[shrubby]

Well said here.

We don't have a honest discussion about the progression of addiction so the choices are not visible, until later.

The first beer is the most critical choice, yet it's made for us (in 99% of the cases) by our peers. So is it a choice really?

We're routine (addiction) prone herd animals and as long as we pretend otherwise (free will and the likes) we're stuck in repeating this.

[moi2388]

Why is the first beer the most critical choice?

Why isn’t the last beer the most critical one, for example?

[TylerE]

Without the first beer there is no last beer.

[shrubby]

This.

In a healthy society there would be no need for intoxicants with so severe harms (BBC list for substances by harm is a good reference) and thus no exposure for a addictive substance.

Now the norm decides that, almost without exceptions, we must all be exposed.

[hnlmorg]

What’s healthy isn’t complete abstinence, it’s moderation.

This is true of coffee, sugar, alcohol, social gatherings, work, play, and everything else in life.

[TylerE]

That is true of some things, but the modern evidence is quite clear on the healthiest amount of alcohol being zero.

[hnlmorg]

You've completely missed the point. People don't drink alcohol because it's healthy. Just like people don't eat cake because it's healthy, nor drink coffee because it's healthy.

They do it because the unhealthy effects are desirable.

Which is why moderation is the key. There's absolutely nothing wrong with someone enjoying a drink. But there is with people who need to drink. And that's just as true for sugar addition and caffeine addition too.

Now I'm not suggesting that the negative effects of all vices are equal, because clearly they're not. But suggesting that total abstinence is the answer completely misses the point of why people enjoy a drink to begin with. You're setting an unreal expectation that will never work with society. Just like telling people that they shouldn't ever eat cake or drink coffee would be an unrealistic demand on society.

We already have a mountain of evidence that prove the removal of said vice without solving the underlying problem only drives people will just switch to something else. Often that "something else" can be much much worse. So it's far better to give people outlets but ensure there is support to ensure they descend into dependence (and the vast majority of people do consume in moderation).

[lelanthran]

If alcohol was only discovered in 2026, there isn't a country in the world that would legalise it.

It's legal only because it's been grandfathered in, from before legal systems were created.

[hnlmorg]

That’s an impossible to prove opinion without changing the laws of physics. But there are some precedence we can refer to as a counterargument.

1. There have been plenty of other substances that have been banned which were legal and widely taken since before such laws existed. Demonstrating that governments are willing to control substances that were previously legal.

2. There have also been other drugs that have been legalized after they were previously banned. Proving that governments are willing to accept the risk of people taking drugs.

3. And your augment about alcohol specific actually did happen in some places. It is commonly referred to as "prohibition". And that decision never stuck.

The reality is drugs aren't legal nor illegal based on solely the harm they do. They are judged based on how easy they are to regulate (read: monetize and tax) and the subsections of society which enjoy them.

To expand on that last point: there's a reason cannabis was illegal in most countries while cigarettes weren't. And that reason wasn't because cannabis was considered more dangerous than tobacco. It's was because certain leaders wanted us to think that the people who smoked cannabis was more dangerous than the people that smoked cigarettes.

[joe_mamba]

>In a healthy society there would be no need for intoxicants with so severe harms

Yeah but we don't live in a healthy society. We have more abundance and more advanced healthcare and drugs than ever before, but we are sick in terms of missing social connections and family unit, even in big cities. Hence why mental illnesses and substance abuse are going up.

People don't thrive on GDP line go up and cheap large screen TVs. People need friends, family, and a support network.

[shrubby]

Yes. 100 percent agree. The addiction industry requires us to be desperate and wanting an escape, so that they can brainwash us into complicity and brain fog from hangover or doomscrollin.

[shrubby]

And the substance abuse is a progressive lying disease so once we figure out "this has gone too far" the threshold for abuse has been crossed a long time ago in most cases.

First the close ones see the problem and the individual in question is the last to see it. Thus a lying disease.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

When the train hits you, it isn’t the caboose that kills you.