Slashdot Mirror
Beer Added To The Food Pyramid
Alehound writes " Beer Is Food: The US Government labeled beer(alcohol) as a drug, BeerAdvocate.com begs to differ as they inform their reader that beer can be a part of your diet in a healthy way. Beer does a body good? So the "Beer Gut" is a myth? So why the hell do I have a gut? And yes these guys do drink beer for breakfast." It's only 10 in the morning, I'm dumping out the half pot of coffee left, and cracking open a Boddingtons! Do it!
So why the hell do I have a gut?
Maybe because when you drink beer it's 6-10 at a time and you sit at a desk all day. In large amounts these calories add up.
I doubt that a semi-active person that has a couple beers here and there would get a gut from drinking this tasty beverage. In moderation, beer, just like soda, will not make you fat.
Why the heck don't beer, wine, and liquor have to have the nutriton information label on them like all food does in the U.S.?
-- dR.fuZZo
It's interesting to watch how the government cracks down on various drugs. The US Government has deemed smoking as pretty bad, yet smoking does not cause drunk driving, nor does it cause men to go home and beat their wives. An addiction to tobacco does not ruin someone's life the way an addiction to alcohol can. I hear lots of complaining about the costs smokers create in terms of health care, but I never hear about the costs associated with heavy drinkers, not to mention rehab programs.
What's really interesting is how they make marijuana illegal, when in many ways it is not as bad as smoking or drinking. In terms of health, people say marijuana does less damage than all that tar and chemicals they put in cigarettes. Some people say it's even less addictive than tobacco, though I would not know. Marijuana also does not make you overconfident the way alcohol will - making you think you are the best driver in the world when in reality you should not be anywhere near the controls of a vehicle. The government likes to say that marijuana use just leads to usage of dangerous drugs like cocaine, but that is not true - just like alcoholics generally don't move onto cocaine either.
I'll probably get modded down for this, but I feel the world would be a better place without alcohol. But that simply will not happen. People will not give it up, just look at when they tried prohibition in the US.
It's interesting you chose that particular slander for your post, since it was the early 20th-century equivalent of "reefer madness". One of the driving rhetorical points of Prohibitionism, and the reason that it was embraced by some elements of what became the women's movement, was just that: "Alcohol causes our responsible men to become irresponsible and beat their wives. If we get rid of booze, there will be no wife-beating!"
Naturally, it didn't work that way. Sober men are just as capable of rage as drunk ones, and neither beer nor gin can make a violent man from a peaceable one. Moreover, blaming a man's misdeeds on the drugs he consumes, rather than on his own character, does nothing to cause him to correct himself. A violent person who can excuse his behavior the next morning by saying, "It was the bottle talking," sees no reason to become less violent.
The remedy for domestic violence is not to dissuade men from drinking, but to convince them (as has thankfully been done in society at large, thanks chiefly to feminism and the law) that domestic violence is wrong, shameful, and criminal. Only by ascribing responsibility solely to the individual -- not to his drug, and not to "society" -- can the problem be corrected. Why? Simple: The booze doesn't make decisions; individuals do.
Leave beer alone, for -- as with marijuana -- the vast majority of users enjoy it responsibly. Lay the blame for wrongdoing on the wrongdoers -- and shame on you, if you let them blame it on the bottle.