They are coming for your bottle too...

[PaulPower]

1 in 20 deaths globally is a result of alcohol use

No amount of alcohol is good for your overall health, global study says

 

[ponfed]

Yeah  its puritanism in another garb. 

And I say that as a recovering alcoholic, for these people,  pleasure is suspect, the rest is cover.

Not to dismiss the damage that alcohol can do, be it socially or personally. 

But I think there are measures that can be taken to minimize harm without turning into Victorian scolds. 

But as I said, it's not the substance that bothers these people, its pleasure.

[Ritch]

tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all

[luckme10]

 

[gweilgi]

3 hours ago, ponfed said:

Yeah  its puritanism in another garb. 

And I say that as a recovering alcoholic, for these people,  pleasure is suspect, the rest is cover.

“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”

HL Mencken

Very true words...

 

3 hours ago, ponfed said:

Not to dismiss the damage that alcohol can do, be it socially or personally. 

But I think there are measures that can be taken to minimize harm without turning into Victorian scolds. 

But as I said, it's not the substance that bothers these people, its pleasure.

My father was a binge drinker who would disappear on a multi-day bender every few months.  In the end, it killed him, aged 42.  I know about the damage booze can do.  But I still enjoy a glass of wine or two, or a dram of single malt or two.  It's the dosage that makes the poison.  It's ignorance of responsible consumption.  And not all alcohol is the same, not by a long shot.  Not that the puritans would accept any of this...

[ponfed]

9 minutes ago, FatherOfPugs said:

 

As a former researcher (, I also take these studies with a grain of salt, because statistics in these studies can be manipulated and transformed to fit statistical tests and models that a researcher has chosen to specifically support their hypothesis.  Everything they talk about in those articles is witch-hunt style to support an agenda, they have an agenda and want to push it. Complete bullshit. 

Its the "There is no safe amount of alcohol consumption" that's the tell here. 

I mean there is a safe level of arsenic and cyanide in drinking water... what are you telling me here Mr Surgeon General or whatever,

Provide quality health care, especially mental health care, Make working peoples life more bearable. Expand public transit. Promote responsible drinking **intelligently**, not as if your talking to children..

You'll see that 1 in 20 stat drop right quick,

[PaulPower]

I want to have a beer with this guy from the second link: 

Quote

"There is no safe level of driving, but governments do not recommend that people avoid driving," Spiegelhalter, who also was not involved in the research, said in a statement. "Come to think of it, there is no safe level of living, but nobody would recommend abstention."

 

[oliverdst]

Yes, I agree, alcohol and tabacco are hazardous.

But, no, I will not stop.

[earthson]

You lost me at "global study" 

Seriously, though, as a person who has a half-interest in healthy living and quarter-interest in ability, responsibility is a very deep and difficult path philosophically for hedonists like me. The bottom line is the bottom line - in countries that have or may eventually have government-paid healthcare, it is in the payers' best interest for there to be better health all around and less claims against the pocketbook. When you start averaging everybody and their habits out, there's a dangerous trend re: the bottom line regarding disease/injury due to alcohol, tobacco, fast cars, loose women, etc, etc.

Alcohol and tobacco are dangerous to varying degrees to varying people but there's no denying their LD50 toxicity and no accounting for taste.  Beyond that, I personally know a lot of people that are healthy and enjoy alcohol (and tobacco!). Me, well, see attached pictures from a few minutes ago.

"It ain't Mountain Dew if it's from The Hiiiiilllsssss..." 

[hedgeybaby]

Non smokers and teetotalers die every day!

[Kaptain Karl]

Winston Churchill lived until 90. Enough said. 

[Vortigan]

5 hours ago, hedgeybaby said:

Non smokers and teetotalers die every day!

They most certainly do! And if I may speak for a moment with my RN hat on, in 10 years working in oncology, the number of times I listened to someone say words to the effect of "I don't get it. I've never smoked, never drunk much, always tried to live healthily" is off the charts! Somewhere along the line, some people have become convinced that as long as you never smoke (especially smoking!), don't drink much, eat lots of fruit and veg and become a gym rat then you'll at least avoid cancer...and it's not even close to being accurate! 

[prodigy]

They most certainly do! And if I may speak for a moment with my RN hat on, in 10 years working in oncology, the number of times I listened to someone say words to the effect of "I don't get it. I've never smoked, never drunk much, always tried to live healthily" is off the charts! Somewhere along the line, some people have become convinced that as long as you never smoke (especially smoking!), don't drink much, eat lots of fruit and veg and become a gym rat then you'll at least avoid cancer...and it's not even close to being accurate! 

I'm convinced genetics has the most influence. I have many family members on my dad's side that lived to triple digits, and were smokers...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

[gweilgi]

1 hour ago, Vortigan said:

They most certainly do! And if I may speak for a moment with my RN hat on, in 10 years working in oncology, the number of times I listened to someone say words to the effect of "I don't get it. I've never smoked, never drunk much, always tried to live healthily" is off the charts! Somewhere along the line, some people have become convinced that as long as you never smoke (especially smoking!), don't drink much, eat lots of fruit and veg and become a gym rat then you'll at least avoid cancer...and it's not even close to being accurate! 

I read a report recently which stated that lung cancer is actually becoming more deadly, the reason being that never-smokers do not consider themselves to be at risk and therefore do not pick up on symptoms until it is far too late to do anything.  But hell will operate a fully functional ski resort before the anti-smoking lobby will admit to this unintended side effect to their propaganda.

As for cancer generally, we all of us now have a lifetime risk of 50% (men) or 45% (women) that we will be diagnosed with cancer -- any sort of cancer.  The risk of dying from it is now 1 in 5.  Why this is not front-page news, I do not know.  Why this is not common knowledge, I do not know.  

[JamesKPolkEsq]

3 hours ago, gweilgi said:

I read a report recently which stated that lung cancer is actually becoming more deadly, the reason being that never-smokers do not consider themselves to be at risk and therefore do not pick up on symptoms until it is far too late to do anything.  But hell will operate a fully functional ski resort before the anti-smoking lobby will admit to this unintended side effect to their propaganda.

As for cancer generally, we all of us now have a lifetime risk of 50% (men) or 45% (women) that we will be diagnosed with cancer -- any sort of cancer.  The risk of dying from it is now 1 in 5.  Why this is not front-page news, I do not know.  Why this is not common knowledge, I do not know.  

Just FYI, lung cancer is  definitely not becoming more deadly:

https://gis.cdc.gov/Cancer/USCS/DataViz.html

Here's the CDC data on lung cancer. New lung cancer rates are increasing (primarily due to population aging), while overall deaths from lung cancer are decreasing.

 

 

[PapaDisco]

I'm no statistician, so I'm gonna weigh in here with authority!    Those of you who actually know a thing or two please correct me as needed . . . 

If I'm reading this right, the conflicting results of the various studies are due to the different outcomes from an overall mortality analysis versus a cause specific mortality analysis.  And to me it's interesting that for this drinking analysis the results are the opposite of cigar studies   That is: with overall mortality stats you get a bad outcome for drinking, but a good outcome for cigars (I'll quote the Surgeon General on that in a sec); whereas for a specific mortality analysis you get a good outcome for drinking (glass of red wine prevents heart disease, etc.) but a bad outcome for cigars.

To my mind, the hardest analysis to refute is the overall mortality data; because you don't manipulate it in any way.  You just look at live/die, not "did they die because of a car crash or because the two inch ash fell in his lap just before he crashed?" sort of thing.  That's where the Surgeon General's report comes in: in overall mortality cigar smokers who smoke 5 or fewer cigars per day live as long (or longer  ) than non-smokers; considering death from all causes: cancer, stress, bad marriage, mafia killings, etc.

What this new drinks study seems to say is the inverse: that regardless of the positive benefits of red wine (puts Ken in a good mood for example  ) in total, those who drank anything at all died younger from all causes: shark attacks, infectious phlebitis, hangnails, grouchy disposition.  

Attached is the relevant page from the Surgeon General's report

Cigar Surgeon General.pdf

[hedgeybaby]

At least in Orwell's 1984; the Proles were allowed to drink and gamble. 

[Akela3rd]

At least in Orwell's 1984; the Proles were allowed to drink and gamble. 

Of course they were, to keep them quiet, mindlessly occupied and pliant. That was the whole point - control of the masses.

Sent from my ActionMan walkie-talkie

[hedgeybaby]

1 hour ago, Akela3rd said:

Of course they were, to keep them quiet, mindlessly occupied and pliant. That was the whole point - control of the masses.

Sent from my ActionMan walkie-talkie
 

That's the point I'm making.  That they were at least allowed that minor joys of drinking and betting.  We on the other hand, are monitored to such an extent they Orwell would never believe.  And now the killjoys want to take alcohol away from us. A substance that without it, half of us wouldn't be in existence. 

[ayepatz]

I am so bored of people telling me how to live my life.

[gweilgi]

5 hours ago, hedgeybaby said:

That's the point I'm making.  That they were at least allowed that minor joys of drinking and betting.  We on the other hand, are monitored to such an extent they Orwell would never believe.  And now the killjoys want to take alcohol away from us. A substance that without it, half of us wouldn't be in existence. 

Nah.  The killjoys are just the ideological shock troops.

The real purpose is money, and lots of it.  Money to quangos, action groups, research, public health programmes and so on.  Money to politicians for pushing one view or another, to fund the next election campaign.  Above all: money to the government in form of rapacious taxation.  Sin taxes are always good for easy votes, uncontroversial tax hikes and a few billion in extra revenue....

[Ericbrobes]

Something is going to eventually kill me, might as well enjoy it while I'm here! ?

[PapaDisco]

8 hours ago, ayepatz said:

I am so bored of people telling me how to live my life.

You need another shed . . .  

[ayepatz]

7 hours ago, PapaDisco said:

You need another shed . . .  

Too right. ?

[Akela3rd]

I am so bored of people telling me how to live my life.

Only boring people get bored. You need a hobby

Sent from my ActionMan walkie-talkie