation,
| needs to be dosed correctly (taking twice the dose
| accidentally means you pass out for 4 hours), and if you for
| some reason end up using it 24/7 the addiction is as bad to
| kick as with benzos or alcohol.
| perardi wrote:
| Oh-ho, no, not in my experience.
|
| I used to be devastatingly introverted. Alcohol helped, but
| it's nothing compared to GHB or MDMA. Ecstasy will give you
| the gift of gab like you can't believe.
|
| _minor edit:_ I should say I am ignoring the context of
| where it's acceptable to do such things. You probably
| shouldn't do G at Christmas with the in-laws. _(Though our
| quarantine Christmas this year with friends...)_ I'm just
| making a bit of a pedantic bit that there are club drugs out
| there that are pretty wild in how they can open you up
| socially.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| sure, but its not really socially acceptable to drop X at
| the company happy hour. also mistakenly falling into a G
| Hole at the local BBQ is generally frowned upon. Having a
| couple beers is unlikely to lead to career or social
| suicide.
| monkmartinez wrote:
| IF the "few beers" turns into ONE too many, it will lead
| to the same career and social suicide. Driving under the
| influence, fighting, lewd acts, etc... I live in a state
| where Weed is legal. I don't see people high decide to
| fight everyone at the party. I have seen this with
| alcohol more than I care to admit.
| Tenoke wrote:
| G yes, but MDMA can hardly reliablyreplace alcohol for
| general social settings given that you cannot do it all
| that often without issues, and that it has an even worse
| comedown for most people.
| [deleted]
| carnitine wrote:
| You can drink alcohol after work with colleagues though.
| It's far more helpful socially than party drugs due to its
| ubiquity.
| perardi wrote:
| I'll grant you that 7 years of working remotely have
| slightly warped my idea of what people do at office
| parties.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| > it is also apparently habit-forming.
|
| I hear that vodka shots also have this property.
| nradov wrote:
| There are also many people who self medicate with opioids to
| treat chronic depression. I certainly wouldn't recommend that
| depressed people try opioids, but empirically it seems to be
| effective in reducing symptoms for some patients at least
| temporarily.
| clsec wrote:
| Speaking from experience, as an older guy with crippling
| social anxiety and 30+ yrs of alcohol use/abuse, I can say
| that it superficially helps with social anxiety. However, it
| does not get to the root cause(s) of said anxiety.
| Professional help is needed to find and work on fixing those.
| The side effects, physical and psychological, of regular
| alcohol consumption are far worse than living with social
| anxiety. I also think it's unhealthy to try to fix one's
| psychological issues with drugs/medications without also
| looking at and trying to fix the reasons for their use in the
| first place.
|
| Also, I now have to undergo quite a few yearly medical tests
| to keep an eye on my body after years of self medicating for
| my extreme social anxiety.
|
| FWIW, I don't say these things as a teetotaler. I believe in
| harm reduction.
| [deleted]
| hnuser847 wrote:
| > Counterpoint: alcohol is one of the best drugs on the
| planet for anyone on the spectrum of introversion to
| crippling social anxiety.
|
| I completely disagree and I think you should consider the
| possibility that alcohol is creating your anxiety in the
| first place. My years-long struggle with social anxiety
| disappeared after I decided to quit drinking for good.
| mountainriver wrote:
| Two bad things is worse than one bad thing unfortunately, but
| yes I agree that alcohol is one of the worst
| golemotron wrote:
| This comes from the point of view that harm is a scalar
| quantity. There are many different dimensions of harm and they
| vary wildly for each activity/drug. Reality is more nuanced
| than any single measure we select.
| BirAdam wrote:
| All drugs should be decriminalized. Shooting people in drug
| raids is far worse for those people than are the drugs.
| Likewise, locking people in cages with other misfits,
| criminals, malcontents, and addicts isn't smart (especially
| considering that drugs are in the prisons too). If the goal is
| truly harm reduction, people need to simply work to convince
| drug users to not use drugs (whether those are opioids,
| alcohol, tobacco, meth, whatever).
| lancesells wrote:
| I'm not refuting and generally agree with your sentiment here
| in harm reduction but I tried to see the collateral damage of
| drug raids vs drugs.
|
| In the US the CDC reported 100,000 overdoses from drugs in
| the 12 months preceding April 2021[1]. I can't find how many
| people die from drug raids specifically but this Al-Jazeera
| article shows 1,068 people being killed by the police a year
| after George Floyd died[2].
|
| And for a little more context Statista[3] shows 21,750 people
| being murdered in 2020.
|
| Police kill at ~1% the rate of drug deaths. Citizens kill at
| ~20% the rate of drug deaths.
|
| 1. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/202
| 1/... 2. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/5/25/how-many-
| people-hav... 3.
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/191134/reported-
| murder-a...
| BirAdam wrote:
| An addict can become not an addict. A person killed by
| police cannot become anything other than a corpse. The
| severity of the harm has a temporal component due to time
| preference.
|
| EDIT: Also, dying of overdose is both a symptom of
| illegality and of the addiction. If a thing is outlawed the
| production isn't exactly regular and therefore
| strength/purity of the substance varies.
| lancesells wrote:
| Agreed. I'm in no way advocating people dying from any
| source. Drugs laws are ridiculous in so many ways. I was
| just trying to wrap my head around what the true numbers
| are as it helps put things into context.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| Now count how many people are sitting in jail for marijuana
| possession and the impact that arrest has over the course
| of their lives.
| lancesells wrote:
| Oh absolutely. Something like marijuana should not have
| ever been a crime. It's absurd and horrifying to think of
| people spending their lives behind bars for that and many
| other drug offenses.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| I take a lot of Non-FDA approved gray market and black market
| medicine. If all drugs are legal then such medical drugs
| should be legal as well. At least the ones I take are health
| promoting, non-addictive and non-habit forming.
|
| I think a big part of the resistance to legalization is the
| medical establishment maintaining their monopoly supplier
| status on medicine.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| I am not sure where I fall on the all drugs should be legal
| argument but I do know that because I spent ~$400 to get a
| medical marijuana card I can legally buy pot at the local
| dispensary in my state and smoke it with zero repercussions.
| In the mean time the jails are absolutely full of people who
| are there because they did not spend the $400. It is morally
| insane for that to continue. People are getting rich off
| selling marijuana in a dispensary while others are serving
| life sentences for selling it out of their home.
| RobertRoberts wrote:
| Slippery slope.
|
| What happens when a drug addict looking his next fix attacks
| someone? This is why we have drug laws to start with, was to
| protect people.
|
| There are no simple answers here.
| reverend_gonzo wrote:
| Assault is already a crime.
|
| What happens when a person robs someone so he can buy a new
| car? You don't outlaw cars.
| _-david-_ wrote:
| Cars don't cause impaired judgment and withdraw.
| tikkabhuna wrote:
| I don't believe the poster above is saying that there
| should be no intervention, they're saying they shouldn't be
| criminally prosecuted.
|
| There should be a non-criminal route for helping drug
| addicts that doesn't result in prison.
| RobertRoberts wrote:
| I can agree with that, but what is it? It can't be forced
| rehab, that is just jail but different. And addicts by
| definition _won't_ seek help or a solution.
| destar wrote:
| I don't agree with your definition, often people affected
| by addiction will desperately seek help. Unfortunately,
| many fall into relapse cycles and it's a long and hard
| process to recovery.
|
| I think a good solution would be making quality non-
| forced resources available for free. For example, rehab,
| therapy, or jobs specifically created for those seeking
| to overcome their addiction. Ideally these programs could
| pay for themselves in net returns for society as a whole.
| haroldp wrote:
| What you are thinking of as the side effects of drug
| addiction are mainly the side effects of prohibition.
| Alcohol addiction is a serious problem, with serious
| negative consequences. So we made it illegal. And then we
| had two problems instead of one. Drug laws do not decrease
| addiction rates. They do make drugs unnecessarily
| expensive, and force addicts to interact with violent
| criminal gangs to get them. The negative unintended
| consequences of drug prohibition are worse than the problem
| they purport, but fail to solve.
| RobertRoberts wrote:
| Which drug will do more harm if freely available to all
| children? Alcohol, meth, heroin or crack?
|
| I will pick alcohol every time over the others.
| haroldp wrote:
| Which vehicle will do more harm if freely available to
| all children? Car, tank or crane with wrecking ball?
|
| I would suggest that children shouldn't be driving at
| all.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Why am I forced to choose any or just one? Why do you
| think alcohol does less harm then any of the others?
|
| Currently far, far more children die due to alcohol than
| the others, and while that's definitely due to
| availability it's not obvious that wouldn't still be the
| case if all were legal.
| RobertRoberts wrote:
| > Why do you think alcohol does less harm then any of the
| others?
|
| A simple test, give each to a baby/small child and see
| what happens... I lived in a time where babies were given
| tiny amounts of alcohol for pain relief and it did no
| harm that I ever heard. I doubt you can say the same for
| meth.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| I believe that the consensus is that it did cause a small
| amount of harm and there likely are horror stories you
| never heard, that's why the practice stopped, but giving
| children meth is called adderal.
|
| Children also had regular access to small amounts of coke
| and heroin probably in your grandparents or great
| grandparents life, remember Coca Cola and laudanum was
| used for teething. You've never heard of harm from that.
| Your test says all of them pass.
| the_only_law wrote:
| > What happens when a drug addict looking his next fix
| attacks someone?
|
| You arrest and charge them for attacking someone?
| josephcsible wrote:
| But if the person they attacked dies, arresting the
| attacker after the fact doesn't bring them back to life.
| Do you also think DUI should be legal until you get in a
| crash?
| the_only_law wrote:
| > Do you also think DUI should be legal until you get in
| a crash?
|
| No clearly we should charge anyone found in possession of
| alcohol with a felony to lower the possibility.
|
| Drinking is not a crime, being drunk alone is not a
| crime, driving is not a crime. Being drunk, while driving
| is. On the other hand, assault is a crime regardless.
| [deleted]
| AQuantized wrote:
| Arrest them for assault...? Basically every study or
| reasonable implementation of decriminalization has shown
| both fewer negative effects of drug use, and in many cases
| decreased drug use itself.
|
| So there is in fact a simple answer, and I think you'll
| find that drug laws were likely conceived much more
| cynically than for the protection of the common person.
| RobertRoberts wrote:
| We have already (as a society) decided we will no longer
| forcibly help people, so what do you do with someone that
| hurts others to feed their addiction?
|
| Put them all in jail for every little offense? Fine them?
| (they have no money) Force them into rehab? (another form
| of jail) Let the roam the streets attacking people?
| (recycle through jail or rehab)
|
| No, it's not simple.
| haroldp wrote:
| Assaulting people for drug money is an artifact of the
| drug war, not the drug. Alcohol addicts don't typically
| assault people for alcohol money. Alcohol gangs do not
| shoot each other up on the streets over alcohol
| territory. Or they haven't since 1933.
| nradov wrote:
| Assault is not a "little offense". Anyone convicted of
| criminal assault should spend a significant amount of
| time in prison (regardless of whether they're a drug
| addict or not) in order to protect the rest of society.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| We just elected a district attorney in Manhattan who has
| adopted a policy that he will not seek imprisonment for
| charges of simple assault.
| leishman wrote:
| It is in San Francisco
| wonderwonder wrote:
| Have assaults gone up in the states where marijuana has
| been legalized?
| jancsika wrote:
| Just to show how facile this reasoning is, let's flip the bit:
|
| "Alcohol is one of the worst 'drugs' on a personal/societal
| harm scale - if we're going to tolerate this at large, we
| should make sure we keep other drugs illegal _by default_
| unless shown individually, through decades of research, to be
| safe. Otherwise we will burden our healthcare system and create
| a national catastrophe. As evidence of this danger, I submit
| the history of alcohol abuse, drunk driving, and liver disease,
| and their effects on our healthcare system. "
|
| I offer that you can only do one of two things now:
|
| 1. Argue against my advocacy for inconsistency using personal
| incredulity
|
| 2. Provide a _deeper_ argument that relies on something more
| than an appeal to consistency
|
| Edit: added a clause to sweeten my argument for inconsistency
| bumby wrote:
| > _to at least be consistent._
|
| Also worth noting that consistency could be achieved by
| outlawing alcohol. In the U.S. at least, that proved an
| impractical solution. So I don't think "we allow one bad thing
| and we can't get rid of it, so let's allow all bad things"
| makes a particularly compelling argument.
|
| (FWIW, I'm generally not against legalization nor do I think
| all drugs are net-negative. I just find the argument as laid
| out to be unconvincing.)
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Also worth noting that consistency could be achieved by
| outlawing alcohol. In the U.S. at least, that proved an
| impractical solution.
|
| It was _recognized as impractical_ fairly quickly, despite
| having fairly similar concrete outcomes to the drug war, for
| which a similar recognition has been much slower and less
| complete. But, again, that 's just another layer of
| inconsistency in the same direction, not a mitigation of it.
| bumby wrote:
| Again, I'm not against legalization. But I'd like to see
| more concrete mitigation of the downsides. Just stating
| that we should aim for consistency does nothing about the
| blowback. "Legalize it to be consistent" seems as facile a
| solution as "Prohibit it because it can be dangerous" in
| that they ignore the complexities of implementation.
| [deleted]
| ravenstine wrote:
| I agree with the point on consistency, but must substances be
| viewed through the lens of "abuse" and "mental health"? It's
| not clear if you are implying that use of alcohol is generally
| a form of drug abuse related to mental health. In fact I'm not
| sure we can adequately define what is "abuse" in this case.
|
| Take for instance Lemmy from Motorhead, who used alcohol and
| drugs heavily throughout his life and probably died an early
| death as a result; can that really be considered abuse when he,
| pardon my French, _didn 't give a shit?_
|
| For some people, things like alcohol are a serious issue and
| overuse can stem from both physical and psychological
| addiction. Then you've got people who use it sparingly. And yet
| there are people who drink heavily, know exactly what they're
| doing, and can't easily be classified as addicts without
| projecting one's own life choices unto them.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| > _if we 're going to tolerate this at large, we should
| probably consider legalizing everything else that's less
| harmful to at least be consistent._
|
| Please do not decide policy using this kind of reasoning. Maybe
| we _should_ legalise more stuff, but "worse things are legal"
| is not a good reason.
|
| > A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,
| adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. --
| Ralph Waldo Emerson
| scotty79 wrote:
| It would at least give people some options and some would
| choose less harmful ones.
| cies wrote:
| Everything was legal until a law was passed criminalizing it.
|
| There's a difference between an offense and a crime (in most
| countries).
|
| Making buying/selling/using some substances a crime is
| limiting freedom, and hence should only be a measure of last
| resort. So no "the alc lobby push for laws against weed" kind
| of story that ended up with the "reefer scare" tactic.
| mnw21cam wrote:
| > Everything was legal until a law was passed criminalizing
| it.
|
| Many things are illegal not because a law has been passed
| against it, but because something seemed bad, was brought
| before a judge, and the judge made a judgment that set a
| precedent. That's what is called common law.
|
| Having a law created is a separate way that things can
| become illegal. That's what is called statutory law.
|
| Not all countries have common law.
| cies wrote:
| >but because something seemed bad, was brought before a
| judge, and the judge made a judgment that set a precedent
|
| Like growing MJ in yr garden?, gimme a break.
|
| Hoe can substance use ever become a crime under common
| law? Some penalty okay, but a crime???
| kmonad wrote:
| That is one amazing quote. Thanks for making it known to me.
| merpnderp wrote:
| This kind of reasoning is perfect. You remember when alcohol
| was made illegal in the US? Remember the harm that caused
| from gangs, uneven police crackdowns on illegal bars, and
| such rampant criminality that alcohol was quickly re-
| legalized? The drug war is 100x worse.
|
| If we'd been consistent, we'd have dodged 50 years of a
| brutal drug war that has done so much damage to society, the
| rule of law, our democratic institutions, the role of police,
| basically everything, that it's hard to imagine the
| vacationing on the moon type of future we missed out on.
|
| Treating drug addiction like alcohol addiction and drug
| dealers like liquor stores, would have been the road less
| taken and would have made all the difference.
| dataviz1000 wrote:
| Countering an Emerson quote with a Frost quote. Well done.
| jasonhansel wrote:
| That popular view of Prohibition--as an unmitigated failure
| that only created problems--may not be supported by
| historical evidence: https://www.vox.com/the-
| highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibit...
|
| From that article:
|
| > Across the Hudson River, in Manhattan, the number of
| patients treated in Bellevue Hospital's alcohol wards
| dropped from fifteen thousand a year before Prohibition to
| under six thousand in 1924. Nationally, cirrhosis deaths
| fell by more than a third between 1916 and 1929. In
| Detroit, arrests for drunkenness declined 90 percent during
| Prohibition's first year. Domestic violence complaints fell
| by half.
| shawnz wrote:
| The argument you are making here is not that drugs should
| be legalized _for consistency 's sake_. The argument you
| are making is that drugs should be legalized because the
| dangers of prohibition outweigh the benefits. That is a
| completely different line of reasoning
| merpnderp wrote:
| If our threshold for badness is X and we apply that to
| alcohol, but don't apply that to drugs, then we're being
| inconsistent with how we apply our threshold for badness.
| You just had to take your argument a step further to see
| the consistency argument.
| jasonlotito wrote:
| > Maybe we should legalise more stuff, but "worse things are
| legal" is not a good reason.
|
| That's not the reasoning to legalize things. That's the
| reasoning used to filter out what we should consider further.
| diob wrote:
| The reasoning used to put the policies in place on those
| "illegal" substances was hardly reasoning in the first place.
|
| So many countries have had great success with legalization,
| so what is your reasoning for so much caution? It's only
| continuing the legacy of pain.
| funklute wrote:
| > but "worse things are legal" is not a good reason.
|
| It's a very good reason to at least change one of the two.
| Either make the worse thing legal, or criminalise the
| "better" thing. Arbitrary rules are never a good thing.
| lostgame wrote:
| >> Arbitrary rules are never a good thing.
|
| Any parent, ever - will be able to tell you this is a fact.
|
| If you think arbitrary rules can stick, wait until your kid
| hits the 'why'/'how come' phase.
|
| In this case, the government is the parent making an
| arbitrary rule and the people represent the 5-year-old kid
| asking why.
|
| Parent: 'You can drink, but you can't do cocaine.'
|
| Kid: 'Why?'
|
| Parent: 'Because cocaine is bad for you.'
|
| Kid: 'But why? Isn't drinking bad for you?'
|
| Parent: 'Cocaine is worse.'
|
| Kid: 'Why?'
|
| Parent: 'It's addictive and it ruins lives.'
|
| Kid: 'But doesn't alcohol do that too?'
|
| Parent: 'Well, yes...'
|
| Kid: 'So why is cocaine so much worse?'
|
| Parent: 'It just is! Just stop asking questions and listen
| to your parent.'
|
| This kind of shit stops a kid from _respecting_ their
| parent, because they trust their parent to know what 's
| good for them, and to have _reasons_ behind rules and
| restrictions.
|
| Similarly, when the government starts making arbitrary
| decisions for us, but can't provide the logic behind it -
| and - worse - the evidence from the medical, scientific and
| psychology communities state the complete opposite - we
| lose respect for and faith in the government.
| gwd wrote:
| > Parent: 'You can drink, but you can't do cocaine.'
|
| > Kid: 'Why?'
|
| Parent: 'Because alcohol is legal and cocaine isn't; that
| has several consequences.
|
| 'Governmental regulations provide some confidence that
| alcohol is safe and as-advertised; there is no regulation
| of the manufacturing quality of cocaine.
|
| 'Buying alcohol brings you into close proximity to the
| liquor supply chain, all of whom can settle disputes by
| using the court system. Buying cocaine brings you in
| close proximity to the cocaine supply chain, all of whom
| can only settle disputes using violence.
|
| 'And of course there are no legal repercussions for the
| possession of alcohol; there are legal repercussions for
| the possession of cocaine.'
| endisneigh wrote:
| This isn't actually a reason, though, as it begs the
| question. Cocaine could definitely be manufactured
| legally if made legal.
| gwd wrote:
| These are what I consider to be the strongest reasons why
| my child shouldn't do cocaine _in my country right now_.
| If they go to a country where it 's well-regulated, then
| the cost/benefits calculation changes quite a bit.
| sidlls wrote:
| How does it beg the question?
| gwd wrote:
| Not GP, but a lot of people have trouble distinguishing
| "illegal" from "wrong", and the cause and effect. It's
| "wrong" to take cocaine because it's illegal; it's bad to
| legalize cocaine because it's "wrong". Cocaine is bad
| because of all the harms it causes to society; but a lot
| of the harms it causes to society (some of them listed
| above) come about solely because it's illegal.
| lostgame wrote:
| But...that's just one more step of 'why', the next one
| after this is the one that doesn't have a good answer -
| so - kinda proving my point.
| _jal wrote:
| Reasoning about society by infantilizing adults is _also_
| a terrible way to reason about policy.
|
| Leaders are not parents, states are not families,
| national budgets do not compare to your bank account, and
| adults are equal partners in our society.
|
| I realize you're trying to get at psychological
| tendencies, but the premise is flawed and leads to
| applying faulty intuitions in disasterous ways.
| avgcorrection wrote:
| It's not necessarily meant to be used as an argument as such.
| It could also be intended as a rhetorical device in order to
| force the opponent to concede on another point:
|
| Person A: We should legalize weed in order to be consistent
| [see above argument]
|
| Person B: Nonsense! Weed has harmful effects on society!
|
| Person A: Alcohol objectively harms society more than weed
| [insert citations here]. So you would agree that we should
| regulate alcohol more, yes?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Consistency in legal matters seems like a good and necessary
| thing for ensuring fairness. What is the basis for Emerson's
| quote to apply here?
| [deleted]
| sokoloff wrote:
| I'm generally pro-legalization, but there are many things
| that we hypothesize are safe _but do not know_ the long-
| term effects of and, within living memory, have discovered
| that many things initially thought safe were not.
|
| People were taking X-ray images of shoe fit in department
| stores, we used thalidomide to treat morning sickness, etc.
|
| What society says is legal has an effect on how it is
| perceived and how frequently it's accessed by minors,
| teens, young adults, and adults. Exercising a modicum of
| conservatism in approving all things that we _think_ are
| safer than alcohol seems appropriate to me.
| nradov wrote:
| That is faulty logic. We hypothesize that mRNA vaccines
| for COVID-19 are safe _but do not know_ the long term
| effects. Why should we exercise conservatism for some
| drugs but not for vaccines?
|
| To be clear, I'm just using that as an example of logical
| inconsistency and I recommend that everyone eligible
| protect themselves by getting vaccinated. I also think
| that all recreational drugs should be legalized (or at
| least decriminalized) because regardless of the potential
| long-term effects the failed war on (some) drugs is
| causing far more harm than the drugs themselves.
| JaimeThompson wrote:
| Scientifically speaking we know nothing at 100%
| confidence level.
| bluGill wrote:
| While that is technically correct, mRNA is something your
| body makes in relatively large quantities every day. As
| such if it was harmful life itself wouldn't be possible.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| Really the argument should be about strengthening
| informed consent. "Safety" is not objective; something
| that one individual would consider safe might not be safe
| for another. For example I have friends that like to go
| sky-diving. For them it's "safe". For me, it's not. Drugs
| should require a waiver similar to signing up for a
| credit card. e.g.,
|
| "This drug completed a 12 month Phase 2 clinical trial
| with 65,917 participants in which the drug demonstrated
| efficacy of Y against symptomatic disease. 1.5% of
| participants experienced adverse effects which included
| runny nose. 0.01% of participants experienced a fatal
| allergic reaction. These drugs are still undergoing
| trials and our understanding of safety and efficacy can
| change in the future.
|
| [ ] Check to indicate you understand and consent"
|
| I think this should be the standard for vaccines, drugs
| like marijuana and alcohol and cigarettes. Do it at the
| point-of-sale. For things that are particularly
| dangerous, maybe require an interview with a physician to
| make sure the person is of sound mind and capable of
| consenting. I believe that if you treat people like
| adults they will naturally make the best decisions for
| themselves. When you treat people like children, they'll
| act like children.
| selectodude wrote:
| For what it's worth, mRNA immunotherapies for cancer have
| been being injected into people for almost 20 years now.
| Efficacy aside, we know the medium-long term outcomes of
| injecting ourselves with mRNA.
| yonaguska wrote:
| The relative risk reduction for potentially catching
| covid-19 vs actually having cancer are radically
| different. Long to medium term risk of adverse effects
| from mRNA therapies are probably not weighed heavily
| against imminent eventuality of short term death with
| cancer. Edit- that's not to say I don't disagree with you
| on us knowing the long-medium term risks of mRNA
| therapies.
| selectodude wrote:
| I'm not getting into the relative merits of vaccination,
| I'm merely saying that mRNA isn't going to hurt you. Even
| decades from now. We know there are no medium-term risks
| of mRNA therapies because the otherwise healthy people
| who have injected themselves with mRNA are still alive
| and kicking.
|
| Here is the first Phase I test of an mRNA vaccine from
| 2013.
|
| https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02241135
|
| Here's a phase I trial for mRNA therapies from 2005.
|
| https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00204516
| sokoloff wrote:
| We make trade offs of short-term benefit and long-term
| risk all the time. When considering the purely
| recreational intake of a substance, the long-term risks
| are more relevant (due to the relatively small short-term
| gain) than for a vaccine which has unknown risks but has
| now-proven significant short-term benefits.
| Zigurd wrote:
| Legalization brings production and sale of recreational
| drugs under regulation. That will not stop all harms, but
| those harms are then more likely to be known. Addiction
| treatment is more accessible when drug use is not
| criminalized.
| Accacin wrote:
| I do agree with this argument, but most of the time
| legalising doesn't just make problems disappear. It needs
| to be paired with better access to mental health
| facilities, rehabilitiation, etc.
|
| Making drugs legal doesn't mean people will start abusing
| them. I do not drink or take drugs, and both are easy as
| hell to access here in the UK.
|
| The benefits for me of legalising drugs would be making
| it easier for people to seek help with less stigma
| attached to it, remove drug dealers out of the equation,
| make it safer to procur drugs if people are going to take
| them anyway, I believe it would also make scientific
| research much easier which in turn might help us to know
| the long term effects of these drugs.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Does legalization make things better or worse than now?
| If it makes things better but still not perfect, perhaps
| we _don't_ need to hold up legalization until we can
| provide better mental health facilities, rehab, better
| public transport so people can get to these facilities
| easier, etc.
|
| Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
| avgcorrection wrote:
| > What society says is legal has an effect on how it is
| perceived and how frequently it's accessed by minors,
| teens, young adults, and adults. Exercising a modicum of
| conservatism in approving all things that we think are
| safer than alcohol seems appropriate to me.
|
| Considering that we are talking about _alcohol_ , this
| argument could just as well be used in favor of
| liberalization.
| sokoloff wrote:
| I (and at least one other poster) were talking about
| things thought comparatively safe to alcohol.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30010236
| avgcorrection wrote:
| Sorry. I didn't read the context correctly. :)
|
| In that case the question becomes: has use (and in
| particular abuse) of substances increased after
| legalization? Which I will just throw out there since I'm
| too lazy to research it myself.
| 999900000999 wrote:
| I can guarantee you the most dangerous part of using any
| substance is our legal system.
|
| Legalize everything for anyone 21 or older, and while
| we're at it, raise the enlistment age to 21.
|
| If you're old enough to die for this country, you should
| be old enough to light a j in it.
| ahtihn wrote:
| Meh decriminalize possession and consumption, sure. I
| don't think something like heroin should be easily
| available though.
| 999900000999 wrote:
| You can either tax, regulate and make it safe.
|
| Or have addicts die in the street.
|
| Prohibition doesn't work.
| [deleted]
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| And raise the voting age to 21 too?
| temp0826 wrote:
| I don't see a problem here, politics is probably bad for
| brain development. 25 might actually be more appropriate.
| rcpt wrote:
| Voting age should be low. Maybe 8? 0 is good to
|
| I'm not kidding. Talk to any 8 year old and they're much
| more level headed compared to those 10x their age. But
| the current system is set up to crush them relying only
| on the good will of seniors to protect their future.
|
| This isn't a new idea btw https://www.theguardian.com/pol
| itics/2021/nov/16/reconstruct...
| 999900000999 wrote:
| Wouldn't this in effect give a parent with multiple
| children multiple votes.
|
| Mail in voting means you'd just fill out the ballots for
| your kids.
|
| I think voting should remain at 18. Although I have some
| ideas on making more concerns local. Why does most of my
| tax dollars go to the federal government rather than the
| state.
|
| At the State level at least I have a remote chance of
| being heard. And if I don't like what my state is doing,
| I can drive 50 miles to another.
| Asmod4n wrote:
| Humans have consumed it for several millennia, we know
| all side effects of it.
| geodel wrote:
| Point was foolish consistency. I see an IT diktat that a
| function should not be longer than 100 lines. I would even
| go ahead and say seems reasonable for lot of cases. But to
| make it absolute would be foolish consistency.
| kergonath wrote:
| Unless we have a perfect metric quantifying the "amount of
| harm" for every substance or practice, we will never have
| this kind of consistency. And then, there is the issue of
| harm to self versus harm to others, and how we can weight
| both aspects.
|
| Consistency is in the eye of the beholder. For some people,
| sex is just as bad as alcohol, and they include some kind
| of spiritual damage as "harm to self" in their analysis.
| These things are necessarily subjective. Psychological
| damage cannot be quantified either.
|
| So it follows that consistency is subjective, and even if a
| legal framework could be consistent from the point of view
| of a certain group of people by chance, it would not be
| consistent in the eyes of everyone.
| dasil003 wrote:
| Consistency in how the law is applied is important, but not
| that the composite of all laws be absolutely fair relative
| to each other. That is "foolish consistency" because it's
| impossible except by very closed-minded fundamentalism. The
| idea that you find the "worst" thing that is legal and then
| repeal all laws against things which are "better" is not a
| viable legislative strategy.
| kukx wrote:
| Also the exceptions exist usually for a good reason.
| Trying to get rid of them without understanding it is a
| bad idea.
| locallost wrote:
| There is nothing foolish about treating things that are
| the same consistently. It would be foolish to grant
| animals citizenships to keep it consistent with humans,
| but just as e.g. human rights are applied consistently to
| people no matter where they come from or how they look
| like so should our policies to things be in general.
| Alcohol is a drug with a tremendous potential for harm,
| and if a society decides it wants to ban those, again
| there is nothing foolish in doing that consistently. But
| when looked at like that, it's clear there is not much
| rational in the way we regulate things. It's just a bunch
| of traditions and whims.
| mlac wrote:
| Statesmen saying "alcohol is legal, might as well legalize
| everything else that is less harmful on some dimension".
| Where the alternative may be just leaving alcohol as an
| exception, or outlawing it (but yeah... don't mess with
| Americans and their Alcohol - see prohibition and the
| whiskey rebellion).
| dkarl wrote:
| No two situations are the same, and demanding consistency
| at an arbitrary level of reasoning means disregarding
| everything you would see when looking closer. For example,
| banning something that has been legal for a long time is
| difficult because of the economic aftershocks and cultural
| resistance. If something new was invented that was just as
| harmful as alcohol, it might be best to ban it and leave
| alcohol legal.
|
| FWIW, I probably mostly agree with you on policy. Just
| wanted to chime in on why people might object to the
| reasoning.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Also attempting to ban things that are both desirable and
| very easy to make is a great way to create an enormous
| criminal black market like we did with prohibition in the
| US.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| Suppose the law states that David Haroldson (or the
| Glorious Leader, or foreign diplomats) cannot be convicted
| of any crime. That's inconsistent, (perhaps) arbitrary, and
| unfair. Yet, it would be foolish to extend this conviction-
| immunity to everybody.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I feel like that supports what I wrote.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Or make it so glorious leader is not above the law.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| Yes. _Consistency_ is not necessarily the problem;
| _foolish_ consistency is.
| virgildotcodes wrote:
| For the sake of consistency, wouldn't it be desirable for
| the glorious leader to be subject to the same legal
| punishments as the masses?
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| That's his point.
| kergonath wrote:
| Arguing about consistency in a system without the rule of
| law seems a bit foolish as well. Diplomats are a more
| interesting edge case. And AFAIK they can always be
| prosecuted and convicted in their home country.
| bluGill wrote:
| That can be abused as well. Just frame the leader for a
| crime and he sits in prison until it is proved that he is
| innocent, then do so again for a different crime.
|
| For the above assume the leader is actually glorious,
| though of course most leaders who are called glorious are
| awful (IMHO)
| kazinator wrote:
| > _"worse things are legal" is not a good reason._
|
| Seems pretty excellent to me. Things should be arranged on
| numerically indexed scale from benign to deadly. We should
| identify a point on that scale where illegality begins, and
| everything to the left is legal.
| greenpresident wrote:
| David Nutt did important work in this area. See for example his
| scale of drug harmfulness here:
|
| (Edit: see archive link below)
|
| And
|
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014067361...
| michaelbuckbee wrote:
| That's interesting, I do wish it had a few more items on the
| "lower" end of the harm spectrum, just to help me gauge this
| better. Things like Caffeine, or the other "Energy Drink"
| supplements.
| infogulch wrote:
| That pdf 403's. Here's an archive.org snapshot: https://web.a
| rchive.org/web/20201112012236/http://dobrochan....
|
| Alcohol is one place behind street meth in Figure 1. Damn.
| [deleted]
| pkulak wrote:
| Do you really think it's worse than the current wave of
| synthetic opioids? I think I could even make a good case for
| cigarettes being worse than alcohol.
| [deleted]
| kritiko wrote:
| the parent said "one of the worst" not the worst.
|
| also, at least for now, cigarettes are legal, which just
| bolsters the point above.
| hbosch wrote:
| I don't know, the ways in which they stack up is like apples
| and oranges. Cigarettes are certainly _bad_ for you, and it
| 's known they cause cancer but cigarettes don't have the same
| severity when it comes to withdrawl in my understanding.
| Alcohol withdrawl can cause hallucinations, seizures, even
| death. Also, I would say the danger is greater with alcohol
| because it impairs your judgement in a far greater way than
| cigarettes... have you ever been scared of someone who is
| driving while smoking?
|
| Extrapolated out over time, I would guess that alcoholism is
| a cofactor in more deaths annually than cigarettes (edit:
| that is to say, deaths not caused directly by drinking,
| including drink driving, but conditions such as diabetes and
| heart disease which are greatly exacerbated by drinking for
| example... I wonder if someone who dies of cirrhosis gets
| chalked up as a death by alcohol?)
| shafyy wrote:
| Smoking is for sure worse than alcohol consumption:
| https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-deaths-by-
| risk-...
|
| Global yearly deaths by smoking: 7.1 million
|
| Global yearly deaths by alcohol usage: 2.84 million
| saberience wrote:
| This doesn't include all of the other harmful effects from
| alcohol, like violence and injures. How much marital
| physical abuse happens due to alcohol? I'd rather have
| someone harm themselves from smoking then someone beat
| their wife while drunk.
| shafyy wrote:
| Not to defend violent alcoholics, but people who get
| violent when drunk already have a problem, and would also
| violent when sober (they probably are). Most people who
| drink are not violent.
|
| Regarding injuries: Sure, but the statistics in general
| doesn't include stuff that doesn't kill you but still is
| bad, like non-lethal lung problems from smoking.
| hallway_monitor wrote:
| To be clear, this data is showing correlation, not any kind
| of causation.
|
| Regardless, if we accept the argument that people need to
| be coerced for their own good into avoiding harmful
| behaviors, the data linked seems to argue that we should be
| restricting access to sugar and high glycemic index foods
| (flour) much more than alcohol since "High blood sugar" at
| 6.5MM and "Obesity" at 4.7MM both beat alcohol by a large
| margin.
| shafyy wrote:
| Yes, I agree that we should do more about unhealthy
| foods. Not restrict access to them (after all, smoking is
| also not illegal), but set in places incentives that
| nudge people towards healthier foods (these can be
| financial, educational, psychological, etc.).
| Alex3917 wrote:
| The difference is that the average smoker dies at 80, and
| the average alcoholic dies at 35.
| the_only_law wrote:
| Source? 35 feels realllly young, but I guess it depends
| on what's considered an "average" alcoholic. If someone
| is spending their entire day drinking string liquors
| everyday, I can maybe see that.
| Alex3917 wrote:
| I was being approximate, but here is the more nuanced
| explanation:
|
| "This study found an average of 93,296 alcohol-
| attributable deaths (255 deaths per day) and 2.7 million
| YPLL (29 years of life lost per death, on average) in the
| United States each year."
|
| https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930a1.htm
|
| Whereas smoking reduces life expectancy by "only" ~12
| years.
| rcpt wrote:
| 80 sounds old for smoking to.
| [deleted]
| bastardoperator wrote:
| While I don't disagree with smoking being extremely
| harmful, most people addicted to nicotine can still
| function regularly. Regardless of which kills more, they
| both kill via proxy and that's where I see the biggest
| issue for both of them. Interestingly enough I've found
| that many people smoke when they're drinking.
| michaelmior wrote:
| The comment never claimed that alcohol is worse than
| synthetic opioids or cigarettes. The comment stated it is
| _one of_ the worst drugs.
| josephcsible wrote:
| "one of the" is weasel words.
| echelon wrote:
| The paper referenced in sibling comments purports that
| alcohol is worse than tobacco.
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20201112012236/http://dobrochan..
| ..
|
| I wouldn't be surprised. There are studies that are beginning
| to link liver health to neurodegeneration, and that's just
| one set of potential disease states.
|
| https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/09/210914152531.h.
| ..
| asteroidp wrote:
| The two are actually on par with each other
| greenpresident wrote:
| Parent is most likely basing their comment on the work of
| David Nutt, see my other comment on this thread.
| blfr wrote:
| > we should probably consider legalizing everything else that's
| less harmful to at least be consistent
|
| This argument is brought up fairly regularly but I don't think
| it's very good. We cannot go back on alcohol, Americans tried
| pretty hard.
|
| Our choice is limited to alcohol or alcohol plus whatever we
| legalize. Harm from alcohol is the hard lower bound on harm
| from substance use.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Alcohol is one of the worst "drugs" on a personal/societal
| harm scale - if we're going to tolerate this at large, we
| should probably consider legalizing everything else that's less
| harmful to at least be consistent._
|
| I've never understood the arguments like yours, which I used to
| hear a half-century ago in high school, and now see presented
| online. They distill down to "We allow this one bad thing, so
| we should allow all of the other bad things, too." As if having
| more bad things is better than having fewer bad things.
|
| I don't drink, so I don't care if alcohol gets banned or
| restricted or whatever. But these type of arguments always
| strike me as little more than "Billy jumped off the bridge, so
| I can, too!"
|
| I really don't see the logic here.
| jcadam wrote:
| Banning alcohol didn't work out so well the last time we
| tried it and I seriously doubt it would go any better if we
| tried it again now.
| jbirer wrote:
| Legalize medicinal meth.
| qwytw wrote:
| Isn't it already legal if you have prescription? (In pill
| form ofcourse)
| ejolto wrote:
| Yes, it's sold under the brand name Desoxyn.
| mythrwy wrote:
| Please no.
|
| Back in the 90's I worked on a concrete crew for a summer.
| Building big box store type buildings. They pour the floor,
| then pour the walls on top of the floor, then tip the walls
| up and weld them together with metal flanges embedded in the
| concrete.
|
| Nearly everyone on the crew did meth (except like 2 guys, I
| was one). Often work would start like 3:00 AM to prevent
| rapid drying. No lunch to speak of. Expected to literally run
| on the job site from one task to another. I suppose there may
| have been potential labor complaints but they never happened
| or weren't investigated.
|
| It wasn't unusual for people to burn out and just not show
| up. That was part of the calculus I think by management. One
| guy fell asleep in his truck and could not be woken up (after
| presumably being up for a few days).
|
| I quit after a few months but later saw my (low level)
| supervisor at a restaurant. He was alone and didn't look
| good. He told me how his life had gotten increasingly out of
| control and he had tried to kill himself (before finding
| Jesus per his words).
|
| Company didn't care. They were making money. They turned a
| blind eye to what was going on. The human wreckage generated
| was awful however.
|
| You think if meth is legal over the counter this won't be
| more prevalent? I'm pretty sure it will. Meth kills, and not
| just the body.
| bastardoperator wrote:
| I would consider it the worst or most powerful drug in terms of
| access, addiction and intoxication. It's literally poison, and
| what it can do to an individual I feel is unlike most other
| illicit substances.
| hungryforcodes wrote:
| Or glue sniffing?
|
| Alcohol is only a problem because some people do it so much.
| Alot of people I know drink all the time-- like several times
| a week. They could look a little younger but generally have
| passable bills of health.
|
| Also we have to question who's behind this statement. For all
| we know it's the PRC starting a new teetotalling campaign in
| their land.
| RobertRoberts wrote:
| What about meth, fentanyl or oxycotin? (to name just a few)
|
| I would consider these more literal poison by comparison to
| alcohol by any objective manner. If they are all legal, then
| access/addiction/intoxication are not even close to compare
| to alcohol, they are all far worse.
| bastardoperator wrote:
| They're not poison though based on they way they work with
| neuroreceptors whereas alcohol limits neurotransmission all
| together. None of them are good, and in excess they're both
| terrible.
| RobertRoberts wrote:
| An argument I have often heard is that everything can be
| poison based on the amount ingested.
|
| Therefore, if we can classify water as poison (which it
| can be) it sort of makes any of these simplistic
| comparisons moot.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| If alcohol in moderation is so bad then why is it taking so
| long to prove it?
| lm28469 wrote:
| > Alcohol is one of the worst "drugs" on a personal/societal
| harm scale
|
| Addiction is, not alcohol in itself. I haven't been anywhere
| close to drunk in a decade. I still enjoy a glass of whisky or
| a cold beer here and there.
|
| People who have problem with alcohol would have problems with
| "less harmful" (weed I assume?) drugs too, it's a personality
| trait. I've seen the damage of weed in my friends, it's just as
| bad as alcohol tbh. I never understood the "it's bad so let's
| legalise other bad things"
| helloworld11 wrote:
| >People who have problem with alcohol would have problems
| with "less harmful" (weed I assume?) drugs too, it's a
| personality trait.
|
| You're blatantly assuming here and making it a categorical
| statement. They usually don't, neither statistically or at
| least in my experience, anecdotally. I and many friends of
| mine regularly drink, but most of us barely touch other
| drugs. Weed occasionally for some of my friends (I personally
| dislike it intensely) but things like coke and so forth,
| pretty much nothing, in a wide group of people who are
| regular consumers of alcohol.
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| I hate the term "legalize" because all things are legal (in the
| U.S.A.) until they are made illegal. "Legalize" verbiage
| constantly tells people that they have to be selectively given
| rights, not selectively taken away.
| lenkite wrote:
| Yep! We should legalize 'political' drugs like
| Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin too.
| trentnix wrote:
| _While we 're at it, let's de-stigmatize the abuse of
| substances and treat it like a real mental health issue._
|
| Literally everyone involved in the treatment and support of
| substance abuse does that, whether it's treatment facilities or
| social groups like AA and Al-Anon. As they should. Every family
| I know has been affected in one way or another by drug or
| alcohol addiction and has firsthand knowledge that substance
| abuse must be treated like an illness and to forgive (but not
| forget) the damage it causes. So I'm not exactly sure your
| statement reflects reality.
| JshWright wrote:
| "Literally everyone involved in the treatment and support of
| substance abuse" is a small percentage of the population as a
| whole, and a very, very small percentage of the people who
| make policy and resourcing decisions related to how substance
| abuse is handled.
|
| You may be in a particular microcosm that handles this well,
| but that is definitely not the universal experience (not by a
| long shot). I'd also dispute the "literally everyone" part of
| your comment, as I can think of countless examples of
| attempts at substance abuse treatment and support being
| actively harmful to the person struggling with addiction.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Have 1000 people tell their boss they need a month of paid
| leave to deal with an acute cancer treatment or recover from
| a kidney transplant.
|
| Have 1000 people tell their boss they need a month of paid
| leave to deal with alcohol addiction.
|
| Measure the immediate reactions and future performance review
| and employment outcomes of the two groups. Do you expect them
| to be the same as each other? I don't and I think it comes
| down to "I or a family member could get cancer or kidney
| failure" vs "alcohol addiction is a choice" thinking.
| trentnix wrote:
| Apples and bowling balls. As I said in another comment:
|
| While substance abuse is an illness and should be treated
| as such, it's not leukemia or muscular dystrophy. It
| requires an active participant to make a concerted effort
| to obtain and abuse an addictive, destructive substance. So
| it's no surprise that substance abuse might not be given
| the same level of sympathy.
| [deleted]
| kritiko wrote:
| I think many managers would prefer the latter because
| getting sober should have mainly positive effects on my
| employee's health and performance whereas an organ
| transplant or cancer seems much more likely to come with
| longterm disability and accommodation needs...
| hiptobecubic wrote:
| It's not treated that way by society at large.
|
| Treat here not in the "provide medical care for" sense but in
| the "interpretation" sense, as in, "I know it's a polka, but
| I'm going to treat it like a waltz."
| trentnix wrote:
| Once again, I think that's a fun thing to see because it's
| always nice to dunk on the broader culture, but that's
| genuinely not been my experience. People are generally very
| understanding and considerate of substance abuse situations
| and the carnage that surrounds it.
|
| And it should be noted that while substance abuse is an
| illness and should be treated as such, it's not leukemia or
| muscular dystrophy. It requires an active participant to
| make a concerted effort to obtain and abuse an addictive,
| destructive substance. So it's no surprise that substance
| abuse might not be given the same level of sympathy.
| fleddr wrote:
| What is the value of "consistency" in this matter?
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| Legal consistency has many benefits. The two that first come
| to mind are:
|
| * making it easier for non-experts to reason about the law
|
| * consistency is, in my experience, usually a property of
| fairness
| fleddr wrote:
| Let's keep it practical. Alcohol is here to stay and will
| not be prohibited. For historical reasons, culture,
| whatever...it stays.
|
| Yet other harmful substances are currently banned and you
| opt to unban them for...consistency. It's like saying when
| two countries are at war, why can't we all be at war? Seems
| "unfair".
| cies wrote:
| > to at least be consistent.
|
| No not be a total joke as a gov't. I love the stories on "refer
| scare" and the prohibition (which has become some big
| historical period like the renaissance, merely by retarded
| gov't policy).
|
| And not like we're done with it. New Zealand is considering to
| ban tobacco sales to the next generation. What could probably
| go wrong with that? Is age discrimination now all of a sudden
| okay? (this is not about prohibiting sales to kids -- which im
| cool with obviously -- but also to adults of the next
| generations, when they are of age).
| josephcsible wrote:
| > Is age discrimination now all of a sudden okay?
|
| Hasn't society already decided a while ago that, for some
| reason, age discrimination is okay as long as it's only
| against younger people?
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| The only reason tobacco isn't banned straight up is it would
| cause untold disruption in the older addicted population. By
| banning sales to younger people, they are trying to prevent
| the next generation from becoming addicted, reducing the
| impact a future complete ban would cause. It's a temporary
| solution that will eventually lead to total ban.
| Spivak wrote:
| > Is age discrimination now all of a sudden okay?
|
| This line of reasoning doesn't capture any nuance. These
| kinds of things operate on an allowlist. Unless there is a
| law enacted specifically as an exception then no, in general
| age discrimination is not okay.
|
| Voting, alcohol, weed, driving, truancy, parental control,
| marriage, consent for sex, contract law, criminal law, social
| security, retirement accounts, and military service all
| discriminate based on age despite it being the guiding
| principle that you should avoid using age for restrictions
| when possible. The law has plenty of examples of min and max
| ages.
|
| If there was any other way to ban cigarettes without making
| life miserable for people who are currently addicted? Because
| we should absolutely ban cigarettes. The victim is the
| cigarette smoker and the crime is the manufacture and sale of
| a an addictive substance that it not safe to use in any
| amount.
|
| I agree with you that a law making it illegal for people to
| smoke is silly, the law should apply to manufacturers and
| distributors.
| cies wrote:
| We need a constitutional law prohibiting all victimless crime
| or this insanity will never end.
| kube-system wrote:
| Most victimless crimes have victims, they're just hard to
| singularly identify.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| No. Not even close.
|
| Most victimless crimes have literally no victim. There is
| no victim without some sort of harm. The reason we have
| speed limits and drugs are illegal is because if you go
| overboard enough with them there is a high likelihood of
| harm. In the vast majority of cases people don't go
| overboard and there is no actual victim though. These
| things are crimes because our system of justice is not
| good at punishing people for "going overboard" with the
| consistency and fairness we desire.
| kube-system wrote:
| While I disagree with some victimless crimes, like drug
| possession, victimless crimes that put others at risk
| _does_ victimize them.
|
| It's the reason that shooting a shotgun down a busy
| street is (and should be) a crime even if you don't hit
| anyone.
|
| Also, many violations of regulatory requirements are
| "victimless" but are entirely necessary cooperation for
| things to work properly, or to prevent consequential
| harm. Particularly for things where shared resources are
| used, like spectrum, roads, airports, the air we breathe,
| etc.
|
| Who is hurt when I blow a little bit of lead dust into
| the air? Probably no one, and certainly nobody
| identifiable. Who is hurt when everyone blows lead dust
| in the air? Potentially many, and still likely
| unidentifiable.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| You aren't getting it. Who does the bare risk itself
| victimize? Where is the damage? The risk is just that, a
| risk. There's a chance it may go bad and a chance that it
| may not. The risk produces no damage, no victim. But in
| sufficient quantity the bad outcome will happen enough to
| be worth making the activity is not allowed. Normally we
| prohibit the bad outcome but for some highly subjective
| cases we have to just draw a somewhat arbitrary line.
| kube-system wrote:
| Risk victimizes those who are exposed to it. When it is
| trivial to identify a single person who is exposed to the
| risk, we don't call it "victimless", we call it
| "endangerment".
|
| Why, when an act exposes multiple unnamed people to a
| risk, do some call it a "victimless" crime? Just because
| it's _difficult_ to identify those exposed to a risk
| doesn 't mean that people _haven 't_ been placed at risk.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| >Risk victimizes those who are exposed to it.
|
| If you share the road with a drunk driver but they crash
| into someone else are you a victim? Does their insurer
| compensate you?
|
| Being exposed to risk does not make you a victim. You
| need to actually be harmed.
|
| If your brother takes opiods but stops you are not a
| victim. If your bother takes opiods, gets addicted and
| ruins your family then you are.
|
| Shooting a gun in the air, speeding, all sorts of unsafe
| things can have no victim, or they can have a victim
| depending on how things go.
|
| We don't criminalize these things because they have
| victims when you do them right. They are usually
| victimless. We criminalize them because there's too much
| luck involved and we don't like the odds.
| kube-system wrote:
| > Being exposed to risk does not make you a victim. You
| need to actually be harmed.
|
| Crimes of endangerment are an exact counterpoint to this.
| They often do have identifiable victims, in a way that
| most people would agree.
| [deleted]
| matthewfcarlson wrote:
| I would much rather legalize pot over alcohol being illegal. If
| alcohol had the same usage as pot we would have far fewer
| deaths. My only complaint is that pot smells awful (though
| alcohol isn't much better).
| thehappypm wrote:
| Tangent but I started a "sober January" and the benefits to my
| life are so striking I don't intend to ever drink again.
| boringg wrote:
| Is anyone surprised by this? Alcohol being good for the body was
| pushed by the Alcohol lobby a long time ago and made its way into
| the mainstream consciousness. It has lingered because people
| enjoy drinking and because of powerful incentives not to change.
|
| How large is the alcohol industry and how many people are
| directly tied to it?
|
| Am I saying we shouldn't drink? No the amount of stimulating
| conversations I have had with people is somewhat a function of
| alcohol and being more comfortable to talk about ideas in a less
| formal setting.
| LesZedCB wrote:
| I guess you could say the alcohol lobby was "cooking with gas"
| luispa wrote:
| cheers!
| anoplus wrote:
| Before talking about what amounts are good or bad, the cultural
| phenomenon of drinking has always been mysterious to me. Alcohol
| feels overrated. It seems like no more than symbolic association
| with social life, or celebration. I love socializing and
| celebrating, but when I want to seize the moment, I want sharp
| senses - not the opposite. Also, I find it not tasty honestly.
|
| I trust people to like having me as their company even when not
| participating in drinking.
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| Can anyone find any research in the citations that my glass of
| red wine in the evening - although it may increase
| atherosclerosis and have other health implications - doesn't have
| benefits that offset the drawbacks.
|
| https://world-heart-federation.org/wp-content/uploads/WHF-Po...
|
| How much do the social, relaxation, and stress relief benefit my
| health. In the same way that taking a walk in a polluted city has
| pros and cons or the enjoyment someone might get from sky diving
| or taking up motorcycling.
| cma wrote:
| > although it may increase atherosclerosis and have other
| health implications - doesn't have benefits that offset the
| drawbacks.
|
| You can get all the theoretical benefits by eating grapes or
| raisins.
| criddell wrote:
| How often do you get together with friends after work for a
| few raisins before heading home?
| sharno wrote:
| "They ask you about wine and gambling. Say, In both there is
| great sin, and some benefits for people. And their sin is greater
| than their benefit ..."
|
| Quran (2:219)
| greenyoda wrote:
| Big discussion of original source:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30009882
| dang wrote:
| Comments moved thither. Thanks!
|
| Edit: actually, this submission was posted first, plus the
| Bloomberg article seems a bit more informative than the press
| release, so I think we'll merge hither instead.
| flippyhead wrote:
| I've heard this more lately and can't square it with what I had
| understood about those super long-lived cultures; like in Italy
| or Japan, where supposedly they drink moderate amounts of alcohol
| approximately daily.
| burke wrote:
| There's no doubt that alcohol in excess is very bad for a
| person.
|
| There's enough doubt about whether light-moderate alcohol
| consumption (i.e. a small glass of red wine with dinner and two
| or three once in a while with friends) is harmful or protective
| that it seems pretty clear that, whether the net effect is
| positive or negative, it's not terribly strong.
|
| We get really hung up on whether something is "good for you" or
| "bad for you", without focusing as much as we should on exactly
| _how_ bad it is: we just want to sort things into either the
| "good" bucket or the "bad" bucket and feel the corresponding
| dose of pride or guilt.
| acomjean wrote:
| There are so many factors that effect health its really hard to
| isolate one. I think moderation is key to preventing one of
| these things from having an undue large effect. grandmother
| (Irish/English) drank and smoked a lot, she lived to her mid-
| nineties. She had a relatively stress free existence though.
| But she's one person and without an identical twin control, its
| hard to tell how much better she might have been had she
| abstained.
| flippyhead wrote:
| But that's why I thought these studies of long-lived
| _cultrures_ were significant. These things, including
| moderate alcohol consumption, which are common to multiple
| very different large groups that live longer than average.
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| Generally, doing things in moderation is way better than going
| to extremes. Drinking moderately as a culture may be correlated
| with eating moderately, exercising moderately, etc.
|
| In any case it has always seemed clear to me that studies
| showing beneficial effects of moderate alcohol consumption are
| heavily influenced by some combination of paying interest-
| groups and the researchers really wanting to justify a daily
| beer/wine glass.
|
| The clearest evidence for me that a glass a day can not
| possibly be healthy is the effect just a single glass has on
| athletic performance the next day.
|
| For the record I do drink and have for a long time, but have no
| illusions about the negative effects.
| flippyhead wrote:
| I definitely see why you'd be suspicious. But on the other
| hand, the Okinawa Japanese are definitely one of those groups
| that DOES live really long and DOES drink moderately. I've
| traveled extremely widely, used to live in Japan, and (sure,
| anecdotally) it feels reasonable.
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| I don't doubt they live long and prosper, but attributing
| it to moderate alcohol consumption rather than anything
| else seems suspicious.
| tsol wrote:
| I've heard of having a glass of wine in meals in Italy, but
| does Japan really have a culture of daily drinking? Either way,
| that brings up use patterns. Here we tend to binge drink, with
| the purpose of getting drunk. That's not the same in such
| cultures. They have a much more moderate view of alcohol. A
| glass of wine and shots are two very different things
| devoutsalsa wrote:
| "I knew a man who gave up smoking, drinking, sex and rich food.
| He was healthy right up to the time he killed himself." - Johnny
| Carson
| guilhas wrote:
| Life is so complicated now a days that stress will probably
| kill you first
| mritchie712 wrote:
| One of those things is not like the others.
|
| I don't think sex is linked to many bad health outcomes.
| alar44 wrote:
| The point is that they are considered vices. Sex, drugs, rock
| and roll etc. It's a joke, lighten up.
| jcadam wrote:
| > I don't think sex is linked to many bad health outcomes.
|
| Sure it is. STDs, risk of injury, etc.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| Bad comparison. Too much of the other stuff will harm you
| regardless of how careful you are. No amount of sex will
| harm you, if you're careful.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Weird phrasing to try to make a point; no amount of
| alcohol will harm you, if you're careful?
|
| Too much of anything will harm you.
| devoutsalsa wrote:
| "Futurama - Death By Snu Snu" =>
| https://youtu.be/3f8sjzETQ5o
| weedontwee wrote:
| "You're gonna feel like a damn fool, laying out at that
| hospital, dying from nothing!" - Redd Foxx
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6grI16niGXA
| yalogin wrote:
| I think most people know this on some level. Alcohol cannot be
| good for the body. However, society encourages and even shames
| people that don't drink to an extreme degree that people go with
| the herd on this. Its going to be impossible to beat and turn
| around that societal pressure and acceptance.
| entropicgravity wrote:
| A room full of cardiologists will raise a glass to that.
| Bud wrote:
| Side note: in a related story, the Don't Go Stark Raving Mad
| During A Pandemic Foundation issued a statement saying that large
| amounts of alcohol are definitely sometimes good for not
| completely losing your shit during accursed times such as these.
| slackfan wrote:
| heyitsguay wrote:
| Less "no fun allowed" generic conspiracy stuff, more "hey,
| these are the consequences to some of that fun, please keep
| them in mind as you establish the risk level you're comfortable
| with".
| sebow wrote:
| The problem is that a general statement like "no alcohol is
| good for the heart" is that it is probably factually
| wrong.And I base this on the fact that grapes for example is
| known to be a very good fruit for all-things blood and
| especially red cells.(Most notably iron here).This is not
| pseudo-science.
|
| And while yes, you could say "that's not alcohol itself" and
| that's correct, but obviously not all alcohol is equivalent,
| and also you cannot exactly separate alcohol and examine it
| in a vacuum.Alcohol is not consumed purely in the vast
| majority of cases.
|
| Generally speaking if the institution name starts with
| "World" or "Global", it's more likely to say something to be
| accepted by virtually everyone, and most often that will
| sound dystopian and bullsh1t.The prohibition did not work(and
| i say this as someone who drinks maybe <=5 times a year, very
| much liking to stay lucid but also acknowledging the benefits
| of such an experience when i do).The drug on war did not
| work.Institutions want to regulate any substance that
| deviates thought from the mainstream hivemind narrative.Your
| statement can easily be deconstructed by more than 2000 years
| of written history where people battled whether consumed
| drugs and especially alcohol is or not beneficial for
| health.With the exceptions of exaggeration in certain
| cultures(see alcoholism in russia) this is not an issue.The
| other exaggeration happened in US with Prohibition and we've
| seen that's also not desirable, and it promotes drinking
| irresponsibly.
| tasha0663 wrote:
| The advocacy tips at the end of the brief are shockingly
| anti-fun.
| heyitsguay wrote:
| These ones?
|
| > Cost-effective interventions to reduce alcohol
| consumption include strengthening restrictions on alcohol
| availability, enforcing bans on alcohol advertising, and
| facilitating access to screening and treatment.
|
| "Restrictions on alcohol availability" could be anti-fun if
| implemented in the extreme (hopefully we've learned
| prohibition doesn't work), the other two are pretty
| standard.
| slackfan wrote:
| >hopefully we've learned prohibition doesn't work
|
| As a world, we absolutely have not. And any insane policy
| will be backed up by very reasonable scientific evidence.
| the_only_law wrote:
| I am kinda curious what they mean by that? Would I no
| longer be able to get beer at the gas station or
| something?
| lkbm wrote:
| Which ones? They say to regulate who can sell alcohol,
| raise prices/taxes, raise the drinking age, limit
| advertising, add prominent warnings...I guess those first
| few are arguably "anti-fun", but they don't seem especially
| so.
| malfist wrote:
| Speed limits are also anti-fun.
|
| Being anti-fun isn't an argument against regulation
| slackfan wrote:
| Speed limits are primarily environmental regulation and
| have little to nothing to do with safety. By extention,
| they happen to be anti-fun.
|
| The Autobahn is still not a 24/7 disaster zone of dead
| bodies and scrapped cars last time I checked.
| malfist wrote:
| Sure, interstate speedlimits are somewhat about gas
| mileage. But I'm going to need some citation from you
| that a 25mph speedlimit in a residential area is about
| environmental impacts and not safety.
|
| Sure the autobahn isn't a meat grinder, but there's a
| difference between safe and unsafe, and unsafe doesn't
| mean everyone dies.
|
| Regardless, doesn't matter if the regulation is for
| safety or environmental protection, being "anti-fun"
| isn't an argument against them.
| slackfan wrote:
| https://ww2.motorists.org/issues/speed-
| limits/truth/#:~:text....
|
| well, you can take it up with the National Motorists'
| Association, they have the stats.
| malfist wrote:
| I'm sorry, but that's an opinion piece written by a very
| biased source. This organization was founded to oppose
| the 55mph speedlimit back in the 80s and since then have
| moved on to things like opposing drunk driving laws. Sure
| they claim all kinds of stats in that blog you linked,
| but they provide no sources for those stats.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| You know, most (Americans) drink little or no alcohol. The cult
| of alcohol is certain they cannot live without it, which is
| part of the problem perhaps. But most do live without it. And
| are not eating bugs.
| fastball wrote:
| Source that most Americans drink little or no alcohol?
| Apparently in 2019, 54.9% of respondents[1] had alcohol in
| the last month. And I would imagine polls like this are
| generally under-reported, not over.
|
| [1] https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-
| fact-sh...
| lkbm wrote:
| I drank alcohol in the past month. I drink about once a
| month. I'd assume that that counts as "little or no
| alcohol". Thus, if just 1/11 of those 54.9% are like me,
| his statement to be true.
| mindcrime wrote:
| I'm in the same boat. I drink, I just drink very little.
| I don't see any reason to think this behavior is
| particularly exceptional.
| NickBusey wrote:
| This sounded wrong to me, so I did a simple search. This
| study from the NIAA of the NIH seems to suggest what you said
| is incorrect.
| https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-
| sh...
|
| Most Americans do drink.
| mindcrime wrote:
| _Most Americans do drink._
|
| That doesn't contradict what the person you are replying to
| said. They said most Americans drink "little or no"
| alcohol, not "no alcohol".
|
| Why is it that on the Internet almost everyone seems to
| silently remove/ignore qualifiers like that, and treat
| everything as a binary dichotomy???
| happytoexplain wrote:
| Yeah, currently there are three people using the same
| data to "disprove" the parent, which is baffling to me.
| As I said in another reply, 45% of people had no alcohol
| in the past month, so "most Americans drink a little or
| not at all" seems plausible, or at least not disproved by
| this data. I understand disagreeing with that sentiment
| (there are plenty of rational arguments that most people
| drink more than "a little"), but why harm the image of
| one's motivation by purposefully omitting critical
| details from the post one is responding to?
| streblo wrote:
| The NIH itself says different:
|
| * 85.6 percent of people ages 18 and older reported that they
| drank alcohol at some point in their lifetime
|
| * 69.5 percent reported that they drank in the past year
|
| * 54.9 percent reported that they drank in the past month
|
| https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-
| sh...
| happytoexplain wrote:
| While a little unclear on details, this seems to put the
| parent's assertion well within the realm of possibility.
| 45% of people had _nothing_ to drink in the past month. It
| 's therefore believable, barring additional data, that the
| majority of people drink at most a "little", as the parent
| put it. Are you interpreting this differently?
| mindcrime wrote:
| _54.9 percent reported that they drank in the past month_
|
| Consider this: I am in the group that can say "they drank
| in the last month." It is also simultaneously true that I
| "drink little or no alcohol" (by any reasonable standard).
|
| How can that be? Well, if you took my last 12 months worth
| of alcohol consumption and calculated my "average drinks
| per month" the number would round to 0. So yes, I do drink,
| and by happenstance it happens that I've had a drink in the
| last month. But I think that easily qualifies as "little or
| no alcohol".
| 988747 wrote:
| This question shouldn't be asked in January (because of
| all those New Years Eve celebrations) :)
| FredPret wrote:
| I took up regular drinking about 15 years ago based on the
| then-prevailing medical advice to have one or two a day for
| your heart.
|
| It's important to give people correct medical information. I'm
| now off the wagon completely.
| crawsome wrote:
| stefan_ wrote:
| Alcohol is _fun_ like cigarettes are _cool_. It 's marketing.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| Alcohol is also fun because it lowers inhibitions and makes
| people do stupid things they ordinarily wouldn't. Cigarettes
| being cool is definitely a marketing thing though.
| hammock wrote:
| Depends how much you drink.
|
| And I mean, cigarettes are cool. There's a reason they still
| exist as a trope in movies and it's not all due to marketing.
| It lends something to the character.
|
| That's not to say there isn't or can't be a healthier
| replacement, of course.
| happytoexplain wrote:
| I'm not getting that kind of attitude from this document. It
| seems to just be a holistic counterpoint to the "common
| knowledge" that "a little bit of alcohol can be good for the
| heart". What is this intense negativity you're sarcastically
| paraphrasing?
| neom wrote:
| I used this argument to myself for years so I could ignore my
| alcoholism. Well if the French and Italians drink as much
| wine as they do, a bottle or 4 a day is probably good for me.
| Mystlix wrote:
| Could you please explain to me the logical link between the
| scientific evidence that alchol is harmful in any quantity and
| the concepts of "having fun" and being a "slave to society"?
| Let's also overlook your dogwhistle regarding "eating the bugs"
| zeku wrote:
| It's just medical advice...
| lkbm wrote:
| It also recommends some social policies to encourage people
| to follow said advice, though they seem like pretty tame
| recommendations to me. (To be fair I _hate_ the "you can't
| buy a beer at 11:45am on a Sunday" rule where I live, but
| it's not especially harsh.)
| oicu812 wrote:
| "No amount of alcohol is safe, however it's the dose that makes
| the poison." [1]
|
| "for every 100,000 people who consume one drink per day, 918 will
| have an alcohol-related problem per year. But if the same 100,000
| people drank nothing at all, 914 would still have one of those
| same problems. That's only 4 more people per year (per 100,000)
| who will have a problem that's attributable to alcohol--that's
| tiny. But it's also not zero." [2]
|
| [1] https://peterattiamd.com/qualy-1-what-are-peters-thoughts-
| on...
|
| [2] https://www.popsci.com/moderate-drinking-benefits-
| risks/#pag...
| Damogran6 wrote:
| Can we have the heart people and the liver people duke it out,
| because the liver people seem to think a little low grade abuse
| was good for the liver.
| Cupertino95014 wrote:
| I agree with solox3 about the need to cite the evidence, not just
| say "studies show."
|
| That said, my doctor asked how much I drank, and I said about
| four drinks a week. She said "that's too much." So now I have a
| pretty strict limit of two per week, and "a glass of wine with
| dinner" does count towards that. I think she was more in tune
| with ALL the evidence, not just the articles that tell everyone
| what they want to hear.
|
| People really don't like to hear that two-per-week thing. The
| beer or glass of wine with friends is a pretty important part of
| society. In fact, I really think you only live once, and what's
| the point if you never have the things you really love? But don't
| delude yourself that it's healthy; it's not.
|
| That said: I lost a brother to alcohol & cigarettes, so it's a
| little more personal with me.
| asow92 wrote:
| But the tannins in red wine (consumed in moderation) are good for
| your heart?
| coldtea wrote:
| jppope wrote:
| > The evidence is clear: any level of alcohol consumption can
| lead to loss of healthy life.
|
| No it isn't. The studies change on this constantly. Literally, it
| is why they are making their policy- because its confusing to
| people.
|
| They also need to conduct a longitudinal study (or more than 1)
| to prove this... and guess what? They won't do it.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Note the weasel word: "can".
| f38zf5vdt wrote:
| They've been consistent on the positive cardiovascular effects
| from mild consumption of red wine forever.
|
| > 48 animal and 37 human studies were included in data
| extraction following screening. Significant improvements in
| measures of blood pressure and vascular function following RWP
| were seen in 84% and 100% of animal studies, respectively.
| Human studies indicated significant improvements in systolic
| blood pressure overall (- 2.6 mmHg, 95% CI: [- 4.8, - 0.4]),
| with a greater improvement in pure-resveratrol studies alone (-
| 3.7 mmHg, 95% CI: [- 7.3, - 0.0]). No significant effects of
| RWP were seen in diastolic blood pressure or flow-mediated
| dilation (FMD) of the brachial artery.
|
| https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-020-02247-8
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| aerojoe23 wrote:
| kevinmchugh wrote:
| If you see a study that purports to show health benefits of
| drinking check to see if it distinguishes lifelong teetotalers
| vs recovering alcoholics. Lifelong teetotalers are much
| healthier than an alcoholic who's quit drinking, on average.
| The studies, at least in the US, should also control for
| wealth.
| starwind wrote:
| Bingo. A lot of studies that purport health benefits from
| drinking are comparing "sick quitters" who drank themselves
| into health problems to normal people who have the occasional
| drink and don't bother to control for socioeconomic status
| kevinmchugh wrote:
| Ah, thank you, I knew the phenomenon had a name and
| couldn't remember "sick quitters"
| rkk3 wrote:
| It's pretty hard to build a study... You have to get a group of
| participants who are willing to drink alcohol everyday or never
| drink it again depending on which group they are assigned to.
| Ensorceled wrote:
| I drink in moderation. I eat good, dark chocolate in moderation.
| I have a dessert occasionally. I over indulge in rich foods
| sometimes.
|
| MANY things are in the category of "No Amount is Good for ...".
|
| This is NOT a useful categorization.
| nitwit005 wrote:
| I doubt advice about moderate drinking influences behavior,
| outside perhaps where pregnancy is concerned.
|
| Pretty much everyone at least occasionally eats food they know
| isn't good for them.
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.is/0vqdW
| siva7 wrote:
| Who thought that Alcohol is actually good for the heart? Here is
| the good news: It won't either kill your healthy heart if you
| don't abuse it
| revax wrote:
| The high consumption of red wine in France is thought by some
| people to be the explanation of the French paradox.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_paradox
| starwind wrote:
| > Who thought that Alcohol is actually good for the heart?
|
| I remember studies in the 90s (the ones I can find specifically
| were done by Eric Rimm) that touted health benefits from a
| glass of red wine. These weren't randomized control studies,
| they rarely controlled for anything that might impact someone's
| drinking or what they drink, and they've been torn apart in the
| years since.
| drapermache wrote:
| I feel like alcohol consumption isn't taken as seriously since
| its been legalized, but its incredibly destructive. The only
| thing I've really seen get talked about is driving while
| drinking.
|
| This hits very close to home to me because I am currently taking
| care of our kids while my wife had to fly across the USA to help
| with her Uncle's funeral. He was a high functioning alcoholic for
| many years until he joined AA and cleaned up. He was a very
| active member of AA and lead his local chapter. He had just come
| to visit for the holidays and passed a week and half later from a
| heart attack.
|
| My mother's side of the family came from a long line of abusive
| alcoholics, and she was the first to break the cycle. So I made
| the personal choice to not even try it to keep it going. Sometime
| I do wonder if I'm missing out, but I don't want to take the risk
| of getting addicted.
| penjelly wrote:
| > I feel like alcohol consumption isn't taken as seriously
| since its been legalized
|
| alcohol was being consumed before first evidence of laws in
| human society. Ancient mesopotamians drank a lot of beer
| because it was more resistant to bacteria then other beverages.
|
| Unless you meant legalized after prohibition?
| N1H1L wrote:
| We have been consuming alcohol long before we even became
| _Homo_ - even 10 million years back we were seeking out
| rotting fruits on the forest floor.
| globular-toast wrote:
| Some birds and many insects specifically seek out fermented
| fruits and ears of corn etc. Not sure if it's known why.
| freedom2099 wrote:
| I think the problem is the culture of alcohol in some
| countries... in Southern Europe has a culture of wine as part
| of a dining experience rather then as a recreational drugs and
| the effects are that has a lower alcoholism rates than
| countries where it is more seen as recreational (like Northern
| Europe or the US).
|
| I live in France, we have wine served at the company's
| cantine... no one is ever drunk!
|
| https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/alcoholis...
| oversocialized wrote:
| reminds me of when the WHO said fertile aged women should not
| drink any alcohol and the wine aunts had a meltdown while also
| citing WHO as a source for anything covid related. hypocrisy at
| its finest.
| easton wrote:
| I was unfamiliar with the term, so from the Urban Dictionary:
|
| > wine aunt: An aunt with little to no interest in having
| children. Has much more interest in having a free and carefree
| life than the responsibilities of a family.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| > The Eurasian Economic Union's technical regulation mandates
| provision of an ingredients list, health information, and an
| additional message of "recommendatory nature" to be put on all
| types of alcoholic beverages intended for human use.
|
| Eurasian Economic Union?
|
| Have I slipped down the wrong trousers of time?
| friendlydog wrote:
| azth wrote:
| > They ask you about wine (khamr) and gambling. Say, "In them is
| great sin and [yet, some] benefit for people. But their sin is
| greater than their benefit."
|
| https://quran.com/2/219
|
| > O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants (khamr), gambling,
| [sacrificing on] stone altars [to other than God], and divining
| arrows are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid it
| that you may be successful.
|
| https://quran.com/5/90
| redisman wrote:
| I guess I need to try that sacrificing at a stone altar thing
| next
| selimthegrim wrote:
| This might lead one to the reading that intoxication rather
| than alcohol is prohibited.
| iooi wrote:
| Anyone else interested by the wording here?
|
| "No amount of alcohol is good for the heart" is not exactly the
| same as saying "Any amount of alcohol is bad for the heart".
|
| The former statement is hardly a surprise, but I think it will be
| harder to prove the latter statement.
| tomtheelder wrote:
| They mostly do make the stronger version of the claim:
|
| > The evidence is clear: any level of alcohol consumption can
| lead to loss of healthy life. Studies have shown that even
| small amounts of alcohol can increase a person's risk of
| cardiovascular disease, including coronary disease, stroke,
| heart failure, hypertensive heart disease, cardiomyopathy,
| atrial fibrillation, and aneurysm.
|
| It's honestly pretty clear that this is true if you dig into
| the research a bit. I say this as a regular drinker, by the
| way. I don't think the takeaway should be to drink zero, just
| that we (and doctors particularly!) should not be fooled into
| believing that there is a quantity of alcohol consumption that
| is entirely risk free, or even beneficial.
| solox3 wrote:
| I am fine with abstinence as a general recommendation, but
| critical thinking pointed out two issues with the WHF Policy
| Brief, which I suppose I have read in sufficient depth:
|
| 1. There is no citation on the sentence, "Recent evidence has
| found that no level of alcohol consumption is safe for health."
| This is really the only line we are interested in.
|
| 2. There is no comparison on the effects of alcohol on the body
| by dosage (and frequency), which is, again, what is required from
| the brief to make that claim.
|
| Again, while I don't necessarily disagree with what's in the
| report, and that it is already established that drinking too much
| is not good for the heart, considering many otherwise toxic
| substances have a hormetic zone, it is critical that a study like
| this rules out the its existence for ethanol.
| some_random wrote:
| I've noticed that most health recommendations like these do not
| have any evidence associated with them, or a description of the
| actual risks. It seems that the doctors and health officials
| who write them have the evidence, but don't believe that the
| public needs to see it and rather should just go with whatever
| they say.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Would any non-trivial substance be deemed "safe" under these
| criteria?
| jcadam wrote:
| There's a very small chance you'll choke to death every time
| you eat something.
| [deleted]
| avgcorrection wrote:
| Another score for fasting!
| queuebert wrote:
| BRB, gonna fast the rest of my life.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| A _lot_ is riding on the unspecific usage of "safe" here.
| dionidium wrote:
| If you want to feel some dissonance about this, you might note
| that this is the _exact_ language the CDC uses for things like
| secondhand smoke -- "There is no risk-free level of exposure
| to secondhand smoke" -- which everybody nods along to and
| accepts without much scrutiny.
|
| Source:
| https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco...
|
| Meanwhile, when it's something like, say, cosmic radiation
| exposure from commercial air travel, suddenly the CDC is very
| interested in levels of exposure and has language that provides
| context intended to downplay the risks.
|
| Source: https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/air_travel.html
|
| Why these statements bother us when they're about one thing and
| not another -- or, indeed, why our health agencies would choose
| language like this for some kinds of risks and not others -- is
| left as an exercise for the reader.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| The CDC has been unfortunately hopelessly politicized. It
| happened long before the pandemic.
|
| OTOH, I would make the differentiating point that air travel
| has positive benefits to society and costs and one has to
| weigh those against each other. You can't make the blanket
| statement "earth would be better off if air travel went away
| completely."
|
| It's hard to find any benefit to smoking, first hand or
| second, so it's easy enough to just shit on it. The ROI on
| whatever ills aviation may have is a topic of discussion,
| there's 0 ROI on smoking.
| artificialLimbs wrote:
| >> It's hard to find any benefit to smoking...
|
| Ritualistically, as an exercise in getting out of one's
| 'normal' consciousness, it can present useful information
| for self study. In habitual form, it is of course very
| destructive.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| This isn't politics, it's safety. I accept the argument
| that the CDC has become overly innumerate in how to live a
| healthy life, but it's not a liberal or conservative idea
| to be cautious.
| tomp wrote:
| As we've seen in the past 2 years, there's no real positive
| benefit to society to frequent business flying (at pre-
| pandemic levels).
|
| Like smoking, we don't need to completely _ban_ air travel.
| The equivalent would be severely limiting it (for example,
| prohibiting business flying).
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| While I somewhat agree with your overall point, level of
| control is important here. I can choose whether to get on a
| plane or take a drink. I can't control if someone farts
| standing next to me, or if they exhale smoke in my face.
| ABeeSea wrote:
| Did you look at any of the references at the bottom of the
| page? There are many, many dozens of studies in the report by
| the surgeon general. On page 421 when they analyze lung
| cancer risk, they have studies with volume and frequency of
| second hand smoke based on the volume and frequency of the
| smoking habits of the one spouse being a smoker and the other
| being a non smoker.
| slothtrop wrote:
| As I recall, for this particular bit of research that I read a
| couple of months ago, more precisely it states there is no
| _clear_ discernible level of consumption that could be deemed
| "safe". That's not really a surprise if you look at the data
| because it's such a mess. You also can't pin a point at which
| consumption is a high risk. What does that tell us?
|
| You can however surmise that low / moderate consumption is not
| associated with high risk of mortality. There is "risk" insofar
| as it is non-null, anything above zero is unsafe. So what? That
| doesn't mean it's significant.
|
| edit: this appears to criticize the paper -
| https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/articl...
| allturtles wrote:
| Exactly. I find the claim "no level of alcohol consumption is
| safe" hyperbolic. You could claim with far more justification
| that "no amount of driving is safe" since you could be killed
| pulling out of your driveway but I think most people who
| drive on a daily basis would find this claim odd. "safety" is
| a relative, not an absolute condition, since in some sense
| being alive is unsafe.
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| This is a pretty odd comparison.
|
| Some amount of food/caloric intake is healthy or required.
| Too much is bad. Some amount of water intake is healthy or
| required. Too much is bad.
|
| No amount of arsenic intake is healthy or required. Any is
| bad. No amount of alcohol intake is healthy or required.
| Any is bad.
|
| Too much of many things is bad. Any amount of some things
| is bad.
|
| Safe may be an odd term for it but alcohols impact on ones
| health is always a negative. If we define bad as a negative
| effect on ones health it may be a better term than safe
| here.
| ericd wrote:
| I'm guessing I'm not alone in saying that some of the
| most enjoyable, memorable, and positively impactful
| nights of my life were because of alcohol.
|
| To call ingesting it in any amount "bad" is way too
| reductive.
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| Which is why I defined bad. Meth addicts experience utter
| bliss and euphoria while high. I've had lots of great
| experiences drunk or while drinking. I've also thoroughly
| enjoyed utterly gorging myself on unhealthy or excessive
| amounts of food. I've driven too fast, stayed up too
| late, and generally done lots of things that are bad for
| me because they felt good or lead to some type of, at
| least in that moment, good experience.
|
| It doenst mean those things were not bad for me. It's
| about being able to admit that those things were bad for
| my health regardless of if I decided the benefit
| outweighed the cost. Many people thing the cost of
| consuming alcohol is lower than it is and that the
| benefits are far greater than they are. I've had plenty
| of incredible experiences without booze too. In hindsight
| there were plenty of things I would have enjoyed just as
| much, if not more, if I didnt think I needed alcohol to
| make the experiences better in some way.
| allturtles wrote:
| Arsenic is in all kinds of foods, if you made the claim
| "no amount of arsenic consumption is safe", you would be
| arguing that basically everyone's diet is unsafe. What
| does that even mean?
|
| To take the claim "no amount of alcohol consumption is
| safe" seriously would mean you shouldn't eat bread, which
| contains a small amount of alcohol.
| tomtheelder wrote:
| > To take the claim "no amount of alcohol consumption is
| safe" seriously would mean you shouldn't eat bread, which
| contains a small amount of alcohol.
|
| No, it doesn't mean this. What they mean is that any
| amount of alcohol consumption causes some amount of harm.
| From the research I have seen it seems to be more or less
| linear. Minuscule consumption means minimal harm.
|
| The implication isn't that you or anyone else should
| necessarily reduce your consumption to zero. It's that it
| should not be assumed that there some level of
| consumption that causes no harm or is beneficial (as
| previously believed). That is what the phrase "no amount
| is safe" commonly means in medicine. It is a purely
| medical recommendation.
|
| This is totally separate from a dietary guideline, which
| would weigh the risks of alcohol against the social
| reality of it's consumption. That is the way that you
| seem to be interpreting it.
|
| Also I'm not the person you responded to originally, but
| interestingly it seems like arsenic, in tiny quantities,
| is actually essential to our biology.
| allturtles wrote:
| > any amount of alcohol consumption causes some amount of
| harm
|
| There is no guarantee that you will suffer harm from a
| single drink. What it really means is that any amount of
| alcohol consumption carries some (possibly minute) risk
| of harm. This is not, IMO, equivalent to "unsafe", which
| generally means something well outside the bounds of
| normal risks that most people already take on in their
| everyday lives.
|
| If we accepted that "some risk of harm" = unsafe, we
| would have to describe using the stairs as unsafe, taking
| a shower as unsafe, putting up Christmas lights as
| unsafe, etc.
| tomtheelder wrote:
| And medically those are unsafe. The crucial part, though,
| is that that's not at all to say you shouldn't do them.
| You are simply using a different understanding of the
| word safe than they are. This is a medical brief aimed at
| experts who should have no trouble understanding what
| claims are and are not being made.
|
| This is not a lifestyle or dietary recommendation. This
| is not a cost benefit analysis. This is a medical brief
| that states that no amount of consumption is safe. The
| takeaway categorically should not be that we should all
| reduce our intake to zero, which seems to be how folks
| are interpreting this.
|
| For what it's worth, I say all this as a regular drinker
| who has no intention of ceasing drinking.
| dabbledash wrote:
| If time word "unsafe" means "carries more than zero risk"
| then it isn't very useful to me to know whether a doctor
| considers something unsafe.
| allturtles wrote:
| I would argue that if those things are unsafe, the term
| unsafe has no useful meaning, i.e. life is unsafe.
|
| It's a policy brief, not a medical brief, it is pro-
| abstinence and recommends a variety of alcohol control
| policies, short of actual prohibition:
|
| "- Call for strict regulation of alcohol products
|
| - Advocate for minimum pricing of alcohol products
|
| - Build capacity internally and among peers to promote
| cessation of alcohol use and abstinence from alcohol
|
| ...
|
| - Prioritise alcohol control in national agendas for
| health and support policy coherence between health and
| other sectors"
|
| etc.
| babyshake wrote:
| At least death is safe. As in, dying will not increase
| your risk of death.
| pasabagi wrote:
| What about: 'No amount of smoke inhalation is safe for
| the lungs'?
|
| Obviously, if you live in a city, you're going to find
| yourself inhaling smoke from time to time, but it's still
| the case that it should be avoided. It's not extreme to
| think of alcohol as 'always negative' but also to accept
| it's a common and basically unavoidable toxin.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| That's a hard argument to make. "2nd hand smoke" is (for
| now) unavoidable (though has decreased dramatically over
| the last decade or two). "2nd hand alcohol" is not really
| a thing at all. We choose to drink it, or we choose not
| to (ignoring heinous acts of coerced drinking).
| djur wrote:
| Having a fireplace, barbecue, outdoor fire pit, or going
| camping with a campfire, are all situations where people
| intentionally choose to engage in activities that cause
| them to inhale smoke. Those activities might contribute
| to a healthy lifestyle in the whole. Similarly, social
| activities that include alcohol consumption can be
| analyzed as a whole, without the pretense that they can
| always be made 'dry'. There is no 'dry' wine tasting.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Tobacco smoke and fire smoke are generally entirely
| unrelated from a health perspective.
|
| Going to a wine tasting is a decision to drink wine
| (though if it occured at someone's house rather than a
| public or commercial facility, I could imagine that the
| hosts might accomodate a non-drinking partner or
| something like that).
| pcrh wrote:
| >Tobacco smoke and fire smoke are generally entirely
| unrelated from a health perspective.
|
| But not from a scientific perspective.
| slothtrop wrote:
| Indeed, and cyanide as well for instance. Neither are
| "necessary" either. I don't think necessity has any
| bearing on the discussion. Ultimately the question is
| whether moderate alcohol consumption poses a significant
| health risk, and "no safe amount" avoids answering this.
| avgcorrection wrote:
| That's a rubbish comparison.
|
| Of course no amount of driving is safe--that's
| commonsensical. You always have a chance of getting harmed
| when you decide to drive a car. But driving a car has a
| clear utility which is non-optional in a lot of cases. The
| utility of recreational alcohol use is, on the other hand,
| more akin to joyriding--so similar to a completely optional
| subset of car driving.
| pcrh wrote:
| It's impossible to eat many foods without ingesting
| ethanol, including bread. The advice that "no amount" of
| ethanol is safe is ludicrous, including from a biological
| perspective, as the human body is well equipped to safely
| handle ingestion of ethanol in moderate amounts.
| avgcorrection wrote:
| That's an illuminating argument and not at all just a
| technicality that disproves nothing. Consider me
| enlightened.
| jghn wrote:
| It's because for years there was a claim that low levels of
| consumption was beneficial, not just safe. They're working
| to undo that conventional wisdom.
|
| I don't recall there ever being a time when people espoused
| short drives as being beneficial for one's health.
| slothtrop wrote:
| To quibble, something can be "unsafe" i.e. harm you in
| certain ways, and also carry health benefits, since
| "health benefits" does not merely translate to "life
| expectancy". In fact for the study in question, compare
| impact on different organs; for some there is a harm, for
| others a marginal benefit (if I remember correctly).
|
| This is the problem with pop sci headlines, they don't
| give you context. If one study finds that some compound
| has potential benefits in one specific physiological
| region, the news will read "x is good for your health",
| and vise versa.
|
| Looking at just mortality, we can more accurately say,
| for those touting this study, "there is no evidence
| alcohol consumption improves mortality", and also "low
| alcohol consumption _may_ weakly worsen mortality rates
| ".
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| A lot of studies on alcohol and mortality show a J curve
| where mortality actually drops, and then starts rising
| until it's back at baseline at 4 drinks / day. Now, I am
| _not_ saying that it 's safe to drink 4 drinks per day.
| That's a _lot_. What I am saying is that is the point
| where cardiovascular benefits seem to be outweighed by
| the increased cancer risks. Many studies have called the
| J curve into question due to the 'sick quitter' effect,
| but you have to realize that by trying to correct for
| that effect they are often just adding a fudge factor to
| the numbers. Alcohol is a very hard subject to study
| because it's always self reported, and thus almost always
| under reported.
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| That is a weird comparison. No one is forcing you to drink
| alcohol, but you might be forced to drive to the office.
| One is avoidable, the other one is not. Or if you want to
| be even more precise: One is easily avoidable and the other
| might cost you your job.
| chucksta wrote:
| No one is forcing you to drive to work either. Many
| people in don't even have a license, yet make it to work
| each day. You even said it, "might be forced" meaning
| there are possibilities in which you aren't.
| avgcorrection wrote:
| Cue we get into the weeds bickering over the analogy for
| the rest of the thread.
| pnt12 wrote:
| If you live outside the city, you basically are. In my
| home town, transportation is limited, eg a bus in the
| morning and one in the afternoon, both which can be late,
| and the stops are kilometers apart and the sidewalks are
| shitty. So when I'm there, I take my car everywhere, as
| does everyone else.
|
| But when I lived in a big city, the opposite happened:
| parking was expensive and the traffic sucked, so I always
| took the bus and subway.
|
| Let's not make blank statements about transportation, as
| it differs so much from one place from another.
| soperj wrote:
| Still aren't forced to drive. Walk, bike, catch an
| earlier bus etc.
| chucksta wrote:
| No one is forcing you to work either
| thebean11 wrote:
| How is that relevant? If you want change it to "no amount
| of driving to the bowling alley is safe".
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| I have seen many people use such comparisions, which do
| not match up, to justify unhealthy behavior for
| themselves, shutting themselves out from proper
| reasoning. That is how it is relevant. I am saying: Do
| not fool yourself using such arguments.
|
| Also the comparison you now brought up is again not a
| good argument: It doesn't matter, whether there are
| unnecessary rides. The argument is, that there are
| mandatory ones for people, while there is no mandatory
| thing that forces you to drink alcohol. Or at least there
| should not be and in reality there are probably very few.
| thebean11 wrote:
| Sure there are mandatory rides, but the argument doesn't
| hinge on those..you can consider only nonessential rides,
| and drinking. Both are totally optional, what is your
| issue with that comparison?
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| I have no issue with the comparison of nonessential
| rides. I want to note though, that the original argument
| was plainly about "pulling out of your driveway".
|
| So if one does nonessential rides only, then yes, the
| comparison might work. I think that is quite a special
| case of a situation though, which I cannot simply
| interpret into what the original argument said. I mean, I
| am not here to interpret a working version into
| something, that in its generality does not work as a
| comparison. I rather read things as they are written and
| try not to add things.
|
| We could speculate about how many people use a car mostly
| to be able to get to the location of work or how many
| people use a car for essential reasons. We are getting
| further away from the actual matter of discussion though,
| which is drinking alcohol and that not being requried at
| all.
| thebean11 wrote:
| > So if one does nonessential rides only, then yes, the
| comparison might work.
|
| I disagree. Just like alcohol can be eliminated from your
| diet, nonessential rides can be eliminated without
| eliminated essential ones. It doesn't matter what you
| mostly use a car for, it's totally irrelevant.
| deltaonefour wrote:
| It's not exaggerated. Your claim of "no amount of driving
| is safe" is also not hyperbolic, it's real. You drive,
| you're at risk.
|
| What's going on here is that the previous conclusion was
| not "no level of alcohol consumption is safe." The previous
| conclusion was "some alcohol is good for your heart." All
| this new conclusion says is that this is no longer the
| case.
|
| Nobody lives their life off the mantra "no amount of
| driving is safe"... That would be crazy but it would be
| entirely wrong to say that, "some amount of driving
| improves your life expectancy" when this is clearly not the
| case.
|
| Hence the need for the WHF to take an official stance on
| this. It's a data driven conclusion, but you of course need
| to be the judge about what you need to do with that
| conclusion.
| mrfusion wrote:
| Plus driving to buy food definitely makes you live longer.
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| > [...] So what? That doesn't mean it's significant.
|
| It is the question, how significant it is. Then there is the
| question, what level of significance will make a person
| reconsider their consumption.
|
| However, the statement that no amount is truly safe, if it is
| correct, means, that in general alcohol is an unnecessary
| risk. There is no need to drink it and no good for ones heart
| comes of it in terms of biology. What society does with this
| info is up to all of us.
| tarboreus wrote:
| This is only true if you assume or demonstrate that alcohol
| has no benefits to individuals that outweigh the downside
| risk to health. As the downside appears to be relatively
| small, this seems like a fairly difficult bar to clear.
| tomtheelder wrote:
| No, their statement is correct regardless of the
| benefits. This brief isn't a cost benefit analysis. It's
| not a dietary guideline. It's a statement of medical fact
| (based on current research, anyway): that no amount of
| alcohol is safe for cardiovascular health.
|
| There may well be benefits to alcohol consumption, but
| those are entirely irrelevant here.
| nuclearnice1 wrote:
| To point 1. In the brief I find at the red download link [1]
| contains the line " Based on recent evidence, it has been
| concluded that there is "no safe level of alcohol
| consumption"(5)."
|
| The reference points to an article from The Lancet [2]
|
| [1] https://world-heart-federation.org/wp-content/uploads/WHF-
| Po...
|
| [2]
| https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
| f38zf5vdt wrote:
| Another article from The Lancet from around the same time
| reported a whopping... 6 months of life expectancy reduction
| when consuming 100-200g of alcohol a week versus 0-100g of
| alcohol a week. [1, Figure 4] A drink is 14 grams of alcohol,
| so that means that your risk from consuming 150 grams, or
| over 10 drinks a week, is still relatively low in terms of
| all-cause mortality. Figure 1 also shows that consumption of
| 0-100g per week has virtually no consequence on all-cause
| mortality.
|
| [1] https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6
| 736...
| Zababa wrote:
| For comparaison, smoking is ~10 years of life expectancy
| reduction https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_
| sheets/heal....
|
| Surprisingly obesity seems to only replace some of your
| last years with years with diabetes, without decreasing
| your longevity
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC4951120/.
| I think I didn't read that study correctly, or didn't find
| a good one.
|
| Air pollution might be around 1 to 3 years:
| https://dynomight.net/air/
|
| A reduction of 6 months is also more than what you can
| expect to gain by taking statins:
| https://dynomight.net/statins/.
| queuebert wrote:
| > Surprisingly obesity seems to only replace some of your
| last years with years with diabetes
|
| That can't possibly be right. Obesity is a negative
| prognostic factor in almost every disease.
| nradov wrote:
| Severe obesity significantly decreases longevity.
|
| https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/195748
|
| That effect has been magnified by the current COVID-19
| pandemic. Obesity directly causes more severe symptoms in
| infected patients.
|
| https://www.wfae.org/health/2021-09-30/novant-
| says-9-of-10-c...
|
| https://cardiologyres.org/index.php/Cardiologyres/article
| /vi...
|
| https://reason.com/2022/01/03/cdc-covid-19-children-
| hospital...
| Zababa wrote:
| So severe obesity would be indeed "almost as bad as
| smoking" according to your article, which is more in line
| with what I've heard before. Thanks for the sources.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| > obesity seems to only replace some of your last years
| with years with diabetes, without decreasing your
| longevity
|
| That's probably only because we can generally manage
| diabetes pretty well, though it does impose a lot of cost
| on society to do so.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| > we can generally manage diabetes pretty well
|
| We _can_ but it requires the patient to manage their
| blood sugar very, very carefully and a lot of them can 't
| do it 100% of the time. Whenever they don't, the damage
| happens and it accrues. I see a guy in the 'hood who's
| had much of his foot amputated as a result of diabetes.
|
| Or so I've heard. I'm not diabetic myself.
| nouveaux wrote:
| "Nevertheless, men with obesity aged 55 y and older lived
| 2.8 (95% CI -6.1 to -0.1) fewer y without diabetes than
| normal weight individuals, whereas, for women, the
| difference between obese and normal weight counterparts
| was 4.7 (95% CI -9.0 to -0.6) y. Men and women with
| obesity lived 2.8 (95% CI 0.6 to 6.2) and 5.3 (95% CI 1.6
| to 9.3) y longer with diabetes, respectively, compared to
| their normal weight counterparts."
|
| Is this study suggesting that obese people with diabetes
| lived longer than obese people without diabetes? I
| suppose that diabetes as a condition is not harmful in
| and of itself and perhaps leads to a healthier lifestyle?
| DarylZero wrote:
| Diabetes is extremely harmful unless perfectly controlled
| which it almost never is. The damage accumulates very
| slowly.
| Zababa wrote:
| My (uninformed) guess would be that people with diabetes
| are followed more closely than people without. Your point
| about healthier lifestyle is a good one too.
| frereubu wrote:
| When I read stats like that I also think about quality of
| life. These results don't rule out people living pretty
| much the same length of time, but with an assortment of
| ailments caused by the alcohol that make life pretty
| miserable, as another comment in this thread says about
| obesity and diabetes.
| loceng wrote:
| I wish we'd stop using shallow metrics life longevity over
| quality - it causes the layperson (who hasn't developed
| their critical thinking enough yet, or perhaps not capable
| to) to skim over that "lifespan" doesn't take into account
| all kinds of qualitative variables - including alcohol
| being a depressant, literally you're depressing how sharp
| your nervous system can be; yes, which people often self-
| medicate with because they have energies they haven't yet
| figured out how to regulate and are too intense, so the
| alcohol becomes an escape. I'm not against alcohol, I'm
| just for informed consent - understanding the full scope of
| what you're doing.
| volkl48 wrote:
| Maybe you have a different point in mind, but I am
| skeptical that there are any consumers of alcohol that
| are not aware that it is partially a depressant. This is
| both obvious to any consumer of it, and taught in every
| school that does any sort of substance (ab)use education.
| importantbrian wrote:
| This is an interesting study, and I'm not 100% sure it
| supports their conclusion. For example on Figure 1 the
| hazard ratio for all cause morality isn't much higher than
| 1 until you get into the 200g+ groups, and the hazard ratio
| for cardiovascular disease is less than 1 until you get
| over 200g. This would seem to support studies that find a
| benefit for moderate drinking on heart health. Most of this
| benefit seems to come from lowering the incidence of MI
| based on Figure 2.
|
| This also seems to support my initial hypothesis from
| reading your comment which is I wonder how much of the
| difference in all cause mortality is due to the effects of
| binge drinking or drunk driving. The fact that the hazard
| ratio on all cause mortality isn't really above one until
| you get over 200g would seem to support the idea that that
| is where most of the increased mortality comes from.
| asiachick wrote:
| so Japanese people would live even longer than everyone
| else than they already do if they didn't drink so much
| dmurray wrote:
| Japanese people don't drink a lot. They're 17th out of
| the 17 "high income countries" shown by default here:
|
| https://ourworldindata.org/alcohol-consumption
| kunai wrote:
| They do smoke like chimneys though, which makes for some
| pretty surprising stats vis-a-vis lung cancer (lower
| rates than the US) and life expectancy (significantly
| higher).
| clpm4j wrote:
| Queue the Winston Churchill quote "I've taken more out of
| alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me". I believe he
| died at age 91. Although it seems crazy that we could have
| ever believed alcohol is healthy in any way.
| deltaonefour wrote:
| Anecdotal accounts could be one offs. We need data for a
| full picture and even than the data could be biased.
|
| It may very well be Churchill could have survived longer
| were it not for alcohol.
|
| This recent post seems to imply that they now have more
| accurate and more unbiased data leading them to this new
| conclusion. I think a lot of people at the WHF drink some
| amount of alcohol as do most people in the world.
| However, despite this, their conclusions and
| announcements must be based off data which is exactly the
| right thing to do and exactly what they are doing here.
| [deleted]
| kekebo wrote:
| There's some data on scholar, for instance a suggested
| health difference between wine vs beers or spirits, based
| on ~28k participants monitored over 2-19 years[0].
|
| From my understanding the narrative of moderate alcohol
| consumption (specifically wine, via resveritrol) being
| beneficial comes from epidemiological studies of people
| living in the Mediterranean, an area with relatively long
| median life spans[1]
|
| [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC31093/
|
| [1] https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ben/emiddt/201
| 4/00000...
| floatingatoll wrote:
| It is absolutely acceptable to knowingly exchange damage to
| body for healing to mind, and vice versa as well. But I
| still appreciate that science is gradually making clear
| that alcohol is not _perfectly_ harmless, and that a large-
| scale health foundation is finally admitting that.
| netizen-936824 wrote:
| The mind _is part of_ the body
|
| Also contrary to popular belief, alcohol does not heal or
| help the mind unless perhaps you have methanol poisoning
| or are in the middle of a panic attack
| [deleted]
| robobro wrote:
| > The mind is part of the body
|
| is it...?
| brnt wrote:
| How could it possibly not be?
| netizen-936824 wrote:
| Yes, the mind is an emergent property of the networks of
| the brain.
| tapas73 wrote:
| Or maybe you have a soul.
| wombatmobile wrote:
| The soul is an emergent property of the mind and body
| interacting with the world.
| munk-a wrote:
| Absolutely, and not only in a strictly physical sense
| (i.e. it's contained within it). Mental acuity into old
| age is strengthened by continued exercise and fitness -
| damaging the body so that it is less able to physically
| operate damages the potential of the mind.
|
| Even if you want to step into the realm of the philosophy
| of mind[1] - there still are rather clear portions of the
| mind that are physically linked and a pretty wide
| consensus on the feedback of bodily strength to a healthy
| mind. Modern dualism accepts that a lot of mental
| functions are either enabled or assisted by our physical
| brain goop and classical dualism still assumed the
| definition of some crossover point where the metaphysical
| abstract expression of thought was translated into
| physical signals that triggered actions in the body - the
| existence of pain reactions necessitates a fair amount of
| our mental processing having the direct involvement of
| physical systems.
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind
| lkfjasdlkjfsad wrote:
| if the mind is a state of consciousness, and damage to
| the brain damages said consciousness, the mind must be
| part of the body.
|
| going further, alcohol is interesting in that, in
| appropriate amounts, it can improve the state of
| consciousness through a better quality of social
| interactions, and at the same time, can damage the state
| of consciousness through poisoning
| cecilpl2 wrote:
| > alcohol does not heal or help the mind
|
| Is it not possible that some people find alcohol in
| reasonable doses to be a net positive mentally and mood-
| wise?
| brnt wrote:
| What people experience as positive does not need to be
| that. Using alcohol to not/postpone/avoid solving an
| underlying problem for unhappiness would be an example.
| jjulius wrote:
| Preface: I say this as someone who has been sober from
| alcohol for almost 5 years.
|
| Something can be a "net positive mentally and mood-wise"
| without also being something that is
| "not/[postponing]/[avoiding] solving an underlying
| problem for unhappiness".
| mlyle wrote:
| It's been basically 2 years since I've had a drink.
|
| Before then, I drank socially-- a couple times per year
| I'd get buzzed with friends. Not all my social outings
| were buzzed.
|
| But those hazy memories of being buzzed withe friends are
| little treasures that bring me smiles even long removed
| from them. My life is richer, and my mental health
| better, by virtue of hanging out with people this way and
| I miss it (this is a casualty of COVID).
|
| Many memories of sober moments with friends bring joy,
| too. But they're qualitatively different things. I want
| both.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| The sibling posts make the right point: lots of things
| are objectively bad for your body, but your emotions are
| part of it, too. If alcohol or whatever makes you
| happier, then it's "good for you." Until you have so much
| that it's not good for you anymore.
|
| It's the same for sweet desserts: why TF should you
| deprive yourself of _all_ of them? Just keep it in
| moderation.
| SomewhatLikely wrote:
| We could imagine a very different society with much less
| consumption of alcohol but people still being equally
| happy. If someone is made to feel unhappy when they don't
| drink because everyone around them is doing so, the fact
| that then consuming alcohol makes them happier shouldn't
| be pointed to as evidence the person is making a good
| trade off between bodily harm and happiness.
| RHSeeger wrote:
| Alcohol can be part of having a fun time, and having a
| fun time occasionally is good for your mental health (as
| opposed to the physical health of your brain, which
| appears to be what you're talking about).
| munk-a wrote:
| This is certainly an opinion, but I think there are
| plenty of alternatives out there that can do a better job
| at enabling fun having without causing nearly as much
| bodily damage or functional impairment. We have a variety
| of choices in both the natural and pharmaceutical realms.
| mam4 wrote:
| Yes but "The Lancet"
| tombert wrote:
| I've completely cut my drinking down to "only on holidays where
| I'm expected to", and even then I don't get "drunk".
|
| While I never got to a point of drinking where anyone would call
| it a "problem", I realized that any amount of alcohol probably
| isn't great for my depression, and I also realized that I
| actually didn't enjoy being drunk all that much.
|
| I don't really miss it much, though it was a little difficult to
| quit cold turkey a few years ago when I did it.
| globular-toast wrote:
| You're expected to drink? For religious reasons? I've found it
| incredibly easy to stop drinking entirely. Nobody has ever
| questioned why I don't drink alcohol let alone expect me to
| drink. I figure there are enough people who don't do for
| religious/cultural reasons that it would be silly to ask and
| offensive to expect. Even though I probably don't look like
| someone who abstains for religious/cultural reasons and only do
| so for personal reasons.
| tombert wrote:
| > You're expected to drink? For religious reasons?
|
| Nah, I won't even say "peer pressure" either, but more of a
| "fuck it it's New Years" attitude. Not uncommon (at least
| amongst my friend group) to have a shot of whisky or
| something at midnight on NYE.
|
| Again though, it's on the order of 1-2 shots, and I'm a
| pretty tall guy, so it's certainly not enough to get me
| intoxicated or anything like that.
| chasebank wrote:
| You know what's worse than drinking alcohol? Sitting in a chair
| all day staring at a screen.
|
| Why do we need studies for things we've known for centuries?
| Drink, eat, exercise, all in moderation. Get outside and move
| often as possible. It's not rocket science.
| Elizer0x0309 wrote:
| Alcohol changes your state of mind which leads to car
| accidents, abuse and so much more.
|
| To compare that to sitting is stupid.
| chasebank wrote:
| Why?
|
| The article in question is about what's good for the heart
| and ultimately, living. Prolonged sitting kills far, far more
| people than alcohol. Anecdotally speaking, alcohol happens to
| be a lot more fun than sitting. Pick your poison, I suppose.
| forgotmyoldacc wrote:
| > Why do we need studies for things we've known for centuries?
|
| Because folk wisdom is not science. For example, many people
| enjoy a cozy fireplace, but increases chances of heart/lung
| disease a significant amount due to small (PM10) particles:
| https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/how-smoke-fires-can-affect-...
| https://www.lung.org/clean-air/at-home/indoor-air-pollutants...
| nozzlegear wrote:
| I think we need studies because there are people who believe
| the opposite. Growing up, a close friend of mine had a die-hard
| belief that everyone should have a glass of wine with every
| meal because it was good for your heart.
| bena wrote:
| I love studies like this. Because it shows exactly where our
| lines are.
|
| If this is true, we should stop drinking. That's what the data
| says.
|
| But if you won't, I really don't want to hear you opining on
| anyone else's choice of unhealthy vice.
| tsol wrote:
| It's interesting how much opposition these articles get. I
| notice a lot of people are annoyed just at the declaration that
| alcohol is bad for you. People almost seem to take it
| personally. I know people like their alcohol, but I'm surprised
| how defensive people get just at the idea it's unhealthy.
| pharmakom wrote:
| So "any amount of alcohol is bad for the heart"?
| not_good_coder wrote:
| They want to keep all the alcohol to themselves.
| jdlyga wrote:
| Interesting how there's a major shift in the knowledge about
| risks of things like sugar, cigarettes, alcohol, etc. And it
| usually turns out there was an industry group involved in sort of
| a coverup. The lesson here is to take any health claims or
| dismissal or risks with a grain of salt when there's a big
| industry behind it.
| cies wrote:
| > The lesson here is
|
| Do not allow victimless crime to exist. And big biz lobby
| efforts should be illegal.
| newaccount74 wrote:
| One of my favorite examples of this is how coconut oil is
| advertised all over youtube by thousands of influencers as a
| superfood that must be a part of a healthy diet.
|
| (Especially since it's hardly an oil in my opinion -- it's
| partially solid at room temperature)
|
| There's absolutely no reliable evidence that coconut oil has
| any beneficial effects on the human body, and I really don't
| see why anybody would believe that an oil high in saturated
| fats is good for you.
| parasubvert wrote:
| Because there is ample evidence that saturated fats are not
| bad for you, or at least no where near as bad as previous
| science led us to believe.
| tryptophan wrote:
| It would be more accurate to say that there is no strong
| evidence that saturated fats are bad for you.
|
| Lots of the previous science was bad science that did not
| account for confounding factors, such as not taking into
| account that lots of fast food has lots of saturated
| fats(and made up for a large portion of saturated fat
| consumption) and adjusting for that. ie the difference
| between "do sat fats make people unhealthy" and "does
| eating fast food(which happens to have sat fats) make
| people unhealthy"
|
| If you want to go down the rabbit hole, there is also no
| strong evidence showing cholesterol/eggs are bad, and
| neither is there any evidence showing salt is bad(if you
| are healthy). Lots of nutrition studies have such laughably
| silly methodology. Not sure why they were ever taken
| seriously.
| kritiko wrote:
| You raise several nutritional theories here.
|
| Dietary Cholesterol / Blood Cholesterol - cholesterol
| restriction has been removed from dietary guidelines in
| the US, so people have taken that seriously.
|
| Increased saturated fat is pretty well associated with
| LDL levels, which is associated with cardiovascular
| disease risk. Not sure that I've ever seen any contrary
| studies recently - I would be interested if you could
| link any you are aware of... I guess the questions I have
| seen are around carb intake and fat intake, but that's
| kind of a separate issue
|
| Salt is definitely more questionable, but seems like if
| you are avoiding hyperprocessed foods, you are going to
| intake less salt, so maybe a non-issue...
| tryptophan wrote:
| Well for fats we have this:
|
| https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858
| .CD...
|
| There seems to be a moderate reduction in cardiovascular
| events, BUT - there is NO CHANGE in mortality or even
| cardiac mortality. Also note, these studies may be victim
| to the saturated-fats-are-fast-food issue.
|
| If saturated fats were actually bad, like smoking is, I
| think we would see more significant results than "10-15%
| decrease in events that doesn't even change peoples'
| overall outcomes".
| newaccount74 wrote:
| I'm not saying you should avoid coconut oil, I just think
| it's a very questionable claim that cooking with coconut
| oil instead of other plant based oils like canola oil is
| going to improve your health in any way.
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| I suspect that high fats are fine and high carbs are fine,
| but having both high fats + high carbs leads to health
| problems. Fat heavy leads to keto metabolic state, heavy
| carbs lead to the other metabolic state. Having both at the
| same time is the issue, my opinion.
| gniv wrote:
| > I really don't see why anybody would believe that an oil
| high in saturated fats is good for you.
|
| A lot of people do if you look around. Serious people I mean.
| They usually sing the praises of butter (and ghee), but the
| same reasoning is applied now to coconut oil.
| halflings wrote:
| Same goes for agave syrup and other health fads.
| api wrote:
| There's a ton of alternative kinds of sugar that are
| marketed as healthier than sugar but are in fact just sugar
| extracted from a different plant or other source. Sugar is
| sugar.
| blfr wrote:
| Sugar is sugar but fructose does seem to be particularly
| hard on humans.
| yuuu wrote:
| Just more horseshit from Big Coconut, that's what I think.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| Those coconuts have definitely got blood on their hands:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_coconut
| yuuu wrote:
| I always scoffed at people who believed "a glass of wine every
| night is good for you." It seems pretty obvious that ingesting
| literal poison every day is not good for you.
| qwytw wrote:
| Protein is a literal poison as well if you consume excessive
| amounts (above 35-40% of all caloric intake).
| yuuu wrote:
| Here's an experiment: take two bugs. Pour alcohol on one
| and a protein shake on another. Which one do you think will
| be more biologically destructive?
| tryptophan wrote:
| It can also be infectious, in the case of prions.
|
| Ban all protein!
| kreeben wrote:
| Calming your nerves lowers your heart rate. Lower heart rate
| leads to less heart problems. Less heart problems leads to
| longer life.
|
| A glass of wine calms your nerves.
| yuuu wrote:
| Alcohol increases your heart rate.
| nkurz wrote:
| Interesting, I hadn't known that:
| https://www.escardio.org/The-ESC/Press-Office/Press-
| releases...
|
| Separately, consider that your assertion would likely be
| more persuasive to doubters if you'd included a link
| defending it.
| CSSer wrote:
| Of course you'd say that. You clearly work for the salt lobby!
| In all seriousness though, who stands to benefit from this? In
| the case of sugar, doctors wanted to suggest limiting it, but
| lobbyists pushed for the advocation of limiting fat intake
| instead (which was thought to be just as unhealthy at the
| time). Sugar was a clear substitute because removing fat makes
| things taste like, well, cardboard. Off the top of my head, I'm
| not aware of any substitutes for tobacco products or alcohol.
| Recreational services, maybe? Even Bowling alleys typically
| have bars.
| lonecom wrote:
| > major shift in the knowledge about risks of things like
| sugar, cigarettes, alcohol...
|
| In each of these case, the medical and scientific community
| didn't have a vested interests in these entities. I mean, the
| medical community didn't come up with smoking or alcohol
| consumption...
|
| Now imagine some entity or procedure that the
| medical/scientific community came up with and the big business
| found way to make huge money off of, such that there is a
| natural alignment of incentives for the scientific community
| and big business to keep this thing propped up. Such a thing,
| even if doing great harm, is sure to go on for a vastly longer
| period of time, if not perpetually....
| sollewitt wrote:
| Indeed, an NIH funded longitudinal study on alcohol kicked off
| in 2014 and it was shut down for being tainted by industry
| money: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/health/alcohol-nih-
| drinki... - you can't necessarily even trust publicly funded
| science when it impacts large industries.
| CSSer wrote:
| It's at least encouraging that it was caught and shut down.
| garaetjjte wrote:
| Related: https://dynomight.net/alcohol-trial/
| ct0 wrote:
| Funny that they're saying this now because fermented drinks used
| to protect people from health issues when the water supply was
| not clean enough to drink.
| qwytw wrote:
| This is myth which was debunked countless times already, people
| always drank water (even in the middle ages).
| tsol wrote:
| Yes. There's a reason every early human civilization was
| located near a body of water. Water is necessary for humans.
| Clean water. Alcohol also doesn't have a significant
| disinfecting property until at least 30% ABV. And it wasn't
| until the middle ages that distilled alcohols became common
| mywittyname wrote:
| With beer, this was because the brewer needed to boil the water
| used in order to kill off any microbes which would compete with
| the yeast, or it would go "off". It's a _very_ important step
| for brewing beer. Then the beer would be stored in barrels
| /casks to help reduce the chance of introducing further
| microbes, plus the use of preservatives like hops to help keep
| it longer.
|
| With wine, people generally mashed the grapes immediately after
| picking to ensure that the yeast took hold before any harmful
| bacteria did. Then followed the same process of barrelling it
| to prevent other microbes from getting in. People also learned
| that added sugar served to further preserve wines that would be
| stored for longer periods of time.
|
| If people would have boiled their drinking water, it would have
| been safe to drink.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| > If people would have boiled their drinking water, it would
| have been safe to drink.
|
| For a limited time. The live cultures and then alcohol in
| fermented drinks keep the bad bacteria at bay.
|
| Keep in mind in the past, not everyone had a convenient
| source of heat in their homes.
| zabzonk wrote:
| > With beer, this was because the brewer needed to boil the
| water
|
| No, they didn't - you do not need (or should) boil the water.
| If you did boil it, you would then need to let it cool down
| before adding the yeast. Home-brew kits suggest using a
| fairly small amount of hot water to disolve the malt extract,
| and to get it up to fermentation temperature.
|
| Beer is safer to drink because the yeast out-competes
| pathogens, and because it causes a pH change that inhibits
| and/or kills them.
|
| Speaking as an ex microbiologist.
| emtel wrote:
| This is false - boiling the wort is used in probably 99% of
| commercial and home brewing.
| zabzonk wrote:
| Yes, but not all of the water - you would be talking
| about many gallons.
| emtel wrote:
| Please consult literally any intro guide to home brewing.
| They all call for boiling all of the water. I have brewed
| dozens of batches of beer at home and always boil all of
| it. I don't know as much about commercial brewing but
| I've never heard or read of partial boiling as a common
| technique in commercial brewing. (There is such a thing
| as "raw ale", but the fact that it has a special name to
| indicate the lack of boiling tells you it is the
| exception to the rule).
|
| Boiling is also not only about sterilization. It is also
| fundamental to the character of the beer. It causes
| isomerization of the alpha acids in hops which is
| responsible for the bitter flavors in beer. It also
| denatures proteins in the wort resulting in clearer beer.
| See: https://www.love2brew.com/Articles.asp?ID=573
| cheese_goddess wrote:
| Is it possible that boiling the water and then adding the
| yeast is a modern practice? People in older times didn't
| know about yeasts (they didn't know anything about
| microorganisms). So they couldn't go and buy brewer's
| yeast from the shop to make beer, they'd have to culture
| it by natural fermentation. So they couldn't boil the
| beer before it fermented. Although they could perhaps
| keep a culture from an early batch and then boil the
| water of subsequent batches, until they needed to
| replenish their culture?
|
| That's how traditional yogurt making works. If you ask
| most people who know how to make yogurt they'll tell you:
| 1) you boil the milk, 2) you let it cool, and 3) you add
| yogurt. The yogurt is the fermentation culture (lactic
| acid bacteria rather than yeasts) and while making yogurt
| propagates it, at some point someone needs to make yogurt
| without already having yogurt. The only way to do that is
| to start with milk that wasn't boiled because boiling
| kills the culture (the bacteria in yogurt are
| thermophiles but they won't survive being boiled!).
| Perhaps something like that happened with brewing also?
|
| Or maybe it's more like modern cheesemaking? Nowadays
| most cheese is made with pasteurised milk. To make
| cheese, the milk has to be cultured with lactic acid
| bacteria, but pasteurisation kills those off. So modern
| cheesemakers add lyophilised culture to their milk after
| they pasteurise it. Traditionally though the only way to
| obtain culture was to leave the milk alone, use it raw.
| Back in the day people didn't even know about the
| existence of bacteria so they had no reason to pasteurise
| their cheesemaking milk in the first place.
|
| So how old is the practice of boiling the water for beer?
| Is it possible it's something that's only done today
| thanks to the knowledge of microorganisms?
| dbsmith83 wrote:
| > No, they didn't - you do not need (or should) boil the
| water. If you did boil it, you would then need to let it
| cool down before adding the yeast. Home-brew kits suggest
| using a fairly small amount of hot water to disolve the
| malt extract, and to get it up to fermentation temperature.
|
| Boiling is a pretty important step in brewing, both in the
| home and in the commercial brewery. Yes you could
| technically make beer without boiling it, but that is not
| the norm. Boiling is used not only for sanitation, but also
| to allow the hop oils to isomerize and become soluble in
| the wort, as well as reduce the wort volume to make the
| wort more concentrated, since the sparging step produces a
| lot of diluted wort (when using grains rather than
| extract). Wort in a can (malt extract) means you may not be
| concerned with concentrating the wort since you could
| control that, but you still generally want to isomerize the
| hop oils.
|
| Your point about needing to wait for the wort to cool is
| correct, but that's precisely what brewers do.. they cool
| the wort until it gets to yeast 'pitching' temperature
| mywittyname wrote:
| I once toured a microbrewery which produces beers the same
| way they did in colonial times. This involved pumping the
| water up ~20 feet into a copper kettle situated above an
| elevated brick furnace. The water was boiled, then gravity
| fed down canals via ladles to other kettles for mashing and
| lautering.
|
| Now, this brewery was replicating 19th century American
| brewing, but these ideas probably came from Europe.
|
| How else are they going to get water to a specific
| temperature before the invention of thermometers?
| asow92 wrote:
| No amount of walking outside can guarantee not being hit by a
| car.
| alex_young wrote:
| Seems like 0 could? Not at all recommended of course.
| asow92 wrote:
| What if the car goes through your window? :)
| coding123 wrote:
| I've been waiting for something like this. Now we need to get the
| AMA to reverse its stance too. I've seen too many people start
| with the one drink excuse, and multiply by the number of days
| they HAVEN'T had a drink. It's totally irresponsible messaging.
| tyronehed wrote:
| This should have been obvious to anyone who has ever gotten
| drunk.
|
| Alcohol is a poison. To think otherwise is wishful thinking.
| Elizer0x0309 wrote:
| Islam is always right about everything Hamdou'Allah
| hbarka wrote:
| What do the French have to say about that? France is one of the
| countries in the world with the highest life expectancy.
| WithinReason wrote:
| It's not good for the heart, but is it good for the soul?
| maskil wrote:
| I know of a man who had a shot of 96 percent alcohol (192 proof)
| every single day and died at the age of 96.
| jeromegv wrote:
| From Wikipedia: Survivorship bias or survival bias is the
| logical error of concentrating on the people or things that
| made it past some selection process and overlooking those that
| did not, typically because of their lack of visibility. This
| can lead to some false conclusions in several different ways.
| It is a form of selection bias.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
| HNDen21 wrote:
| should have gone for 98 percent alcohol, would have lived till
| 98 :-)
| mellavora wrote:
| Damn! Good thing he wasn't drinking 40 proof spirits, otherwise
| he would have died much sooner.
| maskil wrote:
| He was known to have said that it's the 4 percent water that's
| going to kill him.
| scrapcode wrote:
| My great grandfather sat in a chair and drank from his handle
| of whiskey every day until his death also at 96. I had heard
| stories of workers on his farm not realize he was drinking
| during the work day until the tractor plowed through a
| neighboring fence causing them to look up in concern to see him
| passed out on the seat.
|
| I unfortunately saw many in my family use his fortunate long
| life span, regardless of drink consumption, as an enabler to
| drink like that. Including myself, up until about 90 days ago.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| What happened 90 days ago?
| dontlistentome wrote:
| gatorvh wrote:
| The statement is only interesting when you consider a sizeable
| population who regularly drank the % alcohol and lived to 96.
| It's a classic case of selection bias
| JohnJamesRambo wrote:
| Yes that is an anecdote. We get better info by looking at large
| groups of people and that is what the recommendation is based
| on.
| notch656a wrote:
| Agreed, although a single shot of moonshine is a equivalent
| to a little over a pint of beer. You can drink that and be
| well within alcohol consumption guidelines in US. Even most
| alcohol-naive people would only be minimally intoxicated from
| a single shot of moonshine.
| JohnJamesRambo wrote:
| The guidelines are probably wrong. All recent scientific
| data I see shows that, like most poisons, the best amount
| to intake is zero.
|
| Here's one for brain health.
|
| https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.10.21256931
| v...
| notch656a wrote:
| "The dose makes the poison" - Paracelsus
|
| I'm sure drinking has some effect on you, but I'm not
| sure one non-peer reviewed which by their own papers
| shows <18 drinks / week shows baseline within the
| uncertainty band is evidence of any noticeable mental
| decline. In fact several of the graphs, it shows an
| increase in matter volume for low non-zero amounts vs
| zero.
| tasha0663 wrote:
| These studies have clearly run into some local maximum... the
| trick is to blow past it!
| RankingMember wrote:
| Yep, and there's always that one person who trots out that
| their grandmother smoked 2 packs of unfiltered cigarettes a day
| and lived to be 100. Anecdata is not data.
| gojomo wrote:
| Lots of scholarship disagrees, but: before this press release,
| I'd never heard of the "World Heart Federation". Now I have.
|
| That was the real purpose of it issuing this provocative, but not
| quite scientifically-settled, statement.
| colechristensen wrote:
| Question one: what is the world heart federation? I have never
| heard of it before today.
|
| Two:
|
| > The evidence is clear: any level of alcohol consumption can
| lead to loss of healthy life.
|
| The evidence is not clear. There are plenty of studies showing
| benefits. "Any level" "can" makes the statement technically true
| but meaningless, you could replace alcohol with anything and that
| would also be true. If you want to back up the statement, do a
| meta analysis study and publish that instead of pretending you're
| the authority and giving vague statements.
|
| This reads like somebody with a prejudged conclusion announcing
| that instead of actual scientific openmindedness. Plenty of
| people in the comments who already agreed are eating it up.
|
| How could anybody who didn't already agree with this be
| convinced, their argument boils down to "we say the studies
| conclude this" which is trivial to refute.
| nabla9 wrote:
| > There are plenty of studies showing benefits.
|
| Yes. And these studies are being exposed as the product of
| alcohol lobby.
|
| https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/3/21/17139036/he...
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6055701/
| colechristensen wrote:
| I am perfectly aware of p-hackng. I still don't believe it
| without actual evidence, I get strong vibes of people wanting
| this to be true which would take more than a little evidence
| to overcome.
| tdeck wrote:
| Many of these studies purporting to show a benefit from
| drinking included a sizable sample of people in the non-
| drinking group who had stopped for health reasons. In other
| words, they were probably told at some time in the past
| that they'd destroy their liver if they kept it up,
| indicating some level of damage to the body. In a society
| where some level of drinking alcohol is the norm, the non-
| drinking group has an overrepresentation of these people
| which skews the results.
| nabla9 wrote:
| The alcohol industry gave the government money to prove
| moderate drinking is safe https://www.vox.com/science-and-
| health/2018/3/21/17139036/he...
|
| Alcohol industry involvement in science: A systematic
| review of the perspectives of the alcohol research
| community
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6055701/
| jeromegv wrote:
| And what are the studies that show that moderate drinking
| is not safe?
| nabla9 wrote:
| Lazy skepticism and contrarian attitude is not helpful.
| dionidium wrote:
| It's funny hearing this, because it's so clear to me that
| the opposite is the case. If you were an alien and you
| observed alcohol use on Earth for a few years you'd have no
| trouble concluding that it's almost certainly harmful even
| in small doses.
|
| But humans _like_ alcohol, so they _do not_ want this to be
| true.
| tomtheelder wrote:
| I think you've got the politics of this backwards. There is
| overwhelming cultural pressure to support some level of alcohol
| consumption. A host of shoddy (and largely alcohol industry
| funded) studies tried to demonstrate that it was beneficial.
|
| It's not. It's harmful no matter the quantity. Study after
| study demonstrates this now. I say this as someone who drinks
| regularly, by the way. I have no desire for it to be
| demonstrated that alcohol is harmful; it's a part of my life
| and has been for decades.
|
| If you want evidence, go open the actual brief and check out
| the dozens of references, including multiple meta analyses.
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| Let me offer some food for thought:
|
| How many athletes report drinking a bit before competing?
|
| The answer is none because it negatively affects all physical
| ability.
|
| So would you say it's likely that in aggregate drinking would
| be healthy?
|
| Edit: Wow, I guess people really don't like to think about
| this. To respond to both comments below, yes sure, sometimes it
| helps to relax just a bit and alcohol can help with that, but
| obviously you could also just drink some tea or actually train
| yourself to command better control over your state of
| relaxation. Alcohol is a shortcut that comes with some
| penalties, but personal ability might overcome those penalties.
| That doesn't mean that person couldn't have performed even
| better without drinking.
|
| And regarding lists of athletes that have been known to drink,
| well of course a counterexample to any absolute statement can
| be found, I'll grant that. But in the overwhelming majority you
| won't find top level athletes at the bar the night before the
| big event and there's a reason for that.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Depends on the type of athlete. I know many ultraendurance
| and endurance athletes who are quite happy to drink the night
| before an event. This includes nationally and internationally
| ranked people, not just back-of-the-pack participants.
| dionidium wrote:
| "Mickey Mantle knew two things: 1. Drinking 2. Playing drunk
| baseball" -- Norm MacDonald (RIP)
| pknight wrote:
| Alcohol consumption was pretty common in the NBA, with some
| even drinking during halftime. Some of the biggest stars of
| the league in the past decades drank a lot of alcohol, though
| much less now with more stringent policies in place. There
| are players that led the league in scoring despite drinking
| well into the night all the time. Lebron James is a famous
| wine drinker. He drinks every day and his longetivity and
| conditioning is unmatched, but he may be from a different
| planet.
|
| These were some random facts from an NBA fan who doesn't
| drink.
| colechristensen wrote:
| Refuting your "none"
|
| https://whyy.org/segments/when-a-bit-of-booze-is-just-the-
| bo...
| stronglikedan wrote:
| I used to have a beer before the gym, so I could get my heart
| rate up faster (thinner blood), and lift more (less pain
| response). If I were competing with an otherwise equally
| matched opponent at the gym, a beer would give me an edge.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| At some point, alcohol was listed as a performance enhancing
| drug in archery because a moderate amount is supposed to
| steady the aim. It is still banned in many competitions for
| that reason, and not just because drunk shooting is a bad
| idea.
| yakshaving_jgt wrote:
| I used to work with one of the best athletes in the world
| (double Ultraman world champion), and I think he would
| disagree with you.
|
| https://www.slowtwitch.com/Features/Island_To_Island_-
| _The_t...
| penjelly wrote:
| > The answer is none because it negatively affects all
| physical ability.
|
| Wrong. I can think of a few off the top of my mind who still
| have alcohol in their system while competing/training.
|
| - Arnold Schwartzenegger - Jon Jones and various other ufc
| fighters - olympic athletes in the olympic village according
| to news sources
|
| more here.. https://firstwefeast.com/drink/2015/08/athletes-
| drinking-hab...
|
| Also note, physical ability isnt the only thing involved in
| high level performance. Ive had a couple beers before doing
| gymnastics before, and while it made me more disoriented i
| was less inhibited and actually performed better that day.
| nradov wrote:
| The problem with articles like this is that they lack context on
| the relative risks of various activities. Is drinking a daily
| glass of wine more or less bad for your heart than skipping your
| daily aerobic exercise? Surely we can put some numbers on that.
| bequanna wrote:
| Straight up comparisons like that are pry too simplistic when
| dealing with a complicated system like our bodies.
|
| People seem to really want this kind of +1/-1 point system for
| health related behavior tho. Like: "I just spent 30mins at the
| gym so I racked up enough 'health points' to eat an apple pie
| at McDonalds".
|
| I think the reality is that you need to generally do a good job
| of following all advice all the time if you want to remain
| healthy. Keep very active and remember that indulgences are OK,
| but should be infrequent.
| lenzm wrote:
| I think a good measuring stick would be the distance you'd need
| to drive in a car to generate the same level of risk to your
| life. Driving is seemingly mundane but I think one of the
| riskiest things we do on a daily basis in the US.
| nradov wrote:
| Driving risk statistics are sort of artificially inflated by
| deaths and injuries of motorcyclists and DUI/ DWI drivers
| involved in single-vehicle crashes. If you avoid putting
| yourself in those categories then driving is much safer than
| the raw statistics suggest.
|
| There's also a huge variance in risk based on what vehicle
| you drive. Some larger vehicles have a statistical driver
| death rate close to zero.
|
| https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-
| and-...
| downrightmike wrote:
| daily, whoa there armstrong
| P_I_Staker wrote:
| Why aren't we looking into the merits of a daily or weekly
| cigarette? At a certain point it really looks like it's just
| poison and wet should knock it off.
| nradov wrote:
| While smoking is harmful overall and I certainly wouldn't
| advise anyone to smoke, the nicotine it delivers does have
| some merits. So there is some nuance to the issue.
|
| https://peterattiamd.com/ama23/
|
| The dose makes the poison. For some poisons there is a
| minimum threshold dose below which there is no detectible
| harm. For others that threshold is zero.
| tharne wrote:
| > The dose makes the poison
|
| Exactly.
|
| The concept of dose-dependency is one of those things that
| earlier generations had an intuitive understanding of, but
| something we have an increasingly fragile grip on in the
| modern era.
| P_I_Staker wrote:
| I don't think anyone is having trouble understanding
| dose-dependency. There's just a separate question
| regarding whether some substances should have no
| acceptable dose, and when we should make that
| distinction.
|
| Things like nicotine are thought to be pretty much not
| worth consuming in any situation. Things like lead have
| no "allowable dose". Maybe alcohol should be treated
| similarly to cigs. This is a totally defensible position,
| that's worth discussing.
| P_I_Staker wrote:
| Probably not going to get a chance to RTFA, but yeah, I
| know there's some stuff. I think it was looking like
| nicotine could be helpful in regulating some mood problems
| and similar stuff. Kinda like ADHD meds or anti-
| depressants. There may be some stress relieving effects,
| although I wouldn't be surprised if there's more stress in
| the long term (from constantly managing withdrawl)
|
| Anyway, we're at the point with nicotine where virtually no
| one is willing to entertain the idea of recommending people
| consume "just a little". Maybe we should be that way with
| alcohol, too.
| thomaspaine wrote:
| For everyone complaining about evidence citation, this is just a
| press release. The actual brief which includes 41 citations is
| here: https://world-heart-federation.org/wp-content/uploads/WHF-
| Po...
| dang wrote:
| (the parent comment was originally in reply to
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30009882, which we merged
| hither)
| aww_dang wrote:
| The psychological benefits of drinking may not be quantifiable,
| and may impact long term heart health.
|
| "Who can't stop drinking may get drunken three times a month. If
| he does it more often, he is guilty. To get drunken twice a month
| is better; once, still more praiseworthy. But not to drink at all
| - what could be better than this? But where could such a being be
| found? But if one would find it, it would be worthy of all
| honour."
|
| -- Genghis Khan
| xyzzy21 wrote:
| There's generally "No Safe Level of Living in the World" either.
| omgJustTest wrote:
| it_does_follow wrote:
| I don't drink to live a long time, I drink to make the time I'm
| hear a bit more bearable.
| JohnJamesRambo wrote:
| I wish this info was more well known. My family still labors
| under the old info of thinking a little of that poison is
| healthy. And I have watched that be incorrect.
| helloworld11 wrote:
| Aside from the still dubious "certainty" of this clinical
| conclusion, there are far too man y puritans on this comment
| threat hoping to optimize every last possible, squeezable ounce
| of supposed health from life by railing against alcohol as well.
| Quite simply, some things have social, personal and emotional
| benefits that might just be worth a bit more in the long run than
| being an absolutist who weighs the most minimal uncertainties of
| pleasurable acts at all times. To each their own, but what a
| terrible way to live a life, and especially with the full
| knowledge that many previous health studies by many large
| organizations have frequently fucked up in their claims that X or
| Y is bad or good, only to later change their tunes with new
| evidence.
| helloworld11 wrote:
| Instead of downvoting, why not someone justify with a decent
| counterargument that goes beyond simply "alcohol is unsafe!"?
| Life comes with risk, many pleasurable activities come with
| risk. It's possible to balance between enjoying oneself and
| moderating one's behavior without sinking into a morass of
| absolutist, puritanical and medically ambiguous health
| "optimization".
| softwarebeware wrote:
| Many of the comments focus on the individual. There should also
| be consideration for societal concerns and overall public health.
| Leary wrote:
| When they say the evidence is clear, you have to ask, where's the
| evidence? Did they have a randomized control trial I don't know
| of?
| actually_a_dog wrote:
| Click through to the download and chase the citations, if you
| want to see what they're referring to as "evidence."
| tasha0663 wrote:
| Evidence? Didn't you see those dirty MGD bottles next to the
| broken window on page 2?
| IvanK_net wrote:
| That is strange. But I am sure a small amount of cigarettes is
| good for lungs.
| colechristensen wrote:
| Smoking cigarettes actually has a protective effect for
| contracting covid. You're less likely to get it but if you do
| the outcome is worse.
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| Everyone knows this. Some choose to believe the 1 or 2 debunked
| and unrepeatable studies that show small amounts of alcohol is
| good for you rather than the mountain of evidence that says it
| isnt.
|
| If you want to drink alcohol, that is fine. But pretending its
| healthy in some way is lying to yourself.
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| as someone who grew up i a community that has for many reasons,
| religious, social, economic that no one really does alcohol. when
| there is nobody who is drunk, we have 0 drunk driving cases, 0
| cases of people ending up in wrong places, 0 cases of alcoholism,
| 0 cases of "well we will just mix a drink with something more
| recreational", no need for AA among a host of other things
| including not having to budget alcohol in your daily budget
| because people are generally still poor.
|
| why is that not more prevalent?
| jdhn wrote:
| Because alcohol has been purposely drunk by people for
| literally thousands of years, and the vast, vast majority of
| people are able to drink without having a problem?
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| people have purposely been doing a lot of slavery for
| thousands of years as well. took us some time but we got over
| the whole "its been fine for millions of years so it must be
| good or at least fine" to get to the root of the issue. once
| we found that, slavery was abolished pretty much everywhere.
|
| my point is, why bring "societal pressure of 500 years" into
| an argument for an inherently bad thing. just thinking out
| loud
| JodieBenitez wrote:
| I don't know what the slavery has to do here... but as for
| psychoactive drugs, it's not _only_ a bad thing, it also
| has its upsides that are well-known, hence why humans have
| been consuming drugs since forever. The downsides /upsides
| ratio varies greatly depending on the dose and the
| frequency.
|
| I think there's better education around alcohol now than
| there was 30 years ago (at least where I live). Still, a
| lot could be done, particularly for the youth, like banning
| pre-mixed cans and other sugary ready-to-binge beverages.
| Habits start early.
| N1H1L wrote:
| Slavery is not alcohol, and equating the two is a very
| obvious strawman argument
| netizen-936824 wrote:
| The point was the "doing something for a long time is not
| a good reason to view it as okay"
| amirbehzad wrote:
| antoniuschan99 wrote:
| Could it be that it's the result of prohibition? Because the
| Temperance Movement advocated a few of the things you
| mentioned. Ken Burns has a great doc on Prohibition!
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| from my small understanding of "prohibition" it was like thry
| tried to enforce it by way of brute muscle and people found
| ingenious ways to fool the system. what would the result have
| been if they had worked on educating people and building a
| society wide consensus about its ill effects.
| hydrok9 wrote:
| Well, they did educate people, alcoholism was a huge
| problem in the US at the time and men who became alcoholics
| often abused their families and could not provide for them,
| leaving them destitute. AFAIK, these issues did change for
| the better as alcoholism rates were lower after Prohibition
| than before, and less hard spirits were consumed. But
| building a society-wide consensus in the US confirming
| teetotalism? Outside of the highly religious communities,
| it's just impossible.
| tatrajim wrote:
| Alcohol use around the world over the centuries is a vast
| topic, but coming from a US religious community that prohibited
| all alcohol, I was duly impressed while serving in the peace
| corps in rural South Korea with the social utility of drinking
| to moderate the rigid hierarchies of local culture there and to
| provide a place for blunt truth telling otherwise impossible.
|
| The costs of alcoholism were readily visible as well, but I do
| believe drinking culture in South Korea is a hidden partner to
| its vaulting economic and cultural success from the ruins of
| the Korean War.
| hydrok9 wrote:
| The answer to your question is in your statement. Most
| communities don't have "many reasons" to favour prohibition, in
| fact most communities don't even have one. Yes there's the idea
| that no alcohol = no alcohol-caused problems, but people don't
| assume they will have a problem when they start to drink.
|
| In my area, the only dry communities are small towns with
| strong Mennonite backgrounds. And in every one of those towns,
| there's a bar right outside city limits, or in the next town
| over, where people in the dry community go to drink.
| BunsanSpace wrote:
| Alcohol is a carcinogen, it's bad for the liver, and while I
| didn't know, I'm not surprised it's bad for the heart.
|
| Keep drinking to a minimum, and if possible keep it social.
| Life's short, enjoy a beer or glass of whiskey, but try to
| minimize it's harms, or just take mushrooms.
|
| Also keep an eye out if you're a binge drinker, it's the second
| type of alcoholic, you don't drink everyday, but when you do
| drink you drink until you pass out.
| nabla9 wrote:
| Heineken and Carlsberg paid NIH $100 million to "to show that
| moderate alcohol consumption is safe and lowers risk of common
| diseases". This and other ethical research violations created the
| whole "moderate amount of alcohol may be healthy" meme.
|
| The alcohol industry gave the government money to prove moderate
| drinking is safe https://www.vox.com/science-and-
| health/2018/3/21/17139036/he...
|
| Alcohol industry involvement in science: A systematic review of
| the perspectives of the alcohol research community
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6055701/
| dmz73 wrote:
| The article seems to cherry pick official statements to support
| the title. "Studies have shown that even small amounts of alcohol
| can increase a person's risk of cardiovascular disease, including
| coronary disease, stroke, heart failure, hypertensive heart
| disease, cardiomyopathy (heart muscle disease), atrial
| fibrillation (irregular heartbeat), and aneurysm. "To date, no
| reliable correlation has been found between moderate alcohol
| consumption and a lower risk of heart disease." "Studies that
| claim otherwise are based on purely observational research, which
| fails to account for other factors, such as pre-existing
| conditions and a history of alcoholism in those considered to be
| 'abstinent'.
|
| So they claim their research shows increased risk, not stating by
| how much - there is difference between 0.5% and 15% and 50%,
| across a broad range of conditions. The only counterpoint
| mentioned is that there is no reliable correlation between
| moderate (no mention of what that is) consumption and lower risk
| of heart disease - what about all the other conditions? Finally
| there is a quote dismissing other research because it fails to
| account for other factor but there is hardly any mention on what
| factors have been accounted for in the current research.
|
| The whole thing seems poorly written and seems to preach instead
| of document and explain.
|
| Consumption of any substance in sufficient quantities will cause
| harm - you can drown by drinking too much water in too short of a
| period of time but no one is going to suggest that because of
| that there isn't any quantity of water is safe to consume.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Yeah, maybe there's no evidence that a small amount of alcohol
| helps in any way, but "any level of alcohol consumption can
| lead to loss of healthy life" is pure alarmism. Along the same
| lines as "any level of fat consumption can make you fatter".
| Technically true but also irrelevant.
|
| > It is important not to exaggerate the risk of moderate
| drinking and unduly alarm responsible consumers
|
| Ha, yeah maybe you should have thought about more before
| talking to the press.
| darthrupert wrote:
| I don't consume alcohol because I think it's healthy, I consume
| it because it tastes sometimes good and because it feels good.
|
| So the real question is: is some amount of alcohol neutral or not
| health-wise?
| jjice wrote:
| It's a good question. Without any research, I'm going to
| continue to have a few drinks every week since it's been done
| for centuries just fine.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Of course it isn't. Drink water. Unfortunately some people
| believe they can't enjoy themselves without alcohol.
|
| It's curious:
|
| - babies have fun without drinking
|
| - kids have fun without drinking
|
| - some teens have fun without drinking
|
| Then at some point _some_ people, as adults, feel like they have
| to drink to enjoy themselves? I wonder what happened.
|
| Edit: explicitly clarifying that I'm only talking about some
| people here
| dfinninger wrote:
| I have tremendous enjoyment in my life without drinking.
| Running, hiking, biking, cooking, movies, road trips, museums,
| concerts, new restaurants, etc...
|
| There are also enjoyable things that involve drinking too, but
| _needing_ a drink to enjoy oneself seems a bit hyperbolic for
| the average adult, no?
| kstrauser wrote:
| I hike and camp a lot with my kid's Scout troop, and agree:
| there's so much fun you can have without alcohol. That said,
| there's also a time factor. When we're up in the mountains,
| we have a couple of days dedicated to the activity, and we
| can all relax into it. When a bunch of coworkers go out after
| work, they've got a couple of hours to go from work-mode to
| play-mode before going home for the night, and alcohol can
| greatly facilitate how quickly a person can switch from one
| to the other.
|
| I enjoy the same things you're talking about sober (except
| maybe concerts -- is that even legal?), but understand why a
| group of friends would start their evening together with a
| round of drinks.
| peanut_worm wrote:
| Sure but if you are stuck at home because its 8pm on a
| tuesday because you work all day you can't exactly go hiking.
| If you have money and time its easy to entertain yourself.
| haroldp wrote:
| "People with as yet undeveloped pre-frontal cortexes to limit
| their inhibitions, and analyze, second-guess and evaluate their
| actions before they take them, don't need a drug that
| specifically suppresses the executive functions of their PFC,
| so why do you?"
| srg0 wrote:
| - babies have fun without money
|
| - kids have fun without money
|
| - some teens have fun without money
|
| Then at some point /some/ people, as adults, feel like they
| need money to enjoy themselves?
| hiptobecubic wrote:
| As we age, we feel more pressure to conform socially, I think.
| Alcohol lets people feel uninhibited like kids temporarily.
| asdf_snar wrote:
| > Then at some point people, as adults, feel like they have to
| drink to enjoy themselves? I wonder what happened.
|
| It feels like this question is disingenuous. You don't need
| fire starter to start a fire either, but wouldn't it be silly
| to conclude fire starter doesn't make starting a fire easier?
| Moderate alcohol consumption in an intimate environment is a
| lot of fun.
|
| Put differently, if alcohol didn't present such serious health
| risks, I wouldn't be making an effort to cut it out of my
| social circles. As it stands, though, my friends, family and I
| have started referring to it as "poison", just to be totally
| transparent about what we're doing when we meet for drinks.
| mint2 wrote:
| More apt analogy than one would think. lighter fluid and any
| product specifically labeled a fire starter do not really
| help if one has a basic understanding of fire except in
| extreme cases like for some reason the wood is soaking wet.
| And they have significant downsides in cost. lighter fluid is
| just gross. With even a modest understanding of how fire
| works all one needs is wood. Newspaper is good for charcoal.
|
| "Fire starter" products are mostly only useful to people who
| don't know what they're doing or aren't actually using it to
| start the fire but want to squirt in lighter fluid just to
| see big flames.
| MAGZine wrote:
| we're missing the point here, but newspaper isn't good for
| charcoal. You need sustained heat to activate charcoal--
| paper burns too quickly. The one time I tried to do this, I
| ended up slathering it in olive oil which would retard the
| flames a bit and drag the burn out.
|
| It's fine if you don't like to drink, nobody is saying you
| have to, but saying that it doesn't lubricate social
| situations is just naive. Is it a crutch? In some cases,
| sure. In other cases--an enhancer.
| mint2 wrote:
| With a chimney you use olive oil on newspaper?! Anyway
| enough about fire starting. To be honest if you're having
| fun with campfires like once in a blue moon and don't
| really know what you're doing, a fire starter can be an
| okay crutch, but if you want to go camping often to have
| fun it's much easier and cheaper to just use the wood and
| maybe a bit of paper. But that's enough hijacking this
| thread to fire starting.
|
| People come reliant on alcohol and can't do it without
| it. It becomes a prerequisite not an enhancer. That
| sounds more parasitic than anything else.
| endisneigh wrote:
| I don't understand your comparison with a fire.
|
| Your claim that moderate alcohol consumption makes things
| more fun is part of the point of my post. Is this actually
| true, or just a rationalization of people who already drink?
|
| No judgement for those who do drink, by the way.
| penjelly wrote:
| It is true. It allows some people open up in ways they
| wouldnt before. Your point could apply to psychedelics, are
| they necessary for personal growth and changing
| perspectives? No. Can they help & accelerate the process?
| Yes.
|
| - anecdote from someone who doesnt like drinking much
| kaesar14 wrote:
| It's true.
| xenocratus wrote:
| I used to hate drinking and only drank very small
| quantities of alcohol at parties/gatherings. That's changed
| somewhat in the past few years. I've only been drunk 3-4
| times in my life (I'm 29, male, living in a Western
| country), and even then it was mild (no blackouts,
| hangovers, feeling sick, etc.). However, I believe that
| when I do drink for social lubrication purposes, it does
| help. I'm quite introverted/withdrawn usually, and a few
| drinks definitely help with altering that balance a bit.
|
| Of course, I've not done control trials on myself, with
| placebos and so on. It's just anecdata.
| asdf_snar wrote:
| Before I continue, I think it's also important to note
| different people metabolize alcohol differently and feel
| its effects differently. Many Russians can take care of
| 0,5L of vodka in one sitting and still function. (Russian
| men aged roughly 20-45 also die from alcohol at absurdly
| high rates.) So as with all things, our discussion is
| purely a subjective one -- I find it useful, though, as it
| helps me analyze my own drinking habits.
|
| > Your claim that moderate alcohol consumption makes things
| more fun is part of the point of my post. Is this actually
| true, or just a rationalization of people who already
| drink?
|
| Right. It's a good question, and I don't know the answer,
| and I've tried hard to introspect and distinguish between
| rationalizing and it being true.
|
| As someone pointed out above, the fire starter analogy is
| better than one might think -- if you are enlightened
| enough, you don't need alcohol to start a fire. In my
| experience, though, few things open up a conversation with
| a stranger as quickly as a little alcohol. I'm not saying
| I've never had an intimate conversation with a stranger in
| which we both showed vulnerability without alcohol. But the
| psychoactive aspect of intoxication makes those
| conversations with alcohol more memorable, stranger or
| closest friend. I've tried hard to determine whether I'm
| just fooling myself, or if alcohol is actually making
| something "funner". My conclusion is that if I am fooling
| myself, the trick is good enough that I'll probably never
| figure it out.
| tshaddox wrote:
| I mean come one, are we really going to argue that huge
| numbers of people are just fooling themselves into thinking
| that alcohol is fun? Yes. It is actually true that alcohol
| consumption makes many social situations more fun for many
| people.
| gambiting wrote:
| >>I wonder what happened.
|
| I think you start working and the only "fun" situations you are
| in are meetings at a pub after work with drink involved. After
| few years you naturally start to associate fun off-work time
| with drinking.
| WithinReason wrote:
| We run out of fun
| jedimastert wrote:
| You forgot many to most adults that can have fun can do so
| without alcohol
| endisneigh wrote:
| Not at all, I'm referring mainly to those who feel like they
| have to drink to enjoy themselves. Of course there are adults
| who don't have to drink to enjoy themselves (there are many
| who have never had a drink)
| [deleted]
| kubb wrote:
| > I wonder what happened.
|
| What's the difference between the life of a child and that of
| an adult? You seem to be very close to figuring it out. (Tip:
| adults have little to no leisure time).
| marcodiego wrote:
| I saw some drunken adults. Looks like they are having more fun
| than babies, kids and teenagers. And they get some form of
| "support" by other adults, unlike babies, kids and teenagers
| would get if they behaved the same. Until it starts ruining
| your life, being a drunken adult seems fun and acceptable.
| eljimmy wrote:
| My take on it is that as adults you mature and begin to abide
| by all the rules of society. Alcohol lowers your inhibitions
| and "allows" you to act like you were as a child.
| tsol wrote:
| I believe it's really just cultural. If you spend time with
| people who don't drink, they often have just as fun a time as
| drinkers. Humans have been around for a while and if we
| couldn't have fun once in a while we'd be long extinct. I think
| people overestimate the necessity of social lubricants. This
| probably goes hand in hand with the greater culture as well--
| at least in America I think it's seen as more necessary because
| socially its seen as weird to behave really friendly with
| strangers unless you're imbibed.
| lazyjones wrote:
| Babies and kids have a lot of fun with sugar, does that mean
| it's OK to consume it recklessly?
| roughly wrote:
| > I wonder what happened.
|
| Among other things, alcohol became legal to drink. Adults take
| more road trips than babies and teenagers too, I wonder why
| they can't have fun at home anymore.
| tshaddox wrote:
| I don't really get this jump from "I enjoy drinking alcohol
| with friends" to someone accusing me of "being unable to enjoy
| myself without alcohol." You could throw the same accusations
| at anyone for literally everything they enjoy doing. You can't
| enjoy yourself without going out to see a movie! You can't
| enjoy yourself without camping! You can't enjoy yourself
| without listening to music!
| shane_b wrote:
| Ignorance is bliss
| TrackerFF wrote:
| A bit of alcohol makes you feel good, there's no two ways about
| it. And, for many, it soothes their anxieties - or just loosens
| them up.
|
| I can have fun without alcohol, no problem. But I can't deny
| that I like the taste of alcoholic drinks / beverages, and I
| enjoy the effect.
|
| Same with sugar - I can enjoy a life without candy, but once in
| a while, I enjoy eating candy.
|
| It's all about moderation.
| misiti3780 wrote:
| Yes, but wine makes food taste infinitely better. I don't want
| to eat my rare filet with a glass of water, I want to eat it
| with and chilled bottle of natural Syrah from the North Rhone
| (preferably Dard et Ribo)
| WithinReason wrote:
| You chill red vine? Savage.
| misiti3780 wrote:
| Not all -- but some. Syrah tastes better at cellar temp or
| below (IMO), Gamay usually tastes great chilled also.
| rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote:
| Most reds are meant to be served a good notch below room
| temperature, but not quite as cool as whites.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Why yes, I freeze all my candy.
| [deleted]
| DamnYuppie wrote:
| Yes but a moderate amount with good friends is great for my soul.
| asdf_snar wrote:
| My friend and family groups have been making a consistent
| effort to stop romanticizing alcohol and have gatherings
| without it. There's no denying alcohol is a social lubricant
| that can be very enjoyable.
| jsonne wrote:
| Agreed. I'm not against alcohol but I find I can get 80%-90%
| of the benefits by following the "ritual" of it with a
| mocktail and simply setting aside time where I give myself
| permission to relax and socialize. Alcohol is fine in
| moderation but its not as necessary as folks think to having
| those enjoyable experiences.
| slfnflctd wrote:
| I think it's important to normalize having alcohol-free
| excursions, especially when younger people are around.
| Demonstrate that self control is valued. And I say that as
| someone with a drinking problem who sweats about going more
| than half a day without one.
| Ensorceled wrote:
| My father, an alcoholic (25 years sober), gave the best
| description ... he was always worried about if there was
| going to be alcohol at the event and how much.
|
| If you are turning down attending events because they are
| dry ... you have a problem.
| pydry wrote:
| What's a good alternative, though?
|
| It's delicious and it lets you collectively guard down in a
| way that creates a bond of trust. It's a difficult thing to
| substitute.
|
| When one of my friends went to China on business and came
| back with "stories" I realized that KTV visits
| (prostitutes) performed a similar function, but honestly a
| glass of wine seems a bit more wholesome.
| robbick wrote:
| Indeed, it is always good to know the science but we should
| balance that against the benefits. I like this quote from David
| Spiegelhalter[0]
|
| "Given the pleasure presumably associated with moderate
| drinking, claiming there is no 'safe' level does not seem an
| argument for abstention," he said.
|
| "There is no safe level of driving, but the government does not
| recommend that people avoid driving.
|
| "Come to think of it, there is no safe level of living, but
| nobody would recommend abstention."
|
| [0]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45283401
| politelemon wrote:
| I don't see it as a good quote and was puzzled as to its
| inclusion. It is simply a play on the words 'safe level' and
| equating it to other things. My best guess is that it's meant
| to appeal to the "I hear you but wish to continue drinking
| anyway" thought process, which is fair. This kind of equation
| is not.
| greatquux wrote:
| I do see it as a good quote and wasn't puzzled. Perhaps we
| simply disagree?
| bodge5000 wrote:
| Not necessarily. Driving for example is dangerous, a fatal
| crash can occur even if all parties involved are driving
| safely and are in complete control, and for that matter
| anything has a risk carried with it, but you balance out
| the risks and the rewards, just as you would with alcohol
| tcskeptic wrote:
| I was thinking about this recently watching a conversation
| between Lex Fridman and Bryan Johnson and it struck me that
| there is a huge difference in optimizing lifestyle choices for
| human physical and mental performance, and optimizing lifestyle
| choices for human flourishing, or even say joy and wonder. I
| feel like there is this growing misunderstanding that the
| "optimal" human is one that can be the most productive at work.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| I think saying its a misunderstanding is not giving people
| enough credit: we are constantly incentivized if not required
| to eschew joy and wonder in order to be productive and
| optimal. I don't think most people even have the chance to
| reflect on what they _really_ want, they just need to make
| money to pay their rent.
| N1H1L wrote:
| Isn't it more of an American phenomenon though - because of
| the country's puritan roots?
| tcskeptic wrote:
| But it seems to me that the people that are most focused on
| being productive and optimal in this weirdly obsessive way
| are pretty high income -- they are not just scraping by to
| pay rent. I work with a company that does manufacturing
| here in the US -- it is pretty clear to me that the group
| of folks in our company that are skilled labor, hourly
| employees that are pretty well compensated, have more fun
| and make more time to experience joy and wonder than folks
| (like myself) that are more highly compensated and in the
| white collar world. This does not hold true for the lower
| end unskilled labor folks who have almost unavoidable
| material financial concerns due to income level. Now, I
| acknowledge this is very small sample size, but it makes me
| think.
| api wrote:
| I've wondered for a long time if the studies showing health
| benefits from alcohol are being confounded by the health
| benefits of socialization, which often involves alcohol in many
| societies. People who drink less might (statistically)
| socialize less.
| LeonM wrote:
| This reminds me of something a friend once told me. This was
| about 10 years ago, he was a commander for the navy at the
| time.
|
| In the navy, while at sea, you are expected to drink during
| social events. Alcohol is considered the 'social engine' of the
| ship.
|
| Now I must disclaim that obviously the crew wasn't forced to
| drink. Those on guard, or who had any medical, religious or
| other objections were dismissed. And naturally they have very
| strict limits, as getting intoxicated on board of a operational
| warship would be very dangerous.
|
| But, with moderate use, alcohol was (at least back then) viewed
| as an efficient method to prevent stress and mutiny among the
| crew. It probably is still today.
| tootie wrote:
| I usually spend time with friends over coffee which has very
| much been rehabilitated in the medical world over the past ten
| years.
| throwaway889900 wrote:
| One more of these huh?
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7l2hUp0CkQ
| univalent wrote:
| Meh, we are going to keep drinking anyway
| charcircuit wrote:
| >Studies have shown that even small amounts of alcohol can
| increase a person's risk of cardiovascular disease
|
| I've never drunk alcohol before. Is it worth never having it?
| Does one drink really ruin your body that much.
| the_only_law wrote:
| If you mean literally having one drink once in your life I
| highly doubt there is any meaningful impact.
|
| If I had to guess, the air I breathe and other environmental
| factors would be more harmful over a long term period than
| having a single drink.
| malfist wrote:
| Disclaimer, not a scientist, just a (3 year) sober alcoholic
|
| One drink once in your life is not going to harm you. I think
| this is talking more about the "moderate" drinking of 1-2
| servings per week.
|
| That said, I've been down the whole alcohol path before and it
| ain't good for me. I don't know of any time since I've gotten
| sober that I thought back and said "Man, I wish I had been
| drunk for that"
|
| It's an unnecessary risk. Maybe you'll do fine trying alcohol,
| maybe you'll become an addict and ruin your life. I don't think
| you're going to enhance your life by trying alcohol.
| runnerup wrote:
| It's fine to never drink alcohol. One drink won't change
| anything measurable. Even this press release doesn't claim that
| one drink per day is harmful -- it merely claims that one drink
| per day has never been definitively shown to cause benefit.
| mywittyname wrote:
| A fitbit helped me discover how terrible alcohol is for your
| heart. I could clearly see which days I would have a drink
| because my average resting heart rate would go from 63-65 to
| 77-80!
| tasha0663 wrote:
| You easily could have done that just worrying about it.
| mywittyname wrote:
| Unlikely. A) I never worried about it, B) The effects last
| into my sleep.
|
| The effect is also most pronounced in my sleep since my heart
| rate is usually quite consistent, it varies like 2 bpm most
| nights. But if I look at the last night I drank, my average
| heart rate is +10 from baseline and varied by 20 bpm during
| my sleep.
|
| The data is crystal clear.
| tsol wrote:
| That high an effect? I don't think so. I also monitor my
| heart rate and anxiety doesn't cause nearly as big a heart
| rate increase as alcohol.
| dghughes wrote:
| This is as bad as the disastrous Wakefield Autism "study". People
| will deny alcohol is bad for them for the next 100 years even
| with multiple studies showing the results.
| muongold wrote:
| I saved this article from a similar discussion a few years ago,
| which argues that moderate drinking (but not binge drinking) is
| healthy in various ways. Does anyone know if it, or the
| underlying data it refers to, has been refuted?
|
| https://psmag.com/social-justice/truth-wont-admit-drinking-h...
| bena wrote:
| This is a correlation fallacy.
|
| The group of moderate drinkers is also the group of the most
| healthy. That doesn't necessarily mean that moderate drinking
| is healthy.
|
| Because guess what else correlates with moderate drinking?
| Affluence.
|
| Guess where poor people fall more in either the "never or
| hardly" category or the "binge drinking" category. Either you
| feel like you're too poor to afford to drink and thus do so
| only rarely. Or you've just completely given up and all your
| money goes to drinking.
|
| What else correlates with affluence? Overall health outcomes.
| If you're poor, you also can't really afford to go to the
| doctor regularly.
|
| So what the study really tells us is what we already know:
| having a reasonable amount of money is good for you.
| starwind wrote:
| Don't forget that studies looking at drinking often fail to
| seperate out former alcoholics who usually have long-term
| health problems from drinking from teetotalers
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Counter-point: Alcohol was key in the creation of the United
| States.
|
| "In the drink, a dream; and in the dream, a spark."[1]
|
| "...the Founding Fathers despised each other. Like, these bros
| couldn't stand the sight of one another and it's a goddamn
| miracle our country ever came to be, that's how much they hated
| one another."[2]
|
| In 1787, two days before they signed off on the Constitution, the
| 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention partied at a
| tavern. According to the bill preserved from the evening, they
| drank 54 bottles of Madeira, 60 bottles of claret, eight of
| whiskey, 22 of porter, eight of hard cider, 12 of beer and seven
| bowls of alcoholic punch.[2]
|
| [1]
| https://books.google.com/books?id=s3SqDAAAQBAJ&lpg=PT9&ots=R...
|
| [2] https://brobible.com/life/article/america-founding-
| fathers-b...
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Sit down, John.
| Clubber wrote:
| >Counter-point: Alcohol was key in the creation of the United
| States.
|
| Some people theorize it was one of the main driving forces for
| agriculture and civilization itself.
|
| https://news.stanford.edu/press-releases/2018/09/12/crafting...
| iKlsR wrote:
| A bit related, I can't remember the exact details but I read
| or watched somewhere recently that it was key in taking over
| some regions. They would gift village chiefs alcohol and have
| them sign away rights to their land under the influence.
| tsol wrote:
| How is that a counter to to claims about its health effects?
| They're not saying alcohol has no positives and it's for
| terrible people, just that it has negative effects on health.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| I've taken liberty on the word "heart" to mean the overall
| character of a person. I.e. alcohol is beneficial in many
| other ways, and it must not be dismissed as "just a bad drug"
| in discussions.
| deltaonefour wrote:
| It's a liberty you exploited because clearly the intent of
| that word refers to a physical heart. Nobody dismisses it
| as a bad drug, alcohol is too ingrained in human culture to
| ever be dismissed.
|
| What's going on in this thread is scientific reconciliation
| and justification of ones own behavior. Lots of people live
| their lives off of scientific facts and conclusions to
| improve their own health and productivity. This new
| conclusion from the WHF flies in the face of an old
| conclusion and habitual drinkers of alcohol. Thus people
| need to twist and reconstruct the logic in such a way that
| their own behavior is justified.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| >Nobody dismisses it as a bad drug
|
| There's an instance right here:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30010131
| deltaonefour wrote:
| Well, it's a small minority. A technicality basically.
| Alcohol is too ingrained in every culture to be anything
| other than that.
| temp12913231 wrote:
| tharne wrote:
| Don't worry, in 5-10 years it will be good for you again.
|
| I still remember being lectured in school on the food pyramid and
| the importance of getting your 8-10 servings of grains a day.
| ravenstine wrote:
| The first time I started to wake up to government one-size-
| fits-all health policies was back in my 8th grade health class
| when we were being taught about the food pyramid, and this one
| kid asked the teacher why hamburgers are considered junk food
| when they pretty much fit into the model food pyramid. I
| remember the teacher being stumped and uttered out a barely
| comprehensible response after an awkward moment.
|
| At first I thought that kid was a smartass, but the more I
| thought about it, the more I realized that he wasn't wrong.
| I've you've got an American hamburger with all the fixin's,
| although its proportions aren't exactly like the food pyramid,
| it's close enough that it's hard to classify it as being
| unhealthy unless it's laced with extra cheese and barbecue
| sauce and whatnot. Yeah, there's fat in the patty, but the
| whole fat being bad thing is pretty much one of the biggest
| forms of bullshit ever invented by health policy.
|
| This isn't to say that I actually think hamburgers are health
| food, but that the food pyramid is kind of a farce, especially
| in the sense that it implies that grains are some sort of
| nutritional necessity that should be consumed in greater
| quantities than everything else.
| 8bitsrule wrote:
| > the whole fat being bad thing ... bullshit
|
| I bet it played a big part in the growth of the $71B US diet
| industry.
|
| Five top wine consumers [0] vs. (coronary disease per 100k
| [1]): US (79.2), France (31), Italy (51), UK (47), China
| (114), Russia (225), Spain (38.9)
|
| [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/858743/global-wine-
| consu...
|
| [1] https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-
| death/coronary-...
| irthomasthomas wrote:
| That's because the food pyramid is owned by the USDA, which
| represents American farming.
| moralestapia wrote:
| Wait, so grains are bad now?
| BobbyJo wrote:
| They shouldn't be most of what you eat, since they have a lot
| of digestible carbohydrates compared to the amount of fiber,
| fat, and vitamins, but they are certainly not _bad_ for you.
|
| Your calories (unless you're a genetic outlier) should be
| relatively evenly split between carbs and fat. If whole
| grains are where most of the carbs are coming from, that's
| fine. Science says so.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| This clip from Woody Allen's "Sleeper":
|
| https://youtu.be/D2fYguIX17Q
| N1H1L wrote:
| Yep. You don't have to go that far. A decade back it was
| thought that red meat causes cancer, specifically intestinal
| cancer. Lots of health guidelines reflected that. It has all
| fallen apart in the last 2-3 years.
| ChrisLomont wrote:
| Have some place to read this? Everywhere credible I look
| seems to still say it. For example,
|
| https://progressreport.cancer.gov/prevention/red_meat
| N1H1L wrote:
| https://www.theguardian.com/food/2019/sep/30/research-red-
| me...
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-
| can...
|
| Good overview of the controversy.
| netizen-936824 wrote:
| Media reporting is the literal _worst_ way to learn about
| scientific reporting and studies
| ubercow13 wrote:
| What's a good way? Certainly not reading individual
| scientific papers yourself.
| melissalobos wrote:
| > Don't worry, in 5-10 years it will be good for you again.
|
| I don't know about that, it it looking more like Alcohol is
| heading down the path of cigarettes where the more unbiased
| funding and studies that are done, the worse it appears. There
| have been several convincing reviews[1] recently that showed an
| increased risk of cancer at any dosage.
|
| [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32584303/ (First one I
| could find easily again)
| P_I_Staker wrote:
| Yeah, it's really a myth that science is changing so much.
|
| You can look at dietary recommendations from the 70s, and
| they're fine. Eat your plants and don't eat garbage. The food
| pyramid was more a product of lobbying than science. The
| doctors advice wasn't that bad, although there would be less
| knowledge of the dangers of refined carbs.
|
| People want it to be true that the doctors don't know what
| they're doing, but it's not (or these are bad examples of).
| ravenstine wrote:
| Honestly, I find it baffling when people think that doctors
| know what they're talking about when it comes to nutrition.
| Maybe things have changed in recent years, and that would
| be great, but in my experience and from the anecdotes of
| others, my conception of what doctors understand is the
| opposite of what you describe.
|
| Granted, I do agree that the science actually hasn't
| changed _that much_ , and that doctors who do _research_
| know ath they 're talking about, but your average MD is
| pretty clueless about nutrition and fitness because that's
| really not a subject that gets priority in med school.
| There are even doctors today who still give advice along
| the lines of the Food Pyramid and My Plate. I've heard more
| than one account in my social circles of doctors telling
| people the myth that dietary fat flows freely through your
| blood vessels and clogs them exactly the same way that
| bacon grease can clog drain pipes.
|
| > People want it to be true that the doctors don't know
| what they're doing
|
| Also, the root of this statement is something I am
| surprised by. People want their doctors to _not_ know what
| they 're doing? In what universe is that true? Maybe that
| fits your experience, but this is a phenomenon I've never
| encountered in the slightest.
| b3morales wrote:
| > People want their doctors to not know what they're
| doing?
|
| No, you're right, people _who go to a doctor_ certainly
| don 't want _their individual physician_ to be
| incompetent. I believe parent was talking about a less
| specific, somewhat "anti-establishment" point of view.
| Folks who feel that they've been failed by medical
| doctors, for example -- a chronic condition that they
| can't get help with. Or people who have other reasons to
| believe that the medical profession is ossified, or
| beholden to interests that don't serve patients --
| critiques of that sort.
| ravenstine wrote:
| Ah ok, then I misinterpreted.
| P_I_Staker wrote:
| Yeah, OP is spot on. It's not really EVERYONE either, but
| I'd say the majority of people I know really like some
| version of the "doctors don't know what they're talking
| about" argument. Things are weird now with COVID and the
| politics around this stuff.
|
| You'll probably see more of these attitudes on the right,
| but the idea that doctors don't know what they're talking
| about, and change their recommendations all the time is
| incredibly popular. So it's not like 100% of people, or
| probably not even 95%, but I think it's more than eg.
| 30-40%.
| b3morales wrote:
| I've found this is one area where (far) left and (far)
| right overlap, actually. Maybe not in the exact
| specifics, but in a general mistrust of professional
| medicine.
| P_I_Staker wrote:
| Doctors often don't have to know that much about
| nutrition, beyond telling you to eat your plants, and
| some stuff targeted at people who need specific diets.
|
| You say they're clueless on fitness and nutrition, but I
| don't know what information they should be expected to
| know. Your talking about topics riddled with bullshit,
| when you look at public discourse.
|
| Honestly, there's not much to know other than to eat food
| that's pretty famously healthy (plants), and avoid
| sugars. Now they definitely want you to limit meat,
| excessive fats, and refined carbs, too; but the basics
| are really simple.
|
| There's lots of studies out there, but there seems to be
| very little that's clear other than those basic
| guidelines. You can really run around in circles with how
| complex this subject is, yet ignore the basics.
| P_I_Staker wrote:
| While the grains thing was particularly stupid advice,
| recommendations haven't changed as much as you'd think. The
| guidelines from reputable sources as far back as the 60s and
| 70s were fine. They didn't understand how deadly refined carbs
| were, but recommended eating fruits, vegetables while limiting
| desserts and too much fatty meat; now you might be eating a bit
| too much carbs without understanding the risks, but you should
| be perfectly fine with that diet.
|
| People have been making noise about this issue for a very long
| time. Doctors know this stuff is poison and causes cancer. It's
| always seemed silly that just the right amount of poison is
| good somehow. Of course, you don't know without study, but
| experienced people can see areas where the data doesn't seem to
| make sense.
|
| I remember hearing about this stuff a few years ago and it was
| nothing new, even then. We know that early studies looked good
| because many "sick quitters" stop drinking due to their failing
| health. This makes non-drinkers look less healthy. Now this
| stuff is still actively studied and many of the pro-alcohol
| people insist it's still healthy, but the writing has been on
| the wall for at least 5-10 years; no amount of alcohol is
| "healthy".
| tharne wrote:
| > It's always seemed silly that just the right amount of
| poison is good somehow
|
| Why is it silly? A lot of things are dose dependent. A small
| amount of tylenol makes you head feel better. A lot of
| tylenol kills you. Lifting weights is very good for your
| health, but if you overdo it, you can get seriously hurt. A
| stressful day here and there is harmless, but if you're under
| constant, chronic, stress, your health will deteriorate. Four
| hours of sleep will leave you feeling terrible, 7-8 hours
| will leave you feeling rested, and 14 hours will likely leave
| you feeling terrible. I could go on, but I'd argue that dose-
| dependency is the rule rather than the exception.
| P_I_Staker wrote:
| It's not dose dependent though, it's a dangerous poison
| that causes cancer. Your other examples are completely
| different. Tylenol is closest, but you're really talking
| about overdose. Drinking a couple of glasses of wine a day
| isn't an overdose.
|
| Yes, there may be some nasty chronic effects of tylenol
| too, but I think you're trying really hard to fit a square
| peg in a round hole.
| steelstraw wrote:
| Everything is a balance though, isn't it?
|
| If a little alcohol reduces one's stress and increases
| socialization, then they may be better off with the alcohol on
| net.
| azth wrote:
| Increases socialization only because the culture is required to
| socialize over alcohol. In other societies, we socialize over
| tea and coffee.
| jrs235 wrote:
| Does alcohol reduce stress or just delay it?
| kevinmchugh wrote:
| It's not obvious that alcohol reduces stress.
| txsoftwaredev wrote:
| Alcohol removes my anxiety/stress nearly every time I consume
| some. Depending on how much I consume the next day my anxiety
| could be worse though.
| bt1a wrote:
| Alcohol consumption increases cortisol production, so I'd say
| the opposite is true.
| kritiko wrote:
| I had a doctor tell me it was probably preferable to have a
| beer after work to unwind than try to quit. I dunno, I
| think it's very dose and situation dependent. There are
| social aspects to drinking in our culture and being social
| has health benefits.
| [deleted]
| recursive wrote:
| It's obvious to _me_ that it reduces _my stress_. No study
| could convince me otherwise.
| gjs278 wrote:
| tomtheelder wrote:
| Yes, and the takeaway from this brief should not be "reduce
| your alcohol consumption to zero." It is instead, "know when
| you consume alcohol that there is no quantity that will produce
| no harm." That's a big departure from the previously accepted,
| and now thoroughly debunked, conventional wisdom that a small
| quantity is harmless or even beneficial.
| ziggus wrote:
| "No Amount of Alcohol Is Good for the Heart, Says World We Hate
| Fun Federation"
| jedimastert wrote:
| Why is there so much of this sentiment around here? It's an
| article on the internet, not a cop.
|
| But alcohol has risks and if you actually want to balance those
| risks with the rewards, you should have an accurate account of
| what those risks are
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-20 23:00 UTC)