Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Alcohol and Society
Options
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »But alcohol is different than illicit drugs and tobacco. It's legal so should not be grouped with illegal drugs. Smoking tobacco affects everyone around the person smoking through second had smoke. If I'm sitting beside you a restaurant sipping my glass of wine it's unlikely to affect you in any way. If I'm sitting there smoking, everyone in the place will be affected. That's a significant difference.
That seems a bit arbitrary, though. Pharmacologically speaking, alcohol fits the definition of drug. From Wiki:
Psychoactive drugs are chemical substances that affect the function of the central nervous system, altering perception, mood or consciousness.[9] They include alcohol, a depressant, and the stimulants nicotine and caffeine. These three are the most widely consumed psychoactive drugs worldwide[10] and are also considered as recreational drugs since they are used for pleasure rather than medicinal purposes.[11] Other recreational drugs include hallucinogens, opiates and amphetamines and some of these are also used in spiritual or religious settings. Some drugs can cause addiction [12] and all drugs can have side effects.[13] Excessive use of stimulants can promote stimulant psychosis. Many recreational drugs are illicit and international treaties such as the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs exist for the purpose of their prohibition.
For the record, I do wholeheartedly refer to my morning cuppa joe as my current drug of choice.
Not sure of your point. You think legal substances should be seen the same as illegal by society? Why did you single out alcohol then? Why aren't we talking about society's views on the widespread use of mood altering prescription drugs?0 -
If you drink every day (as you would overeat everyday), your risk of liver damage increases. I understand your reaction to my use of the word "poison", nobody would willingly drink poison as it goes against our natural instinct of self preservation, however we do - and it is encouraged.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MsAmandaNJ wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MsAmandaNJ wrote: »I think it's scary how acceptable alcohol abuse is in society. They add "drink responsibly" to their advertisements (as if they're trying to help) - that seems to only apply to not driving after drinking, never moderation. If you drank less of their poison, they would make less money. Being responsible when drinking means not turning into a monster d-bag or not acting like a fool "because I was drunk", please add more examples if you'd like. It destroys families, not everyone affected drinks.
The same could be said of the abuse of many substances, food included. Parents so obese they are diseased or unable to engage in activities with children. Spouses losing interest in sex. Obese children because parents don't know or want to teach them proper eating habits. Obesity related illnesses on the rise.
Just because something can be abused does not make it poison.
Dizziness, slurred speech, decreased vision, vomiting, loss of motor function - you are literally poisoning yourself.
If I overeat every day my risk of disease is higher than if I drink every day. So which is more poisonous really?0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »suppose we replaced "alcohol" with "heroin" or even "marihuana" in the replies above...
"Although you are misrepresenting what it says about health influences ("it has no discernible favorable influence on health"), the article also agrees with my contention that one must take a sensible approach to reap the health benefits and avoid the douchebaggery of heavy heroin consumption:"
Again, lots of justification. I wonder why.
The issue is one of risk management. This is why we classify and restrict certain products that have a high inherent risk of abuse, such as heroin (a Schedule 1 pharmaceutical) and alcohol (regulated, but sold OTC) accordingly.
Adding clarity to your point would help the conversation.
Would you concur with our government that marijuana is riskier than alcohol? I don't. I know lots of these types of people:Christine_72 wrote: »My husband and i are polar opposites when it comes to alcohol.. He drinks everyday, I drink maybe once a year if there's a social gathering.
He thinks drinking everyday is normal- I think it's abnormal.
He grew up in a drinking culture, all of his family/friends are big drinkers - None of my family or friends are big drinkers, and like me, only drink socially aka very rarely.
Personally, being with my husband has completely made me hate alcohol. Since being with him i have seen close up how damaging it is
I can relate to this, and we have spent A LOT of money on his alcohol, three DWI's, increased car insurance premiums, damaged vehicles, the cost of three rehabs, fines, etc. And not to mention time lost from work, injures, fighting between us, and me spending about 15 years, basically, raising our two children by myself while he was out with friends so that I could keep them away from as much of this behavior as possible.
And no potheads who have suffered similar consequences.
I would concur that cannabis carries more risk than tobacco or alcohol, but that this risk is acceptable and should be managed much in the same way we (the USA) manage alcohol and/or tobacco. To list cannabis as a schedule I is absurd and not reflective of scientific evidence.
Wow, this is evidence of just how misinformed the public is thanks to the government and alcohol/pharmaceutical industries. Tobacco: 480,000 deaths/year Alcohol: 88,000 deaths/year (not including alcohol related incidents) Cannabis: 0 deaths/year
Now you may not be into numbers but I'm pretty sure this is sufficient evidence that cannabis is less dangerous than either alcohol or tobacco.4 -
MsAmandaNJ wrote: »
If you drink every day (as you would overeat everyday), your risk of liver damage increases. I understand your reaction to my use of the word "poison", nobody would willingly drink poison as it goes against our natural instinct of self preservation, however we do - and it is encouraged.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MsAmandaNJ wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MsAmandaNJ wrote: »I think it's scary how acceptable alcohol abuse is in society. They add "drink responsibly" to their advertisements (as if they're trying to help) - that seems to only apply to not driving after drinking, never moderation. If you drank less of their poison, they would make less money. Being responsible when drinking means not turning into a monster d-bag or not acting like a fool "because I was drunk", please add more examples if you'd like. It destroys families, not everyone affected drinks.
The same could be said of the abuse of many substances, food included. Parents so obese they are diseased or unable to engage in activities with children. Spouses losing interest in sex. Obese children because parents don't know or want to teach them proper eating habits. Obesity related illnesses on the rise.
Just because something can be abused does not make it poison.
Dizziness, slurred speech, decreased vision, vomiting, loss of motor function - you are literally poisoning yourself.
If I overeat every day my risk of disease is higher than if I drink every day. So which is more poisonous really?
No, I believe you are wrong but would welcome any scientific info that would back up your statement. Risk of liver disease does not increase with drinking within recommended limits, which includes every day. It goes up with drinking over the limits, as it does with overeating through fatty liver disease.
Edit: for reference
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/804014
In terms of liver-related morbidity and mortality, obesity is even more dangerous than alcohol consumption, a study of more than 100,000 women has shown.5 -
kshama2001 wrote: »suppose we replaced "alcohol" with "heroin" or even "marihuana" in the replies above...
"Although you are misrepresenting what it says about health influences ("it has no discernible favorable influence on health"), the article also agrees with my contention that one must take a sensible approach to reap the health benefits and avoid the douchebaggery of heavy heroin consumption:"
Again, lots of justification. I wonder why.
The issue is one of risk management. This is why we classify and restrict certain products that have a high inherent risk of abuse, such as heroin (a Schedule 1 pharmaceutical) and alcohol (regulated, but sold OTC) accordingly.
Adding clarity to your point would help the conversation.
Would you concur with our government that marijuana is riskier than alcohol? I don't. I know lots of these types of people:Christine_72 wrote: »My husband and i are polar opposites when it comes to alcohol.. He drinks everyday, I drink maybe once a year if there's a social gathering.
He thinks drinking everyday is normal- I think it's abnormal.
He grew up in a drinking culture, all of his family/friends are big drinkers - None of my family or friends are big drinkers, and like me, only drink socially aka very rarely.
Personally, being with my husband has completely made me hate alcohol. Since being with him i have seen close up how damaging it is
I can relate to this, and we have spent A LOT of money on his alcohol, three DWI's, increased car insurance premiums, damaged vehicles, the cost of three rehabs, fines, etc. And not to mention time lost from work, injures, fighting between us, and me spending about 15 years, basically, raising our two children by myself while he was out with friends so that I could keep them away from as much of this behavior as possible.
And no potheads who have suffered similar consequences.
I would concur that cannabis carries more risk than tobacco or alcohol, but that this risk is acceptable and should be managed much in the same way we (the USA) manage alcohol and/or tobacco. To list cannabis as a schedule I is absurd and not reflective of scientific evidence.
Wow, this is evidence of just how misinformed the public is thanks to the government and alcohol/pharmaceutical industries. Tobacco: 480,000 deaths/year Alcohol: 88,000 deaths/year (not including alcohol related incidents) Cannabis: 0 deaths/year
Now you may not be into numbers but I'm pretty sure this is sufficient evidence that cannabis is less dangerous than either alcohol or tobacco.
I run a pharmacovigilance team and head up epidemiology, so you might say I'm into numbers.
Smoking marijuana carries (the preferred delivery system) the same medical risks as tobacco these are nearly identical carcinogens - the other risk being Tetrahydrocannabinol, which like alcohol is fine, even beneficial in small doses, but carries the same risk with overuse and long term use. The two risks together are compounding, hence the risk is greater.5 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MsAmandaNJ wrote: »
If you drink every day (as you would overeat everyday), your risk of liver damage increases. I understand your reaction to my use of the word "poison", nobody would willingly drink poison as it goes against our natural instinct of self preservation, however we do - and it is encouraged.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MsAmandaNJ wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MsAmandaNJ wrote: »I think it's scary how acceptable alcohol abuse is in society. They add "drink responsibly" to their advertisements (as if they're trying to help) - that seems to only apply to not driving after drinking, never moderation. If you drank less of their poison, they would make less money. Being responsible when drinking means not turning into a monster d-bag or not acting like a fool "because I was drunk", please add more examples if you'd like. It destroys families, not everyone affected drinks.
The same could be said of the abuse of many substances, food included. Parents so obese they are diseased or unable to engage in activities with children. Spouses losing interest in sex. Obese children because parents don't know or want to teach them proper eating habits. Obesity related illnesses on the rise.
Just because something can be abused does not make it poison.
Dizziness, slurred speech, decreased vision, vomiting, loss of motor function - you are literally poisoning yourself.
If I overeat every day my risk of disease is higher than if I drink every day. So which is more poisonous really?
No, I believe you are wrong but would welcome any scientific info that would back up your statement. Risk of liver disease does not increase with drinking within recommended limits, which includes every day. It goes up with drinking over the limits, as it does with overeating through fatty liver disease.
Edit: for reference
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/804014
In terms of liver-related morbidity and mortality, obesity is even more dangerous than alcohol consumption, a study of more than 100,000 women has shown.
That is why I said if you drank the same way you overeat, it increases. Overeating is not "within recommended limits".0 -
This has gone on longer than I imagined. And I want to repeat that I'm in no way suggesting prohibition or anything of the sort.
I just think it's interesting that U.S. society/culture is a bit schizoid about alcohol. Consider the phrase "drugs and alcohol" -- as if alcohol were something other than a drug. There's social censure around illicit drugs, and now tobacco, but alcohol is totally normalized to the point that I get odd looks from peers when I say I don't drink. The automatic assumption is I'm either hyper-religious or an alcoholic. (For the record, I'm an alcoholic.) Jim Gaffigan says it funnier than I do:
cc.com/video-clips/fq3bvp/stand-up-jim-gaffigan--people-who-don-t-drink
Then there's the saturation of advertising, all of which ends with "drink responsibly," yet none of which would be possible but for the 10-15% of people who have a serious issue with the stuff.
Earlier in the convo, someone made the point that the high harm rating of alcohol is because it's legal and accepted. That may well be true, but it seems like an awfully strong argument AGAINST decriminalizing anything else, right? I'm just taking that to it's logical conclusion.
What? It's only 3 pages! You're familiar with the debate section, right?
I think your thread has been very interesting. You mention our schizoid approach to alcohol. Earlier I mentioned Michael Pollan's book, and the chapters on the apple (cider) and pot. I found what I think is the full chapter on pot, and pasted here is the relevant thought on why one drug is arbitrarily approved in a society and others are demonized (to the extent that pot will nowadays get the SWAT team called on your house, which you will then lose to asset forfeiture while you serve a life sentence in prison, for something theoretically not that much worse than alcohol). And regrettably, while many people are able to use the "approved" drug without many adverse consequences, others and their families are caught up in the meat grinder, with their lives destroyed and even snuffed out.
First the link to the full chapter (the whole book is worth reading):
http://michaelpollanfan.blogspot.com/2015/04/intoxication-plant-marijuana.html
And the snip:
"With the solitary exception of the Eskimos, there isn’t a people on Earth who doesn’t use psychoactive plants to effect a change in consciousness, and there probably never has been. As for the Eskimos, their exception only proves the rule: historically, Eskimos didn’t use psychoactive plants because none of them will grow in the Arctic. (As soon as the white man introduced the Eskimo to fermented grain, he immediately joined the consciousness changers.) What this suggests is that the desire to alter one’s experience of consciousness may be universal.
Nor is the desire limited to adults. Andrew Weil, who has written two valuable books treating consciousness changing “as a basic human activity,” points out that even young children seek out altered states of awareness. They will spin until violently dizzy (thereby producing visual hallucinations), deliberately hyperventilate, throttle one another to the point of fainting, inhale any fumes they can find, and, on a daily basis, seek the rush of energy supplied by processed sugar (sugar being the child’s plant drug of choice).
As the examples from childhood suggest, using drugs is not the only way to achieve altered states of consciousness. Activities as different as meditation, fasting, exercise, amusement park rides, horror movies, extreme sports, sensory or sleep deprivation, chanting, music, eating spicy foods, and taking extreme risks of all kinds have the power to change the texture of our mental experience to one degree or another. We may eventually discover that what psychoactive plants do to the brain closely resembles, at a biochemical level, the effects of these other activities.
Human cultures vary widely in the plants they use to gratify the desire for a change of mind, but all cultures (save the Eskimo) sanction at least one such plant and, just as invariably, strenuously forbid certain others. Along with the temptation seems to come the taboo. The reasons for drawing the bright line here and not there generally make more sense within the culture itself, rooted as they are in its values and traditions, than they do outside it. But the reasons cultures give for promoting one plant and forbidding another are remarkably fluid in both time and space; one culture’s panacea is often another culture’s panapathogen (root of all evil); think of the traditional role of alcohol in the Christian West as compared to the Islamic East. Indeed, one culture’s panacea can, over time, transmogrify into that same culture’s panapathogen, as happened to opiates in the West between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.*
Historians can explain these shifts much better than scientists can, since they usually have less to do with the intrinsic nature of the various molecules involved than with the powers that cultures ascribe to them and the changing needs of those cultures. Cannabis in American culture has at various times held the power to foster violence (in the 1930s) and indolence (today): same molecule, opposite effect. Promoting certain plant drugs and forbidding others may just be something cultures do as a way of defining themselves or reinforcing their cohesion. It’s hardly surprising that something as magical as a plant with the power to alter people’s feelings and thoughts would inspire both fetishes and taboos."3 -
MsAmandaNJ wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MsAmandaNJ wrote: »
If you drink every day (as you would overeat everyday), your risk of liver damage increases. I understand your reaction to my use of the word "poison", nobody would willingly drink poison as it goes against our natural instinct of self preservation, however we do - and it is encouraged.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MsAmandaNJ wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MsAmandaNJ wrote: »I think it's scary how acceptable alcohol abuse is in society. They add "drink responsibly" to their advertisements (as if they're trying to help) - that seems to only apply to not driving after drinking, never moderation. If you drank less of their poison, they would make less money. Being responsible when drinking means not turning into a monster d-bag or not acting like a fool "because I was drunk", please add more examples if you'd like. It destroys families, not everyone affected drinks.
The same could be said of the abuse of many substances, food included. Parents so obese they are diseased or unable to engage in activities with children. Spouses losing interest in sex. Obese children because parents don't know or want to teach them proper eating habits. Obesity related illnesses on the rise.
Just because something can be abused does not make it poison.
Dizziness, slurred speech, decreased vision, vomiting, loss of motor function - you are literally poisoning yourself.
If I overeat every day my risk of disease is higher than if I drink every day. So which is more poisonous really?
No, I believe you are wrong but would welcome any scientific info that would back up your statement. Risk of liver disease does not increase with drinking within recommended limits, which includes every day. It goes up with drinking over the limits, as it does with overeating through fatty liver disease.
Edit: for reference
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/804014
In terms of liver-related morbidity and mortality, obesity is even more dangerous than alcohol consumption, a study of more than 100,000 women has shown.
That is why I said if you drank the same way you overeat, it increases. Overeating is not "within recommended limits".
Well now I'm confused. If you agree that alcohol is not harmful unless over-consumed, why do you consider it "poison"?3 -
kshama2001 wrote: »suppose we replaced "alcohol" with "heroin" or even "marihuana" in the replies above...
"Although you are misrepresenting what it says about health influences ("it has no discernible favorable influence on health"), the article also agrees with my contention that one must take a sensible approach to reap the health benefits and avoid the douchebaggery of heavy heroin consumption:"
Again, lots of justification. I wonder why.
The issue is one of risk management. This is why we classify and restrict certain products that have a high inherent risk of abuse, such as heroin (a Schedule 1 pharmaceutical) and alcohol (regulated, but sold OTC) accordingly.
Adding clarity to your point would help the conversation.
Would you concur with our government that marijuana is riskier than alcohol? I don't. I know lots of these types of people:Christine_72 wrote: »My husband and i are polar opposites when it comes to alcohol.. He drinks everyday, I drink maybe once a year if there's a social gathering.
He thinks drinking everyday is normal- I think it's abnormal.
He grew up in a drinking culture, all of his family/friends are big drinkers - None of my family or friends are big drinkers, and like me, only drink socially aka very rarely.
Personally, being with my husband has completely made me hate alcohol. Since being with him i have seen close up how damaging it is
I can relate to this, and we have spent A LOT of money on his alcohol, three DWI's, increased car insurance premiums, damaged vehicles, the cost of three rehabs, fines, etc. And not to mention time lost from work, injures, fighting between us, and me spending about 15 years, basically, raising our two children by myself while he was out with friends so that I could keep them away from as much of this behavior as possible.
And no potheads who have suffered similar consequences.
I would concur that cannabis carries more risk than tobacco or alcohol, but that this risk is acceptable and should be managed much in the same way we (the USA) manage alcohol and/or tobacco. To list cannabis as a schedule I is absurd and not reflective of scientific evidence.
Wow, this is evidence of just how misinformed the public is thanks to the government and alcohol/pharmaceutical industries. Tobacco: 480,000 deaths/year Alcohol: 88,000 deaths/year (not including alcohol related incidents) Cannabis: 0 deaths/year
Now you may not be into numbers but I'm pretty sure this is sufficient evidence that cannabis is less dangerous than either alcohol or tobacco.
I run a pharmacovigilance team and head up epidemiology, so you might say I'm into numbers.
Smoking marijuana carries (the preferred delivery system) the same medical risks as tobacco these are nearly identical carcinogens - the other risk being Tetrahydrocannabinol, which like alcohol is fine, even beneficial in small doses, but carries the same risk with overuse and long term use. The two risks together are compounding, hence the risk is greater.
That may be true on paper, but how many people who smoke marijuana do so in quantities equal to those that smoke tobacco?2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MsAmandaNJ wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MsAmandaNJ wrote: »
If you drink every day (as you would overeat everyday), your risk of liver damage increases. I understand your reaction to my use of the word "poison", nobody would willingly drink poison as it goes against our natural instinct of self preservation, however we do - and it is encouraged.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MsAmandaNJ wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MsAmandaNJ wrote: »I think it's scary how acceptable alcohol abuse is in society. They add "drink responsibly" to their advertisements (as if they're trying to help) - that seems to only apply to not driving after drinking, never moderation. If you drank less of their poison, they would make less money. Being responsible when drinking means not turning into a monster d-bag or not acting like a fool "because I was drunk", please add more examples if you'd like. It destroys families, not everyone affected drinks.
The same could be said of the abuse of many substances, food included. Parents so obese they are diseased or unable to engage in activities with children. Spouses losing interest in sex. Obese children because parents don't know or want to teach them proper eating habits. Obesity related illnesses on the rise.
Just because something can be abused does not make it poison.
Dizziness, slurred speech, decreased vision, vomiting, loss of motor function - you are literally poisoning yourself.
If I overeat every day my risk of disease is higher than if I drink every day. So which is more poisonous really?
No, I believe you are wrong but would welcome any scientific info that would back up your statement. Risk of liver disease does not increase with drinking within recommended limits, which includes every day. It goes up with drinking over the limits, as it does with overeating through fatty liver disease.
Edit: for reference
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/804014
In terms of liver-related morbidity and mortality, obesity is even more dangerous than alcohol consumption, a study of more than 100,000 women has shown.
That is why I said if you drank the same way you overeat, it increases. Overeating is not "within recommended limits".
Well now I'm confused. If you agree that alcohol is not harmful unless over-consumed, why do you consider it "poison"?
Because that's how the body treats it.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »This has gone on longer than I imagined. And I want to repeat that I'm in no way suggesting prohibition or anything of the sort.
I just think it's interesting that U.S. society/culture is a bit schizoid about alcohol. Consider the phrase "drugs and alcohol" -- as if alcohol were something other than a drug. There's social censure around illicit drugs, and now tobacco, but alcohol is totally normalized to the point that I get odd looks from peers when I say I don't drink. The automatic assumption is I'm either hyper-religious or an alcoholic. (For the record, I'm an alcoholic.) Jim Gaffigan says it funnier than I do:
cc.com/video-clips/fq3bvp/stand-up-jim-gaffigan--people-who-don-t-drink
Then there's the saturation of advertising, all of which ends with "drink responsibly," yet none of which would be possible but for the 10-15% of people who have a serious issue with the stuff.
Earlier in the convo, someone made the point that the high harm rating of alcohol is because it's legal and accepted. That may well be true, but it seems like an awfully strong argument AGAINST decriminalizing anything else, right? I'm just taking that to it's logical conclusion.
But alcohol is different than illicit drugs and tobacco. It's legal so should not be grouped with illegal drugs. Smoking tobacco affects everyone around the person smoking through second had smoke. If I'm sitting beside you a restaurant sipping my glass of wine it's unlikely to affect you in any way. If I'm sitting there smoking, everyone in the place will be affected. That's a significant difference.
Alcohol is legal and pot is not due to politics, not merit.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »This has gone on longer than I imagined. And I want to repeat that I'm in no way suggesting prohibition or anything of the sort.
I just think it's interesting that U.S. society/culture is a bit schizoid about alcohol. Consider the phrase "drugs and alcohol" -- as if alcohol were something other than a drug. There's social censure around illicit drugs, and now tobacco, but alcohol is totally normalized to the point that I get odd looks from peers when I say I don't drink. The automatic assumption is I'm either hyper-religious or an alcoholic. (For the record, I'm an alcoholic.) Jim Gaffigan says it funnier than I do:
cc.com/video-clips/fq3bvp/stand-up-jim-gaffigan--people-who-don-t-drink
Then there's the saturation of advertising, all of which ends with "drink responsibly," yet none of which would be possible but for the 10-15% of people who have a serious issue with the stuff.
Earlier in the convo, someone made the point that the high harm rating of alcohol is because it's legal and accepted. That may well be true, but it seems like an awfully strong argument AGAINST decriminalizing anything else, right? I'm just taking that to it's logical conclusion.
But alcohol is different than illicit drugs and tobacco. It's legal so should not be grouped with illegal drugs. Smoking tobacco affects everyone around the person smoking through second had smoke. If I'm sitting beside you a restaurant sipping my glass of wine it's unlikely to affect you in any way. If I'm sitting there smoking, everyone in the place will be affected. That's a significant difference.
Alcohol is legal and pot is not due to politics, not merit.
Agreed, but I don't think that makes much difference for my statements.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »This has gone on longer than I imagined. And I want to repeat that I'm in no way suggesting prohibition or anything of the sort.
I just think it's interesting that U.S. society/culture is a bit schizoid about alcohol. Consider the phrase "drugs and alcohol" -- as if alcohol were something other than a drug. There's social censure around illicit drugs, and now tobacco, but alcohol is totally normalized to the point that I get odd looks from peers when I say I don't drink. The automatic assumption is I'm either hyper-religious or an alcoholic. (For the record, I'm an alcoholic.) Jim Gaffigan says it funnier than I do:
cc.com/video-clips/fq3bvp/stand-up-jim-gaffigan--people-who-don-t-drink
Then there's the saturation of advertising, all of which ends with "drink responsibly," yet none of which would be possible but for the 10-15% of people who have a serious issue with the stuff.
Earlier in the convo, someone made the point that the high harm rating of alcohol is because it's legal and accepted. That may well be true, but it seems like an awfully strong argument AGAINST decriminalizing anything else, right? I'm just taking that to it's logical conclusion.
But alcohol is different than illicit drugs and tobacco. It's legal so should not be grouped with illegal drugs. Smoking tobacco affects everyone around the person smoking through second had smoke. If I'm sitting beside you a restaurant sipping my glass of wine it's unlikely to affect you in any way. If I'm sitting there smoking, everyone in the place will be affected. That's a significant difference.
Alcohol is legal and pot is not due to politics, not merit.
pot is legal some places1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MsAmandaNJ wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MsAmandaNJ wrote: »
If you drink every day (as you would overeat everyday), your risk of liver damage increases. I understand your reaction to my use of the word "poison", nobody would willingly drink poison as it goes against our natural instinct of self preservation, however we do - and it is encouraged.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MsAmandaNJ wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MsAmandaNJ wrote: »I think it's scary how acceptable alcohol abuse is in society. They add "drink responsibly" to their advertisements (as if they're trying to help) - that seems to only apply to not driving after drinking, never moderation. If you drank less of their poison, they would make less money. Being responsible when drinking means not turning into a monster d-bag or not acting like a fool "because I was drunk", please add more examples if you'd like. It destroys families, not everyone affected drinks.
The same could be said of the abuse of many substances, food included. Parents so obese they are diseased or unable to engage in activities with children. Spouses losing interest in sex. Obese children because parents don't know or want to teach them proper eating habits. Obesity related illnesses on the rise.
Just because something can be abused does not make it poison.
Dizziness, slurred speech, decreased vision, vomiting, loss of motor function - you are literally poisoning yourself.
If I overeat every day my risk of disease is higher than if I drink every day. So which is more poisonous really?
No, I believe you are wrong but would welcome any scientific info that would back up your statement. Risk of liver disease does not increase with drinking within recommended limits, which includes every day. It goes up with drinking over the limits, as it does with overeating through fatty liver disease.
Edit: for reference
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/804014
In terms of liver-related morbidity and mortality, obesity is even more dangerous than alcohol consumption, a study of more than 100,000 women has shown.
That is why I said if you drank the same way you overeat, it increases. Overeating is not "within recommended limits".
Well now I'm confused. If you agree that alcohol is not harmful unless over-consumed, why do you consider it "poison"?
Because that's how the body treats it.
Quite true. It's how it treats some chemicals in food too.2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »suppose we replaced "alcohol" with "heroin" or even "marihuana" in the replies above...
"Although you are misrepresenting what it says about health influences ("it has no discernible favorable influence on health"), the article also agrees with my contention that one must take a sensible approach to reap the health benefits and avoid the douchebaggery of heavy heroin consumption:"
Again, lots of justification. I wonder why.
The issue is one of risk management. This is why we classify and restrict certain products that have a high inherent risk of abuse, such as heroin (a Schedule 1 pharmaceutical) and alcohol (regulated, but sold OTC) accordingly.
Adding clarity to your point would help the conversation.
Would you concur with our government that marijuana is riskier than alcohol? I don't. I know lots of these types of people:Christine_72 wrote: »My husband and i are polar opposites when it comes to alcohol.. He drinks everyday, I drink maybe once a year if there's a social gathering.
He thinks drinking everyday is normal- I think it's abnormal.
He grew up in a drinking culture, all of his family/friends are big drinkers - None of my family or friends are big drinkers, and like me, only drink socially aka very rarely.
Personally, being with my husband has completely made me hate alcohol. Since being with him i have seen close up how damaging it is
I can relate to this, and we have spent A LOT of money on his alcohol, three DWI's, increased car insurance premiums, damaged vehicles, the cost of three rehabs, fines, etc. And not to mention time lost from work, injures, fighting between us, and me spending about 15 years, basically, raising our two children by myself while he was out with friends so that I could keep them away from as much of this behavior as possible.
And no potheads who have suffered similar consequences.
I would concur that cannabis carries more risk than tobacco or alcohol, but that this risk is acceptable and should be managed much in the same way we (the USA) manage alcohol and/or tobacco. To list cannabis as a schedule I is absurd and not reflective of scientific evidence.
Wow, this is evidence of just how misinformed the public is thanks to the government and alcohol/pharmaceutical industries. Tobacco: 480,000 deaths/year Alcohol: 88,000 deaths/year (not including alcohol related incidents) Cannabis: 0 deaths/year
Now you may not be into numbers but I'm pretty sure this is sufficient evidence that cannabis is less dangerous than either alcohol or tobacco.
I run a pharmacovigilance team and head up epidemiology, so you might say I'm into numbers.
Smoking marijuana carries (the preferred delivery system) the same medical risks as tobacco these are nearly identical carcinogens - the other risk being Tetrahydrocannabinol, which like alcohol is fine, even beneficial in small doses, but carries the same risk with overuse and long term use. The two risks together are compounding, hence the risk is greater.
That may be true on paper, but how many people who smoke marijuana do so in quantities equal to those that smoke tobacco?
This was brought up along with several other key factors in the most recent FDA panel, but the ruling was upheld to leave cannabis as Schedule I largely due to the doubling of carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbons in comparison to tobacco.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »suppose we replaced "alcohol" with "heroin" or even "marihuana" in the replies above...
"Although you are misrepresenting what it says about health influences ("it has no discernible favorable influence on health"), the article also agrees with my contention that one must take a sensible approach to reap the health benefits and avoid the douchebaggery of heavy heroin consumption:"
Again, lots of justification. I wonder why.
The issue is one of risk management. This is why we classify and restrict certain products that have a high inherent risk of abuse, such as heroin (a Schedule 1 pharmaceutical) and alcohol (regulated, but sold OTC) accordingly.
Adding clarity to your point would help the conversation.
Would you concur with our government that marijuana is riskier than alcohol? I don't. I know lots of these types of people:Christine_72 wrote: »My husband and i are polar opposites when it comes to alcohol.. He drinks everyday, I drink maybe once a year if there's a social gathering.
He thinks drinking everyday is normal- I think it's abnormal.
He grew up in a drinking culture, all of his family/friends are big drinkers - None of my family or friends are big drinkers, and like me, only drink socially aka very rarely.
Personally, being with my husband has completely made me hate alcohol. Since being with him i have seen close up how damaging it is
I can relate to this, and we have spent A LOT of money on his alcohol, three DWI's, increased car insurance premiums, damaged vehicles, the cost of three rehabs, fines, etc. And not to mention time lost from work, injures, fighting between us, and me spending about 15 years, basically, raising our two children by myself while he was out with friends so that I could keep them away from as much of this behavior as possible.
And no potheads who have suffered similar consequences.
I would concur that cannabis carries more risk than tobacco or alcohol, but that this risk is acceptable and should be managed much in the same way we (the USA) manage alcohol and/or tobacco. To list cannabis as a schedule I is absurd and not reflective of scientific evidence.
Wow, this is evidence of just how misinformed the public is thanks to the government and alcohol/pharmaceutical industries. Tobacco: 480,000 deaths/year Alcohol: 88,000 deaths/year (not including alcohol related incidents) Cannabis: 0 deaths/year
Now you may not be into numbers but I'm pretty sure this is sufficient evidence that cannabis is less dangerous than either alcohol or tobacco.
I run a pharmacovigilance team and head up epidemiology, so you might say I'm into numbers.
Smoking marijuana carries (the preferred delivery system) the same medical risks as tobacco these are nearly identical carcinogens - the other risk being Tetrahydrocannabinol, which like alcohol is fine, even beneficial in small doses, but carries the same risk with overuse and long term use. The two risks together are compounding, hence the risk is greater.
That may be true on paper, but how many people who smoke marijuana do so in quantities equal to those that smoke tobacco?
This was brought up along with several other key factors in the most recent FDA panel, but the ruling was upheld to leave cannabis as Schedule I largely due to the doubling of carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbons in comparison to tobacco.
The FDA. 'nuff said.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MsAmandaNJ wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MsAmandaNJ wrote: »
If you drink every day (as you would overeat everyday), your risk of liver damage increases. I understand your reaction to my use of the word "poison", nobody would willingly drink poison as it goes against our natural instinct of self preservation, however we do - and it is encouraged.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MsAmandaNJ wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »MsAmandaNJ wrote: »I think it's scary how acceptable alcohol abuse is in society. They add "drink responsibly" to their advertisements (as if they're trying to help) - that seems to only apply to not driving after drinking, never moderation. If you drank less of their poison, they would make less money. Being responsible when drinking means not turning into a monster d-bag or not acting like a fool "because I was drunk", please add more examples if you'd like. It destroys families, not everyone affected drinks.
The same could be said of the abuse of many substances, food included. Parents so obese they are diseased or unable to engage in activities with children. Spouses losing interest in sex. Obese children because parents don't know or want to teach them proper eating habits. Obesity related illnesses on the rise.
Just because something can be abused does not make it poison.
Dizziness, slurred speech, decreased vision, vomiting, loss of motor function - you are literally poisoning yourself.
If I overeat every day my risk of disease is higher than if I drink every day. So which is more poisonous really?
No, I believe you are wrong but would welcome any scientific info that would back up your statement. Risk of liver disease does not increase with drinking within recommended limits, which includes every day. It goes up with drinking over the limits, as it does with overeating through fatty liver disease.
Edit: for reference
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/804014
In terms of liver-related morbidity and mortality, obesity is even more dangerous than alcohol consumption, a study of more than 100,000 women has shown.
That is why I said if you drank the same way you overeat, it increases. Overeating is not "within recommended limits".
Well now I'm confused. If you agree that alcohol is not harmful unless over-consumed, why do you consider it "poison"?
Sorry to get meta twice in one day, but rhetorically speaking, she is making an appeal to pathos by using inflammatory language with a lot of negative baggage. It's not as scary to say "pharmacological substance" or some other neutral phrase. For example, when discussing sugar, it is convenient to call it poison or "de debbil," just like Demon Rum. On the other hand, we should be suspicious of anyone who is promoting either substance as Miracle Happy Fun Juice, whether its Dr. Laudanum's Old-Timey Cure-All and Universal Soother for Babies, or has the Kool-Aid guy crashing through a wall and screaming "Oh Yeah!!!"
That being said, there are plenty of people who need a good smack upside the head to realize the damage--the poison (the dose makes the poison, as said above) they are doing to themselves with either alcohol or food.6 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »suppose we replaced "alcohol" with "heroin" or even "marihuana" in the replies above...
"Although you are misrepresenting what it says about health influences ("it has no discernible favorable influence on health"), the article also agrees with my contention that one must take a sensible approach to reap the health benefits and avoid the douchebaggery of heavy heroin consumption:"
Again, lots of justification. I wonder why.
The issue is one of risk management. This is why we classify and restrict certain products that have a high inherent risk of abuse, such as heroin (a Schedule 1 pharmaceutical) and alcohol (regulated, but sold OTC) accordingly.
Adding clarity to your point would help the conversation.
Would you concur with our government that marijuana is riskier than alcohol? I don't. I know lots of these types of people:Christine_72 wrote: »My husband and i are polar opposites when it comes to alcohol.. He drinks everyday, I drink maybe once a year if there's a social gathering.
He thinks drinking everyday is normal- I think it's abnormal.
He grew up in a drinking culture, all of his family/friends are big drinkers - None of my family or friends are big drinkers, and like me, only drink socially aka very rarely.
Personally, being with my husband has completely made me hate alcohol. Since being with him i have seen close up how damaging it is
I can relate to this, and we have spent A LOT of money on his alcohol, three DWI's, increased car insurance premiums, damaged vehicles, the cost of three rehabs, fines, etc. And not to mention time lost from work, injures, fighting between us, and me spending about 15 years, basically, raising our two children by myself while he was out with friends so that I could keep them away from as much of this behavior as possible.
And no potheads who have suffered similar consequences.
I would concur that cannabis carries more risk than tobacco or alcohol, but that this risk is acceptable and should be managed much in the same way we (the USA) manage alcohol and/or tobacco. To list cannabis as a schedule I is absurd and not reflective of scientific evidence.
Wow, this is evidence of just how misinformed the public is thanks to the government and alcohol/pharmaceutical industries. Tobacco: 480,000 deaths/year Alcohol: 88,000 deaths/year (not including alcohol related incidents) Cannabis: 0 deaths/year
Now you may not be into numbers but I'm pretty sure this is sufficient evidence that cannabis is less dangerous than either alcohol or tobacco.
I run a pharmacovigilance team and head up epidemiology, so you might say I'm into numbers.
Smoking marijuana carries (the preferred delivery system) the same medical risks as tobacco these are nearly identical carcinogens - the other risk being Tetrahydrocannabinol, which like alcohol is fine, even beneficial in small doses, but carries the same risk with overuse and long term use. The two risks together are compounding, hence the risk is greater.
That may be true on paper, but how many people who smoke marijuana do so in quantities equal to those that smoke tobacco?
This was brought up along with several other key factors in the most recent FDA panel, but the ruling was upheld to leave cannabis as Schedule I largely due to the doubling of carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbons in comparison to tobacco.
Sooooo...in their view, does that mean two cigarettes are a schedule 1 narcotic? LOL.2 -
Beer!4
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »suppose we replaced "alcohol" with "heroin" or even "marihuana" in the replies above...
"Although you are misrepresenting what it says about health influences ("it has no discernible favorable influence on health"), the article also agrees with my contention that one must take a sensible approach to reap the health benefits and avoid the douchebaggery of heavy heroin consumption:"
Again, lots of justification. I wonder why.
The issue is one of risk management. This is why we classify and restrict certain products that have a high inherent risk of abuse, such as heroin (a Schedule 1 pharmaceutical) and alcohol (regulated, but sold OTC) accordingly.
Adding clarity to your point would help the conversation.
Would you concur with our government that marijuana is riskier than alcohol? I don't. I know lots of these types of people:Christine_72 wrote: »My husband and i are polar opposites when it comes to alcohol.. He drinks everyday, I drink maybe once a year if there's a social gathering.
He thinks drinking everyday is normal- I think it's abnormal.
He grew up in a drinking culture, all of his family/friends are big drinkers - None of my family or friends are big drinkers, and like me, only drink socially aka very rarely.
Personally, being with my husband has completely made me hate alcohol. Since being with him i have seen close up how damaging it is
I can relate to this, and we have spent A LOT of money on his alcohol, three DWI's, increased car insurance premiums, damaged vehicles, the cost of three rehabs, fines, etc. And not to mention time lost from work, injures, fighting between us, and me spending about 15 years, basically, raising our two children by myself while he was out with friends so that I could keep them away from as much of this behavior as possible.
And no potheads who have suffered similar consequences.
I would concur that cannabis carries more risk than tobacco or alcohol, but that this risk is acceptable and should be managed much in the same way we (the USA) manage alcohol and/or tobacco. To list cannabis as a schedule I is absurd and not reflective of scientific evidence.
Wow, this is evidence of just how misinformed the public is thanks to the government and alcohol/pharmaceutical industries. Tobacco: 480,000 deaths/year Alcohol: 88,000 deaths/year (not including alcohol related incidents) Cannabis: 0 deaths/year
Now you may not be into numbers but I'm pretty sure this is sufficient evidence that cannabis is less dangerous than either alcohol or tobacco.
I run a pharmacovigilance team and head up epidemiology, so you might say I'm into numbers.
Smoking marijuana carries (the preferred delivery system) the same medical risks as tobacco these are nearly identical carcinogens - the other risk being Tetrahydrocannabinol, which like alcohol is fine, even beneficial in small doses, but carries the same risk with overuse and long term use. The two risks together are compounding, hence the risk is greater.
That may be true on paper, but how many people who smoke marijuana do so in quantities equal to those that smoke tobacco?
This was brought up along with several other key factors in the most recent FDA panel, but the ruling was upheld to leave cannabis as Schedule I largely due to the doubling of carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbons in comparison to tobacco.
The FDA. 'nuff said.
I seem to be in a never ending battle with the all-mighty, all-powerful, ever bureaucratic, ever political FDA.
I'm just stating what happened, not in any way, shape, or form that I agree with their stance.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions