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
Replies
-
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 -
jmbmilholland 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.
Sooooo...in their view, does that mean two cigarettes are a schedule 1 narcotic? LOL.
This was actually brought up in the meeting!
One does not use logic when in panel with FDA.2 -
I wouldn't call myself a teetotaler, I'm a social drinker. So if there's a party or a get together at the pub then i will definitely drink, but these events happen like twice a year, we're homebody's! I need a party like atmosphere to drink, which is why i don't drink at home, plus i don't really like the taste of booze, unless it's tia maria or kahlua type stuff, and i hate, hate, hate the taste of wine, plus it makes me hurl everytime :sick:
I mentioned this before on another thread, and i got accused of being a binge drinker.. Just can't win lol3 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I wouldn't call myself a teetotaler, I'm a social drinker. So if there's a party or a get together at the pub then i will definitely drink, but these events happen like twice a year, we're homebody's! I need a party like atmosphere to drink, which is why i don't drink at home, plus i don't really like the taste of booze, unless it's tia maria or kahlua type stuff, and i hate, hate, hate the taste of wine, plus it makes me hurl everytime :sick:
I mentioned this before on another thread, and i got accused of being a binge drinker.. Just can't win lol
Lol! I would probably have a drink or two about once a month when out, if I could. My body can't tolerate it. But, someday I might improve.2 -
i don't drink alcohol. i think the last time was probably 6 years ago. Ive never liked how it made me feel & I been around and had to deal with too many alcoholics in my little life to want to touch the crap
now vaping cannabis??? im all over that *kitten* or eating cannabis edibles?? yeeeeessssssssss
*sits and waits patiently for Canada to fully legalize it this coming spring*3 -
BinaryPulsar wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I wouldn't call myself a teetotaler, I'm a social drinker. So if there's a party or a get together at the pub then i will definitely drink, but these events happen like twice a year, we're homebody's! I need a party like atmosphere to drink, which is why i don't drink at home, plus i don't really like the taste of booze, unless it's tia maria or kahlua type stuff, and i hate, hate, hate the taste of wine, plus it makes me hurl everytime :sick:
I mentioned this before on another thread, and i got accused of being a binge drinker.. Just can't win lol
Lol! I would probably have a drink or two about once a month when out, if I could. My body can't tolerate it. But, someday I might improve.
Yeah i hope so too. It's no fun and very annoying being out and being the only sober one within a bunch of drunken yahoos.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »BinaryPulsar wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I wouldn't call myself a teetotaler, I'm a social drinker. So if there's a party or a get together at the pub then i will definitely drink, but these events happen like twice a year, we're homebody's! I need a party like atmosphere to drink, which is why i don't drink at home, plus i don't really like the taste of booze, unless it's tia maria or kahlua type stuff, and i hate, hate, hate the taste of wine, plus it makes me hurl everytime :sick:
I mentioned this before on another thread, and i got accused of being a binge drinker.. Just can't win lol
Lol! I would probably have a drink or two about once a month when out, if I could. My body can't tolerate it. But, someday I might improve.
Yeah i hope so too. It's no fun and very annoying being out and being the only sober one within a bunch of drunken yahoos.
I don't mind. I have fun.2 -
That may be true, I haven't noticed the message warning of over consumption - the people in the commercial were sloppy drunk, that does not indicate they "took it easy" that night. I don't think reports of drunken violence and such affect the alcohol industry at all. Most people are going to drink how they are going to drink regardless of how someone else drank because they're not "like" those people. If people truly drank within their limits, this would not even be a discussion topic.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 message "drink responsibly" IS supposed to apply to over-consumption as well as not drinking and driving. Companies that sell alcoholic beverages are not helped by reports of drunken violence or even 'general drunken douchebaggery'. Imagine how much they'd make and how much more accepted and consumed alcoholic beverages would be if people happily drank within their limits and that sort of thing never happened.
I do hear you on the 'it destroys families' front. It did for a branch of mine, though as I said earlier, if it hadn't been alcohol abuse it would have been abuse of some other substance. If you need an escape that badly, you find a way.
I'm sorry that it affected your family like that, you are not alone. I agree that if you want to escape, you find a way. My issue is that I feel so many turn to it because it is easily accessible and acceptable, many people start partying in their early/mid teens...creating problems early in life before you know how to deal with them...so you stick with buddy booze to help.0 -
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.
Yeah... no. Just stop.4 -
Heartisalonelyhunter wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »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.
The problem isn't the alcohol; it's that the person you're describing is an a-hole.
I love drinking. I drink daily, sometimes to excess. I love beer and bourbon.
That said, I don't drink and drive, because I'm not an idiot. Addiction doesn't cause people to get DWIs or wreck their cars. Being an a-hole does.
Alcohol by itself is neither harmful nor helpful.Alcoholic behavior is not fun!
My gf and I are both very happy, functional, educated, well-paid alcoholics. It's tons of fun!
Cheers! And personally I have to say the most miserable people I know are all teetotalers....
So much truth! :laugh:2 -
MsAmandaNJ wrote: »
That may be true, I haven't noticed the message warning of over consumption - the people in the commercial were sloppy drunk, that does not indicate they "took it easy" that night. I don't think reports of drunken violence and such affect the alcohol industry at all. Most people are going to drink how they are going to drink regardless of how someone else drank because they're not "like" those people. If people truly drank within their limits, this would not even be a discussion topic.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 message "drink responsibly" IS supposed to apply to over-consumption as well as not drinking and driving. Companies that sell alcoholic beverages are not helped by reports of drunken violence or even 'general drunken douchebaggery'. Imagine how much they'd make and how much more accepted and consumed alcoholic beverages would be if people happily drank within their limits and that sort of thing never happened.
I do hear you on the 'it destroys families' front. It did for a branch of mine, though as I said earlier, if it hadn't been alcohol abuse it would have been abuse of some other substance. If you need an escape that badly, you find a way.
I'm sorry that it affected your family like that, you are not alone. I agree that if you want to escape, you find a way. My issue is that I feel so many turn to it because it is easily accessible and acceptable, many people start partying in their early/mid teens...creating problems early in life before you know how to deal with them...so you stick with buddy booze to help.
Yes. My point exactly. If people drank within their limits, there would be no discussion about the appropriate use of alcohol and whether or not someone should drink (barring health issues like pregnancy and pre-existing liver disease). It would just be a part of life, and consumed as commonly and without thought as soda. Especially since I can about guarantee the extra high taxes on alcohol would never have existed without societal pressure to discourage drinking (unnecessary if no one overuses it). Alcohol companies dream of the day that their products are that mainstream.
You are right that the reason so many turn to alcohol is that it is accessible. That is also part of why it is acceptable by their peers in those early/mid teens (plus it's often free for them because they raid their parent's liquor stores). This is the same reason that prescription drug abuse has skyrocketed in teens. If neither of those were available, it'd probably be back to huffing, or whatever more hard-core drug is in ready supply in the high school which seems to be a regional thing.0 -
MsAmandaNJ wrote: »
That may be true, I haven't noticed the message warning of over consumption - the people in the commercial were sloppy drunk, that does not indicate they "took it easy" that night. I don't think reports of drunken violence and such affect the alcohol industry at all. Most people are going to drink how they are going to drink regardless of how someone else drank because they're not "like" those people. If people truly drank within their limits, this would not even be a discussion topic.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 message "drink responsibly" IS supposed to apply to over-consumption as well as not drinking and driving. Companies that sell alcoholic beverages are not helped by reports of drunken violence or even 'general drunken douchebaggery'. Imagine how much they'd make and how much more accepted and consumed alcoholic beverages would be if people happily drank within their limits and that sort of thing never happened.
I do hear you on the 'it destroys families' front. It did for a branch of mine, though as I said earlier, if it hadn't been alcohol abuse it would have been abuse of some other substance. If you need an escape that badly, you find a way.
I'm sorry that it affected your family like that, you are not alone. I agree that if you want to escape, you find a way. My issue is that I feel so many turn to it because it is easily accessible and acceptable, many people start partying in their early/mid teens...creating problems early in life before you know how to deal with them...so you stick with buddy booze to help.
Yes. My point exactly. If people drank within their limits, there would be no discussion about the appropriate use of alcohol and whether or not someone should drink (barring health issues like pregnancy and pre-existing liver disease). It would just be a part of life, and consumed as commonly and without thought as soda. Especially since I can about guarantee the extra high taxes on alcohol would never have existed without societal pressure to discourage drinking (unnecessary if no one overuses it). Alcohol companies dream of the day that their products are that mainstream.
You are right that the reason so many turn to alcohol is that it is accessible. That is also part of why it is acceptable by their peers in those early/mid teens (plus it's often free for them because they raid their parent's liquor stores). This is the same reason that prescription drug abuse has skyrocketed in teens. If neither of those were available, it'd probably be back to huffing, or whatever more hard-core drug is in ready supply in the high school which seems to be a regional thing.
This is very true - people want to get high. I've honestly never understood the escapist mentality, but it is true for a very large portion of the population.
There is a direct link to the recent increase of Heroin use and the crackdown on legal prescription of pharmaceuticals. As soon as Oxycontin became restricted, Heroin skyrocketed.2 -
I like your post. I was a heavy drinker 40 years ago, then an extremely light drinker (less than a few ounces per ear) for maybe 20 years, then a non-drinker for nearly the past 20 years.
I see it as a more or less accepted form of self destruction.
Some say red wine is good for the heart, booze helps people relax, maintain high pressure lifestyles, whatever. I'm convinced it never improved the functioning of a single brain cell. I guess that' the point. People dumb each other down, often intentionally. Ever been the only sober person in a group of drinkers? You'd better have a slightly dark sense of humor, because it's not funny.
It's actually sad that people insist on lifestyles where the only way they can keep going is to regularly drown out their best selves.2 -
Ever been the only sober person in a group of drinkers? You'd better have a slightly dark sense of humor, because it's not funny.
Yep. Also, there's a slight vibe of danger that always seems to be lurking in the environment amidst the guffaws and raised voices and exaggerated interactions - something I never noticed when I was a drinker myself. I'll stick around for one hour tops, if I have to, but after a half hour it's barely tolerable.
Lurking danger vibe? Wow, where the heck do you hang out? Having been pregnant multiple times I've spent my fair share of time as a sober person around drinkers. I don't know that I've ever felt any danger vibes. Certainly not from the people I was with. I was at a bar once where a couple of women got in a fight, but they were quickly removed from the premises and I can't say I felt any danger from the incident.8 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Ever been the only sober person in a group of drinkers? You'd better have a slightly dark sense of humor, because it's not funny.
Yep. Also, there's a slight vibe of danger that always seems to be lurking in the environment amidst the guffaws and raised voices and exaggerated interactions - something I never noticed when I was a drinker myself. I'll stick around for one hour tops, if I have to, but after a half hour it's barely tolerable.
Lurking danger vibe? Wow, where the heck do you hang out? Having been pregnant multiple times I've spent my fair share of time as a sober person around drinkers. I don't know that I've ever felt any danger vibes. Certainly not from the people I was with. I was at a bar once where a couple of women got in a fight, but they were quickly removed from the premises and I can't say I felt any danger from the incident.
You should hang out with a bunch of drunk lawyers playing an intensive croquet game at the lake while swilling bottles of red wine and wearing pants with sailboats embroidered on them. Talk about lurking danger vibes in the deadly serious, cut-throat competition. You can cut the passive-aggression with a knife. Oh, and don't even get me started on "poison."3 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Ever been the only sober person in a group of drinkers? You'd better have a slightly dark sense of humor, because it's not funny.
Yep. Also, there's a slight vibe of danger that always seems to be lurking in the environment amidst the guffaws and raised voices and exaggerated interactions - something I never noticed when I was a drinker myself. I'll stick around for one hour tops, if I have to, but after a half hour it's barely tolerable.
Lurking danger vibe? Wow, where the heck do you hang out? Having been pregnant multiple times I've spent my fair share of time as a sober person around drinkers. I don't know that I've ever felt any danger vibes. Certainly not from the people I was with. I was at a bar once where a couple of women got in a fight, but they were quickly removed from the premises and I can't say I felt any danger from the incident.
The ability to assess a situation for potential danger is greatly enhanced when one's been abstinent from alcohol for awhile. Generally one year plus. And without wanting to seem condescending in saying this, one would have to be abstinent from alcohol for about a year to get this. The danger doesn't have to be the idea or possibility of people pulling out guns and starting a shootout. It's more an ability to sense the underlying aggression that drinking alcohol fuels, in almost everyone who drinks it. And the potential for that aggression to take on a life of its own. It's quite palpable in the air at any gathering of drinkers. Now whether the drinkers realize this conundrum or not (which they almost always heartily deny when presented with rhetorical questions on such) is a whole 'nuther discussion I suppose - and probably a pretty flammable one.
Just curious - do you notice this aggression and potential danger in others after acting in a manner as you say "without wanting to seem condescending"? This scenario sounds like a reaction to passive aggressive behavior and not influenced by alcohol.
8 -
The ability to assess a situation for potential danger is greatly enhanced when one's been abstinent from alcohol for awhile. Generally one year plus. And without wanting to seem condescending in saying this, one would have to be abstinent from alcohol for about a year to get this. The danger doesn't have to be the idea or possibility of people pulling out guns and starting a shootout. It's more an ability to sense the underlying aggression that drinking alcohol fuels, in almost everyone who drinks it. And the potential for that aggression (including passive aggression) to take on a life of its own. It's quite palpable in the air at any gathering of drinkers. Now whether the drinkers realize this conundrum or not (which they almost always heartily deny when presented with rhetorical questions on such) is a whole 'nuther discussion I suppose - and probably a pretty flammable one.
I don't really agree with this...I drank once a year or less for fifteen years, and not at all for the five years before that, so was effectively abstinent at almost every event we went to, bars, concerts, family parties, plenty of places where people were drinking. Plenty of opportunity to observe drunk people while I was sober. The only really agressive drinker I know (as in getting agressive when drunk) is the ex. I find this the exception, rather than the norm.4 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Ever been the only sober person in a group of drinkers? You'd better have a slightly dark sense of humor, because it's not funny.
Yep. Also, there's a slight vibe of danger that always seems to be lurking in the environment amidst the guffaws and raised voices and exaggerated interactions - something I never noticed when I was a drinker myself. I'll stick around for one hour tops, if I have to, but after a half hour it's barely tolerable.
Lurking danger vibe? Wow, where the heck do you hang out? Having been pregnant multiple times I've spent my fair share of time as a sober person around drinkers. I don't know that I've ever felt any danger vibes. Certainly not from the people I was with. I was at a bar once where a couple of women got in a fight, but they were quickly removed from the premises and I can't say I felt any danger from the incident.
The ability to assess a situation for potential danger is greatly enhanced when one's been abstinent from alcohol for awhile. Generally one year plus. And without wanting to seem condescending in saying this, one would have to be abstinent from alcohol for about a year to get this. The danger doesn't have to be the idea or possibility of people pulling out guns and starting a shootout. It's more an ability to sense the underlying aggression that drinking alcohol fuels, in almost everyone who drinks it. And the potential for that aggression (including passive aggression) to take on a life of its own. It's quite palpable in the air at any gathering of drinkers. Now whether the drinkers realize this conundrum or not (which they almost always heartily deny when presented with rhetorical questions on such) is a whole 'nuther discussion I suppose - and probably a pretty flammable one.
Sorry but baloney. I refrained from drinking for well over a year while waiting for my gallbladder removal and routinely hung out with my friends, played DD for them and there was no "underlying vibe" of aggression. Feels to me like you are moving the goalposts when challenged on your avowed psychic ability to feel the aggression in drinkers.
Myself, I think alcohol in our society (whatever that means) is accepted as an "allowable" vice (when used in moderation). Pulling out a baggie of smack, a needle, a spoon, and a length of rubber tube, not so acceptable in most social gatherings. Opening a nice bottle of wine, different story.
I'm not a heavy drinker, maybe a couple of glasses of wine a week, or a beer after mowing the lawn. I do enjoy winery visits and having a decent cellar of my favorites. I enjoy the interplay of good wine and good food or a nice single malt or a craft gin (from our local distillery) and tonic while sitting on the deck with a buddy, solving the world's problems.
Life can't always be about what's "good for you".
5 -
BillMcKay1 wrote: »Opening a nice bottle of wine, different story.
Right. When it's nice wine, that makes all the difference. LOL!
Compared to shooting up heroin, ya I'd say there is a big difference.4 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Ever been the only sober person in a group of drinkers? You'd better have a slightly dark sense of humor, because it's not funny.
Yep. Also, there's a slight vibe of danger that always seems to be lurking in the environment amidst the guffaws and raised voices and exaggerated interactions - something I never noticed when I was a drinker myself. I'll stick around for one hour tops, if I have to, but after a half hour it's barely tolerable.
Lurking danger vibe? Wow, where the heck do you hang out? Having been pregnant multiple times I've spent my fair share of time as a sober person around drinkers. I don't know that I've ever felt any danger vibes. Certainly not from the people I was with. I was at a bar once where a couple of women got in a fight, but they were quickly removed from the premises and I can't say I felt any danger from the incident.
The ability to assess a situation for potential danger is greatly enhanced when one's been abstinent from alcohol for awhile. Generally one year plus. And without wanting to seem condescending in saying this, one would have to be abstinent from alcohol for about a year to get this. The danger doesn't have to be the idea or possibility of people pulling out guns and starting a shootout. It's more an ability to sense the underlying aggression that drinking alcohol fuels, in almost everyone who drinks it. And the potential for that aggression (including passive aggression) to take on a life of its own. It's quite palpable in the air at any gathering of drinkers. Now whether the drinkers realize this conundrum or not (which they almost always heartily deny when presented with rhetorical questions on such) is a whole 'nuther discussion I suppose - and probably a pretty flammable one.
This is paranoid baloney. Do you own a tin foil helmet too? Although the fact that you're teetotal doesn't surprise me at all.5 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Ever been the only sober person in a group of drinkers? You'd better have a slightly dark sense of humor, because it's not funny.
Yep. Also, there's a slight vibe of danger that always seems to be lurking in the environment amidst the guffaws and raised voices and exaggerated interactions - something I never noticed when I was a drinker myself. I'll stick around for one hour tops, if I have to, but after a half hour it's barely tolerable.
Lurking danger vibe? Wow, where the heck do you hang out? Having been pregnant multiple times I've spent my fair share of time as a sober person around drinkers. I don't know that I've ever felt any danger vibes. Certainly not from the people I was with. I was at a bar once where a couple of women got in a fight, but they were quickly removed from the premises and I can't say I felt any danger from the incident.
The ability to assess a situation for potential danger is greatly enhanced when one's been abstinent from alcohol for awhile. Generally one year plus. And without wanting to seem condescending in saying this, one would have to be abstinent from alcohol for about a year to get this. The danger doesn't have to be the idea or possibility of people pulling out guns and starting a shootout. It's more an ability to sense the underlying aggression that drinking alcohol fuels, in almost everyone who drinks it. And the potential for that aggression (including passive aggression) to take on a life of its own. It's quite palpable in the air at any gathering of drinkers. Now whether the drinkers realize this conundrum or not (which they almost always heartily deny when presented with rhetorical questions on such) is a whole 'nuther discussion I suppose - and probably a pretty flammable one.
I'd love to see some scientific evidence to back this up...or because I have had alcohol in the past week perhaps I would not be able to assess it properly.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions