[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).

[TylerE]

I was only using your own framing. You're the one who lazered in on health.

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

With alcohol this is well established to be false.

https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-...

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-h... (Headline: "Drinking alcohol is a health risk regardless of the amount.")

[hnlmorg]

> I was only using your own framing. You're the one who lazered in on health.

Actually no I wasn't. It was shrubby who mentioned "health" in the medical sense. I was replying to them using "health" in the social wellness sense. ie making the point that "health" is a nuanced term and shouldn't be used in an absolute way like they, and yourself now too, have done.

Health isn't just about physicality. There are social and emotional benefits. For example, enjoying a beer, or glass of wine, with my wife on a Friday evening when we rant about work is a great way to unwind for the weekend. It improves our mental health to have that shared experience. Our relationship is closer for spending time together. It has a net benefit despite it being an unhealthy treat.

You could replace the `wine` with `cake` in statement and have a similar point. But I don't personally enjoy cakes. Also take notice of how I'm not telling you that you shouldn't eat cakes because I don't personally like it ;)

> With alcohol this is well established to be false.

Again, you're missing the point. People enjoy stuff that isn't healthy, but sometimes that can still promote other benefits. Such as mental health. "Health" is a broader term than you give credit for.

Also the links you shared do not prove your point. There's no actual data in either of them. It's just pop-science articles with zero substance designed into scaremongering people. For example their arguments that it takes just one drink to become an addict is just laughable. The real statistics they don't print show a very different story where occasional to moderate drinking is not going to significantly increase your risk of cancer nor anything else. You're talking about fractions of a percent in the change of risk -- and that risk was already a low percentage to begin with. This is where understanding how statistics actually work makes a difference ;)

For example, some studies studies only show a correlation in 5% of cancer cases being related to alcohol consumption and that was proven against heavy drinkers. And the percentage of drinkers who have that cancer are < 1%. eg

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/a...

And a lot of these studies exaggerate what I'd classed as a "light drinker". Take that link I shared:

> Even light drinkers can be at increased risk of some cancers. For example, women who have just one drink per day have a higher risk of breast cancer than those who have less than one drink a week, and risk is increased even more in heavy drinkers and binge drinkers (3-7).

If you're drinking 1 drink per day then you have a dependency. That isn't occasional consumption. I would not class that as demonstrating moderation. If you need to drink every single day then you fall into the category I described in my previous comment when I said there is an underlying problem that needs addressing.

Most people do not drink every day.

---

So to summarize:

- light and occasional drinking is a rounding error of 0 in terms of physical health risk. But it can have much more significant positive effects on mental health.

- understanding the actual statistics and how they work matter if you're going to argue about the risks to health

- people don't become alcoholics from one glass of wine

- if you don't want to drink then I agree nobody should force you. But please don't share bullshit pop-science articles claiming we're all going to become cancer-riddled addicts from an occasional drink just because you don't understand why some people do enjoy the occasional glass of wine. That just demonstrates you don't understand the subject matter.

- and please don't ignore the parallels I made about coffee and cake. They demonstrate the hypocrisy of comments where people claim absence is the only smart choice.

(and no, those bullet points were not AI generated)

edit: sorry for all the crappy grammar. I'm multitasking...badly it seems haha

[shrubby]

I'm tempted to start the full deontology and Jellinek model on substance abuse on this, but don't have the effort now.

If we perform a cost benefit analysis on alcohol the downsides are plentiful and then some.

And the pluses are practically masked versions (taste, buzz,...) of the two major things that make human do anything: what others are doing and what I'm used to (which are pretty shit reasons to do anything IMO) it basically boils down to addiction. Not chemical, but functional and social.

Then we return to the cost benefit analysis and start figuring out how far the lying disease has progressed. The fierceness of the debate feels like a good indicator of this usually.

I'd be tempted to explain this more in depth, but I have stuff to do.

[hnlmorg]

I actually don’t disagree with some of that. But that’s not the point I was discussing.

Let me put it another way: banning something that most people use sensibly and enjoy in moderation isn’t a society that anyone wants to live in nor should live in. I'm sure you'd be the first to complain if the government went after something you enjoyed that caused harm to a minority of other people.

Which is why I keep coming back to the cake analogy. The only reason people eat cake is because of the buzz and taste. Which are pretty shit reasons to do anything in your opinion. And people do get addicted to sugary snacks. Some people even eat for comfort. But a lot of other people do have self-control. Should we ban cake for everyone regardless? Of course not!

As I said in my earlier comment, the problem with substance abuse isn’t the alcohol. The alcohol is just a tool. If you banned alcohol today then people who want escapism will switch to something else. And we’ve seen this trend time and time again throughout history. And it's what any experienced doctor of medicine will also tell you.

So if you want to understand the problems of alcohol abuse better, you need to first understand what drove people to abuse alcohol. Banning alcohol isn’t a shortcut to solving that problem -- despite how much you might like it to be.

Also accusing all people who drink, even those who only do so occasionally, as being addicts (as you literally have done) is so far wrong that it’s just insulting.

[shrubby]

Banning something that has so huge disadvantages, but has been lobbied just like cigarettes is exactly the kind of society I want to live in.

But the choice is not mine, so in that way I win.

It's a social norm and a poison from my POV and just like pfas or plastic in the drinking water I believe it should be controlled and the lobbying banned. Then we'd see the true wish of humanity.

Now our needs are manufactured, not around our wellbeing, but for what "must" be lobbied and advertised.

The norm is manufactured. Just like the addictive algorithms and almost any other thing in this world of pseudo-free will.

Even the likes of Joe Rogan are bringing up the issue, with many others so I see some light in the tunnel for my society, but so far you're right. Your side seems to be winning.

[hnlmorg]

> Banning something that has so huge disadvantages, but has been lobbied just like cigarettes is exactly the kind of society I want to live in.

Alcohol isn't like cigarettes. It's more like coffee or cake in terms of the social aspect. You clearly have huge prejudice against alcohol as a whole, but you need to understand that the vast majority of people who drink, do not drink like the minority of people you associate with alcohol.

Also, cigarettes haven't been banned. Their sale has just been hugely restricted. Which is also true for alcohol.

> Now our needs are manufactured, not around our wellbeing, but for what "must" be lobbied and advertised.

You're now just reiterating the same point I made elsewhere ;)

> Your side seems to be winning.

It's not a battle to win. It’s about choice and support. You are responsible for making your own choices. But you shouldn't be dictating how others should live their own lives.

The way a healthy society works is you give people opportunities and support, and the freedom for individuals to make their own choices. However what you're advocating is taking those choices away for everyone based on your own personal prejudices of a small few. And that's not a world anyone else wants to live in.

You also keep ignoring my point that the actual subsection of society you have a problem with (alcoholics) are the same subsection of society that needs support first. If you simply take the booze away, then their underlying mental health and addiction will just drive them to switch to different substances. And if you solve their condition first, then alcohol no longer is the problem you protest so strongly against.

Simply put, you really don't understand the thing you have such a strong opinion about. And it's evidenced by the fact that you keep sidestepping the real issues behind alcohol. But you still want to restrict peoples freedoms regardless.

[shrubby]

Escape can be done with a lot of things, most of those aren't as harmful as alcohol.

Even in substances there are some with very light harms compared to ethanol, but "this is what we've always been doing".

[hnlmorg]

You're now making a rational argument against an irrational condition.

As I keep saying: the underlying causes behind alcoholism is something that needs to be specifically addressed if you don't want alcoholics to simply switch to something worse.

This is why support groups like Alcoholics Anonymous talk about people's lives and their struggles. They aren't trying to address the access to alcohol, they address the mental state that drove people to abuse alcohol.

This is the key part you keep ignoring. Making alcohol illegal doesn't solve these issues. People will still find a way to get smashed. And there's proof of this in Saudi and Iran where black markets thrive. The proof is also with people in the the EU, UK and US who keep switching from one recreational drug to the next as governments ban new substances in a game of whack-a-mole.

What you're trying to do is treat the symptom, not the cause. And that's why I keep disagreeing with you.