UK Cuts Men's Recommended Weekly Alcohol To 14 Units (theguardian.com)

UK recommends alcohol? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-08 22:56 · Score: 0

Your tax monies at work!!

Re: UK recommends alcohol? by Z00L00K · 2016-01-09 00:34 · Score: 2

And what is a Unit? Metric values should be used.

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Re: UK recommends alcohol? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 01:16 · Score: 4, Informative

One unit of alcohol (UK) is defined as 10 millilitres (8 grams) of pure alcohol.
Although not an SI unit it is metric - it's just broken into an easier measure for many people to use (depending on the drink you're having you can approximate it between 1-3 Units and count the number of Units you're having that way).
Re: UK recommends alcohol? by fendragon · 2016-01-09 01:23 · Score: 4, Informative

One unit is 10 ml of pure alcohol The link gives some more useful examples in terms of actual drinks e.g. about half a pint of beer.
Re:UK recommends alcohol? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 02:43 · Score: 0

uk has goverment only turned against alcohol because of war you know the first world war another one of those party's you where late too and claim to have won single handedly whilst everyone else just held your coat. They introduced licensing houses and closing time to stop the munitions workers blowing themsleves or more importantly the munitions factory up whilst pissed.
Re: UK recommends alcohol? by Z00L00K · 2016-01-09 06:03 · Score: 2

The problem is that 'unit' requires knowledge that isn't easy to transfer between countries. If internationally recognized units were used it would be understandable for everyone without having to know sizes of beers&drinks specific to a country.

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Re: UK recommends alcohol? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2016-01-09 07:56 · Score: 1

They started with pint, which everyone gets, as it is an internationally understood unit of fun, then get bogged down in metric stuff.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re: UK recommends alcohol? by fendragon · 2016-01-09 12:28 · Score: 1

I agree that it's fairly pointless to create an arbitrary unit when it can be expressed exactly in standard metric units. This is dumbing down so UK equivalent of Joe Sixpack can understand it.
It isn't strictly necessary for it to translate internationally. Foreign visitors to the UK don't need to know. If you come to the UK and are worried about drinking and driving, for example, the official blood alcohol test limit doesn't use that 'unit' anyway: it's more sensibly based on e.g. milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood, though you'd have to do extensive research to find out how much of your favourite tipple you could consume to reach that level for your own body weight and metabolic rate.
Re: UK recommends alcohol? by Pseudonym · 2016-01-09 13:04 · Score: 1

The problem is that 'unit' requires knowledge that isn't easy to transfer between countries.
Yeah, unfortunately the UK picked a different standard from most places. A UK unit of alcohol is 10mL of ethanol at standard room temperature (i.e. 20C). The most common "standard drink" is 10 grams of ethanol at room temperature. Things would be simpler if we all standardised on that.
(Of course, the US measures a standard drink in millihogsheads or something because that's just how they roll.)

--
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Re: UK recommends alcohol? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 13:12 · Score: 0

What's to bog down? 473.176475 = 1 pint and 236.5882375ml is half a pint. ;)
Re: UK recommends alcohol? by Pseudonym · 2016-01-09 13:16 · Score: 1

[...] the official blood alcohol test limit doesn't use that 'unit' anyway: it's more sensibly based on e.g. milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood [...]
I dispute this use of the term "sensibly".
BAC by volume is typically grams per 100mL. In many jurisdictions (e.g. US, Australia) it's written using the percent or permille symbol. There are other jurisdictions (e.g. Russia, Germany, Ireland) which measures BAC by mass (e.g. grams per 100 grams of blood), where the percent/permille symbol actually makes sense.
Just to confuse things even more, laboratory tests usually measure millimoles per litre and so the result has to be converted.

--
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Re: UK recommends alcohol? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 14:20 · Score: 0

You are a nerd when you see the word unit and think to yourself: "that uint has a typo!"
>.
Re: UK recommends alcohol? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 14:47 · Score: 0

Ugh, US pints are short. Imperial pints are 568 ml.
Re: UK recommends alcohol? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 16:03 · Score: 0

Why is this unfortunate? It's the UK government's advice for it's citizens only, not a major scientific breakthrough to be shared internationally.
Re: UK recommends alcohol? by Pseudonym · 2016-01-09 20:17 · Score: 1

It makes sense for Europe (at least) to standardise, since you can freely travel and hence freely drink in many countries if you're a UK citizen.

--
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Re:UK recommends alcohol? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-10 01:12 · Score: 0

The new regulations are the result of pressure from Islamic militants. Before too long, the limit will be reduced to 0 units.
Britons: Rise up and drink now, before its too late!
--
The only good beer is inside your stomach!
Re: UK recommends alcohol? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 11:33 · Score: 0

Why exactly is it more sensible to use the unit of alcohol defined as 10g of ethanol, rather than 10ml of ethanol? Most people order drinks by volume, not weight.
Re: UK recommends alcohol? by Pseudonym · 2016-01-11 11:45 · Score: 1

I didn't say that it was more sensible to measure ABW rather than ABV. I said it would be simpler for all countries to use the same measure, and ABW happens to be the most common one in use today.

--
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});

Left wing PC crowd did this by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-08 22:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

There is nothing scientific about it, and the medical profession say the change has nothing to do with new scientific data. The sole motivation driving this was to make men equal to female.

As if this bullshit is going to reduce anyone with a penis to change their drinking habits. /s

Re:Left wing PC crowd did this by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-08 23:02 · Score: 0

Mod parent UP.
This is PC garbage @ its finest.
Re:Left wing PC crowd did this by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-08 23:19 · Score: 2, Informative

This isn't for tolerance of binge drinking, and this isn't about intoxication, this is cancer risk from low level consumption, which is relatively independent of gender.
Re:Left wing PC crowd did this by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-08 23:26 · Score: 1

There is nothing scientific about the old limit either so it doesn't really matter.
Unless you take body weight and other living conditions into consideration it is just a random number that doesn't apply to any real person.
Even then, it is a number for people who are so obsessed about their health that they jumped on the whole gluten thing.
For actual population health it is way more interesting to convince the large part that still smokes to stop.
People getting a bit too drunk is nothing compared to that.
Re:Left wing PC crowd did this by Lumpy · 2016-01-09 01:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

Then the freaking women need to start drinking more if they want to be equal.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Left wing PC crowd did this by fendragon · 2016-01-09 01:20 · Score: 2

There is nothing scientific about it
Fret not, most of us won't take any notice anyway.
Re:Left wing PC crowd did this by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 02:08 · Score: -1

This is a no brainer but people who get drunk tend to do stupid things that lead to injury or death, either of themselves, other people or both.
I don't drink, so it's pretty easy for me to see how drunks act. People who drink overlook a lot because they are trying to justify their bad habit.
Re:Left wing PC crowd did this by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 04:01 · Score: 0

Score:-1, Alcoholic with mod points

it's pretty easy for me to see how drunks act
And this is one of those times. The worst part is the drunks can't see themselves.
Re:Left wing PC crowd did this by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 05:08 · Score: 1

No, the person who modded your self-righteous crap down (assumin you're the same AC) did so because the change referred to in the story has nothing to do with drunks, or getting drunk. You can easily consume more than the old limit, never mind the new limit, without ever being even mildly drunk; as it mentions in the summary, the new limit is equivalent to one pint of beer a day. This is about the risks of low-level alcohol consumption, not the risks of getting drunk.
Re:Left wing PC crowd did this by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 05:10 · Score: 0

Give me enough data and I can "prove" anything you want me to. This is propaganda, not science.
Re:Left wing PC crowd did this by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 05:35 · Score: 0

this is from the same kind of fun sponge who gives children apples on halloween
Re:Left wing PC crowd did this by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 05:43 · Score: -1

I guess you're just an idiot, but at least you're killing yourself off so it's a self resolving problem.
Keep up the good work there, son!
Re:Left wing PC crowd did this by gnasher719 · 2016-01-09 06:37 · Score: 1

This has nothing to do whatsoever with left wing. The Tories in Britain are not exactly left wing. Anyway, since when has it been left wing propaganda to be against alcohol or any other drugs?
Re:Left wing PC crowd did this by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 08:33 · Score: 0

Modded insightful in spite of the fact that it likely isn't true and contains no link or evidence to back it up. Welcome to the Information Age!
Re:Left wing PC crowd did this by quantaman · 2016-01-09 08:58 · Score: 1

There is nothing scientific about it, and the medical profession say the change has nothing to do with new scientific data. The sole motivation driving this was to make men equal to female.
As if this bullshit is going to reduce anyone with a penis to change their drinking habits. /s
Do you have a citation for that? The natural reason for it to vary by gender is because men are heavier than women, but in that case you're still better off giving both genders the same advice and giving them the option to scale by body mass. I don't see any other reason why men and women of the same size should have different alcohol recommendations.
This article contradicts you and suggests this is a case of the guidelines catching up with the science and medical advice.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:Left wing PC crowd did this by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 09:27 · Score: 0

It's left wing to say it's a health issue and right wing to say it's a moral issue.
Re:Left wing PC crowd did this by serviscope_minor · 2016-01-09 11:19 · Score: 0

I love how a completely unsourced, uninformed rant about "the left" (I'm surprised the phrase "SJW" didn't creep in somewhere) gets +4 informative, and the refuting posts with sources get no mod points.
Moderation is not supposed to be +1 agrees with my political worldview.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re: Left wing PC crowd did this by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 12:10 · Score: 1

Women have less of the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase in their stomachs than men. Because this enzyme helps breakdown alcohol, more alcohol will be absorbed and enter a womanâ(TM)s blood through her stomach than a manâ(TM)s.
Re: Left wing PC crowd did this by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 19:41 · Score: 0

Exactly. It's known that smoking is bad but in US the anti smoking crowd has gone from proper regulation to off the deep end, trying to regulate what you can do in your own home alone or even outside. Like smokers, they don't know when to quit.
This is the same kind of thing. We let these types get away with regulating things like smoking because who'd argue with that? Then they move on to other things like this. Then it will be something else until we all live totally managed and miserable lives.
Of course making good little worker drones has always been a goal too, so don't just blame liberals for this nonsense.
Re:Left wing PC crowd did this by boa · 2016-01-09 22:06 · Score: 1

" Anyway, since when has it been left wing propaganda to be against alcohol or any other drugs?"
Pretty much since the beginning of the left wing workers' movement, at least in some european countries.
Here's (hopefully) a link to a Google translated web page about the Norwegian workers' movement's view on alcohol way back when.
https://translate.google.com/t...
Re:Left wing PC crowd did this by gzuckier · 2016-01-10 05:21 · Score: 1

There is nothing scientific about it, and the medical profession say the change has nothing to do with new scientific data. The sole motivation driving this was to make men equal to female.
As if this bullshit is going to reduce anyone with a penis to change their drinking habits. /s
Right... like the fact that men are larger than women has no effect on the volume of alcohol they can consume vs. their blood concentration... Isn't there a conspiracy site somewhere that you should be studying?

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Re:Left wing PC crowd did this by gzuckier · 2016-01-10 05:30 · Score: 2

There is nothing scientific about it, and the medical profession say the change has nothing to do with new scientific data. The sole motivation driving this was to make men equal to female.
As if this bullshit is going to reduce anyone with a penis to change their drinking habits. /s
Do you have a citation for that? The natural reason for it to vary by gender is because men are heavier than women, but in that case you're still better off giving both genders the same advice and giving them the option to scale by body mass. I don't see any other reason why men and women of the same size should have different alcohol recommendations.
This article contradicts you and suggests this is a case of the guidelines catching up with the science and medical advice.
Also: women typically have higher percentages of body fat, meaning that for the same overall weight, women have a smaller volume of water to dilute the alcohol and end up with a higher concentration. http://www.builtlean.com/2010/... Women have lower levels of alcohol dehydrogenase than men in youth but higher in middle age. http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.o...

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Re:Left wing PC crowd did this by niftymitch · 2016-01-10 07:36 · Score: 1

There is nothing scientific about it, and the medical profession say the change has nothing to do with new scientific data. The sole motivation driving this was to make men equal to female.
As if this bullshit is going to reduce anyone with a penis to change their drinking habits. /s
Do you have a citation for that? ... scale by body mass. I don't see any other reason why men and women of the same size should have different alcohol recommendations.
....
Liver size more than body mass.
BMI as a reflection of fat as a %age of body mass is very different on average for men and women.
Metabolic efficiency and timing too. A recent headline noted that men burn calories
better when hungry, women burn them best after eating.
The reality is alcohol does mess with metabolism and circulation (as does sugar).
Worse fructose and alcohol challenge the liver when was the last time a guy ate an apple?
I smell a failure to understand that correlation does not imply causality. Or at worse
a coalition of agenda. Health, driving, religious bias & moral-do-gooders could combine to gain
a power over these standards and makes recommendation approval for a mix of reasons
not clear in the data.
What if four of the seven supreme court judges in the US were tea totalers to
comply with their perceived religious covenants... Same logic for the member of
the panel making these recommendations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Coalitions are insidious.

--
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
Re:Left wing PC crowd did this by mjwx · 2016-01-10 13:48 · Score: 2

Then the freaking women need to start drinking more if they want to be equal.
I get the joke, but on a serious note, there are so many more important variables in alcohol tolerance and metabolism that gender isn't a big one.

I've seen women (small Asian women as well) that could drink most men under the table. This is because they've got a fast metabolism and a built up resistance to alcohol (and when you see the way they drink in Thailand, you understand why they've developed such a resistance so early in life). Its not just built up tolerance either, I can easily drink 10-12 pints of beer* but fatigue plays a huge factor, there have been times where 1 or 2 pints have put me on my arse because I was too tired or sick.

However the UK government is doing this because alcoholism is seen as a huge problem to some in England. It's just a recommendation, not a legal requirement so changing it makes it look like the government is "Doing Something (TM)" to all the busy bodies whilst doing nothing at all.

* Please keep in mind I'm not American, so I drink beer around 5% ABV.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:Left wing PC crowd did this by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-10 21:42 · Score: 0

This is horseshit. We're not talking about Norway. Workers in the UK have a long and proud tradition of beer drinking. Workers' movements tend to recognize that. And as GP said, this measure has come in because of the right-wing Conservative party. So let's stop talking utter bullshit about this being a "left-wing move".

Who paid the bill of this bull*****? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-08 23:00 · Score: 0

Quote: "They also advise there is no safe level of drinking"
Quote: "seven pints of beer a week – the same as the maximum limit for women"
Quote: "less than a 1% chance of dying from an alcohol-related condition"

No one, really, NO ONE taught 'em Logic? The conclusion of these sentences is obvious: they came up with a random number and said it was science. Cheers!

Re:Who paid the bill of this bull*****? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 04:23 · Score: 0

Wellcome to the way doctors work...
Re: Who paid the bill of this bull*****? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 13:14 · Score: 0

Well it looks like they worked out the number of units per week for a 1% risk of alcohol-related cancer. Its obvious there's no risk if you drink no alcohol. Seems logical.

Super nanny state by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-08 23:30 · Score: 1

As Cameron bows out of the leadership and Theresa May positions herself as the next leader, we're getting a lot of this SUPER-NANNY STATE crap!

14 units of alcohol now, she says the evidence has changed, but can't point to the new research! It just changed, OK, so now its 14 units! Shuddup I'm the health minister!

The big nanny state law, is and I do mean BIG, is all our internet is to be recorded, and our web surfing history is to be available to EVERY official without a warrant (including this Heath Ministry woman).

More detailed data like Twitter, Google searches, Facebook, email, SMSs, medical info, financial, banking, travel etc. will be available WITH A WARRANT, unless they're in a hurry in which case it will be available WITHOUT a warrant.

This covers EVERYONE IN THE WORLD, its not limited to UK residents. I notice Europeans and Americans don't realize the law covers their data too. So UK can demand Vodafone hand over all Germany internet surveillance data (Vodafone is a spook friendly company, and bought Deusch Kable). All US banking data, everything, in secret.

And the spooks at GCHQ, they get live feeds to everything available decrypted, no limits, full-take, and it must be handed over in secret under "obligations" that can be laid down to any Corp with a UK subsididary.

Nanny May knows best.

I need a beer. 14 units won't do it.

Re:Super nanny state by Anne+Thwacks · 2016-01-09 02:36 · Score: 1

our web surfing history is to be available to EVERY official without a warrant
The message from Snowden is that that the government cannot keep secrets. If they have your surfing history, it is probably available on a USB stick in all markets in Karachi for $1.99 ONO.
And probably everyone's surfing history can be bought for download for $49.99 from QVC or BlackHatsRus.com for 0.5 Bitcoin.

--
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII

Men and women have the same recommendation? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-08 23:34 · Score: 0

Do they recommend that men and women consume the same number of calories, too?

This just in: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-08 23:38 · Score: 1

Everything causes cancer. Fuck em. I'd rather lose 10 years and enjoy life than gain 10 years and hate it.

Re:This just in: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 00:15 · Score: -1

The problem is, who pays your hospital bills? In most of Europe, we the taxpayers do. Which means that we the taxpayers get to decide you should not indulge in vices that will later become a burden to the community. We need enforced conformity. Now.
Re:This just in: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 00:49 · Score: 0

That isn't a problem - there are no medical bills when you're dead.
In the interim, I pay a monthly medical premium for a service I almost never use. When it come to be my turn to need healthcare, anyone who wants to complain can fuck off. 25 years of paying in to it, and the most I've done with it was get some antibiotics.
Re:This just in: by fendragon · 2016-01-09 01:15 · Score: 5, Informative

That isn't a problem - there are no medical bills when you're dead.
Having just lost a friend whose breast cancer started 10 years ago, I'm acutely aware that if you die of cancer there can be huge medical bills before you are dead. (or there would be, if it wasn't all taken care of by the NHS as it was in this case).
Re:This just in: by goose-incarnated · 2016-01-09 01:28 · Score: 1

That isn't a problem - there are no medical bills when you're dead.
Having just lost a friend whose breast cancer started 10 years ago, I'm acutely aware that if you die of cancer there can be huge medical bills before you are dead. (or there would be, if it wasn't all taken care of by the NHS as it was in this case).
Then take up smoking - the cancer kills you much faster, and if it doesn't the heart disease will :-)

--
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Re:This just in: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 02:13 · Score: 1

There are plenty of other ways to enjoy life without putting extremely toxic substances into your body. It always makes me sad to see people like you who think that life wouldn't be worth living without being intoxicated.
Seriously, explore your options. There is a whole world out there filled with things to do that don't involve drugs and alcohol. Once you find them, you'll probably slap yourself for not doing it sooner.
Re:This just in: by zAPPzAPP · 2016-01-09 02:23 · Score: 1

That is a fallacy.
As you get old you will (most likely) become reliant on healthcare at some point. Sure you can keep all your risks low, but you are in a thousand 'risk groups' to get something or the other affliction. And all those little percentages start rising with age.
One of those is going to get you. Rarely do people just fall over and die and if they do, chances are they could have prevented that by going to the doctor more often.
As long as this happens after your retirement age, we as a society don't care that much wether it happens at 65 or 90 years.
Re:This just in: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 02:48 · Score: 0

If you don't like it, get rid of socialized healthcare. You are aware that's one of the biggest complaints against it in the US. Having to pay for other peoples unhealthy habits. But of course you come across as a totalitarian ass wipe and it just confirms in my mind why the US should avoid socialized health care. It takes away another screw in which you could use to try to control my life. Of course when ass wipes like yourself try to push for socialized health care, you always assure us that no, it wouldn't effect what you can and can't do.
And besides, there's been plenty of evidence that long lived people who live healthy life styles cost more to care for in the long run. Us alcoholics usually keel over and die from a heart attack suddenly. Nice and cheap. It's you bastards that live the healthy life style and go run every morning who needs all sorts of surgeries as your eyes and joints fail that really cost.
Re:This just in: by Blaskowicz · 2016-01-09 03:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

Wait, US is that country where you can't even drink in the streets and people resort to making fake IDs (!) to drink.
I think that may be why you are afraid of such "totalitarian" policies as you reading or hearing on TV or radio about a recommendation once in a while. What such evil "government" intrusion (if somehow physicians and University of Cambridge count as "the government").
The reality though is it's you Americans who are fined and jailed for drinking and jay walking and so on, AND you get little "socialized" healthcare. So I don't think oppression and healthcare are actually related.
Re:This just in: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 03:44 · Score: 0

There are plenty of other ways to enjoy life without putting extremely toxic substances into your body. It always makes me sad to see people like you who think that life wouldn't be worth living without being intoxicated.
That's a strawman. There's a huge difference between "life is better when you have intoxicants at your disposal that you can enjoy responsibly" and "life wouldn't be worth living without being intoxicated".

Seriously, explore your options. There is a whole world out there filled with things to do that don't involve drugs and alcohol. Once you find them, you'll probably slap yourself for not doing it sooner.
Would you be willing to do the same and explore your intoxicant options? Once you find them, you'll probably slap yourself for not doing it sooner.
Re:This just in: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 03:50 · Score: 0

That's a strawman. There's a huge difference between "life is better when you have intoxicants at your disposal that you can enjoy responsibly" and "life wouldn't be worth living without being intoxicated".
Either you drink or you don't. If you do, then you are incapable of living without being intoxicated. Ask yourself why you get drunk.

Would you be willing to do the same and explore your intoxicant options? Once you find them, you'll probably slap yourself for not doing it sooner.
I've already tried alcohol. It's a physically and mentally unhealthy existence. I prefer to live my life, not wither away.
Re:This just in: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 06:21 · Score: 0

"Either you drink or you don't. If you do, then you are incapable of living without being intoxicated."
Patently ridiculous - this is nothing more than social bigotry. The vast majority of people who drink alcohol are not alcoholics. They can certainly live without being intoxicated, there just is no rational reason to.
There is nothing inherently wrong or bad about enjoying the feeling of being intoxicated from time to time. If you disagree, that is your own personal pseudo-religious belief and as such has no place in a discussion of public policy.
Re:This just in: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 06:26 · Score: 0

So your idea of living your life is screeching at people you don't know for doing things that don't affect you on Slashdot? Damn son, slow down!
Re:This just in: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 06:43 · Score: 0

Original AC here.

Either you drink or you don't. If you do, then you are incapable of living without being intoxicated. Ask yourself why you get drunk.
Either you ski, or you don't. If you do, then you are incapable of living without skiing. Ask yourself why you ski.

Would you be willing to do the same and explore your intoxicant options? Once you find them, you'll probably slap yourself for not doing it sooner.
I've already tried alcohol. It's a physically and mentally unhealthy existence. I prefer to live my life, not wither away.
I've already tried skiing, and I didn't like it. I therefore stopped my search for any other options, declaring all exercise dumb. That's more or less your logic.
Re: This just in: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 07:47 · Score: 0

Think of the pain idiot, heart attacks can be so painful you can go screaming with your neck locked into the weirdest positions until your energy gives out and you start to quietly mewl as you .. die, slowly, painfully sometimes over DAYS where there is no help.
Don't worry about death, worry about the life you are given and the pain it brings you. Fear that pain!
Re:This just in: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 09:01 · Score: 0

You mean there's ways to live without consuming oxygen? You are aware that oxygen is extremely toxic, right? It's the number one cause of cancer after all.
Re:This just in: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 09:10 · Score: 0

Can I make a recommendation that you actually read what I wrote. At no point did I say the US didn't have policies and portions of it weren't totalitarian. I accused the poster specifically of being one. And he actually used socialized healthcare as leverage for why he should be allowed to be a little totalitarian ass hat dictating what others can do and can't. Not "the government". Reading comprehension, work on it.
Honestly, you seem like the guy who likes to feel superior, so you misrepresent peoples arguments to make yourself look intelligent. Though I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just saw a couple key words, assumed what I'd written, and posted your default response.
Re:This just in: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 09:54 · Score: 0

There were huge medical bills, just paid by the taxpayers and not the patient.
Re:This just in: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 10:51 · Score: 0

Wait, US is that country where you can't even drink in the streets and people resort to making fake IDs (!) to drink.
That's what your Eurocuck media told you, is it? LOL. And of course you believe it.
Re:This just in: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 13:21 · Score: 0

I have a relative who just hit 90. They retired at 55. I'm sure they use more than $10k of healthcare er year based on nothing other than the mass (measured in kg) of drugs they take.
Re:This just in: by colinrichardday · 2016-01-09 15:50 · Score: 1

Either you drink or you don't. If you do, then you are incapable of living without being intoxicated. Ask yourself why you get drunk.
It is possible to drink without getting drunk
Re:This just in: by gzuckier · 2016-01-10 05:31 · Score: 1

Everything causes cancer. Fuck em. I'd rather lose 10 years and enjoy life than gain 10 years and hate it.
get cancer. you'll enjoy it.

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Re:This just in: by gzuckier · 2016-01-10 05:33 · Score: 1

"We never eat fruitcake because it has rum.
And one little bit makes a man like a bum.
Now can you imagine a sorrier sight
Than a man eating fruitcake until he gets tight?"

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Re:This just in: by gzuckier · 2016-01-10 05:35 · Score: 1

Either you drink or you don't. If you do, then you are incapable of living without being intoxicated. Ask yourself why you get drunk.
It is possible to drink without getting drunk
"I don't care
What the people are thinkin'
I ain't drunk
I'm just drinkin'"

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Re:This just in: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-10 06:01 · Score: 0

Believing something which is actually true is rarely a bad idea.
Re:This just in: by niftymitch · 2016-01-10 07:40 · Score: 1

Everything causes cancer. Fuck em. I'd rather lose 10 years and enjoy life than gain 10 years and hate it.
The state of California is known to the state of California to contain substances
harmful to your health.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The warnings are everywhere.

--
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
Re:This just in: by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-10 21:46 · Score: 0

I prefer to live my life, not wither away.
If "living your life" means "being a sanctimonious twat on Slashdot" I'd rather get drunk.

Bad research by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-08 23:42 · Score: -1

"These guidelines define 'low-risk' drinking as giving you less than a 1% chance of dying from an alcohol-related condition.'"

Love this. But you are more likely to die from non-alcohol related condition. Most research to this date shows that TOTAL mortality risk is lower when drinking significantly higher doses of alcohol (probably due to alcohol being good for heart type diseases). So this is more a bad statistics and a lot of public health propaganda.

Re:Bad research by queazocotal · 2016-01-09 00:02 · Score: 5, Informative

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
Moderate Alcohol Consumption Is Not Associated with Reduced All-cause Mortality.
"During 206,966 person-years of follow up, 7902 individuals died. No level of regular alcohol consumption was associated with reduced all-cause mortality. The hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval in fully adjusted analyses was 1.02 (0.94-1.11) for 7 drinks/week, 1.14 (1.02-1.28) for 7 to 14 drinks/week, 1.13 (0.96-1.35) for 14 to 21 drinks/week, and 1.45 (1.16-1.81) for 21 drinks/week.
CONCLUSIONS:
Moderate alcohol consumption is not associated with reduced all-cause mortality in older adults. The previously observed association may have been due to residual confounding."
Re:Bad research by queazocotal · 2016-01-09 00:06 · Score: 5, Informative

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
RESULTS:
Male sex, being physically active, and good health status were independently associated with light to moderate drinking (P .001). An apparent protective effect of light to moderate drinking on mortality was evident in the unadjusted analysis and after adjusting for age, sex, risk factors, and cardiovascular events (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.68-0.88, P .001), but after also adjusting for PASE and VAS, the relationship was no longer significant (aHR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.80-1.05, P = .19). Follow-up physical activity was associated with baseline alcohol consumption; baseline physical activity did not predict alcohol consumption during follow-up.
CONCLUSION:
After accounting for health status and physical activity, light to moderate alcohol drinking had no direct protective effect on mortality.
Re:Bad research by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 01:20 · Score: 0

Thanks for the study, didn't know about it.
Re:Bad research by penguinoid · 2016-01-09 01:31 · Score: 1

After accounting for health status and physical activity, light to moderate alcohol drinking had no direct protective effect on mortality.
Maybe alcohol causes physical activity and better health status? If only walking home from the bar.

--
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Re:Bad research by Mr+D+from+63 · 2016-01-09 01:45 · Score: 2

After accounting for health status and physical activity, light to moderate alcohol drinking had no direct protective effect on mortality.
That is where one can be mislead by the article, as they are talking about an increase in health problems, not an increase in mortality. Specifically they talk about cancers, which in most cases are seen very late in life. So, basically, you have a small increase in added health issues right before you die.
Re:Bad research by Kjella · 2016-01-09 02:20 · Score: 1

Male sex, being physically active, and good health status were independently associated with light to moderate drinking (P .001).
CONCLUSION:
After accounting for health status and physical activity, light to moderate alcohol drinking had no direct protective effect on mortality.
The problem with these studies is that there's a huge elephant in the door called "phase of life" that probably correlates a bunch of variables. Like this sounds like the stereotype young bachelor, working to look attractive and out partying to meet women. I'm guessing that if you divide by alcohol consumption you get very different groups of people that affects mortality in many directions. Like suicide is a pretty big cause of death in young people and it's typically related to depression, not to people out partying. So it might be that those that are out drinking die from alcohol - I mean you have to be pretty blind to see there aren't alcohol related/caused deaths from DUI, violence, accidents - and the non-drinkers die for different reasons. I'm guessing that the same way they made it disappear, they can make it reappear by checking for more factors.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re: Bad research by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 02:29 · Score: 0

I'm sorry, but this study is moronic and worthless. How could you possibly adjust for health status and then be surprised that no effects can be seen? "Oh look. Moderate Alcohol drinkers on average are healthier. That surely cant have anything to do with the alcohol, let's skew the numbers!" Especially in light of all those clinical as opposed to observational studies that have shown that moderate alcohol consumption reduces inflammation markers in blood in a quite dramatic way? (Id call up to 30% dramatic)
There's no fucking way this wont reflect in improved health. This soo smells agenda driven.
Re:Bad research by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 02:31 · Score: -1

That is a classic justification mechanism for drunks in denial: Trying to find some "beneficial" slant for drinking.
Drinking makes you lazy and lethargic, and not just at the times that you are drinking. If you drink regularly, in general you will be less active, have less drive and have less willpower. If you didn't drink (and provided you didn't have some other unhealthy habit), you would be much more active and in much better shape, both physically and mentally.
Re:Bad research by penguinoid · 2016-01-09 03:19 · Score: 1

That is a classic justification mechanism for crazy morons in denial. There are tons of studies on this subject, with contradictory results (as is usual for medical studies with a political component). Sure, you can pick just the few percentage of studies that you agree with, but that doesn't mean you aren't a biased moron.
So far, we're pretty confident of the following:
1) Alcohol consumption correlates with lower mortality
1a) But people in at-risk groups drink less, including poor, extremely unhealthy, and teetotalling ex-alcoholics.
2) Alcohol improves on some health markers
2b) But makes others worse.
2c) Which probably makes alcohol's cost/benefits dependent on other things, such as whether you have heart disease.

--
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Re:Bad research by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 03:36 · Score: -1

You sound like a classic alcoholic in denial. All medical studies have shown that alcohol is bad for you and has no health benefits. No amount is "OK".
I'm sorry but you ARE in denial. Please ask yourself why you feel the need to drink just to get by with your life. From there can you take the necessary steps to improve yourself.
Re:Bad research by sribe · 2016-01-09 04:26 · Score: 1

You sound like a classic alcoholic in denial. All medical studies have shown that alcohol is bad for you and has no health benefits. No amount is "OK".
Saying something over and over does not make it true. This is complete bullshit.
Re:Bad research by swillden · 2016-01-09 05:00 · Score: 1

That is a classic justification mechanism for crazy morons in denial. There are tons of studies on this subject, with contradictory results (as is usual for medical studies with a political component). Sure, you can pick just the few percentage of studies that you agree with, but that doesn't mean you aren't a biased moron.
So far, we're pretty confident of the following: 1) Alcohol consumption correlates with lower mortality 1a) But people in at-risk groups drink less, including poor, extremely unhealthy, and teetotalling ex-alcoholics. 2) Alcohol improves on some health markers 2b) But makes others worse. 2c) Which probably makes alcohol's cost/benefits dependent on other things, such as whether you have heart disease.
I think the clearest conclusion we can make is that the effect of light to moderate alcohol consumption on health is very small. It may be positive, negative or neither, and perhaps we could identify specific populations in which it has larger effects, overall it's is negligible. However, this only applies to light to moderate consumption; heavy consumption is clearly very bad for you.
(And before the AC calls me out for being an alcoholic in denial, I'll mention that I'm a non-drinker. I've never consumed an alcoholic beverage in my life.)

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Bad research by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 05:03 · Score: 0

Much like how you deny your alcoholism over and over I suspect. Until you can admit that to yourself, you won't be able to overcome your addiction.
Re:Bad research by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 05:51 · Score: 0

It's obvious you are in denial about your pedophilia. It's not healthy, it's immoral, and it's illegal. Just admit your problem and your crimes and stop it, NOW, before you hurt any more children, you sick, disgusting, subhuman piece of crap.
Re:Bad research by quantaman · 2016-01-09 09:02 · Score: 1

After accounting for health status and physical activity, light to moderate alcohol drinking had no direct protective effect on mortality.
Maybe alcohol causes physical activity and better health status? If only walking home from the bar.
More likely a lot of the light-to-moderate drinking crowd is going out for casual social drinking, and some of the people with less consumption are doing so because they don't get out much.
Staying home all the time is bad for your health.

--
I stole this Sig
Re: Bad research by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 13:29 · Score: 0

1) No it doesn't.
1a) People who drink less, drink less.
2) Alcohol improves on some health markers
2b) But makes others worse.
2c) But overall is bad for you.
Re:Bad research by delt0r · 2016-01-09 14:28 · Score: 1

Yea and even if i would die a bit sooner. At least i am having fun before i die. It is like all those gym bunnies convinced they are going to look great and live forever. They don't even statistically live longer than people like me, and waste half their life eating boring food and spending huge amounts of time at the gym.

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Re:Bad research by gzuckier · 2016-01-10 05:45 · Score: 1

After accounting for health status and physical activity, light to moderate alcohol drinking had no direct protective effect on mortality.
That is where one can be mislead by the article, as they are talking about an increase in health problems, not an increase in mortality. Specifically they talk about cancers, which in most cases are seen very late in life. So, basically, you have a small increase in added health issues right before you die.
cancers are seen late in life, because they tend to kill you. but yeah, they do typically take decades to develop. but the point is, that the more you irritate tissue, i.e. pouring substantial volumes of alcohol down your throat into your stomach on a constant basis, the sooner cancer will develop.

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Re:Bad research by gzuckier · 2016-01-10 05:54 · Score: 1

That is a classic justification mechanism for crazy morons in denial. There are tons of studies on this subject, with contradictory results (as is usual for medical studies with a political component). Sure, you can pick just the few percentage of studies that you agree with, but that doesn't mean you aren't a biased moron.
So far, we're pretty confident of the following: 1) Alcohol consumption correlates with lower mortality 1a) But people in at-risk groups drink less, including poor, extremely unhealthy, and teetotalling ex-alcoholics. 2) Alcohol improves on some health markers 2b) But makes others worse. 2c) Which probably makes alcohol's cost/benefits dependent on other things, such as whether you have heart disease.
the protective effects of alcohol on circulatory disease has always been small, and arguably an artifact of being unable statistically to separate out all other correlated factors, whether lifestyle of moderate drinkers vs nondrinkers vs heavy drinkers, or the actual delivery of alcohol (wine and beer containing lots of other active compounds than alcohol; tannins, phenols, etc.) but it has up till now been relatively consistently found.
condensing a large volume of studies, these guys find the protective effect is less than the usual estimate. https://www.gov.uk/government/... and thus the british government is ethically required to publicize the warning
and of course there are a lot of other things involved, diet maybe, genetics certainly, etc etc etc

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Re:Bad research by gzuckier · 2016-01-10 05:57 · Score: 1

Yea and even if i would die a bit sooner. At least i am having fun before i die. It is like all those gym bunnies convinced they are going to look great and live forever. They don't even statistically live longer than people like me, and waste half their life eating boring food and spending huge amounts of time at the gym.
a pint a day is fun. drinking until you puke and waking up with a hangover is less fun, unless you do have a problem. the line in between is a bit fuzzy.

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Re:Bad research by gzuckier · 2016-01-10 06:03 · Score: 1

After accounting for health status and physical activity, light to moderate alcohol drinking had no direct protective effect on mortality.
Maybe alcohol causes physical activity and better health status? If only walking home from the bar.
the alcohol protective effect on cardiovascular disease has always been small, but has been so persistent in studies that it was hard to dismiss. plus there is a plausible mechanism in that small alcohol consumption lowers your LDL levels. however the latest studies which assign the positive effect out to correlated factors happen to arrive at a time when we're less convinced of the whole cholesterol involvement in cardiovascular disease. witness the fall of niacin from grace; it does even better than alcohol and improving your cholesterol and lipid profiles but apparently doesn't improve mortality at all. ironically, the same people who would dismiss the alcohol is harmful findings are likely to have also dismissed the cholesterol is harmful findings that justified alcohol being protective in the first place.

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Re:Bad research by gzuckier · 2016-01-10 06:08 · Score: 1

After accounting for health status and physical activity, light to moderate alcohol drinking had no direct protective effect on mortality.
Maybe alcohol causes physical activity and better health status? If only walking home from the bar.
More likely a lot of the light-to-moderate drinking crowd is going out for casual social drinking, and some of the people with less consumption are doing so because they don't get out much.
Staying home all the time is bad for your health.
one question is the role of "no drinking ever" folks in the model. whereas light drinking and even very seldom drinking are normal, folks who never drink include people who live a super healthy lifestyle, people who are sick and on various drugs which force them to avoid alcohol, people who are former alcoholics and now clean and sober, people have cognitive problems that cause them to decide to never drink, people who are normal and just don't like to drink, people who, as you say, are socially isolated (not healthy in general), and also people who drink so much that they feel the need to lie about it. as these groups all have different risk profiles, probably, what the bottom end of your dose/response curve looks like is going to depend on the particular percentages of these various types who appear in your study.

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Re:Bad research by gzuckier · 2016-01-10 06:10 · Score: 1

That is a classic justification mechanism for drunks in denial: Trying to find some "beneficial" slant for drinking.
Drinking makes you lazy and lethargic, and not just at the times that you are drinking. If you drink regularly, in general you will be less active, have less drive and have less willpower. If you didn't drink (and provided you didn't have some other unhealthy habit), you would be much more active and in much better shape, both physically and mentally.
take note that historically, public water supplies have not always been healthy, and that beer has been a significant source of B vitamins and other nutrients for some populations while wine has been a significant source of fruit consumption for others

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Re:Bad research by gzuckier · 2016-01-10 06:28 · Score: 1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... Moderate Alcohol Consumption Is Not Associated with Reduced All-cause Mortality. "During 206,966 person-years of follow up, 7902 individuals died. No level of regular alcohol consumption was associated with reduced all-cause mortality. The hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval in fully adjusted analyses was 1.02 (0.94-1.11) for 7 drinks/week, 1.14 (1.02-1.28) for 7 to 14 drinks/week, 1.13 (0.96-1.35) for 14 to 21 drinks/week, and 1.45 (1.16-1.81) for 21 drinks/week. CONCLUSIONS:
Moderate alcohol consumption is not associated with reduced all-cause mortality in older adults. The previously observed association may have been due to residual confounding."
graphing that out, the significance of that 7-14 point is pretty sketchy, given that the 14-21 is not significant bu a greater margin.
if you want to be honest, the results state that you should drink 7 or less, or 14-21, but not 7-14 drinks per week. if you're going to start smoothing the curve, if you make it linear it's more accurate to say the difference is insignificant below 10 units or so; or even more accurate to suggest that the curve looks like it depends on the cube of the alcohol consumption, not linear. which is not unreasonable, given the complexity of the situation.

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Re:Bad research by delt0r · 2016-01-10 06:29 · Score: 1

Well i don't get hangovers. But yea binge drinking at that level is clearly not fun and bad for you. The reason your throwing up is that your body is panicking and trying to get rid of the poison that is almost killing you. Also as someone who has seen alcoholism first hand, people with a problem *don't enjoy it*, but can't stay away anyway.

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?

if you are so shocked when people by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-08 23:42 · Score: 0

recommend that you drink less, you should think about why you want or need to drink more.

Re: if you are so shocked when people by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 00:13 · Score: 0

You must be fun at parties
Re: if you are so shocked when people by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 00:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

You must be fun at parties
Don't make fun of the designated driver.
Re: if you are so shocked when people by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 00:40 · Score: 0

Lol. I don't know if they have Mormons in the UK, but you want at least one in your social circle for this exact reason. They're cool about going to strip clubs and shit, they just don't drink.
Re: if you are so shocked when people by radja · 2016-01-09 01:10 · Score: 2

Here in the Netherlands we have muslims for that.

--

No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Re: if you are so shocked when people by PopeRatzo · 2016-01-09 01:32 · Score: 1

I don't know if they have Mormons in the UK, but you want at least one in your social circle for this exact reason.
True story: the one Mormon I've hung around with had to go to rehab for blow.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re: if you are so shocked when people by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 02:16 · Score: 0

I've got better things to do with my time than get drunk and do stupid things with a bunch of other drunks.
Re: if you are so shocked when people by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 02:46 · Score: 0

You must be fun at parties
But why do you feel that you need to drink to have fun? I don't mean to be condescending, so please don't take this that way.
Would you at least try doing what GP said? Pick a quiet time, sit down with a pad of paper and write down the reasons you feel that you need to drink. Be completely honest with yourself. It could be such common things like "I'm shy so I drink to help lose my inhibitions around people" or "I drink to pass the time" or "I drink because other people are doing it".
Once you are finished, go over your list and you'll probably find that most of the reasons you drink are actually pretty silly and that by drinking, you're treating a symptom of a problem, not the underlying problem. When you identify those problems, you will be on your first step to being able to really, truly address them instead of drowning them in a bottle.
Re: if you are so shocked when people by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 03:07 · Score: 0

He's a fucking Muslim
Re: if you are so shocked when people by tandavanadesan · 2016-01-09 03:08 · Score: 1

So his parties bomb!
Re:if you are so shocked when people by drsmithy · 2016-01-09 04:05 · Score: 3, Informative

Alcohol has a biological effect that I enjoy.
Like, say, caffeine. Or adrenaline.
Re:if you are so shocked when people by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 04:27 · Score: 0

What is it that you enjoy about it specifically and why?
Re:if you are so shocked when people by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 05:45 · Score: 0

That's stupid, would you ask why someone likes the taste of sugar or umami, and why?
Re: if you are so shocked when people by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 06:21 · Score: 0

And both sugar and unami are negatively correlated with health. One for diabetes and the other for contaminant poisoning.
People who don't drink will come out with soapbox in hand proclaiming how right they were. Simultaneously they'll use that same podium to tell people how we need to do what they do. Next they'll pressure to reduce it to 10, 7, 2 or zero. These are the people that have made their decision already, and now want to make that decision for everyone else.
Pot hasn't caused any overdose yet we ban that quite forcefully. The only significant cause for death that we can find for pot is bulletholes, usually by standard-issue police firearms. Similarly skydiving carries some risks of death.
The reason we did this for smoking is because passive smoking affects people around you. Smoke kills people who didn't agree to the risks. That makes it antisocial. Sure you can say "don't go where the smoke is then" but in 1990s England that would have been excessively isolating. Smoking was rampant.
Drinking does not have this effect.
Nuclear power does have this effect. Note the crickets in that discussion though. Those same people that drink naught probably watch TV and don't want to be made to feel guilty for the nuclear sludge they're implicated in. Again, they only bring out the soapbox when something validates their world-view.
Re:if you are so shocked when people by epyT-R · 2016-01-09 07:39 · Score: 1

Not quite. That directly depends on how much is being drunk in the first place, along with other lifestyle and biological attributes of the individual in question. I suspect this 'recommendation' has more to do with politics than anything else.
Re:if you are so shocked when people by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 09:54 · Score: 0

That's fine, but why should you be shocked when they recommend that you drink less?
Re: if you are so shocked when people by quenda · 2016-01-09 10:45 · Score: 1

Here in the Netherlands we have muslims for that.
Are your Muslims there all conservative fundamentalists?
Muslims I know drink, just as the Jews eat ham and Christians have sex before marriage.
Re:if you are so shocked when people by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 11:04 · Score: 0

Or snowballing....wait!?
Re:if you are so shocked when people by drsmithy · 2016-01-11 15:28 · Score: 1

Don't know, don't care. Never spent any time thinking about it.
Feels good, man.

So that most of the world gets an idea... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-08 23:44 · Score: -1

According to Wikipedia, this "pint" is some braindamaged volume unit a tad above 0.5 liter (Australians seem more reasonable and made a pint exactly that).

So we're talking here about seven of those or something between 3.5 and 4 liters, weekly.

I think the summary could do a better job at reporting news and use SI units -- avoiding such odd ones like a "pint", which are different in the various English-speaking countries to start with. Frankly, pints, yards, feet, inches, and whatever body parts you can come up with... this pure nonsense.

Or we should go the full monty and use units from Thailand, Tibet, Peru, New Zealand... if variation is the idea.

Re:So that most of the world gets an idea... by jonbryce · 2016-01-09 00:01 · Score: 1

A British pint is 568ml. An American pint is 473ml.
Re:So that most of the world gets an idea... by nicolastheadept · 2016-01-09 00:20 · Score: 1

The exact quantity of a pint isn't exactly the most important detail, the alcoholic volume of the drink makes more of a difference. That's why it's done in units (1 unit = 10ml of alcohol e.g. a 25ml single measure of a 40% spirit is 1 unit).

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Re:So that most of the world gets an idea... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 00:21 · Score: 1

It isn't our fault if you Yanks are pussies and can't handle 568ml of beer in your glass.
If you can call pisswater like Budweiser beer.
Re:So that most of the world gets an idea... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 00:39 · Score: -1

It isn't our fault if you Yanks are pussies and can't handle 568ml of beer in your glass.
If you can call pisswater like Budweiser beer.
Why not? You call pisswater "weather."
Re:So that most of the world gets an idea... by RDW · 2016-01-09 00:50 · Score: 1

I think the summary could do a better job at reporting news and use SI units -- avoiding such odd ones like a "pint", which are different in the various English-speaking countries to start with.
1 Unit = 10 ml pure alcohol. The smallest spirit measure used in the UK is a 25 ml single shot, equivalent to 1 Unit of a 40% v/v spirit. A 175ml medium glass of a 12% wine will give you just over 2 Units, and a 568 ml UK pint of a 3.5% beer nearly as much. A lot of beer is stronger than this, though - a 5.5% brew will give you over 3 Units per pint.
Re:So that most of the world gets an idea... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 01:12 · Score: 0

Thanks for the quite didactic explanation; very kind of yours. It's actually hard to imagine a "unit" would refer to alcoholic content.
Of course, that is a very important distinction in light of the present issue (no sarcasm or irony in this note, just pointing out the special relevance here).
Re:So that most of the world gets an idea... by Lumpy · 2016-01-09 01:15 · Score: 1

And us americans weep, but enjoy our COLD and slightly smaller pints.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:So that most of the world gets an idea... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 01:26 · Score: 0

> A British pint is 568ml. An American pint is 473ml.
Thanks for the info, though my point is exactly that: a pint is not a reliable unit of volume.
Compare that to 500ml being the same everywhere on Earth, and on the Moon, and on Mars... etc. etc.
Now, as someone kindly explained, what the UK government aims is to recommend a lower alcohol intake. One could drink lots and lots of a 1% grade beer.
Whether that is pleasurable or not, I think it depends on the individual: I have a (totally unproved) theory that some people can digest alcohol just like an energy source and some can appreciate the stress relieving effects of it more than others (like me). A similar effect occurs (according to my wacky theory) with Asians about rice: they simply absorb it better than me.
Thus rice is a big deal for Asians (but not for me) and something superb for regular drinkers (but not for me).
Re:So that most of the world gets an idea... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 01:40 · Score: 0

Drinking it cold ensures you don't notice the absence of taste.
Re:So that most of the world gets an idea... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 02:04 · Score: 0

I don't get this thing about cold/warm pints. I've never had a pint in my life that wasn't cold, and I'm British. I wouldn't even know HOW to get a warm pint, unless I put it in the microwave!
Re:So that most of the world gets an idea... by turbidostato · 2016-01-09 02:05 · Score: 1

"Thanks for the info, though my point is exactly that: a pint is not a reliable unit of volume."
It is, when you are in a UK pub, which is what the announce is focused at.
"One could drink lots and lots of a 1% grade beer."
The kind of beer you won't find at a UK pub.
So here they offer a SI-based volume of pure alcohol and then they convert to a usual unit for their targeted audience so it's just like someone in USA converting to "congress libraries" or "football fields" only it makes much more sense in this case.
Re:So that most of the world gets an idea... by Lumpy · 2016-01-09 02:10 · Score: 1

True, All we get is the Guinness Crap here, Or that horrific pisswater called Carling from GB.
now Beamish, that is a proper good pint with real flavor.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:So that most of the world gets an idea... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 02:20 · Score: -1

And so you should be weeping. The cheapest, lowest quality Czech beer is better than the most expensive, best American beer.
The same is true for the women too.
Re:So that most of the world gets an idea... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 02:24 · Score: 0

The weather in England is quite nice. When I lived there, I loved how lush and green everything was due to the fact that the weather was varied and that they get a healthy amount of precipitation. Then I get back to the states and everything is dry and brown.
The one colour that sums up the entire USA is brown.
Re:So that most of the world gets an idea... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 02:46 · Score: 0

becuase you enjoy drinking cold frosty piss
Re:So that most of the world gets an idea... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 03:01 · Score: 0

I get so sick of this. Every pub I've ever been too in England had three beers on tap. Guinness (Irish for Budweiser), Fosters (I want to call it Australian for Budweiser, but I don't think it's actually from Australia) and Stella (Belgian for Budweiser). And when I was out there, I saw all three of those being drunk in about the same quantities that I see Budweiser drunk at here. And I would say Budweiser is better than all three of those. Stella being of particular note for just how fucking awful it is. Now, it's been a few years since I've been out to England (I think about 5 to be exact), but last I was out there, the microbrew community in the US was a hell of a lot better than you guys had.
For the TL;DR people, piss off, the UK has just as much bad beer as the US, if not more.
Re:So that most of the world gets an idea... by Waffle+Iron · 2016-01-09 04:59 · Score: 1

And so you should be weeping. The cheapest, lowest quality Czech beer is better than the most expensive, best American beer.
The same is true for the women too.
That's an ignorant stereotype. The largest American brewer is currently Yuengling, and the rest are mainly craft microbrewries, many of which produce beers with quality among the highest in the world.
The vast majority of true crap beer on the market, such as Budweiser and Miller, is all from European companies.
Re:So that most of the world gets an idea... by arth1 · 2016-01-09 05:21 · Score: 1

Different definitions of cold.
Many Americans wants their beer frosty, in a frozen glass with rime on it.
While Brits tend to think of 6-8 degrees C chilled beer as cold.
At the freezing temperatures Americans prefer, you can't get a smooth head on a beer. At most you get some foam that instantly collapses, and your beer goes stale.
And you lose out a lot of the flavour when it's too cold. It's that first sip after work that tastes absolutely fabulous, but if it's ice cold, you might as well have a glass of ice water.
Re:So that most of the world gets an idea... by thegarbz · 2016-01-09 08:28 · Score: 1

And us americans weep, but enjoy our COLD and slightly smaller pints.
Beer is not beer. Some needs to be cold, some needs to be warm. A British ale tastes like an ashtray when cold, and a American beer tastes like arse when warm. Some particularly dry largers really benefit from being very damn close to their freezing point, whereas you wouldn't drink a whitbeer like that.
Budwiser is the exception. There's no acceptable temperature at which to enjoy one. One can only tolerate it.
Re: So that most of the world gets an idea... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 12:16 · Score: 0

I thought "a pint's a pound the world around" so can we measure by weight rather than volumetrically?
Re: So that most of the world gets an idea... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 13:41 · Score: 0

A pint of what though? A pint of water, a pint of beer and a pint of prawns don't weigh the same, even at the same temperature and pressure.
Re:So that most of the world gets an idea... by jeremyp · 2016-01-09 13:48 · Score: 1

It's all relative. It's the difference between cool and chilled. Go into a pub and order a British lager and a British cask conditioned real ale. You'll notice that the glass of lager is much colder. The lager is chilled using refrigerator technology. The real ale is at the temperature of the cellar which is cooler than room temperature but not refrigerated.

--
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Re: So that most of the world gets an idea... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 13:54 · Score: 0

None of those is proper beer, though: Guinness is stout, Carling and Stella are corporate lager.
Interestingly, despite advertising campaigns emphasising the old-time small town Belgian origins of Stella Artois and slogans like "reassuringly expensive", it is still commonly known as "wife-beater" and even requested as such.
"2 pints of wife-beater please guv".
Re: So that most of the world gets an idea... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 14:09 · Score: 0

Sorry Fosters not Carling. Indistinguishable apart from the name.
Re: So that most of the world gets an idea... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 15:17 · Score: 0

In the US, lager, stout, bock, ale, etc - all are different types of beer - 'beer' is just a generic term that covers them all.
Re: So that most of the world gets an idea... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 15:49 · Score: 0

The phrase as I know it is more specifically
A pint (of a water based liquid, such as water or beer) 's (approximately) a pound the world around.
It's not meant to be 100% accurate, but enough so that you can use it in most situations where you're not counting error margins that closely.
Re:So that most of the world gets an idea... by gzuckier · 2016-01-10 06:13 · Score: 1

True, All we get is the Guinness Crap here, Or that horrific pisswater called Carling from GB.
now Beamish, that is a proper good pint with real flavor.
pretty easy to get lots of good imported beers all over the US these days, not to mention domestic microbrews.

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Re:So that most of the world gets an idea... by gzuckier · 2016-01-10 06:14 · Score: 1

And so you should be weeping. The cheapest, lowest quality Czech beer is better than the most expensive, best American beer.
The same is true for the women too.
The cheapest, lowest quality Czech beer is better than the most expensive, best American women ???? Yeah, I guess that is true.

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Re:So that most of the world gets an idea... by gzuckier · 2016-01-10 06:15 · Score: 1

The exact quantity of a pint isn't exactly the most important detail, the alcoholic volume of the drink makes more of a difference. That's why it's done in units (1 unit = 10ml of alcohol e.g. a 25ml single measure of a 40% spirit is 1 unit).
Bartender, give me a unit! In fact, make it a double!

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.

News for nerds... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-08 23:48 · Score: 0

Slashdot died a long time ago. What is this now?

Re:News for nerds... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 13:42 · Score: 0

It's not specifically slashdot. They are only a casualty. The real death is that of nerdism (for lack of a better word...or trying). You probably remember growing up during a time when things were new daily and magic was happening everywhere you might even remember seeing your first color graphic computer display. People, especially kids were excited about these things too because they could save up their lunch money for a year or two and buy into the magic and make some themselves.
Now it was lost it's glitter. Even the poorest of the poor has nice shiny things. They're everywhere. People have run out of ideas of what to do with them. The age is winding down.

Bloody hell by Hognoxious · 2016-01-08 23:51 · Score: 1

Blimey! If I'm only allowed one pint a day I might as well make it a Duvel or a Tennents Super.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Re: Bloody hell by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 14:22 · Score: 0

AFAIK neither comes in pints* which is probably just as well.
* unlike an elephant
Re: Bloody hell by Hognoxious · 2016-01-09 23:37 · Score: 1

It's a liquid, you idiot. Open the can/bottle and pour out as much as you like.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Addicts by Racemaniac · 2016-01-09 00:00 · Score: 1, Troll

As someone who never got the point of drinking alcohol, i just love seeing all the addicts of this harddrug (come on, lets be honest :p) defend their habits XD.
And yes, if you feel better by drinking alcohol, go for it, but don't start bitching when society points out it's not the healthiest habit (and can be quite addictive too).

More in general, i love seeing the eternal conflict of how we try to make alcohol appear innocent ^^. it's normal social thing to do, and it's normal to do dumb stuff when drunk, until you cross some extemely vague border and suddenly you're someone with a problem and an addiction and should get help XD. and doing dumb stuff is all awesome and great stories, until someone gets hurt or it gets sexual, and then it's all your fault XD (not society for saying that losing control by getting drunk is perfectly awesome XD).

But it appears a big part of society prefers it like that :). I choose not to drink (and can't say i feel like i'm missing out in any way ^^), but if other people feel better that way :). I guess it's not much different to weed becoming more accepted, some people just like mind altering substances :).

Re:Addicts by Maxo-Texas · 2016-01-09 00:11 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Weed, especially as a consumable, is healthier than alcohol.
Weed has a LD50 of about 1000 pounds at 50mph. I.e. the only person who was killed by too much pot was transporting a half ton in the back seat and had a wreck and was crushed.
Alcohol raises risk of certain types of cancer by about 40% (from 12/100,000 to 17 or 18/10000).
Alcohol reduce risk of certain types of stroke by 40% but raises the risk of fatal strokes..
Alcohol (at 1-3 drinks per day) reduces risk of coronary death (which accounts for 25% of all deaths) compared to both abstainers and heavy drinkers (4+).
Alcohol increases risk of damage to the liver in a linear way.
All this is per research over the last decade. If anyone has more current data (2014/15) that contradicts this, then just link it.
It sounds like the risk change is very low to me and you should look at your relatives deaths to see what you are at risk from.
In the case of fatal strokes it seems to push forward strokes that would have occurred anyway by 3 to 5 years.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Re:Addicts by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 00:13 · Score: 0

Statistically, drunks don't live as long as non-drinkers but moderate drinkers live longer than both.
Re:Addicts by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 00:35 · Score: 0

Are you counting suicides due to psychosis in your very healthy weed figures? Because you've definitely missed a few if we are counting UK deaths.
Are you counting the higher temperatures used when smoking it leading to accelerated COPD deaths and/or bronchiolitis obliterans? So eating it is probably safer (if we ignore the paranoid psychosis risks above), but smoking it definitely isn't.
For your link I'll provide you with http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed: there are plenty to go choose from.
Re:Addicts by Racemaniac · 2016-01-09 00:46 · Score: 1

i thought that was already disproved (or at least disproved that the alcohol intake was the reason)
Re: Addicts by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 00:53 · Score: 0

Drunks don't live as long because they keep stopping to get tacos or a curry on the home from the bar/pub. They're dying from eating crap food.
Re:Addicts by drinkypoo · 2016-01-09 00:54 · Score: 1

As someone who never got the point of drinking alcohol, i just love seeing all the addicts of this harddrug (come on, lets be honest :p) defend their habits XD.
As someone whose father basically drank himself to death, I hope you die in a fire. Then we can both get high on inappropriate schadenfreude.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Addicts by Jack+Griffin · 2016-01-09 01:37 · Score: 1

And yes, if you feel better by drinking alcohol, go for it, but don't start bitching when society points out...
Just to clarify, this isn't 'society' pointing anything out, it's some people somewhere who have an opinion. And like most opinions, they can be safely ignored.
Re:Addicts by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 01:57 · Score: 0

"As someone who never got the point of drinking alcohol, i just love seeing all the addicts of this harddrug (come on, lets be honest :p) defend their habits XD"
You've really never lived have you. All you've done is watch a lot of propaganda, been afraid of the world and died slowly. Kinda sad.
Re:Addicts by Racemaniac · 2016-01-09 02:28 · Score: -1, Troll

"As someone who never got the point of drinking alcohol, i just love seeing all the addicts of this harddrug (come on, lets be honest :p) defend their habits XD"
You've really never lived have you. All you've done is watch a lot of propaganda, been afraid of the world and died slowly. Kinda sad.
Ah, here we have our first "you haven't lived if you haven't drank copious amounts of alcohol" guys XD.
Well i have a very active & social life full of fun stuff to do and nice achievements XD. I feel like i'm living life to the fullest, but if you can't without alcohol, well i can :).
Re:Addicts by Racemaniac · 2016-01-09 02:32 · Score: 0

As someone who never got the point of drinking alcohol, i just love seeing all the addicts of this harddrug (come on, lets be honest :p) defend their habits XD.
As someone whose father basically drank himself to death, I hope you die in a fire. Then we can both get high on inappropriate schadenfreude.
Hmm, i did probably worded that a bit too harsh. Sorry for that. I meant all the people who come here complaining about how ridiculous the recommendation in the article is to rationalize their alcohol intake (and they would't usually be seen as addicts, although some probably are on a lesser scale). All them "social drinkers" who (as someone already reacted to my comment) are making sure to convince the entire world that you can't live without having drank (enough) alcohol :).
I don't have any schadenfreude with the real addicts (i just find it so terrible that our society trivializes alcohol so much that it's so easy to fall in that trap....). So i'm sorry if it came across like that, wasn't meant like that (and ofcourse also sorry for your loss).
Re:Addicts by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 02:42 · Score: 0

"Ah, here we have our first "you haven't lived if you haven't drank copious amounts of alcohol" guys XD."
No, I mean you haven't lived. You've based your judgement on propaganda rather than experience and that's likely what you've done all the way through your life with everything. Too afraid of negative consequences to make balanced risk judgements.
"Well i have a very active & social life full of fun stuff to do and nice achievements XD. I feel like i'm living life to the fullest, but if you can't without alcohol, well i can :)."
Keep telling yourself it. Ultimately you get to about 50 or 60 and realize all the dangerous/exciting things you could have done, you're too old now to do and statistically you extended your life by zip.
But if that's how you want to live your life, up to you.
Re:Addicts by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 02:54 · Score: 0

Remember that before you ever make a smug or gleeful remark about _any_ method of death, because someone's father somewhere has died from it.
Re:Addicts by mrclevesque · 2016-01-09 03:00 · Score: 1

"You've really never lived have you"
What does 'really' mean here and why would 'drinking alcohol' be needed to do it.
Re:Addicts by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 03:05 · Score: 0

You've really never lived have you.
It's really sad that you think you need alcohol in order to "live". While you were slumped over a glass at the same dive you've been going to for your entire life and surrounded by a bunch of other drunks and waking up with a hangover day after day, I've been travelling the world, educating myself, experiencing things, seeing new places, meeting all sorts of interesting people and participating in a multitude of activities.
Yes, truly you have lived more than I with your bottle of booze and sot companions.
Re:Addicts by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 03:14 · Score: 0

You really have no idea how sad you sound, do you? For your sake, I honestly hope that you figure out there is more to life than the hollow existence you've lead.

No, I mean you haven't lived. You've based your judgement on propaganda rather than experience and that's likely what you've done all the way through your life with everything. Too afraid of negative consequences to make balanced risk judgements.
How do you know he's not basing his judgements upon experience? And how many times do you think that you really need to experience getting drunk to understand it? It sounds like you're in denial and trying to justify your repeatedly poor decisions.

Keep telling yourself it. Ultimately you get to about 50 or 60 and realize all the dangerous/exciting things you could have done, you're too old now to do and statistically you extended your life by zip.
You really must have no imagination if you think the only fun things are dangerous. So your solution is to just say "fuck it" and wither away from an early age. Great plan!
Oh and I bet by 50 or 60, I'll be in much better shape than you are right this instant.
Re:Addicts by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 03:19 · Score: 0

No, the haven't lived portion is based on that you like to tell people how pathetic they are. Almost everybody has vices be it alcohol, fatty foods, cheap romance novels or anything else that you know is "bad for you" but you like anyway, and people without vices are dull. And people who like to shame people with vices don't have friends. If all you like is that which is good for you, and you enjoy mocking people for their vices, it means you haven't lived and you have no friends. Because somebody who enjoys the occasional grease laden cheese burger is in no position to mock me for having a pint.
Re:Addicts by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 03:43 · Score: 0

Almost everybody has vices be it alcohol, fatty foods, cheap romance novels or anything else that you know is "bad for you"
I like how you try to shoehorn in cheap romance novels with things that are actually bad for your health. Bad romance novels (or bad movies or the like) aren't bad habits. Possibly bad tastes, which are subjectively bad but not bad habits, which are objectively bad.
Re:Addicts by Moridineas · 2016-01-09 03:46 · Score: 1

FWIW (and IMHO), regardless of content, your post is rather painful to read given that every sentence ends–-inappropriately--with an emoticon. You can convey tone without having to literally wink.
Re:Addicts by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 03:48 · Score: 0

"What does 'really' mean here and why would 'drinking alcohol' be needed to do it."
It means he substitutes what he's read for what he's experienced and made a judgement based on hearsay not life.
Would drinking alcohol help him understand alcohol? Yes it would.
Does reading a report of someone else whose drank alcohol help him understand alcohol, or does it help him understand THAT persons view of alcohol?
Hence "really". Sort of the difference between a study and a meta-study. One crunches numbers and does experiments, and the other, reads reports and selectively quotes the bits that match their world view.
He's fine to be tee-total, but if he's done that in all of his life areas, he's never really lived. People will tell you everything from white rice to fellatio will kill you, but thats what people do. They try to make other people's lives shitter than their own so they don't feel so bad. If you follow their fears you end up wasting your life.
Re:Addicts by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 03:58 · Score: 0

Ahh, you're one of THOSE people. "If you haven't done it, then you can't possibly know anything about it".
So tell me, have you smoked crack? How do you know crack is bad unless you have actually smoked it?
Face it man, you're an alcoholic. The sooner you admit that to yourself, the sooner you can help yourself.
Re:Addicts by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 03:58 · Score: 0

"It's really sad that you think you need alcohol in order to "live"."
No, you need to DO stuff in order to live. Reading about stuff and basing your life on that is called "living vicariously".
"While you were slumped over a glass at the same dive you've been going to for your entire life and surrounded by a bunch of other drunks and waking up with a hangover day after day"
Simpsons? Seriously, you made you life judgements based on Mo's bar?? FFS!
" I've been travelling the world, educating myself, experiencing things, seeing new places, meeting all sorts of interesting people and participating in a multitude of activities."
Drink a beer, it won't hurt you and you'll "experience beer", also smoke the water pipe in Egypt, its not addictive, eat ice-cream in Thailand, the ice isn't really poison, and all the other "multitude" of experiences you've ruled out because you're so afraid of stuff.
Re:Addicts by Kokuyo · 2016-01-09 04:06 · Score: 1

*sigh*
First off, please use less emoticons... your posts look like they came from a hyperactive kid at an anime convention.
however, that's not what I'm sighing about. See, I was like you as a teenager. No alcohol, no tobacco and no drugs. You say you can have fun without these things? Great! Don't consume them. Don't get all "I'm better than thou" on us, because we can actually have fun BOTH ways. That makes us superior (at least mathematically).
I drinks .3l of beer per sitting and that occurs perhaps once a month. When I drink hard liquor, it's whiskey or rum beyond fifteen years of age, usually, and it's in the .02l range. Occurance perhaps once a month on average as well.
This evening I will be watching Star Wars and I'll be doing it with a beer or two in my belly. Why? Because that way, my brain will finally STFU about all that's going to be wrong with the movie. I'll just be able to enjoy it like back when I was a kid and didn't have all this knowledge of the real world, a keen eye for inconsistencies and expectations of quality.
Sometimes, shutting of some levels of mental acuity is a godsend! Sure, if you have to do it all the time, it's gonna be a problem. However, having 18 month old twins, I can tell you that there have been a few times where a beer has helped us go to sleep instead of thinking about giving em up for adoption.
I started smoking the pipe a few weeks ago for medicinal reasons. You heard me. Medicinal. I have ulcerative colitis and after suffering for two years tobacco gave me a big boost on the way to recovery. I smoke half a pipe about once a week.
These substances are tools. Used with caution and precision, they will enhance your life just as much as cooking your food does. If you only consume cheapo "industrial grade" products (such as frozen dinners or fast food), it's gonna be bad for you. However, the stress that you don't reduce by omitting drugs is gonna kill you too.
There is no winning when you try to live healthy.
Re:Addicts by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 04:23 · Score: 0

No, you need to DO stuff in order to live. Reading about stuff and basing your life on that is called "living vicariously".
And people do, however not getting drunk in no way means a person hasn't lived as you stated. I try things and I decide whether I like it or not. Alcohol is something I don't like. Nor do I like being around the depressing, shambling specters who think that they are "living it up" by drinking.

Simpsons? Seriously, you made you life judgements based on Mo's bar?? FFS!
I fail to see where I said anything about The Simpsons or any other television programme for that matter. You might want to lay off of the alcohol if it's going to hinder your ability to have a sane discussion.

Drink a beer, it won't hurt you and you'll "experience beer", also smoke the water pipe in Egypt, its not addictive, eat ice-cream in Thailand, the ice isn't really poison, and all the other "multitude" of experiences you've ruled out because you're so afraid of stuff.
If I were afraid of things, I wouldn't participate in everything that I do. Drinking alcohol is not a way to live. It's a way to die, whether literally or in your head. I also don't do purposefully stupid and/or irresponsible things, such as smoke crack, ingest sewage or shoot people, which, according to your values, you'd have to do to be able to have an opinion on.
Your inability to think rationally and your highly defensive attitude towards an addiction that is eroding your very psyche speaks volumes. I feel sorry for you.
Re:Addicts by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 04:26 · Score: 0

> "How do you know he's not basing his judgements upon experience?"
Because he said so in the very first line of his comment: "As someone who never got the point of drinking alcohol,"
> "So your solution is to just say "fuck it" and wither away from an early age"
As I said, (and you didn't read): "you're too old now to do and statistically you extended your life by zip".
> "Oh and I bet by 50 or 60, I'll be in much better shape than you are right this instant."
Good luck with that, never liked stats anyway. What do those damn scientists know. I'm pretty sure, you will be the one exception to prove the rule and you'll outlive those damn moderate drinkers. Man I hope you didn't catch passive drinking from my comments!
Re:Addicts by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 04:34 · Score: 0

Alcohol is for children, not adults.
Oh and ulcerative colitis is quite a rare disease. Are you sure that's what you have or are you just saying that so you have a "legit" excuse?
Re:Addicts by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 04:56 · Score: 0

> "If you haven't done it, then you can't possibly know anything about it".
You used the word "anything".
Which suggests that you understand what I'm saying. i.e. that you can't learn *everything* from reading other people opinion. (anything = everything - missing stuff)
> "So tell me, have you smoked crack?"
Ha ha, you really have no clue do you? You chose crack as some ultimate scary thing to try that would turn you into a haggard dead person (based on movies or tv presumably???), and so you chose that as your big dare! You should have asked me to dare eat a double cheeseburger! Statistically that's WAY more scary!
Look, drink a beer it won't kill you, even moderate continual consumption till your death won't statistically affect your lifespan. So one beer? It's not like [ultimate scary thing which you seem to think is crack but is probably cheese based]!
Re:Addicts by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 05:22 · Score: 0

Because he said so in the very first line of his comment: "As someone who never got the point of drinking alcohol,"
That statement says nothing about whether he has had alcohol or not, just that he doesn't see the point of it. I've had alcohol before and I agree with him. Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension as well as your alcohol problem, though I suspect the two are linked.

As I said, (and you didn't read): "you're too old now to do and statistically you extended your life by zip".
You told him to "keep telling himself that" when he said he is living his life to the fullest. You then went on to say that ultimately he'll reach 50 or 60 and realise he won't be able to do dangerous things, however he never said he does dangerous things and even if he does, you have no idea if he'll be able to do them at 50 or 60. You also erroneously claim that by not drinking he wouldn't have extended his life. You really need to stop making things up.

Good luck with that, never liked stats anyway. What do those damn scientists know. I'm pretty sure, you will be the one exception to prove the rule and you'll outlive those damn moderate drinkers. Man I hope you didn't catch passive drinking from my comments!
No luck needed. 50 is only ten years away for me and I know I'm in much better health than you are at this very moment. In a decade I'll probably be in even better shape.
There is no such thing as a moderate drinker. You either drink or you don't. You are again trying to justify your bad habits. Drinking alcohol has no positive effects on health and many negative effects.
You are an alcoholic and you're going to defend your refuge tooth and nail, even if you have to lie and put words in people's mouths.
Re:Addicts by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 05:23 · Score: 0

> "I fail to see where I said anything about The Simpsons"
Really? I even quoted the sentence where you confused Mo's bar with real life... it was this sentence here:
> "While you were slumped over a glass at the same dive you've been going to for your entire life and surrounded by a bunch of other drunks and waking up with a hangover day after day"
Seriously? You based your risk assessment on a cartoon?
> "If I were afraid of things, I wouldn't participate in everything that I do."
*everything*? But not alcohol related things? *every* being some subset?
That beer.... man that will kill you. One taste of that Belgian chocolate coffee liqueur with whiskey center in Antwerp, means death! Mouth wash with alcohol???? Do Listerine want to POISON me?!! OMG!
I shouldn't mock, but really, make decisions based on reality, whoever has scared you into this massive fear of alcohol, they were probably well intentioned, but the stats don't back them up. Your rhetoric is really full of rich cartoon imagery and clique responses, but that's marketing not science. More brainwash than mouthwash.
Re:Addicts by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 05:38 · Score: 0

You used the word "anything".
Which suggests that you understand what I'm saying. i.e. that you can't learn *everything* from reading other people opinion. (anything = everything - missing stuff)
You are trying to say that someone cannot understand something unless they have personally done it. That is patently false. Also, nobody claimed to know *everything* about drinking. Also, being a drinker also doesn't magically imbue any knowledge of alcohol beyond the effects of being drunk.

Ha ha, you really have no clue do you? You chose crack as some ultimate scary thing to try that would turn you into a haggard dead person (based on movies or tv presumably???), and so you chose that as your big dare! You should have asked me to dare eat a double cheeseburger! Statistically that's WAY more scary!
I'll take that as tacit admission that you have in fact smoked crack. After all, according to your logic, you can't have an opinion on something unless you've tried it yourself.

Look, drink a beer it won't kill you, even moderate continual consumption till your death won't statistically affect your lifespan. So one beer? It's not like [ultimate scary thing which you seem to think is crack but is probably cheese based]!
No thanks. I have better things to do with my time than to poison myself. I'm also way beyond the age of caring whether kids like you think I'm "cool". In addition, alcohol tastes horrible.
Oh and you might want to try eating something besides cheese. You seem to have a fixation on it.
Re:Addicts by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 05:47 · Score: -1

Eat a gun faggot. Better yet have another drink asshole. You deserve it. Then go driving.
Re:Addicts by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 05:56 · Score: 0

Really? I even quoted the sentence where you confused Mo's bar with real life... it was this sentence here:
And what does that sentence have to do with The Simpsons?

Seriously? You based your risk assessment on a cartoon?
You're drunk. Go to bed.

*everything*? But not alcohol related things? *every* being some subset?
*Everything that I do* not *everything that can possibly be done*. Again, you're drunk. Go to bed.

I shouldn't mock, but really, make decisions based on reality, whoever has scared you into this massive fear of alcohol
What fear? Alcohol is physically and mentally unhealthy and I consider it to be a complete waste of life. You don't have to fear something to be aware of its effects and/or to not like it.
And once again, you're drunk. Go to bed.
Re:Addicts by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 07:03 · Score: 0

I drink minimally (maybe a couple units a year) and don't use marijuana. However, I'm absolutely for legalizing/keeping legal both of those substances.
What I've observed is that alcohol has a more destructive influence on lives than weed. However, I think that you're kidding yourself if you don't think there is often a long-term psychological impairment that comes after years of marijuana use. It certainly doesn't happen to everyone, but it's not that uncommon, either. It's not completely risk free.
Pot should be legal and people should be able to decide for themselves whether the enjoyment outweighs the risk. But don't argue that there aren't risks. That's established in medical literature.
Re:Addicts by Kokuyo · 2016-01-09 11:37 · Score: 1

Well, my insurance company pays about 60k a year for me to be able to go more than 10 meters from a toilet. Also the 30 to 40 shits of diarhea a day are a pretty strong indicator.
Re:Addicts by Maxo-Texas · 2016-01-09 11:41 · Score: 1

Weed, especially as a consumable, is healthier than alcohol.
Weed has a LD50 of about 1000 pounds at 50mph. I.e. the only person who was killed by too much pot was transporting a half ton in the back seat and had a wreck and was crushed.
Alcohol raises risk of certain types of cancer by about 40% (from 12/100,000 to 17 or 18/10000).
Alcohol reduce risk of certain types of stroke by 40% but raises the risk of fatal strokes..
Alcohol (at 1-3 drinks per day) reduces risk of coronary death (which accounts for 25% of all deaths) compared to both abstainers and heavy drinkers (4+).
Alcohol increases risk of damage to the liver in a linear way.
All this is per research over the last decade. If anyone has more current data (2014/15) that contradicts this, then just link it.
It sounds like the risk change is very low to me and you should look at your relatives deaths to see what you are at risk from.
In the case of fatal strokes it seems to push forward strokes that would have occurred anyway by 3 to 5 years.
--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Re:Addicts by serviscope_minor · 2016-01-09 11:44 · Score: 1

What do you mean "rationalize"?
Are the recommendations right? Dunno, quite probably. Am I going to stop drinking? Nope. I like the taste of many drinks and I like the relaxation I get. I'm also not going to stop eating bacon which is pretty much death in thin slices, because it tastes so nice.
Personally, I don't think it's worth removing all pleasures to eke out the very last bit of life.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:Addicts by Maxo-Texas · 2016-01-09 12:00 · Score: 1

That appeared to be true in 2010 but more recent research has shown the opposite effect may be in play. I.e. classical correlation may not be causation.
People who are at risk of having schizophrenia use more pot. (i.e. the pot isn't causing the psychosis... the oncoming psychosis is causing self medication with pot).
Good point on the bronchitus... as I mentioned, I'd prefer the consumables myself.
A VERY good point that you'll find out there is that as pot use increased in the 60's and 70's, incidence of schizophrenia and psychosis fell in the 70's, 80's and 90s. The reverse should have been true.
Even so (and addressing your point).. based on the old research, experts estimated that pot only increased the incidence of schizophrenia from 1% to 1.11%. Among those, many have mild symptoms.
http://www.schizophrenia.com/s...
15% commit suicide within 30 years. So about .15%. Of course, 90%+ of those do not use pot. So 2 million schizophrenia * 15% = 300,000 suicides over 30 years = 30,000 suicides per year * .1 = 3,000 suicides per year you could generously say were related to pot induced schizophrenia.
Thoughts?

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Re:Addicts by Maxo-Texas · 2016-01-09 12:14 · Score: 1

Anything done to excess has long term effects. Even playing video games, eating food, even exercise.
The figures for psychological impairment are currently pretty twisted since no real research was permitted for a long time.
For example, only very recently are studies done which show that schizophrenia is genetically linked to higher pot use not the other way around. I.e. people with mental health issue self medicate and use more pot than average.
Pot is illegal where I live and I won't risk a comfy retired life over it. But alcohol is terrible for me and I do like to get mildly intoxicated at parties. It would be much more healthy for me to use pot. Since have tried it and didn't have a strong need for it, I'm willing to risk the very tiny (.11%) risk that it would cause a problem (which will resolve itself 80% of the time- so the serious risk is only ~.03%)
I know people who are high functioning pot users. I haven't known a "loser" pot user since high school. No one I know has ever developed mental problems from pot. One person developed a problem with the fake pot. But it looked like he was smoking a dozen bags a week for several months and smoked over 20 bags the week before he lost it. He did lose it badly (scribbling on the walls about colors). He's 90% recovered and has a job again but will probably never be normal again.
But who knows what they put on illegal pot and in illegal fake pot.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Re:Addicts by TeknoHog · 2016-01-09 12:52 · Score: 1

I agree that alcohol is an addictive drug. What bugs me is its classification relative to other drugs in most Western jurisdictions. To get the psychoactive effects of alcohol, you need to drink huge amounts that mess up your body in many unwanted ways. Apparently, our governments prefer this to specific psychoactives that work in much smaller amounts.

--
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Re:Addicts by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-10 01:22 · Score: 0

Judging by your post, my mastery of English while drunk is far superior to yours while sober.

everything gives you cancer by turkeydance · 2016-01-09 00:01 · Score: 0

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/j/j...

TFA anyone? by TommyNelson · 2016-01-09 00:05 · Score: 1

I know we don't do this on /. but it'd be interesting to know the source of this.

Re:TFA anyone? by Richard_at_work · 2016-01-09 00:20 · Score: 1

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-3...
Re:TFA anyone? by leenks · 2016-01-09 00:26 · Score: 1

https://www.gov.uk/government/... (which links to the actual guidelines and consultation documents).
Re:TFA anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 00:59 · Score: 0

Because the BBC is an authoritative, unbiased and primary source of information.
Re:TFA anyone? by Richard_at_work · 2016-01-09 01:02 · Score: 0

Go back to kindergarten, where those insults actually matter.
Re:TFA anyone? by fnj · 2016-01-09 01:05 · Score: 1

Whereas YOUR mindless insults actually DO matter ...
Re:TFA anyone? by mrclevesque · 2016-01-09 03:07 · Score: 1

And yours?
Re:TFA anyone? by Richard_at_work · 2016-01-09 03:35 · Score: 1

Telling someone to grow up is not exactly an insult - if you have an issue with the BBC, discuss it like an adult rather than doing a fly by denunciation of the source without actually making any arguments to back up your issues. I dont care if you have issues with the BBC, but to denounce it when it is actually a pretty fair commentary on the governments new recommendations is ridiculous, and only points to you as the person with the problem.
Ans yes, I may be using "you" in the sense of the "Royal You", and I dont care.
Re:TFA anyone? by jones_supa · 2016-01-09 04:25 · Score: 1

I know we don't do this on /. but it'd be interesting to know the source of this.
You can access the original Guardian article by clicking the link "theguardian.com" in the title of the summary.

Not Friday by penguinoid · 2016-01-09 00:13 · Score: 1

the same as the maximum limit for women

I guess we're doing these on any day of the week now.

--
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways

Shocker by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 00:20 · Score: 0

Just some new made up bollocks in the shape of "advice" to get a few scare headlines and justify their existence and continued funding of bullshit, predetermined studies. Far too much money in smoking to bother actually trying to stop that, just pretend to do something about it by making some noise about changing the packaging and increase the tax (which happens every year anyway). Now that it looks like they've done something different they'll be straight back onto the obesity/sugar/salt/some other public health bogeyman merry-go-round.

Cameron by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 00:21 · Score: 0

Is a fucking tool.

Don't Kome to Kalifornia by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 00:30 · Score: 0

Everything Kauses Kancer.

Where is alcohol in the food pyramid? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 00:44 · Score: 0

I wasn't aware that alcohol is recommended. Is it to late to start drinking?

Re:Where is alcohol in the food pyramid? by PPH · 2016-01-09 04:15 · Score: 1

Right next to the bacon.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Reaction is the problem rather than advice itself by jareth-0205 · 2016-01-09 00:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

The biggest annoyance here is that we feel we should follow the guidelines - the assumption is that medical guidance should be followed, without taking into account that you are definitely going to die someday so your life shouldn't be about avoiding it at all costs.

If people were immortal except for the effects that might kill us, then yes it makes sense to do your best to mitigate those risks. But we're all going to die after 80 or 90 years of life, so how do you want to spend those years? Starving yourself (mild hunger is best for longevity), eating healthy but borderline boring food, avoiding all mind-altering substances. It doesn't feel like a life, it's hardly exploring the bounds of existence is it? Yes I'm sure some ultra-smug teetotallers will be able to get some sad satisfaction from this news, (yay other people's misery), but given that the human race has *always* sought out chemical mood alteration, perhaps it should be something we accept as a basic need. If not alcohol, then what? There are a bunch of essentially harmless synthetic drugs that we criminalise for no good reason, that at the very least would be better than alcohol.

Discourage alcohol, but then accept that people will take drugs of some sort, so what should you encourage?

Trubba not by Bloke+down+the+pub · 2016-01-09 00:56 · Score: 1

Nee probs, I can do that in a day.

--
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.

Alcohol is a poison by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 01:05 · Score: 0

and there are things inside me I need to kill.

I need to start drinking more. by Lumpy · 2016-01-09 01:13 · Score: 1

I am no where near the 14 units.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Re:I need to start drinking more. by jones_supa · 2016-01-09 03:34 · Score: 1

Didn't the 14 units sound a bit high to anyone? Even if spread evenly over the week, I'm sure 14 units would cause a noticeable mental fog.
Re:I need to start drinking more. by maeka · 2016-01-09 05:29 · Score: 1

Two standard units a day should not cause a lasting mental fog for any adult over ~100lbs.
Unless someone is consuming said alcohol via a method bypassing the stomach it is possible, but extremely difficult to get legally drunk with two drinks. For the liver sees it first, and absorption rates aren't instant, so there should never be a period with one excess ounce of alcohol in the blood stream.
If an adult feels anything two hours after two standard drinks they probably should have their liver function checked.

Phew! Good thing ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 01:20 · Score: 0

I don't like in the UK!! Talisker for breakfast it is, then.

COONTS by PopeRatzo · 2016-01-09 01:29 · Score: 1

FOOKIN TELLIN US HOW MUCH FOOKIN PEEVE TAE HUV!? AH'VE HUD 14 UNITS BY LOONCHTIME ON A FOOKIN MONDAY, YA BUFTIE COONTS.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Re:COONTS by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 02:06 · Score: 0

I AM CHUFFED TO BITS! Mate

Re:Reaction is the problem rather than advice itse by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 01:32 · Score: 0

Discourage alcohol, but then accept that people will take drugs of some sort, so what should you encourage?

How about cannabis or MDMA?

time to increase the size of the unit by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 01:36 · Score: 0

Just use larger glasses and you'll be fine.

What? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 01:46 · Score: 0

Ignore most of the comments above - the US NIH cites are pretty good - because there are folks promoting their lifestyles.

The UK government guidelines are for moderate drinking. What is being touted is moderation; not abstinence. None of these studies say to become a teetotaler. A lot of folks have no idea how much is too much and getting piss drunk and passing out is the goal.

What the UK government is trying to do is stop the crazy binge drinking that is all the rage over there. It's leading to horrible health consequences as well as accidents and violence.

Re:Reaction is the problem rather than advice itse by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 01:54 · Score: 0

Considering consuming healthy stuff as boring and unhealthy stuff as fun, and defending this viewpoint, is a symptom of dependency (addiction).
You are not born with such dependencies, they are created by your upbringing, by what you are taught, not only by parents but society as a whole.
It leads to a deep feeling of some things about life/reality/yourself/the world being not right, so you try to avoid those. For that you cultivate those dependencies as an avoidance mechanism.

The solution lies in looking underneath those dependencies towards those "wrong" things, and learning what is real (by meditation for example). You might discover those negative feelings are not based on reality but on a learnt image, and can adjust your perception accordingly. Then you don't need unhealthy dependencies anymore to avoid (what you perceive as) reality.
There are many books written about this problem, I'm no expert but you can look at John Bradshaw or Brenee Brown or something as an intro.
I'm sure many slashdotters will oppose this "spiritual bullshit", that's fine, you are free to enjoy your dependencies if you like them.

And yes, you are right in that they basically say to people: "you shouldn't depend on this", without even hinting at how to be not dependent. Of course, people are dependent for a reason, and _if_ they did follow that advice, the root cause is unaddressed so they create a different escape mechanism.

Re:Reaction is the problem rather than advice itse by jareth-0205 · 2016-01-09 02:02 · Score: 1

Both safer options.

But this is drinking advice in Britain by Borgmeister · 2016-01-09 02:18 · Score: 1

So it will be largely ignored as we do like a good drink.

--
*Insert ridiculous, apparently intelligent but ultimately meaningless phrase here*

Guidelines Deny Science by rssrss · 2016-01-09 02:19 · Score: 5, Informative

"Boozing is unsafe at 'any level', thunders chief UK.gov quack: Show us your science. What? You mean you don't have any?" By Andrew Orlowski in The Register on 8 Jan 2016 at 16:02

The government's chief advisor on health ignored more than 80 studies to produce her new Puritanical guidelines on booze -- which asks Britons to forego their Friday drink.
Civil servant Dame Sally Davies has drawn up the lowest recommendations in the West: there is no "safe drinking level", her team declared.
The question is what justification was used to get there. The answer isn't pretty for "evidence based" policy.
Repeated studies have shown that alcohol in moderation prolongs life: it reduces the risk of heart disease and strokes. In fact the benefits of alcohol in preventing strokes and heart disease are far clearer than the negatives of drinking.
* * *
Davies ignored over 80 studies and metastudies showing the same J-curve of risk. If you drink nothing, you're at greater risk of heart disease, strokes and living a shorter life than a drinker. The health risk falls for moderate alcohol consumption, with optimal consumption of around 20g (two pints a day for me), then rises for heavy drinkers.
Instead, as Davies isolated, some highly selective statistical methods were used instead. Compare the error bars to the data point. One is bigger than the other.
Yet even here, the researchers found a RR (relative risk) of below 1.0 for almost all groups. Davies simply threw out the evidence that didn't fit what she wanted to say (i.e. almost all of it) and highlighted the evidence that did.

--
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

Re:Guidelines Deny Science by AthanasiusKircher · 2016-01-09 06:25 · Score: 2

Repeated studies have shown that alcohol in moderation prolongs life: it reduces the risk of heart disease and strokes. In fact the benefits of alcohol in preventing strokes and heart disease are far clearer than the negatives of drinking.
Well, this is a little misleading. Alcohol is correlated with reduced risks of heart disease and strokes when consumed in moderation.
Is the cause alcohol itself, or is it something that tends to be associated with alcohol consumption, such as less stress, being more relaxed, etc.? This has come up with, for example, studies of pregnant women which seem to show slightly better outcomes (in some studies) for women who drink only a couple drinks per week, compared with women who abstain completely. In some cases, babies seem to do slightly better, achieve certain developmental goals slightly faster, etc. with the occasional drink rather than without one.
But we also know very well that alcohol is bad for developing fetuses. So what gives? Does moderate ethanol in a fetus's system actually help it, despite the fact that we know it basically does bad things for brain development and function, as well as converting into poisonous compounds when metabolized? Should we really advise women who don't normally drink to have an occasional one "just for the baby"??
Or is there a more likely explanation, such as that a pregnant woman who takes an occasional drink when she feels stressed and finds alcohol to be soothing might be overall benefitting the baby by being less stressed? Studies have shown that stress does harm to fetuses too. Pregnant women today are often also given more and more restrictive dietary guidelines, and those who fret too much over everything they eat may actually be doing worse for a developing baby.
Maybe women who are "laid-back" enough not to worry about an occasional glass of wine when pregnant are just less anxiety-prone in general, and THAT is where the benefit comes from?
Perhaps. I don't have the answers.
But the point is that I don't think there's convincing evidence that one should go out and start drinking if you don't like it or don't enjoy it (and some people just enjoy it more than others, just like anything) -- just for some minor cardiovascular benefit. In fact, many health experts who recognize the supposed "benefits" of alcohol also do NOT recommend you just start drinking if you don't already... because they understand the causality issues here.
By the way, I have no problem with drinking, and I think the puritanical "all alcohol is poison" stuff does much more harm than good. There's little reason to worry about people who drink in moderation. But let's be clear what this association between alcohol and health is likely about -- it is just a correlation, and many studies show that it is barely significant (or even not statistically significant at all) when various confounding factors are taken into account.
Re:Guidelines Deny Science by russotto · 2016-01-09 07:47 · Score: 1

Well, this is a little misleading. Alcohol is correlated with reduced risks of heart disease and strokes when consumed in moderation.
True, but almost all the studies on moderate alcohol consumption's long-term effects (negative and positive) are correlational. And it's at a _robust_ effect; that is, no matter how many studies they do to try to make it go away (e.g. ascribing it to flavonoids in red wine), it stubbornly remains. To the point where saying "there is no safe level of alcohol consumption" is misleading to the point of deception. Because there is a level of alcohol consumption below which, according to the best evidence, risk of various negative effects increases rather than decreases.
Re:Guidelines Deny Science by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 09:33 · Score: 0

In radio interviews she said that it does reduce the risk of heart disease and strokes, BUT indicated that this effect was less than had been previously determined (more long term studies have been finished, which gives a better evidence base), and seemed to be most strong from age 55 for women. In fact she even suggested a number of units per week for which the beneficial effect outweighed the negative. But just because one risk outweighs another doesn't mean something is safe: if you were not at risk of stroke then drinking a small amount of alcohol won't mitigate against it. It's similar to the issues with things like HRT and the change of advice over this: whilst the risk in one area might IN AGGREGATE offset a different risk, for individuals it may not and mass medication may not be an appropriate response.
Re:Guidelines Deny Science by AthanasiusKircher · 2016-01-09 09:45 · Score: 1

To the point where saying "there is no safe level of alcohol consumption" is misleading to the point of deception.

Agreed. I actually basically said this toward the end of my last post.

Because there is a level of alcohol consumption below which, according to the best evidence, risk of various negative effects increases rather than decreases.
On the whole as a population study, sure. But obviously a double-blind study of alcohol consumption is impossible. And without that, it's hard to separate out the causality here. Alcohol consumption, for example, is highly correlated with social behavior. More social people tend to be in better mental and physical health. People who get older tend to drink less and become less healthy -- the "non-drinkers" in many studies tend to be skewed toward older people, who are more likely to have health problems. There are a number of studies that show when you try to break down people into groups and do more of a "case control" analysis, rather than simply aggregating drinkers and non-drinkers, you actually see many of the correlations lessen significantly or even disappear.
Personally, after looking at many of these studies over the years, I've come to the conclusion -- like you -- that there still is some small but robust correlation. But I'm very suspicious of the causation, since alcohol tends to be tied up so much in culture, social activities, and other lifestyle behaviors, which are also known to have impacts on health.
Ethanol is known to have at least superficial deleterious effects on the human body, even in small doses. And we know the way it is metabolized produces bad things for the body. So, until we have a plausible mechanism by which we think its positive effects work, I think it's premature to start telling people to start drinking if they don't already -- and that's really the important question that comes about with causality.
For years I've been looking for a study on people who START drinking just for "health benefits" but don't otherwise alter their lifestyles significantly. That's what you really need, along with a matched control group. It's not as good as a blind study, but then you'll at least get rid of many of the possibilities for confounding factors.
Re:Guidelines Deny Science by bingoUV · 2016-01-09 17:13 · Score: 1

For a blind study, probably spiking drinking water with ethanol/placebo should work. 7ml ethanol in 2litre water a day will be undetectable by taste/flavour right?

--
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.

Cambridge University debunks study by wes33 · 2016-01-09 02:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

see http://understandinguncertaint...

Re:Reaction is the problem rather than advice itse by jandersen · 2016-01-09 02:39 · Score: 1

Guidelines are for those who seek guidance; you may not be interested, but official guidelines are important in many cases, as for example in health care. And since it isn't law, you are free to ignore it as you see fit.

But we're all going to die after 80 or 90 years of life, so how do you want to spend those years?

Well I would prefer to spend as much of my life being as physically healthy and as clear minded as possible. I don't really have a thing against recreational drug use - I have done my bit in my time - but it too becomes a dull routine after a while, and it does take away from my general well-being. It certainly doesn't deserve being called 'exploring the bounds of life'; if you want to do that, try something that will really challenge you, like learning something new - a language, playing an instrument (and doing it well), wood carving or mathematics. Or go and explore a place you've never been to. Step out of yourself; taking drugs is just so much navel-grazing.

Re:Reaction is the problem rather than advice itse by jareth-0205 · 2016-01-09 02:54 · Score: 1

Unfortunately health guidelines gave a tendency to gain legal momentum, especially here, so it is worth keeping aware of what's being said.

Interesting that you should mention learning an instrument as something to do to stretch yourself since so much great music is well known for being created whilst on substances. Some things aren't best sober...

Re:Reaction is the problem rather than advice itse by AmiMoJo · 2016-01-09 02:56 · Score: 1

They aren't saying never drink, just that it's not a good idea to do it regularly. That's what does the damage, regular use of alcohol/drugs/tobacco. And alcohol is addictive, so it's easy to get hooked.

Enjoy yourself now and then, but take it from someone who is living it: you don't want to spend decades with some disease that makes life miserable, if you can avoid it. Like a child you want to crank the music up, thinking it won't affect you... But it's all cumulative.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

Re:Reaction is the problem rather than advice itse by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 03:31 · Score: 0

I certainly understand your point. And, at an earlier point in my life, I'd probably completely agree with you. But, a funny thing happens to one as they age. The closer to end of life they get (to a point), the more they want to extend it. The problem is that by the time you start to realize it for yourself, the damage has already been done. So, it's better if one can open their ears and hear. I'm not pointing fingers. I'm beginning to see this now.

Meta-studies by Paul+Jakma · 2016-01-09 03:40 · Score: 1

Look at what you're citing "light to moderate alcohol drinking had no direct protective effect on mortality" - not "no effect" but "no direct _protective_ effect". I.e. it is saying there is no evidence for the hypothesis that drinking _helps_ your health.

--
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.

Re: Meta-studies by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 05:12 · Score: 0

But is it "no effect" for everyone in a large pool, or for anyone with regard to specific risk factors?

Sadly, specious recommendations such as this by DesertNomad · 2016-01-09 04:10 · Score: 1

May influence insurers to create "no alcohol" policies and use 3rd party data from your spending profiles to estimate compliance. Pay cash or bitcoin for that next pint...

Re:Reaction is the problem rather than advice itse by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 04:20 · Score: 0

Or you can get a more fulfilling life so that the "experience" of food and alcohol is put into perspective.

know what's funny here? by sribe · 2016-01-09 04:30 · Score: 2, Funny

How ALL of the posts ranting that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption, that all studies show damaging health effects, etc, are AC. Not one rabid teetotaler will put his name to his posts.

Re:Reaction is the problem rather than advice itse by Vermonter · 2016-01-09 04:50 · Score: 1

Your argument seems to rest on the assumption that life is only about seeking personal pleasure.

Re:Reaction is the problem rather than advice itse by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 05:03 · Score: 0

How about social aspects, hobbies, etc. Living fun doesn't have to be about health-effecting practices. It can be some fun but there are many ways to have fun and it is not boring to be straight edge. Having wasted money and time on sitting and drooling from drugs and alcohol, I envy those who don't even know what they are missing and never tried. It's easy after a hard day too just say I'll smoke a joint but what if that wasn't my go-to, and instead I was as equally relaxed by playing a game of tetris or getting into my hobby programming and making a new toy for my kid with some fun gpio stuff on a raspberry pi?

But that's OK... by Velox_SwiftFox · 2016-01-09 05:13 · Score: 1

To compensate they're increasing the units of Victory Chocolate from 3 to 2.

Re:Reaction is the problem rather than advice itse by jareth-0205 · 2016-01-09 05:25 · Score: 1

They are, because they also sat don't binge. They are saying you can have a couple of pints 3 times a week, there aren't many other configurations that work with all the restrictions in the recommendations.

Re:Reaction is the problem rather than advice itse by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 05:30 · Score: 0

"Considering consuming healthy stuff as boring and unhealthy stuff as fun, and defending this viewpoint, is a symptom of dependency (addiction).
You are not born with such dependencies, they are created by your upbringing, by what you are taught, not only by parents but society as a whole.
It leads to a deep feeling of some things about life/reality/yourself/the world being not right, so you try to avoid those. For that you cultivate those dependencies as an avoidance mechanism."

Blah blah blah...thank you for that prime example of Horseshit. Lets take it a bit at a time:

"Considering consuming healthy stuff as boring and unhealthy stuff as fun, and defending this viewpoint, is a symptom of dependency"

You immediately assume a false dichotomy - it is not an either/or situation as you present it. Pretty much all comment on here are people defending this choice to do unhealthy stuff as they see fit - nothing in that implies not doing healthy stuff.

Your whole viewpoint is predicated on the assumption that anyone who chooses to consume unhealthy stuff must by necessity have psychological issues. This is patently false.

"You are not born with such dependencies, they are created by your upbringing, by what you are taught"

Completely false. Vast amounts of empirical data in biology and genetics do not support your now-known-to-be-absurd hypothesis.

The whole problem with your perspective is that, in order for it to be true, human beings by necessity need to be something other-than the cells and biological matter that comprise their bodies. But we know now that this is absurd.

Everything about us - our thoughts, culture, feelings, etc - is all the result of biology and biological impetus.

All the GP was saying is just the obvious - life is nothing more nor less than the experience of having lived. Death is the end of sensation, of thought, of feeling, of the actual experience of the physical world. No more grass under the toes, no more pine scented breezes, no more ocean winds, no more anything ever again.

We each one of us have a limited amount of time within which to experience this physical world we live in. To have lived your life and died without ever having experienced the sensation of being drunk, or stoned, or alone in the desert, or on top of a mountain, or on the bottom of a swimming pool is to have completely wasted this small span of time to experience sensation that you now have.

To adopt completely artificial rules that restrict yourself - to idealize those who deliberately withhold from themselves a wide variety of sensations and consider their limited experience as some sort of virtue - is fucking weird in the extreme. To say the least.

Imperial pints by Hirsch · 2016-01-09 05:37 · Score: 1

Still 25% more by volume vs American servings ... we'll be fine ... f i n e I say...

Re:Imperial pints by mjwx · 2016-01-10 13:55 · Score: 1

Still 25% more by volume vs American servings ... we'll be fine ... f i n e I say...
If the UK uses Imperial pints, does this mean Americans use Rebel pints?

Seriously, that 425ml per pint is bollocks. 568ml is a proper pint.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.

Re:Reaction is the problem rather than advice itse by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 05:54 · Score: 0

" The problem is that by the time you start to realize it for yourself, the damage has already been done. So, it's better if one can open their ears and hear. I'm not pointing fingers. I'm beginning to see this now."

This is by no means true for everyone.

Indeed, cases of people in their 60s, 70s and 80s taking up hard drugs in their old age are unprecedentedly high. The older you get, the more you understand you have a limited window within which to experience things.

Some, as you mention, think they are going to expand that window by denial - others dont care to expand it but accept it and work within it. Its just another one of those many many things that individuals decide for themselves - and in doing so reflect the variety of human behavior that is possible.

Tweet from British comedian Pat Condell by walterbyrd · 2016-01-09 05:59 · Score: 1

"Blah blah blah. https://t.co/bZPnXe2xXy
Cheers."

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYM72-RWkAAlEar.jpg

Re:Reaction is the problem rather than advice itse by Dorianny · 2016-01-09 06:28 · Score: 1

Studies on centennials have found they don't live particularly healthy lifestyles. Many ate unhealthy diets, some drank alcohol and a few were even life-long smokers. The strongest correlation they could find among them was the number of centennials in their own family history. In other words, living a very long life mostly comes down to your genes.

Re:Reaction is the problem rather than advice itse by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 06:42 · Score: 1

"It's easy after a hard day too just say I'll smoke a joint but what if that wasn't my go-to, and instead I was as equally relaxed by playing a game of tetris or getting into my hobby programming and making a new toy for my kid with some fun gpio stuff on a raspberry pi?"

The thing is, it isnt either/or. Maybe one day a week or month you smoke a joint, another day you play tetris, whatever. This whole all-or-nothing attitude is fucking weird.

Re:Reaction is the problem rather than advice itse by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 07:03 · Score: 0

The biggest annoyance here is that we feel we should follow the guidelines - the assumption is that medical guidance should be followed, without taking into account that you are definitely going to die someday so your life shouldn't be about avoiding it at all costs.

Yep, and following the guidelines is also not a guarantee for success, either. I had a close friend that was a health nut all her life; exercised daily, ran marathons, ate organic food before it was "hip", etc. She got multiple myeloma and Hodgkin's lymphoma simultaneously and was dead within three years. She was 55.

Bottom line: Live your life and do what you want before it's too late, because you never know when you're going to die.

science or politics? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 07:33 · Score: 0

Is there some factual basis for this, or is this another example of reality denial by socialists to convince people there's no differences between men and women?

Nothing funny about it. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 07:38 · Score: 0

Welcome to the age of doxxing, SWATing, and bandwagoning. Say the wrong thing publicly and your family will be threatened and your employer hounded until you are fired or your house raided.

=7 per week != 1 per day by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 07:58 · Score: 0

Loophole!

Monday - No drinks. Work tomorrow.
Tuesday - No drinks. Work tomorrow.
Wednesday - No drinks. Work tomorrow.
Thursday - No drinks. Work tomorrow.
Friday - Partay!
Saturday - Recover from Friday. No drinks.
Sunday - The Lord's Day. No drinks. Ask Father for forgiveness for your sins the previous Friday.

Re:Reaction is the problem rather than advice itse by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 08:04 · Score: 0

Yeah that makes sense, thanks

Re:Reaction is the problem rather than advice itse by jareth-0205 · 2016-01-09 09:14 · Score: 1

Sure, why not. I mean I don't think that follows at all, but even if it did that's not a bad way of organising your one shot at existence.

Meanwhile in Australia by thegarbz · 2016-01-09 09:17 · Score: 1

Meanwhile in a country full of criminals one of our prime ministers held the world record for sculling a yard of ale.

Even our more recent prime ministers has put some effort in.

Re:Reaction is the problem rather than advice itse by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 10:02 · Score: 0

That's just a slippery slope fallacy. Hundreds of health guidelines and advisories are issued all around the world every year. How many of them become the basis of a law mandating a health minimum? Where do you live and what specific laws have been legislated based upon health guidelines?

I wonder what her position of drugs is? by zkiwi34 · 2016-01-09 10:18 · Score: 1

Is it her medical opinion that dope is unsafe at any level? Meth? Cocaine? Etc etc?

Reminds One of 1984 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 12:37 · Score: 0

"A litre is too much and a half-litre don't satisfy" - A old man ordering a beer in the book "1984"

Re: Reminds One of 1984 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-11 09:05 · Score: 0

A standard pint glass actually is 500 ml, just like in the book. Just nobody calls it a half-liter glass.

Bollocks by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 13:08 · Score: 0

I drink 18 units a day.

Re: Bollocks by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 13:10 · Score: 0

I'm still al

Not to mention by DesertNomad · 2016-01-09 14:28 · Score: 1

dying of stupidity by alcohol... But I think that's maybe Darwinism...

Reproduction or Mortality? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-09 14:36 · Score: 0

What's more important. Saving a bunch of old folks by cutting out the drinking or creating a bunch of new folks through drunken debauchery?

So long as we can bring them in faster than we take them out, I see no problem with FIFO underrun.

14 Rack Units! by tmjva · 2016-01-10 06:03 · Score: 1

Is not this a computer forum? Insofar we are computer geeks?

If so, our recommendation should be dimensions for fourteen RACK UNITS. And that leaves the dilemma of whether or not they are 19 or 23 inch racks.

If not geek, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

--
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT

What is equality? by Jack+Zombie · 2016-01-10 14:40 · Score: 1

>Then the freaking women need to start drinking more if they want to be equal.

Men and women are fundamentally equal except for social, cultural, hormonal and genital differences. The other range of differences are individual.

Women, or anyone, don't need to drink more, because they're already fundamentally equal (except for the 4 things I've wrote). The other differences... are individual.

This is an egalitarian view on equality.

Feminism is about women's rights, not people's rights. Men's rights activists are also social justice warriors, except they advocate for men.

They are both enemies of equality. Equality is a third solution.

We're all fundamentally equal, so no race, gender, or whatever, should be privileged over another, and the best individuals should rise to the top, because the differences are individual. Same wise, the enemies of equality can be of any race or gender; they can't be stereotyped. We are tolerant, but not tolerant of intolerance.

--
"You should never doubt what nobody is sure about." -- Willy Wonka

What is equality? (continued) by Jack+Zombie · 2016-01-10 14:44 · Score: 1

...We are tolerant, but not tolerant of intolerance, and intolerance can come from anyone.

--
"You should never doubt what nobody is sure about." -- Willy Wonka

Re:This just in: continued... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-10 15:23 · Score: 0

we never eat jelly
they make it with wine
and one little bite turns a man to a swine
think -just imagine- how sinful the day:
THE CHIDREN all wasted on PB and J

****

"If I'll be alive tomorrow
-really I don't know
BUT if I'm alive tomorrow
I am sure Ill drink tomorrow
-THIS I promise you"

***

Boozin, Boozin
-Just You and I
Boozin Boo - oozin
-When we are Dry!

Some do it openly
Some on the sly
But We All are bloody well BOOZIN

****
http://www.metrolyrics.com/alcohol-lyrics-brad-paisley.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXxomeId_dw

Brad Paisley - Alcohol Lyrics

I can make anybody pretty
I can make you believe any lie
I can make you pick a fight
With somebody twice
Your size

Well I've been known to cause a few breakups
And I've been known to cause a few births
I can make you new friends
Or get you fired from work.

And since the day I left Milwaukee
Lyncheburg Bordeaux, France
Been making the bars
With lots of big money
And helping white people dance

I am medicine and I am poison
I can help you up or make you fall
You had some of the best times
You'll never remember with me
Alcohol, alcohol

Yes since the day I left Milwaukee
Lynchburg, Bordeaux, France
Been makin' the bars lots of big money
And helpin' white people dance

Yea I got you in trouble in high school
And college now that was a ball
You had some of the best times
You'll never remember with me
Alcohol, alcohol
-

"Either you drink or you don't. If you do, then you are incapable of living without being intoxicated. Ask yourself why you get drunk."

Unless this coment was posted by an omnicient G*d, I find it presumptuous and rude. Some people really need to abstain... totaly. I respect them for recognizing that fact. Other people are able to use psychoactives without losing control. I respect THEIR right to do so (legality of any particular substance is another issue).

-

Re:Reaction is the problem rather than advice itse by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-14 03:15 · Score: 0

If alcohol were replaced (partially) with Cannabis, that would indeed be beneficial for the health of the population at large.

Slashdot Mirror

UK Cuts Men's Recommended Weekly Alcohol To 14 Units (theguardian.com)

274 comments