> 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
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.
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.
[dead]