|
|
|
|
|
by elil17
1253 days ago
|
|
There’s a dose dependent relationship, where heavy drinkers have the highest cancer burden. So we do expect (but aren’t sure) discontinuing use reduces risk. I’d say we should treat alcohol very differently than tobacco. It’s got a much lower addiction liability (under 10% of people who try alcohol become addicted, while 32% of people who try nicotine become addicted). Heavy alcohol use is also way more destructive than heavy nicotine use. Additionally, users seem to find alcohol somewhat more fun that nicotine. [1] That said, the literature supports the conclusion that alcohol decreases sleep quality and increases stress, despite what users think. Any objective benefits are likely social in nature. Overall, I think there’s a better case to be made for socially accepting moderate alcohol use compared with the case for nicotine. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have warning labels though - most people currently underestimate the risks of alcohol. 1: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23438502/ |
|
Iffy number or definition? In my circles I am sure more than 10% of people abuse alcohol daily, and I would consider them addicts. Then again, New Zealand has a drinking problem.