Alcohol and Society

lemurcat12 wrote: »

With which part? All of it? I ask because you seemed to be expressing different views before.

jmbmilholland wrote: »

Wheelhouse15 wrote: »

jmbmilholland wrote: »

Wheelhouse15 wrote: »

jmbmilholland wrote: »

Wheelhouse15 wrote: »

Rather entertaining thread on a board where people say sugar is a poison and akin to cocaine it's almost an irony to see the rally around the First World's drug of choice. I come from a family that has been destroyed by alcoholism but I'm not opposed to it in moderation, however, I also find it hypocritical that we have governments that approves the drugs approved by the Old World (alcohol, Tabaco, caffeine etc) but are waging a "war on drugs" that are from other parts of the World, which are really no worse than the approved drug list.

I really just wish we could arrive at a way of dealing with the whole issue of all recreational drugs in a rational way rather than mindless defense or attack based on weather you use it the drug or not. And people equating food to alcohol are just missing a huge point, people don't commit violence or driving dangerously over too many donuts -- unless they are trying to beat the crowd to the donut shop I guess. Food is only affecting you while psychoactive drugs can affect others. It's a huge conundrum because the vast majority of people that consume alcohol aren't a problem any more than the vast majority of people who consume any other drug, but what do we do about those who do? My grandfather was a violent drunk and extremely abusive to his family when he drank and died at 55 vomiting blood on the walls. One of my uncles, who was my father's twin, died at the same age after years of liver disease. My father had no issues with drinking and only drank socially but I saw him completely drunk a few times but he was never violent nor did he ever pass out. Another uncle was a severe alcoholic and quit cold turkey when he realized he was headed down the same path as his father and brother.

I rarely drink but have nothing against it as far as a legal substance but I have seen a lot of issues. So I find this thread interesting and amusing on many levels. In the end, we tried prohibition and it didn't work, we tried the war on drugs and that's a disaster. I think we definitely need to find a way to allow all but the truly dangerous drugs to be legalized and that legalization should be based solely on the best medical data available. We also need to find a way to better treat and cope with those who develop addictions.

don't think I would make the claim that heroin and meth "are really no worse" than alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. I haven't heard of high school girls in rural Indiana being enslaved into prostitution (and sometimes being brutalized and killed) for the high they get from Schlitz or Starbucks.

Or doughnuts, for that matter. The point people on this thread are making with food is not that it is on the level of violent alcoholism, but it is a substance that leads to addictive-type behaviors, can be abused, and can lead to devastating physical problems, sicknesses and death, and cause horrifying emotional and mental anguish and pain that can reverberate through entire families (which can also lead to death). Same with sex, when it is abused. On other threads there is a lot of talk of taxing and prohibiting certain foods by people who feel that they, or others, need a nanny to mind them. Where amongst the many, many shades of gray do you draw the line at nannying vs. personal responsibility?

Interestingly, gluttony, lust and wrath (under which drunkeness/substance abuse falls, due to the destruction that it causes to the abuser as well as his/her family, as you have sadly detailed with your own family) are three of the seven deadly sins, which used to be taken quite seriously, and are now just mainly the butt of jokes in today's society. In fact, it is quite fashionable to be a libertine with these selected vices, and woe betide anyone who attempts to fat shame, drunk shame, or slut shame. Tobacco shaming is fine though, as is shame-shaming. I get the feeling, with the OP's post and others, that they would feel more supported in their efforts to avoid alcohol if there were a little more shaming and a little less promotion of alcohol. Personally, my household is disciplined and bounded by constraints of traditional morality, so I don't feel like we need any nanny gummint sniffing through our liquor cabinet, sugar bowl or underwear drawers. (Nor do we need other Christians making up silliness about the sacraments, ie, Jesus traveled in a time machine to bring a bottle of innocent, pure Welch's grape juice to the last supper, thus, denominations following the Bible and having actual evil wine is the depth of depravity 'n yergoingstraighttohell). If everyone practiced the same restraint, we as a society could have nicer things.

Regarding the "Old World" (Europe?) rejecting substances from "other" parts--tobacco is not originally from Europe, it is American, while opium has been used by Europeans since at least the ancient Greeks. Pepper wasn't the only "spice" being traded on the silk road. In fact, China had vast quantities of opium shoved down its throat at the point of a gun by the English as a result of two Opium Wars (England was importing "all the tea in China" and had an untenable trade deficit and a shortage of sterling, which they solved by sacking and bombarding the Chinese coast until the Chinese agreed to import and legalize a substance that it saw destroying its culture and morality). Some of England's finest literature over the centuries, particularly with Romanticism, has been produced under the widely-accepted influence of opium, yet today it happens to be banned, not just for the adverse consequences seen with its more natural form, or because we are racist against Asian-grown drugs, but also because it can easily be refined into heroin. The British East India Company used opium (tightly restricted as a trade monopoly) to harness a docile and compliant workforce in places like India and Burma, so it might make you raise an eyebrow when you look at our own government and the control and cash flow it enjoys with alcohol (officially, along with the lucrative cut it gets from the drug trade). Also, what is the deal with US military protectionism of opium fields in Afghanistan, which we conveniently conquered, kinda? It accounts for more than 90% of illegal heroin world wide. The war on drugs, as you note, is already a hot mess, not least because the government seems to be reaping benefits from both sides of it.

So do you always ignore the context and just go to extremes to compare meth to coffee? I said many drugs, like pot, opium, Khat, mushrooms etc. and yes alcohol is just as bad when it is abused as many others including meth. If you want to go to extremes though is a drug used frequently by Dr. John Hopkins (heroin) really that bad then? And I mentioned approved by the Old World, yes Europe, and Tabaco certainly was even if was imported.

As for opium, most drugs were in fact legal until rather recently and those that were banned were done so often arbitrarily, but many opioids are not actually illegal, but rather highly controlled. Most of the worst drugs on the street are actually synthetic versions of these that were given in a misguided attempt to find a safer pain management substance. Sticking with Morphine would have been prefereable. As for my government? I'm not American so don't ask me about a foreign power and their meddling in another country.

Reguarding your liquor cabnet I agree, and as long as you aren't hurting yourself or others who really cares? That was much of my point but at the same time we need to find a way to deal better with those who are not so disciplined as you and are being harmed by a legal substance that the government makes a lot of money off of through taxes.

Most of your post is rather tangled with so many issues I'm just wondering what you were actually responding too. Other than you feel like moralizing something for some reason.

Why the nasty and aggressive response? Am I not allowed to share additional thoughts and perspectives? I just pointed out that I am not aware of people enslaving themselves for alcohol, or pot, betel nuts, or khat, for that matter.

I didn't mean to appear aggresive but I'm just wondering what the response was about and it seemed that you were talking about points I had no issue with, which confused me. I was a little distracted at the end and should have rethought the last few things but the first part was basically a reiteration. I don't think alcohol is a problem for most but it is only legal by tradition when you consider the dangers of it compared to other banned substances. I really thought the history leason was a little much lol.

I have nothing against anyone who drinks but I just choose not to do it much because I know what can happen. I've seen it too much and I now my family history. It shaped me as a child and I hope others understand that it's a danger if abused but a great thing when used in moderation.

I appolgize if I came off a little rough but my thoughts are still a little confused in my own head at times.

I wasn't meaning for this to argue with you; just what you wrote got me thinking about a lot (plus c'mon history is awesome, and Econ makes it even more fun! Right? Hello?) It probably would have helped if I hadn't been picking away at this here and there through the afternoon. What I meant with the opium is that it's another drug that our culture has a long history with, in many different forms, for two millennia, and it's another very complicated situation. I think it was outlawed in the US around the same time as prohibition, but since it can produce heroin, is rightfully still illegal. I don't want to write another book on it, and I agree that thinking about it makes my head spin.

As mentioned above, my grandpa was an alcoholic as well, but he (and we all) were lucky because my uncle punched him out one Christmas, and he quit the liquor immediately after that, and never had a problem with the beer. Its too bad all our problems can't be fixed with a good round of fisticuffs.

STLBADGIRL wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

With which part? All of it? I ask because you seemed to be expressing different views before.

With pretty much all of his point of view. And you don't know my entire views on this subject. Enough said. Just know that I agree with what he said.

Monkey_Business wrote: »

Here is my take on alcohol (Quoted from Tech Insider): So stay thirsty my friends:

"Not only is beer a delicious frothy mixture of alcoholic goodness, but some scientists think it may have played a pivotal role in the shaping of the history of humankind.

There's evidence that grain convinced our nomadic hunter-gatherer ancestors to settle down and build civilizations centered around agriculture.

It seems natural to conclude they used that grain to make bread — a diet staple used around the world today. But there's evidence that our ancestors were more interested in growing grain to make beer, not bread.

(Come on, which one would you choose?)

Beer over bread

Fermentation — the magic process that turns sugars into alcohol — happens naturally. All you need is a little yeast.

So our ancestors certainly came across naturally fermented fruits and grains in the wild, but the moment when humans realized they could harness this power is unclear.

The earliest chemical evidence of barley-based beer dates back to 3500 BC, but some scientists think grain-based beer has been around much, much longer. Excavations have revealed potential ancient beer-brewing tools, and experiments have shown that you can make a low alcohol content drink with a simple mortar and pestle.

Early brews were likely not quite as strong as the ones we know today, but they would have produced the same kind of feel-good buzz. And once that relaxing effect became clear, it's easy to imagine humans wanted to make more of it.

As Jeffrey Khan, a clinical associate professor of psychiatry at New York-Presbyterian Hospital, argues, beer may have been exactly what we needed to suppress our desperate hunter-gatherer extincts to survive. It gave us time to relax, and awakened the desire to experiment, to invent, and to create art — all characteristics of flourishing civilizations.

And indeed we see evidence of beer in very early civilizations. Our ancestors made beer the centerpiece of religious ceremonies, used it heavily in celebrations that encouraged social bonding, buried their dead with it, and even used it as a form of currency in some areas.

And humans may have had more reasons to turn to beer before bread. Patrick McGovern, an archaeologist at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that beer is more nutritious than bread, and safer to drink than water since fermentation kills off pathogens.

Of course not everyone subscribes to the idea that beer domesticated us. Other archaeologists and historians point out how grain is easy to store and keeps for a long time. They say its reliability as a food source is what convinced humans to settle down and raise crops.

But there are puzzling inconsistencies. Studies in Mexico suggest that teosinte (an ancient form of maize) was much better suited for brewing beer than it was for making corn flower or bread tortillas. It took a long time for farmers to turn the grains into a more maize-like crop that could be used as the food staple it is today. So some think it must have been used for beer first.

Whichever came first, beer or bread, one thing is clear: Alcohol played a very important role in early civilizations."

GaleHawkins wrote: »

Rationalization seems to be a hallmark of mankind on any subject.enabling us to be correct in any belief we choose. Science can be a useful tool in the process.

VioletRojo wrote: »

EttaMaeMartin wrote: »

snowflake930 wrote: »

Personal opinion, I can definitely live without alcohol, and rarely use it, spend my calories on foods I enjoy.
Unlike cigarettes, alcohol does not physically affect other people, and it is personal choice whether or not you choose to use it.
The one thing I strenuously object to is drinking alcohol and driving a vehicle. Then your ARE affecting others and should be making the adult decision not to drive. Putting others at risk for this behavior is unacceptable under any circumstances. There are enough bad "sober" drivers out on the roads, we don't need people who are under the influence.

it affects everyone around you. do your research it's not just harming yourself. alcoholics are unable to use responsibly

snowflake930 wrote: »

snickerscharlie wrote: »

snowflake930 wrote: »

Personal opinion, I can definitely live without alcohol, and rarely use it, spend my calories on foods I enjoy.
Unlike cigarettes, alcohol does not physically affect other people, and it is personal choice whether or not you choose to use it.
The one thing I strenuously object to is drinking alcohol and driving a vehicle. Then your ARE affecting others and should be making the adult decision not to drive. Putting others at risk for this behavior is unacceptable under any circumstances. There are enough bad "sober" drivers out on the roads, we don't need people who are under the influence.

Use of alcohol *can* physically affect other people, though, well beyond just drinking-and-driving. I work in the court system and I'd hazard a guess that a very conservative minimum of 50% of domestic violence cases are triggered by alcohol use.

Right, I did not think of this "cause & effect", but would have to guess that the majority of adults indulging would not commit domestic abuse while under the influence, and all should not be denied because of a low percent who do.
I still think it is a personal, adult decision, whether or not we drink alcoholic beverages, and its use should not be legislated. Personal responsibility.

alcoholics cannot just use responsibly. they are unable. it is a disease not a choice. it affects almost anyone the alcoholic comes into contact with..eventually!

Not everyone who drinks is an alcoholic. It's this all or nothing mindset that I don't understand.

GaleHawkins wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

Rationalization seems to be a hallmark of mankind on any subject.enabling us to be correct in any belief we choose. Science can be a useful tool in the process.

So is this a passive-aggressive way of saying that you think specific posters are rationalizing? I can't see any other reason for posting.

Perhaps it would be more helpful (or at least prevent people you didn't mean to insult from feeling insulted) to be direct?

How did you read all that into a simple textbook statement on a thread about controversial behaviors?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(psychology)