|
|
|
|
|
by Pepe1vo
1003 days ago
|
|
To put the percentages from the article in context, a teetotaller between 55 and 59 has a 5.9% chance of developing a stroke while a moderate drinker in the same age group has a 6.7% probability of suffering from a stroke. Which is still bad but not nearly as dramatic as the initial percentages make it sound. I've noticed there is this weird neo-puritanical movement getting in vogue as of late, but I don't really understand why. Especially in educated groups it should come as absolutely no surprise that drinking is bad for your health and I don't know a single person who drinks because it's "healthy". We drink (in moderation) because it's makes for a good time and the negative externalities are understood and considered a worthwhile trade-off. For some people this trade-off is not acceptable which is totally fine too. If you're serious about getting healthier I reckon that for a lot of people there is a lot more impactful changes to make than to stop drinking. E.g. no more processed foods, losing weight, exercising regularly, fixing indoor air quality and maybe less/no drinking if it's actually a significantly affecting health. |
|
Maybe if you have just one with diner and get drunk a few times in your life, you'd be like the guy that does coke at a few parties.
The vast majority of heavy alcohol users suffer from the same behaviors that get you labeled as a drug addict: needing it to fully have fun, not being able to imagine stopping, being okay spending large sums of money on product, etc.
Yet people will lose your mind if you suggest it should be stigmatized like with other substances... and I don't think there's a problem with some "light" stigmatism with things like smoking, drinking, and cocaine use.
We just don't need to treat people as subhuman, but they should be similarly stigmatized. Like the chain-smoking dude presently is.