No Healthy Level of Alcohol Consumption, Says Major Study (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Even the occasional drink is harmful to health, according to the largest and most detailed research carried out on the effects of alcohol, which suggests governments should think of advising people to abstain completely. The uncompromising message comes from the authors of the Global Burden of Diseases study, a rolling project based at the University of Washington, in Seattle, which produces the most comprehensive data on the causes of illness and death in the world. Alcohol, says their report published in the Lancet medical journal, led to 2.8 million deaths in 2016. It was the leading risk factor for premature mortality and disability in the 15 to 49 age group, accounting for 20% of deaths. The study was carried out by researchers at the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), who investigated levels of alcohol consumption and health effects in 195 countries between 1990 to 2016. They used data from 694 studies to work out how common drinking was and from 592 studies including 28 million people worldwide to work out the health risks. According to the report, "27.1% of cancer deaths in women and 18.9% in men over 50 were linked to their drinking habits." The biggest causes of death linked to alcohol in younger people were tuberculosis (1.4% of deaths), road injuries (1.2%), and self-harm (1.1%).

"Worldwide we need to revisit alcohol control policies and health programs, and to consider recommendations for abstaining from alcohol," said the report's senior author, Professor Emmanuela Gakidou. "These include excise taxes on alcohol, controlling the physical availability of alcohol and the hours of sale, and controlling alcohol advertising. Any of these policy actions would contribute to reductions in population-level consumption, a vital step toward decreasing the health loss associated with alcohol use."

Comments

Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean... I'm here for a good time, not for a long time.

Re: Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Smoke weed and have both.

Re: Well Fuck

[LynnwoodRooster]

Smoking pot is not as safe as you think.

Re: Well Fuck

[Archfeld]

Smoking ANYTHING is bad news. Vaporizing or atomizing is better but certainly not good for anything but your 'head' and attitude. Just like grilling meat is not 'good' for you, but is damn tasty. Just do things in moderation, even moderation :)

Re: Well Fuck

[Maxo-Texas]

You do not need to vaporize or atomize pot to consume it. It's easy to cook with. Colorado has a major edibles market with well controlled dosing. The carbs are more of a problem than the various cannabinoids.

Re: Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but insufflation will never die. It works fast, is very granular in dosing and releases all of the aromatics. Asking us to stop smoking is like asking wine-someliers
to drink water lengthened with pure grain alcohol while snacking on raisins. It's nuts !!!

Re:Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's precisely the kind of behaviour this is really about.
They don;t want people to get merry and promiscuous and have children. They don;t want a culture of that.
That's what this is really about.

Re:Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to love the quote at the end of the Guardian article, though it really should have been put at the beginning:

But David Spiegelhalter, Winton professor for the public understanding of risk at the University of Cambridge, said the data showed only a very low level of harm in moderate drinkers and suggested UK guidelines were very low risk.

“Given the pleasure presumably associated with moderate drinking, claiming there is no ‘safe’ level does not seem an argument for abstention,” he said. “There is no safe level of driving, but government do not recommend that people avoid driving. Come to think of it, there is no safe level of living, but nobody would recommend abstention.”

Re:Well Fuck

[houghi]

Too many people are hung up about quantity of life, not quality of life.

I am fat (for somebody in Europe) that my doctor asked me if I was willing to change my life habits, meaning eating and drinking. I said no.
I do not want to get old. I know what getting old is. My great-aunt was 115. She was healthy. My parents lived to an above average age and also lived, not just existed.
If I die, I die. At least I had fun.

And what greater fun that having a few drinks in great company of friends? In the end, that is all that matters. And I know. My great aunt told me, as well as other old people. And if you look at the photo on Wikipedia that I took, she is taking some advocaat at the age of 113.

Oh and on the WIki page, the thing about wisdom she told about hering and orange juice was not completely true.
She said it because she did not want to say anything about alcohol, because kids would read the newspaper and take it out of context. When _I_ asked her why she became so old, the answer was "Luck. Somebody has to be the oldest and by pure luck, this time it is me."

And even as the oldest person, she choose quality of life over quantity.

Re: Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Smoking pot is not as safe as you think.

LIVING is not safe. You take risks every time you draw a breath. The question isn't if something is dangerous. The question is simply whether the risk outweighs the reward. Being chronically stoned is a crappy way to live life, regardless of its effects on your lungs. Occasionally getting a buzz involves some risks but can also improve the quality of some people's lives. A similar observation can be made about alcohol.

Re: Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are really worried about quality of life, you would lose weight. Furthermore, it's not just about living longer: obese people have sucky lives for the last several years. Stop bloviating and take care of yourself.

Re: Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Living does not require you to inhale smoke of any kind.

Nobody in their right minds does that, unless they're desperate for a high. There's probably better ways to get pot into your bloodstream than smoking it or eating it, though drying it out and rolling it up in papers is a relatively cheap and easy way to go, so there you have it.

Re:Well Fuck

[sad_]

maybe so, but your quality of life will suffer much earlier then somebody who lives healthy.
you won't be able to do some things anymore when you're 40, while the 'healthy' person probably still can.
will you have done all the items on your bucket list when you're 50 or 60?
i agree that there is a limit, i don't see the point in reaching 100 years of age, it will be miserable, so far nobody that age is still well enough to actually have a quality life. but i want to enjoy doing everything i love for as long as i can. (those things don't include consuming alcohol, for me)

Re: Well Fuck

[blind biker]

This is true - smoking pot can lead to emphysema. It's still less likely than inhaling smoke from wood or coal burning, but yeah, some potheads will smoke in such excess that they may suffer from emphysema at some point.

But that's why I exclusively consume edibles! All the benefits, including health benefits, of cannabis, and none of the downsides.

Edibles, gentlemen, it's the right thing to do.

Re:Well Fuck

[Begemot]

As a functioning alcoholic I can tell you that I'm here for neither

Re:Well Fuck

[Mr D from 63]

You have to love the quote at the end of the Guardian article, though it really should have been put at the beginning:

But David Spiegelhalter, Winton professor for the public understanding of risk at the University of Cambridge, said the data showed only a very low level of harm in moderate drinkers and suggested UK guidelines were very low risk.

“Given the pleasure presumably associated with moderate drinking, claiming there is no ‘safe’ level does not seem an argument for abstention,” he said. “There is no safe level of driving, but government do not recommend that people avoid driving. Come to think of it, there is no safe level of living, but nobody would recommend abstention.”

Also, a meta-data study that once again doesn't indicate how it normalized all the input data, is somewhat useless for drawing conclusions.

People that drink more may also on average have less healthier habits. Even where individual studies have different methods to account for different correlations, meta studies rarely adequately account for these differences.

Re:Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously. Fuck this noise and any other call for changes in public policy. The only valid public policy with regards to what people do to themselves is no policy at all. The government's business in regulating alcohol should be that if I buy alcohol that I get alcohol and not poison. Same thing as with any other substance. I am so beyond tired of having do-gooders try to protect me it's sickening. Information good. Regulation of personal behavior bad.

No, I'm not advocating DUI and stuff like that so shut the f*ck up if you're going to try to argue that tired bullshit. I can and will argue that blood alcohol limits are ridiculously low given that almost all injury and fatal accidents occur at well over .12 and that number hasn't changed ever, regardless of laws passed, since they've been keeping track and so everything else they pass just ruins lives that don't need to be ruined (just like pot prohibition) but I digress. Causing injury or death or a *reasonable* possibility of injury or death to another person is not one of an individual's inalienable rights--but being the sole judge of what is and isn't good for you that doesn't affect others is.

Re:Well Fuck

[Austerity Empowers]

Plus about 2/3's of the deaths in young people from alcohol stem from poor and avoidable choices that I do not think should be considered in their recommendations. You have a choice to drink and drive, or to hurt/kill yourself. Alcohol does not trigger some invisible demon to strike you down (such as tuberculosis, which is hidden in the text affecting primarily only poorly developed countries, probably not anyone reading this). So basically alcohol in young people being a relevant cause of death is bullshit, by any reasonable interpretation.

When you examine the over 50 result, there was no control over quantity, and there was a direct correlation between quantity consumed and risk of cancer. There was also no control for other factors (alcohol + acetominophen) for example, that might be responsible for the liver damage.

So basically this whole article appears to be constructed with the mindset of blaming anything where alcohol was involved on alcohol use, for the purpose of highlighting it as a problem. The obvious result is that any use causes death, no shit. So will getting out of bed in the morning and walking down the street for a cup of coffee. Getting in your car has a strong chance of resulting in death or injury. etc. The question is whether alcohol on its own is an issue, and that's not clear from any of this.

Re:Well Fuck

[dbialac]

Besides, prohibition has proven to greatly increase the risk of death. Just ask the North Side Gang of Chicago.

Re: Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

I donâ(TM)t get how anyone can enjoy hemp aromatically. Hey guys, letâ(TM)s take a drag from a skunks butthole! Might as well enjoy some ditchweed instead, if not for the THC.

Re:Well Fuck

[Ol Olsoc]

maybe so, but your quality of life will suffer much earlier then somebody who lives healthy. you won't be able to do some things anymore when you're 40, while the 'healthy' person probably still can. will you have done all the items on your bucket list when you're 50 or 60?

Let me tell you about my mother in law. Non smoker, non drinker. Plenty of exercise.

This woman was the very archetype of the modern healthy adult livin the dream well into old age.

She caught dementia at 68, and it took her 10 years to die. The thing with dementia is that it doesn't just affect your mind. Her bones kind ot rotted, her bodily functions slowed down gradually, and she wasn't a happy demented person, but one of the ones who cry constantly.

I would take death right now to avoid that.

If you really want to live to an ancient age, by all means do. But I'll take quality over longevity every time. The only people that make out in the life extension game are the ones running nursing homes.

Re: Well Fuck

[careysub]

Smoking pot is not as safe as you think.

Depends on how "safe you think" it is doesn't it? Notice there are no numbers in the item, indications of prevalence, to allow one to assess the putative risks. Although the American Lung Association is a fine organization genuinely devoted to public health, and focused on one subject, minimizing the prevalence of lung injury, they are - by the same token - not interested in giving a balanced presentation of what is known about risks.

Here is the abstract from the current gold-standard study of this subject:

Regular smoking of marijuana by itself causes visible and microscopic injury to the large airways that is consistently associated with an increased likelihood of symptoms of chronic bronchitis that subside after cessation of use. On the other hand, habitual use of marijuana alone does not appear to lead to significant abnormalities in lung function when assessed either cross-sectionally or longitudinally, except for possible increases in lung volumes and modest increases in airway resistance of unclear clinical significance. Therefore, no clear link to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has been established. Although marijuana smoke contains a number of carcinogens and cocarcinogens, findings from a limited number of well-designed epidemiological studies do not suggest an increased risk for the development of either lung or upper airway cancer from light or moderate use, although evidence is mixed concerning possible carcinogenic risks of heavy, long-term use. Although regular marijuana smoking leads to bronchial epithelial ciliary loss and impairs the microbicidal function of alveolar macrophages, evidence is inconclusive regarding possible associated risks for lower respiratory tract infection. Several case reports have implicated marijuana smoking as an etiologic factor in pneumothorax/pneumomediastinum and bullous lung disease, although evidence of a possible causal link from epidemiologic studies is lacking. In summary, the accumulated weight of evidence implies far lower risks for pulmonary complications of even regular heavy use of marijuana compared with the grave pulmonary consequences of tobacco.

This is a balanced assessment. Yes, you will see the same concerns mentioned by the ALA -- but not the counterbalancing factor (for example) that there are no significant abnormalities in lung function which is kind of an important fact here.

Of course vaping cannabis is very popular now, so actual smoking of the material is surely on a steep decline.

One factor that explains why the numerous studies that have been done have failed to find any increase in lung cancer with cannabis use (aside from the fact that cannabis smokers consume far less material than tobacco smokers) is that nicotine is a cancer promoter, while THC suppresses cancer! You won't ever find that mentioned on an ALA page.

Re: Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol how many cars did you walk by this morning retard

Re:Well Fuck

[cayenne8]

My first thought was....

Without alcohol, how will ugly people ever get laid???

Re:Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Just remember you said that when you're going through unimaginable pain and suffering from disease and cancer. Oh and no health coverage for you. You need to pay for treatment out of your own pocket.

Re:Well Fuck

[mr.mctibbs]

My great grandfather is turning 101 this year. He has trouble walking, but otherwise gets his kicks doing whatever he pleases. I can guarantee that if you expressed a shred of pity for his day-to-day experience he'd have unpleasant words for you. I absolutely hope I get to be as old and snarky as him.

Re:Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Come to think of it, there is no safe level of living, but nobody would recommend abstention.

Well, planned parenthood...

Re: Well Fuck

[Kulahan]

Have any studies been done comparing the effects of edibles vs. smoked cannabis to double-check and ensure there are no negative effects? I use edibles myself, but I realize upon reading your comment that I just assumed it was safer because I wasn't inhaling anything. I wonder if they're metabolized differently, resulting in different effects on the body.

Re:Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe so, but your quality of life will suffer much earlier then somebody who lives healthy.
you won't be able to do some things anymore when you're 40, while the 'healthy' person probably still can.
will you have done all the items on your bucket list when you're 50 or 60?
i agree that there is a limit, i don't see the point in reaching 100 years of age, it will be miserable, so far nobody that age is still well enough to actually have a quality life. but i want to enjoy doing everything i love for as long as i can. (those things don't include consuming alcohol, for me)

I agree and I'd had that a perfect life should have means to be ended. Everybody should have some sort of euthanasia cocktail at their disposal. Live the fullest, die in control.

Re: Well Fuck

[reanjr]

It's pretty unlikely eating food will cause emphysema. I can state that without reading any scientific studies.

Re:Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm 41, and I've lived healthy my whole life. And I think I've lived well, as well. But I've done a lot of the right things. I eat well, not too much. I get a lot of exercise because I enjoy it, but that means I'm fitter at 41 than I probably was in parts of my 30s. I barely drink because I've never enjoyed it (Asian flush, also makes me feel like I'm drowning), I don't smoke, I don't do any drugs, illicit or otherwise.

But I still have health problems. I have some sort of bladder/prostate thing that I'm working on getting diagnosed. I actually just started a long-term prescription for the first time in my life this morning, and I'll be seeing a therapist for the anxiety having a new major health concern in my life caused. I'll probably be fine, but living healthy is no guard against anything. I've also been hit by 2 cars because I'm active cyclist. One of those accidents broke some of my teeth, so I've had a permanent bridge in my mouth for 20 years.

Live how you want to live. There are consequences to literally everything you do, INCLUDING trying to live a healthy lifestyle. If I just stayed home and exercised moderately, maybe I'd still have my teeth and fewer knee problems, but I don't regret it at all.

Re: Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

"LIVING is not safe"

Exactly. This is why we all need expensive pills from BigPharma to Make Living Safe Again.

Side effects though generally mild, may include death. Talk to your doctor today about these shitty expensive poison pills you need prescribed by a physician because they are not legally or scientifically deemed safe enough just to buy over the counter at a reasonable price.

Re:Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a difference between "you should consider not drinking" and "we have decided for you that you will stop drinking".

Re:Well Fuck

[houghi]

1) I am older that 40
2) I am aware that I will not be able to do things later that I can do now. That is why I am doing them now.
3) Great aunt was 115 and it was awesome. She live alone till she wass 106 when she went to a home. She had a lot of people visiting and enjoyed elmsot each moment of her life because of her positive attitude towards it.
So perhaps it is you who should look at what 'quality of life' actually means.

I also have had discussions with my sister about the subject. She is a qualified paliative nurse. My mother said no to cancer treatment to get better and shorter quality of life.

Re:Well Fuck

[neurovish]

You could always move to the US, then you would likely be either just the right weight or possibly even a paragon of health.

Re: Well Fuck

[Lordfly]

Is there evidence to this? As an edible consumer myself, I wonder if I'm hammering my liver by eating rather than smoking.

I wish there were more studies done on this.

Re:Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

I am fat (for somebody in Europe)

Well you would be laughed right out of a McDonald's over here. And don't come back until you put on a few hundred more pounds.

Re: Well Fuck

[Green Mountain Bot]

What's weird about it is that, while the studies of cannabis smoke itself - like the one in your link - show that it should have serious negative health effects, studies on the health of users find no such effects. This suggests that either there is something in cannabis that counteracts such negative effects, or that the way or amount in which it is consumed is different enough to mitigate them.

Re:Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Living as a fat person is not a quality life...

Re: Well Fuck

[Green Mountain Bot]

This is true - smoking pot can lead to emphysema.

That's not what the research indicates.

Re:Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Living as a fat person is not a quality life... You act like you have to be a slob to enjoy life. So all healthy people just aren't having fun?

Re:Well Fuck

[Ol Olsoc]

Living as a fat person is not a quality life...

Especially when one has not learned to ignore the sanctimonious assholes that try to shame them. But some folks simply need a target to hate. Smokers, Drinkers, Chocolate people, anyone not Scotch Irish, you know the drill. that fat person who is going to die? Did you know slender people live forever?

Live as long as you can - like my father said - "Who wants to be the healthiest person in the graveyard?"

All those mindless demented people shitting in depends and drooling into their neck napkins and having run out of clues at the nursing home, maybe getting beat up by the orderly who is pissed off that she or he is only getting minimum wage - hey, they are all nice and slim. Now thats a quality life, you would have to agree.

Re: Well Fuck

[Rick Schumann]

Just like grilling meat is not 'good' for you

Yeah, sure, and 'they' keep going back and forth on that, just like they do ethanol, just like they do every other gods-be-damned thing.

Re:Well Fuck

[Rick Schumann]

You can not be fat, weak, slow, and eventually diseased because of those, and at the same time not be forced to live a life of austerity and total abstention, either. I'm an amateur athlete, not posessing high bodyfat percentage, not weak, and not having problems like diabetes, heart disease, etc, and I still enjoy foods we'll call 'unnecessary for nutritional purposes', and the occasional drink or two, and like you I believe quality of life is more important overall than quantity of life, because too many people are willing to hang on to every last breath regardless of even having to live out their final days in a hospital bed hooked up to tubes and wires and having extreme procedures done to them to keep them alive for five more minutes. It's not worth it to go to extremes just to live to 90 instead of 85. We're only here once and when we're gone, we're gone, make the best of it while you're here, but you can be healthy and even athletic and still enjoy life.

Re:Well Fuck

[Rick Schumann]

But as I said above, 'being healthy' doesn't mean living a life of utter austerity. Taken to extremes, would you only ever have sex for purposes of procreation? After all, every time you have sex with even only your wife, there is a risk of communicable disease, even though both of you are faithful, why risk it? Not accusing you of anything just making a point. There are people out there who would have you living like a monk and dying with nothing but regret for all the things you never did.

Re:Well Fuck

[Rick Schumann]

My mother died when I was 17 or 18 of a recurrence of thyroid cancer (I think). I saw what her last days were like. No thanks. I get it.

Re: Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you want to get high right now.

Edibles are like baked potatoes, put it in the oven now and by the time it is ready, maybe you will be hungry.

Re:Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

People don't realize that you don't just die one day, because your unhealthy. Its a process, because of poor health you suffer from chronic illness, then u just take drugs that keep your dying body functioning,then die a slow miserable death.

Re:Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish people would realize that. We simply do not know enough to know what things should be cut out completely or to what extent in most cases. We do know that alcohol is toxic and that putting it in your body requires that the liver deal with it in order to manage the toxicity.

That being said, being healthy is usually a matter of moderation. Moderating the consumption of meat, fats, sugars, salts and the like. Eating moderate amounts of fruits and vegetables. Moderating the amount of exercise you get.

If a person is miserable doing that, then they have other issues, because health shouldn't be an issue.

Nobody credible says that you can't have some wine, some junkfood, some TV time or whatever the treat is, just that it should be in moderation. And anyways, if you're having those treats every day, and in large quantities, it makes them a lot less special anyways.

Re: Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Emphysema wouldn't be the issue, cardiomyopathy is the issue and possibly other unknown health conditions.

One of the huge issues I have with marijuana legalization advocates is the lies about the relative safety of the product and extensive efforts to downplay any potential health risks. That's something that addicts do. Not that the people that are in favor of prohibition are any better, but by default these kinds of substances should be banned until demonstrated to be safe. Not perfectly safe, but safe enough for human consumption.

Re:Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to love the quote at the end of the Guardian article, though it really should have been put at the beginning:

But David Spiegelhalter, Winton professor for the public understanding of risk at the University of Cambridge, said the data showed only a very low level of harm in moderate drinkers and suggested UK guidelines were very low risk.

“Given the pleasure presumably associated with moderate drinking, claiming there is no ‘safe’ level does not seem an argument for abstention,” he said. “There is no safe level of driving, but government do not recommend that people avoid driving. Come to think of it, there is no safe level of living, but nobody would recommend abstention.”

The problem with that argument is you could apply it to anything. Like lead, or asbestos. Imagine saying something like that in Flint.

Re:Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Drugs I imagine.

Re: Well Fuck

[Archfeld]

An atomizer is not aromatic but is the equivalent of a vaporizer using THC oil instead of vegetative matter or hash. A vaporizer is for Hash, either waxy H2O or butane processed, or ground vegetative matter. Both methods produce large deeply satisfying clouds of THC laden goodness. I do still occasionally use my bong or smoke a joint in a social situation, but rarely.
I am from Nor-Cal and have been in a coop situation for 20 years now. As advanced as Colorado is becoming the Trinity in far Northern California is still the center of POT USA :)
The best way I know to get pot into edibles is through infused butter. You can have pot 'anything' that way :) .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re: Well Fuck

[Archfeld]

We're not talking Hemp but Sativa or Indica. Hemp has a low THC/CBD content and is generally for textiles, rope and cloth.

https://hightimes.com/grow/und...

Re: Well Fuck

[blind biker]

Your liver does exactly the same amount of work whether you introduce cannabinoids through your digestive system or through your lungs - I suggest that you read some Wikipedia articles on how digestion and metabolism works. Or just grab a book on the topic. BTW, alcohol is far worse for your liver than cannabinoids.

Re: Well Fuck

[TimMD909]

Money.

Re: Well Fuck

[QRDeNameland]

Living does not require you to inhale smoke of any kind.

You were obviously not living on the west coast of N. America over the past week.

Re:Well Fuck

[fatwilbur]

Ugh, the one thing I hate is when researchers go on to translate their findings into suggested government policy changes. Doctors may be very smart people and know plenty about the human body, but they are terrible policy makers. Governments as well are all to quick to misinterpret their area of expertise and enact these silly regulations.

Alcohol may be bad for you and doctors will probably advise against any consumption, but freedom for adults to make their own choices is still the bigger policy concern.

Re: Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Both cases lead to a high likelihood of being a loser.

Re: Well Fuck

[reanjr]

The thing is there are plenty of studies which try to find problems with cannabis, but when they do, they are problems which are generally associated with smoking. We obviously need better science, but the best science we have does not suggest vaping or eating cannabis is any more harmful than living in a typical polluted American city.

Re: Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

I like my veal raw, aka steak tartar, garnished with raw eggs. Unfortunately I need to go to Europe for that. The junk that passes for meat in the US is unsanitary and is the veal's grandfather

Re:Well Fuck

[dbialac]

This is where it always starts. Next thing you know, it's a public health crisis followed by a ban.

Re:Well Fuck

[HornWumpus]

Good thing _nobody_ is ugly in total and complete darkness.

It's the smelly people that are fucked.

Re: Well Fuck

[HornWumpus]

Everybody has a pretty sucky life for the last few years. Only escape is a quick death.

Re:Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Life is full of risk.

Re:Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Antinatalism

Re:Well Fuck

[philmarcracken]

Its not about the quality of life you dumb fuck but the quality of your death. Enjoy being trapped in a body, unable to move for years and they won't let you die.

Re: Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

And you are 100% sure that having cannabis intermingling amongst your intestines is not going to cause colon cancer, the same way chewing tobacco causes mouth cancer?

Re:Well Fuck

[angel'o'sphere]

such as tuberculosis, which is hidden in the text affecting primarily only poorly developed countries, probably not anyone reading this
Germany has about 5000 cases every year. Mainly because it is relatively rare, it is often not diagnosed in time.
It has not much to do with poverty per se ...

Re: Well Fuck

[angel'o'sphere]

A little bit of butter and a hot chocolate (mean from cacao and milk).
Or cookies with chocolate.

Re: Well Fuck

[angel'o'sphere]

Most Canabis smokers smoke it together with tobacco. And on top of that are regular smokers of tobacco anyway ... so you have all kinds of health risks.
If you smoke it pure, it should not have many risks, depending on how much you smoke, obviously. Or just eat it ...

Re: Well Fuck

[dddux]

Yes, it's rather hypocritical and a bit funny sometimes, that people can be so anal about their health, yet the air we breathe in the cities is so poisonous that whatever you do, you just cannot actually live healthily. I'd also like to notice one more thing... now that the media cannot demonise tobacco more than they have already, it seems like the alcohol is next in line. Alcohol is new tobacco. When they're done with demonising alcohol, they'll start demonising sex. And that's how you create a new puritan state. People are already living fucked up depressed lives, we don't need more restrictions or worries, we need less of both. Having said that, you don't take any of your toys, or your money to the grave with you. Live well, and die well. Happiness. Read some Epucurus.... d= ;)

Re: Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't ignorant turds like you just leave the alcohol/marijuana discussions to people that have a clue. Just mind your own business.

Re: Well Fuck

[watsonoo73547]

You lost all credibility at, so we need more taxes.

Re: Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely you mean the smelly people wonto be fucked

Re:Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife and I were friends with a couple ans three of us drank, he did not but was a "health freak. We were sitting around with our wine waiting for him to get home from his cross country skiing outing. The call came in that he had just died of a heart attack (about age 35).

Re:Well Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Then smoke and do more harmful drugs. Alcohol is just as bad as smoking long-term, but it is not regulated at all. The ads in media for it do the same thing smoking ads used to do: portray a "high level" lifestyle for you if you consume their product. Nearly every single hard-liquor company does this. Why is this not banned, but smoking adverts are? If you are genuinely in it for a "good time", then go out and do stupid shit every day. I guarantee you that you'll have a great time, but you won't last long.

Re:Well Fuck

[KingBenny]

did they consider mental health ? as the brain would induce psychosomatic symptoms that have actual physical manifestations is it harmful for someone in a shitty daily grindjob to have a few stiif ones every day to wind down ? or its "more healthy" to not to until you flip out, crawl on a curch tower and start sniping ? is that beyond your omega point to measure, dear scientist ?

It is worth the price

[Anonymous Coward]

how else can I handle the pain of slashdot trolls?

And still

[ArchieBunker]

the number of Marijuana deaths is zero.

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, cannabis is absolutely NOT a carcinogen, however any kind of smoke irritates the lung alveoli and is a carcinogen on that basis. Calling it marijuana is fine, you're a twat.

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

You smoke, drink, AND JACK OFF WHILE DRIVING? Man, pgmrdlm you are one degenerate son of an ugly bitch!

Re:And still

[asackett]

That's not cannabis killing you, that's irresponsibility.

Re:And still

[LynnwoodRooster]

False.

Driving while on drugs was associated with more deaths in 2015 than driving with alcohol in one's system... Of the more than 400 drugs that the federal National Highway Traffic Safety Administration tracks, marijuana accounted for 35% of positive tests reported

Pot smokers account for lots of driving deaths....

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing in your post says that pot affects driving. Just because pot was found in people's system has zero relationship to it affecting their driving. I bet, for example, they found glucose in the bloodstream of every driver.

"Driving while on drugs" translates, in 99.9% of cases, to driving while alcohol is in one's system.

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeezuz, maybe you shouldn'y post when you're drunk mate.

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you whiny ass retarded righties are begging for a foot stomping to remove your tooth (singular).

Re: And still

[Anonymous Coward]

So cannabis smoke is, then, a carcinogen. Got it, thanks.

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

Angry drunk is angry, ahahaaaa. Checkmate. You lose again, old bitch! Now all you can do is die years and years and years before I even get to be your age now, lol. Ahahaha, enjoy Trump hanging for treason meanwhile, you bitch.

*(Go on, you know you want to punch your monitor you old flappy drunkard cunt lol. Give in to hate, snowflake! PUNCH ME YOU BITCH!)

Re: And still

[cunina]

Methinks you have a bit of an anger management issue.

Re: And still

[Anonymous Coward]

You arenâ(TM)t that asshole from Georgia who put his real name and address on the internet when he wanted someone he disagreed with to meet him to fight, are you? The one who was on committees for his local Catholic Church?

Re:And still

[The Evil Atheist]

And cannabis is linked to irresponsibility.

Re:And still

[mark-t]

Wait, slashdot has a private messaging system?

Re:And still

[whoever57]

Wait, slashdot has a private messaging system?

No, just another blowhard /.-er, who knows he is safe in challenging someone to a fight.

Re: And still

[c6gunner]

Absolutely. I used the same defense at my drunk driving trial. "Just because I was drunk doesn't mean alcohol had anything to do with me rear-ending a cop car!"

Judge didn't buy it. Fucking asshole.

Re:And still

[markdavis]

>"the number of Marijuana deaths is zero."

That is just nonsense (and, actually, irresponsible). For one, ANYTHING you are doing that requires your peak senses and/or rationality will be negatively impacted by using Marijuana. For things like driving, surgery, operating dangerous power tools, whatever, it is not a good idea to be "altered". And claiming that throughout all history, being high on pot has not directly caused or contributed to death, is just *ridiculous*.

And if the choice of consumption of Marijuana involves SMOKING it (instead of eating it, ingesting a pill, or vaporizing it, or whatnot), well, let's just say that breathing in any type of smoke into the lungs is very unhealthy, no matter what type it is.

Now, if you were to say something more reasonable like "Marijuana is the safest illicit drug" most would readily agree with you. If you were to say it was safer than alcohol, again, most people would probably agree.

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

literally no one in the world except you knows it has racist origins. even less people care. and even less intentionally use it in any part as some kind of racial slur. this kind of overly p.c. shit is why we have trump; knock it the fuck off. you're not helping anyone.

Re:And still

[asackett]

Correlation != causation.

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like a true racist. Your MAGA cap is on too tight.

Re: And still

[PopeRatzo]

Methinks you have a bit of an anger management issue.

Only when he's been drinking.

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, sure. Last time you did this, an innocent man got shot in Kansas.

Re:And still

[PopeRatzo]

Wait, slashdot has a private messaging system?

Yes, but only for those who pay for Slashdot Premium, and only on the mobile app.

I can give you a promotional code for a 60-day trial if you send me your info.

Re:And still

[PopeRatzo]

Pot smokers account for lots of driving deaths....

We'd account for even more driving deaths if we could only find our car keys.

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

Pussy, lets meet. I am sick of assholes like you. fucking put up or shut up. Message in private bitch, I will pay to meet you. Come on pussy. I am done with you antifa assholes that don't have the balls to show your face. I will, I will give you my address. You can share it with all your other pussy friends. Let's go cunt

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, D.C.

When you get here, ask for "Moscow Donald"

Re: And still

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. You'd have been convicted for driving with too much alcohol in your system, whether you were driving well or poorly doesn't matter.

Re:And still

[Mal-2]

I have a 4chan Gold account to offer back in trade.

Re: And still

[Anonymous Coward]

Alcohol does cause dumb accidents like that, very true. Not sure what your point was. Oh well, it couldn't have mattered much, you're so boring.

Re: And still

[Anonymous Coward]

Marijuana is responsible for many deaths from its effects on the liver gallbladder and pancreas.

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

well, you can send private messages on SlashNet IRC

Re:And still

[The Evil Atheist]

No one said it was.

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing in your post says that pot affects driving. Just because pot was found in people's system has zero relationship to it affecting their driving. I bet, for example, they found glucose in the bloodstream of every driver.

"Driving while on drugs" translates, in 99.9% of cases, to driving while alcohol is in one's system.

Yeah, so a dude that was high on pot plowed into my car last year with his Cadillac.
It was actually a pretty bad accident, but fortunately nobody was hurt.
Had there been a pedestrian or someone on a bike when he flew through the intersection on the wrong side of the road, that would have been a traffic death.

No fucking way that doesn't happen all the time.

Just because you want to smoke pot doesn't mean you can pretend that all the good reasons not to don't count.

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

1. No, it isn't.
2. You've got to die of something. If alcohol or other drug(s) make you die slightly younger but after a slightly happier life then I really don't see that as a problem.

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

And cannabis is linked to irresponsibility.

Only posting AC cause I have modded down the attacks earlier in the thread.

Look into the origins of the word hashish and how it relates in the English language to the word assassin. The active agent in cannabis was used historically to dull the sense of gilt within the warrior and make them better assassins. Charles Manson did the same fucking thing! So if you incite a mindless nitwit or a group of them and make them high as kite on the drug it can help turn them into killers. PEACE BROTHER, WANT ANOTHER TOKE!

In Vietnam a shotgun was commonly used as a super blaster to make the patrol to clear the area of gooks a little easier to take as you shot at what ever moved in the bush. For this reason the patrols were lessened and agent orange was brought in to make the patrols a little less hairy scary. Canada has just started to experiment with weed for all, the problem comes down to some people will abuse it and regulations against driving under the influence or smoking it on the job will be necessary. Put it this way would you want to take a trip to the hospital with an ambulance driver that was high on cannabis,,, no different than alcohol IMO. When we forget history sometimes we forget the reasons why shit happens.

Alcohol is a toxin and it kills liver cells and impairs thoughtful judgment of your actions before you act as does cannabis intoxication. The problem is where do you draw the line with consumption quantity and frequency of use. Some people can get high thinking about getting high. I know I can, it helps with music performance, but consumption of alcohol or cannabis impairs my ability to both perform or study even a simple Bach fugue, so I do neither but do not criticize others who do I only cry a little inside as they make fools of themselves.

Re:And still

[Mr0bvious]

Citation required.

But seriously, any correlation there is likely due to irresponsible people being more likely flaunt the law and smoke weed more than responsible people.

Re: And still

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, as long as the cannabis stays in the cigarette, it is perfectly safe and totally non-carcinogenic.

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

I seriously doubt that. We have had multiple local accidents from people high on marijuana doing moronic acts in their cars, I don't know of any deaths but if they are having accidents then they will certainly be dying from them too

Re:And still

[Maxo-Texas]

At what levels?

I ask because one of the challenges with pot enforcement is that tests show it in your system for weeks.

Testing positive for drinking alcohol or smoking booze even the day before is meaningless. (for the nitpickers- let's specify 24 hours). If you could get enough in your system to still be intoxicated 24 hours later- you'd be dead from booze. I'm not sure it's possible with pot either tho few die from pot use.

Re: And still

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank YOU, wingnut PC dude, for helping to retract Donald Trump in 2020!

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

Smoking pot has nothing to do with your car accident moron lol.

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said you have to smoke it? You can vape it, eat it, drink it.

Re: And still

[Opportunist]

He did buy it. He just drew the logical conclusion that according to your own confession you're a shit driver even when sober since alcohol has nothing to do with you being a shit driver.

Re:And still

[Opportunist]

And don't even think about the amount of deaths that could happen if you could be motivated to search for the keys, go to the door, open the door, go outside, go to your car, get into your car ...

Screw this, pass the blunt.

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know? It was illegal until just now, no one reported it.

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

Never was, never will be. I get stories all the time from pathologists that conveniently left it off the death report because they don't want to further antagonize relatives of the deceased by telling them that illegal drugs were a contributing factor in the death of their loved ones. Now that marijuana is somewhat legal in some places we are going to start to see more reports of it displacing alcohol for those driving under the influence deaths, and other cases.

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

the number of Marijuana deaths is zero.

Sure, if you don't count those who smoke it.

It doesn't really matter how super healthy you think Marijuana is.
You can roll up empty paper and just smoke air, it is still pretty harmful to pull into your lungs.

You could go for edibles, but the same thing applies there. Even without the drugs they aren't the healthiest thing to eat.
OTOH it is a lot better to eat a couple of brownies every week than to smoke a roll of paper every month.

The biggest problem I see with Marijuana specifically is that it makes people ignore other ailments.
Having a bad back? How about taking something that makes you feel good instead of actually sorting it out?
Getting fired from your job? No problem just take some feelgoods instead of feeling all crappy and go out to look for a job.

We are supposed to feel bad about certain things, that is the way our body tells us to change something.

Re:And still

[Oligonicella]

Also, please call it cannabis instead of "marijuana," which has racist origins.

Oh fuck off with this tripe.

Re:And still

[Oligonicella]

Personal assertion stated as if fact.

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely wrong, as I have seen marijuana-induced suicide and car accidents firsthand in my own circle of friends. A small percentage of people are very susceptible to THC and literally go long-term clinically insane after even moderate use. I have seen this happen in our student home, this guy ended up offing himself. Another student was so addicted to the stuff he could no longer function without, and smoked everywhere, all the time. In public, in his car, during his "smoking breaks" at work. His track record included 4 totaled cars in as many years last I saw him, so far luckily without any major injuries to himself or others. So please please do not spout nonsense that marijuana is "safe". It probably is in most situations for most people, as most drugs, but not in general.

Re:And still

[mark_reh]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:And still

[james_gnz]

Driving while on drugs was associated with more deaths in 2015 than driving with alcohol in one's system ... marijuana accounted for 35% of positive tests reported

Pot smokers account for lots of driving deaths....

Maybe. However, the report notes:

A drug may be present at low levels without any impairing effects. Some drugs or metabolites may remain in the body for days or weeks, long after any impairment has disappeared. In particular, marijuana metabolites can be detected in the body for weeks after use. (p. 13)

And this table also seems relevant:

Risk level . . . . . . . | Relative risk. | Drug category
Slightly increased risk. | . . .1-3 . . . | marijuana
Medium increased risk. . | . . .2-10. . . | benzodiazepines, cocaine, opiods
Highly increased risk. . | . . .5-30. . . | amphetamines, multiple drugs
Extremely increased risk | . . 20-200 . . | alcohol together with drugs
(p. 14)

This is a summary of multiple studies that attempt to control for various factors in differing ways. It's unfortunate that alcohol isn't listed separately, but I think the numbers given are suggestive. And while I wouldn't consider an up to 3 fold crash risk "slightly increased", perhaps it's appropriate if alcohol is our standard.

Re:And still

[beerbear]

The etymology of the word assassin has nothing to do with the word hashish. That's an urban myth.

Re:And still

[mark_reh]

I call BS. What kind of job can anyone hold and smoke weed on breaks, and go back to work without everyone noticing that they smell like a skunk? Was this person picking strawberries? Did they work alone, maybe cleaning toilets? Security guard?

Re:And still

[denzacar]

https://www.etymonline.com/wor...

assassin (n.)

1530s (in Anglo-Latin from mid-13c.), via French and Italian, from Arabic hashishiyyin "hashish-users," plural of hashishiyy, from the source of hashish (q.v.).

A fanatical Ismaili Muslim sect of the mountains of Lebanon in the time of the Crusades, under leadership of the "Old Man of the Mountains" (translates Arabic shaik-al-jibal, name applied to Hasan ibu-al-Sabbah), they had a reputation for murdering opposing leaders after intoxicating themselves by eating hashish. The plural suffix -in was mistaken in Europe for part of the word (compare Bedouin). Middle English had the word as hassais (mid-14c.), from Old French hassasis, assasis, which is from the Arabic word.

You are confusing etymology with historical accuracy.

Re:And still

[pots]

"Marijuana is the safest illicit drug" most would readily agree with you

Not me. The Global Drug Survey attempts to quantify this by a few factors every year, and magic mushrooms and ecstasy are safer than marijuana by most of those factors. If you look at severity of dependence, cannabis is in the middle - not even close to the bottom.

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

That article is a utter mess.
Of drivers dying AND being tested, 37% had alcohol, 43% had drugs in their blood (data on overlap missing unfortunately, especially confusing as alcohol IS a drug).
The also have statistics on marijuana, but those seem to be from a general set of tests, not just those who had a fatal accident.
Thus the number of car deaths with marijuna involved can be anywhere between 0% and 43%.
Running with the general 35% of all drugs being marijuna (and assuming "drugs" excludes alcohol again), that would mean at most 15% of car accidents would be marijuna related, less than half of alcohol. Though the caveats are:
- of course far fewer people consume marijuna than alcohol, so you can't conclude that it's safer for driving than alcohol.
- most drugs are far stronger and this more likely to cause accidents, so that 15% is probably a vast over-estimate.
The last part of the article goes into further detail on why the numbers are just bollocks.

Re:And still

[Onymous Hero]

The two friends of mine who killed themselves due to marijuana-related psychosis would beg to differ with you.

Re:And still

[ArchieBunker]

Sounds like you had one too many drinks.

Re:And still

[ArchieBunker]

Find me someone who died from lung cancer caused by Marijuana use.

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

You may be interested in this NHSTA study, which found drugs had NOTHING to do with accidents.

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny... but wrong.

Unless you're too stoned to type "cannabis related deaths" in a browser.

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

https://familycouncil.org/?p=11795

Re:And still

[beerbear]

Sounds about right, thanks.

Re:And still

[markdavis]

>"Find me someone who died from lung cancer caused by Marijuana use."

That would anecdotal at best...

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

The other part is that research on pot has been very limited. There were no grants to work on illegal drugs. The Feds kept reputable researchers away from pot.
If someone died of lung cancer, and they smoked a cigarette, it was attributed to cigarettes.
The person who said "the number of Marijuana deaths is zero" must be high.

Re:And still

[butchersong]

It doesn't kill you it just slowly decreases your intelligence.

Re:And still

[Ol Olsoc]

Also, please call it cannabis instead of "marijuana," which has racist origins.

Oh fuck off with this tripe.

Now now, the kooks have to make their virtue signaling where they can ya know.

Calling Marijuana marijuana racism is almost as much fun to listen to as the cultural appropriation assholes - Guessing from your post you are British, no doubt you know about overly white chef Jamie Oliver's apparent cultural appropriation crime with his "Punchy Jerk Rice" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/fo...

Quickly citizens, get rid of all of the spices in your cupboards, the cultural appropriation police are coming!

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

>"the number of Marijuana deaths is zero."

That is just nonsense (and, actually, irresponsible). For one, ANYTHING you are doing that requires your peak senses and/or rationality will be negatively impacted by using Marijuana.

Not always negatively. Creativity is positively impacted. Mind you, my fortune has been earned because of something I created while high. Marijuana can give you powerful insights, no doubt about it.

Re: And still

[reanjr]

Plenty of people consume cannabis without smoking it. Where I live in CA, I'd say it's the majority. Smoking is passé.

Re: And still

[Anonymous Coward]

that's like saying cigarettes are 100% safe as long as you don't smoke them.

Re:And still

[Falos]

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.

Re: And still

[Evtim]

Funny you should mention that.
Considering alcohol is the only known drug that increases aggression (not in every user though).
My dad was a drinker. I'm a smoker and living in NL gives me direct observations of people smoking pot. I'd take the pot any day.
Of all the drugs in this world tobacco is the greatest killer and alcohol incures the greatest harm to society. This is not an oppinion but facts.
Funny how the two most damaging drugs are legal...

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure it will give you lung cancer. Tars and all that. The only reason we don't know that marijuana causes lung cancer is that there's no long term studies on exclusive smokers of pure marijuana.

Re: And still

[Anonymous Coward]

Smoking (pot, hashish) makes me nervous, alcohol joyful and outgoing. I'll take the alcohol any day because of cost, anyway. Which do I prefer, four bottles of wine and 10 Kg of food, or a few grams of shit to get high?
I'll go with the food and alcohol.

I'll go with the tobacco too but it is actually addictive, hence why I need it. Those assholes in my country doubled the price of tobacco and then almost doubled it again.. Which means I now always get sure to have an ample supply, because I can't rely on people giving it away to me anymore, but I haven't let go the habit of giving tobacco. A decade ago you could ask tobacco from homeless people and they would share theirs, not so much anymore. lol!
It's got more prestigious to have tobacco, but I have to go back to vapes.

Re: And still

[Green Mountain Bot]

Yet somehow it is not actually linked with increased risk of cancer.

Re: And still

[Green Mountain Bot]

There's a difference between being high and having cannabis metabolites in your system. The former lasts 3-5 hours. The latter lasts days or weeks.

Re:And still

[Green Mountain Bot]

... the level of THC in the blood and the degree of impairment do not appear to be closely related.

Re: And still

[cascadingstylesheet]

So cannabis smoke is, then, a carcinogen. Got it, thanks.

No no, there's something magical about it that makes it not possess the properties of smoke, doncha know??

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

tl;dr = "I'm a pimply-faced gamer living in my parents' basement."

Re:And still

[strikethree]

That is just nonsense (and, actually, irresponsible). For one, ANYTHING you are doing that requires your peak senses and/or rationality will be negatively impacted by using Marijuana.

Bear with me for a moment because this is going to be very unpopular: Marijuana, in specific doses, can actually heighten mental capabilities for people with a particular configuration of brain chemistry. Just like amphetamines, in specific doses, can make people sleepy when they have a particular brain chemistry.

Obviously, on a large scale, amphetamines hype people up and marijuana slows people down. It is good to view with suspicion anyone who claims they are exempt from the average but it is poor form to deny absolutely that they are exempt from the average.

Re: And still

[c6gunner]

There's a difference between being drunk and having alcohol metabolites in your system. The former lasts 6-8 hours. The latter lasts up to 90 days.

Re: And still

[Anonymous Coward]

You are misinformed. Your friend was psychologically fucked and pot just exacerbated his condition it earlier than if he didn't smoke. It's a well known issue. He would have had mental issues regardless.

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

Rare collectable Pepe gifs!

Re:And still

[HornWumpus]

There are many a pipe stashed in 'compressor rooms' and the like.

'Drop a wrench if a manager comes into the shop'. SOP

Pot is so strong these days, it just takes a tiny puff.

Re:And still

[Areyoukiddingme]

Calling Marijuana marijuana racism is almost as much fun to listen to as the cultural appropriation assholes - Guessing from your post you are British, no doubt you know about overly white chef Jamie Oliver's apparent cultural appropriation crime with his "Punchy Jerk Rice" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/fo...

Quickly citizens, get rid of all of the spices in your cupboards, the cultural appropriation police are coming!

That bullshit made me more irate than anything out of the SJW crowd. I first heard about it when I watched Neil Degrasse Tyson's conversation with Katy Perry and she commented that she didn't know that cultural appropriation was a thing. She was very sad about it. Unfortunately Dr. Tyson didn't know enough to tell her it's NOT.

Human culture is derived from human culture, and nobody fucking owns it. This has never been more true in the history of the world than since the establishment of the United States and its cultural melting pot, famous the world over for a century at least. The subsequent creation of the Internet has allowed every culture to see and interact with every other culture in real time, a guaranteed recipe for cross-cultural seepage.

My theory is the cultural appropriation police have arisen in response to a decline in organized religion. The busybodies who always want to tell everyone else what to do are still with us. They used to be part of some god-bothering cult. Now they're part of a people-bothering cult. Same shit, different day.

Re:And still

[Ol Olsoc]

That bullshit made me more irate than anything out of the SJW crowd. I first heard about it when I watched Neil Degrasse Tyson's conversation with Katy Perry and she commented that she didn't know that cultural appropriation was a thing. She was very sad about it. Unfortunately Dr. Tyson didn't know enough to tell her it's NOT.

To me it is beyond belief that people would think that, but make no mistake - it is truly mental illness. Most people find it charming that other people are interested in their culture. to wit:

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/...

A mother threw a party for her little girl, and the little girl dressed as a Geisha. Mom posted a picture of it. A cultural appropriation kook took her to task for her "racism". Finally a Japanese citizen verbally curb stomped "ginzers" for being the real racist, explaining that Japanese actually like other people showing an interest in their culture, and that the Japanese regularly adopt aspects of other cultures as a matter of course.

Human culture is derived from human culture, and nobody fucking owns it.

Exactly. And culture is a living sort of thing. If I want to make and eat pirogues, I can do it without offending the ginzers of the world because I have that in my so called heritage. But I don't have a bit of moor in me, so in ginzer's world I guess I can't enjoy it. I wonder how ginzers feels about Tex-Mex food? I can dress like a traditiaonal Ukranian, but not wear a serape? so many rules in the brave new world.

My theory is the cultural appropriation police have arisen in response to a decline in organized religion. The busybodies who always want to tell everyone else what to do are still with us. They used to be part of some god-bothering cult. Now they're part of a people-bothering cult. Same shit, different day.

That's a pretty good hypothesis. Those Cultural Appropriation police can kiss my fuzzy yellow butt.

Re:And still

[denzacar]

You're welcome.

Re:And still

[asackett]

Personal assertion stated as if fact.

Huh? I'd thought that by now anyone desiring an informed opinion about cannabis would have it. Cannabis is about as benign a plant as you'll find. The LD50 is about 1500 pounds consumed within 15 minutes.

Unlike ethanol, cannabis does not deny the user awareness of his degree of impairment, thus, driving while stoned is an irresponsible act more akin to driving while fatigued than like driving while drunk.

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

pgmrdlm, I am deeply impressed by your manly virile argumentation skills and pugilistic prowess.You are clearly a gentleman and a scholar.

Re:And still

[angel'o'sphere]

But first: you have to figure his IP!

Re:And still

[angel'o'sphere]

Well, on this planet assassin is connected to hashish. It literally means hashish smoker. No idea from which planet you are, though.

Re:And still

[angel'o'sphere]

Most Marijuana smokers mix it with tobacco.
So the number is likely very high, no idea why you ask such nonsense.

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

ok well fuck you, I don't driv and I use pot: i don't smoke it, i vaporize. Quit drinking all together. cannabis vapor is a really good, not terribly hazardous to health high. Driving when under the influence of anything is irresponsible, and taking everyone with stroke like that is dangerous and offensive. smoking is bad for you, regardless of what you smoke. Vapor and edibles bring you all kinds of joys alcohol can't, and without being hungover, maybe supplement with some mushrooms now and then. :)

All my life I've been told by drinkers how bad pot is for me and I've been telling them they are drinking poison/solvents, they have always laughed at me. This study confirms what the NHS in the UK found years ago: there is no safe level of alcohol. I've been a "pot head" for some 18 years. Everytime one of these studies conclude this exact thing i feel somewhat vindicated, but alas I know my friends and loved ones all drink, I dread the thought of their early demise. Liver health is super critical, alcohol is the biggest danger for cancer behind smoking tobacco in our society, but most people don't consider acetaminophen / paracetamol and what a double whammy it is on the liver when they take it for being hung over, having a headache, joint ache, yaydayada.
Alcohol has claimed 1 life in my family (cars accidents 1 life and one persons ability to walk), cigarettes 4. Weed 0. Other drugs: 0. Alcohol damn near killed me too 15 years ago. Good riddance. Society needs to make alcohol look less cool, because people ahve this idea it's cool, ok, or safe in limited amounts. It is not. Choose wisely, research your choice: Nothing good comes without effort, and it's not like everyone doesn't have the worlds biggest library at their fingertips.

Just because everyone else is doing something, it doesn't mean it's smart nor right nor the best choice. Just because something is legal don't make it safe, just because something is illegal it don't make it dangerous.

*THINK DIFFERENTLY - Try some drugs after you research them*

Also last i heard, Colorado has lethal lethal accidents now with more ppl stoned than drunk.
Did you know that swiss dropped overdose deaths from heroin to 0 after legalizing it and giving it out for free with therapy? Not everything works as you presume or other's want you to think. As a bonus swiss money no longer leaves to support terrorism and importing heroin has become unattractive as prices have sunk below pot (do not use heroin or opiates they are crazy dangerous.). This tactic would solve the opioid epidemic in the US almost over night. Heroin has killed most people i grew up with, some of them responsible for me living.

JUST DON'T DRINK ALCOHOL. WATER IS THE ONLY SOLVENT YOUR BODY SHOULD CONSUME.

#emmasofia

Re: And still

[Anonymous Coward]

typically drinker ignorance. You don't need to smoke cannabis, that is _one_ of many options for use. Many preer vapor or edibles. I prefer vapor. The drug laws are a work of racism initiated by Harry Anslinger and continued by Nixon, both knew they were lying, but they could get away with racism by labeling their users drugs..so asians got opium, blacks and hispanic got weed, and so on. There is no scientific basis for weed being banned, and it's only banned because anslinger or nixon got egypt to join in and say "hash is haram" cuz in Islam anything that fogs the mind is haram.

Please get a clue. This "cannabis is smoke" nonesense is simple-minded and ignorant, just like most people who drink are.Vapor is not smoke, edibles is not smoke, sublingual spray is not smoke.
Smoke requires something to be burning, and only smoking does that.

Reminds me of that police officer who busted me said: "Why don't have a few beers? Smoking is bad for you. Pot is really really bad for you." as he typed my statement hunt & peck style and I asked for the 5th time, officer, do you want me to type it up for you? He was sure that letting me on the computer would be dangerous.. if only he knew how ez i coulda stuck a simulated keyboard (using my phone) in the back of his computer from where i was sitting and completely fucked his day up. I disgress, my reply was "why don't you have some cyanide? it's natural! Some with every plum!".
Drink and put other people in danger and act like a complete ass = OK.
Possess 0.2g hash = get 24hrs solitary confinement, interrogation a fine and a permanent mark on your record.
Seems to me the biggest damage from pot is the one man has made to punish those who use it. Do you know anyone who has died from pot? Become violent? Ok, fuck of, ignorance makes me sick.

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

You are one ignorant dumb son of a bitch. I use pot regularly without smoking it. I think you killed too many brain cells drinking. Why don't you do everyone a favor and get a clue before you speak? People like you give us pot users a horrible time.

Re: And still

[Anonymous Coward]

We need a rule that people can be as obnoxious as drunk people are to drunk people.

Re:And still

[PopeRatzo]

ok well fuck you, I don't driv and I use pot: i don't smoke it, i vaporize. Quit drinking all together. cannabis vapor is a really good, not terribly hazardous to health high. Driving when under the influence of anything is irresponsible, and taking everyone with stroke like that is dangerous and offensive. smoking is bad for you, regardless of what you smoke. Vapor and edibles bring you all kinds of joys alcohol can't, and without being hungover, maybe supplement with some mushrooms now and then. :)

One thing vaping and edibles will never do, and that's make you not a raging asshole.

Also last i heard, Colorado has lethal lethal accidents now with more ppl stoned than drunk.

But 70% more typo typos.

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you want to smoke pot doesn't mean you can pretend that all the good reasons not to don't count.

Original AC poster here...

I don't consume THC. Haven't for 40 years.

I have worked with people who were stoned. And was amazed at how it was impossible to detect _any_ "inebriation". None. Zero. Across ten different people, and months of working with them. And it is not as if they were pretending to be stoned. They smoked at work. At times I saw and even smelled it. Regular workers, supervisor...you name it.

Re:And still

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, on this planet assassin is connected to hashish. It literally means hashish smoker.

No, the English loanword "assassin" has always meant killer.

It does trace its origins to an Arabic word that literally means "hashish smoker."

Re: And still

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, look at the eyes, man.

Re: And still

[Anonymous Coward]

Your assumptions are ridiculous and shows just how misinformed you are. Pot is banned in sports because it enhances senses. From mental focus to sensitivity to pain management. I think there's several more reasons.

Are you a fucking 90 year old lady or something? You seem to be just as clueless as the old coot who writes our local newspaper with the dumbest logic.

Re: And still

[Anonymous Coward]

Most? I've only heard of Americans doing this, presumably because they are poor or can't handle full strength weed.

I've never seen it in 25 years in Canada. Only hash oil. Mixing pot with tobacco would be a party foul for everyone I know.

Did they study...

[Anonymous Coward]

...how many ugly people got laid because of alcohol?

And how many babies got made because of alcohol?

I wonder if the number of lives created by alcohol's ability to facilitate sex is greater than the number of deaths it causes.

Re:Did they study...

[Snotnose]

...how many ugly people got laid because of alcohol?

According to my sample size of 1, about 12. Not counting myself.

And how many babies got made because of alcohol?

According to my sample size of 1, about 0. That I know of. And I'd know, else I'd have changed states sometime in the past 55 years.

Re:Did they study...

[rtb61]

Now, were they good babies that turned into good citizens or were they produced by the genes of the lazy incompetent losers, born with alchohol damage to boot and raised quite 'er' indifferently and went on to become very unproductive custodial existences after leaving a trail of victims. Just saying, alchohol probably not the best thing for effective family planning. Taking those actual lives into account, probably killed more people again on top as a result of the extremely poor breeding outcomes. I would think it would be sound to provide free intoxicating substances to the people, as long as birth control drugs where incorporated there in and make planning family more important than drunken fucking.

Re:Did they study...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugly people shouldn't breed. It is unhealthy for the population.

Re:Did they study...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if the number of lives created by alcohol's ability to facilitate sex is greater than the number of deaths it causes.

"On average, there seems to be a net positive effect in some aspect, so who cares about any harm along the way?" ... says every libertarian ever, every time.

Re:Did they study...

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you have a thing against the rich and successful in America where the alcoholism and drug consumption levels are both amongst the highest in our society. I guess also that I'd agree - they suck as citizens and their children do obviously suffer much damage. Without Mama and Daddy's money, they'd mostly be in the gutter.

Re:Did they study...

[The Evil Atheist]

You shouldn't impose your lifestyle choice on others.

Re:Did they study...

[Camel Pilot]

The babies created by people who drink alcohol will generally be disposed to drink alcohol themselves.... on and on.

I wonder if there isn't some sort of extended phenotype here?

Re:Did they study...

[Maxo-Texas]

And they will start a great Youtube Channel called the "Try" channel.

*Fact Channel.. R.I.P.

Re:Did they study...

[Anonymous Coward]

More ugly people isn't a good thing. Perhaps you like living in a world in which only 5% of the female population are attractive (if that), and that's just in white societies. Go to India and see what the proportion is - probably 0.5% (some Indian women are very beautiful, but there is a HUGE proportion of 'underclass' ugly types there.)
Ugly people are mutants. Deviations from what is natural in the human body.
Imagine if all the ugly people in the world stopped having children, for just ONE generation. Yes, the human race would dramatically decrease in size (which is a GOOD thing), but the entire next generation would be beautiful.
By the way, I know two sets of parents, friends of mine, who aren't beautiful (but they aren't repulsive, just plain looking, like me), who have had beautiful children, or at least one beautiful child, so I know it happens, but statistically beautiful people are far more likely to have beautiful children.

Re:Did they study...

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back to Argentina, Adolf.

Re:Did they study...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am. One person at a time.

Re:Did they study...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, were they good babies that turned into good citizens or were they produced by the genes of the lazy incompetent losers, born with alchohol damage to boot and raised quite 'er' indifferently and went on to become very unproductive custodial existences after leaving a trail of victims. Just saying, alchohol probably not the best thing for effective family planning. Taking those actual lives into account, probably killed more people again on top as a result of the extremely poor breeding outcomes. I would think it would be sound to provide free intoxicating substances to the people, as long as birth control drugs where incorporated there in and make planning family more important than drunken fucking.

I support a number of people with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and they are generally lovely people who are well liked by those around them. You're a worthless alt-right piece of shit whose only function is to spurt more venom into this sad little fascist echo-chamber. I would take one of them over ten of you.

Re:Did they study...

[spire3661]

This is a 'Eugenic' view of life. My purpose is not to serve society.

Re:Did they study...

[lurcher]

"but statistically beautiful people are far more likely to have beautiful children."

So where did all these ugly people you talk about come from?

Re:Did they study...

[Anonymous Coward]

Given your sample size of twelve, can you give a risk ratio of any of those 12 contacting you if the baby outcome was not 0?

You've already described the criteria as unpleasant, 'ugly' being the label, so I'm wondering if that has something to do with this outcome.

Either way, we're gonna need more data here!

Re:Did they study...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugly people shouldn't breed. It is unhealthy for the population.

Then why are you allowed to be here?

Re:Did they study...

[Anonymous Coward]

...how many ugly people got laid because of alcohol?

And how many babies got made because of alcohol?

I wonder if the number of lives created by alcohol's ability to facilitate sex is greater than the number of deaths it causes.

Your words ring hollow to anyone who's seen what fetal alcohol syndrome can do.

Re:Did they study...

[fedos]

More importantly: how delicious were they?

Re: Did they study...

[TimMD909]

Your sample size seems large enough for a press release in today's standards.

Re:Did they study...

[HornWumpus]

Take one trip to Walmart. You are sure to see at least one mother that is unfuckable, absent booze. Even in total and complete darkness.

Are we merely plants?

[Anonymous Coward]

Plants grow better in hydroponic conditions with carefully calibrated nutrient solution and perfect amounts of light and carbon dioxide. They thrive, but their roots are weak.

We can min-max humans the same way, prioritizing lifespan above all else. Remove all risk and danger, anything harmful to the body. Clearly it's irrational to hurt yourself in any way, so why allow it?

I'm not saying there aren't issues with excessive alcohol consumption, but fearmongering and efforts to create government policy restricting it are naive and don't address the issue of why people drink in the first place.

Re: Are we merely plants?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if there's a correlation with alcohol prohibition and increases in violence. Guess it could go either way. But people need escapes from the pressures of everyday life. Ask this talk about mental health lately doesn't even touch on the subject of helping people chill out and reset.

Re:Are we merely plants?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've avoiding living the life can make me die at 90 (say), and living it reduces my lifespan to 75... I'd rather enjoy life. From 70 years of age I'll probably be unwillingly shitting myself and I'd rather keep that prospect short.

Re:Are we merely plants?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're starting to pave the way for Sharia Law; first to go, alcohol. Even light to moderate amounts of alcohol will be demonized. Get used to this, you'll see and hear more of it in the future as the machine spins up. Already high taxes on spirits will be raised higher; then, hard alcohol will be tightly restricted, then altogether banned. Next, wine and beer. Concurrent with this will be more scares of skin cancer, advising people (particularly women) to cover up and not show skin . Hajibs will be the "in" fashion in 12 years.
I'm sort of joking, but afraid that maybe my tongue-in-cheek predictions won't be that far off.

Re:Are we merely plants?

[HornWumpus]

That's not generally how it works. The last few years will suck, no matter how old you are when they arrive. Most people that make it to 90 are pretty healthy at 85.

Re:Are we merely plants?

[vakuona]

Plants grow better in hydroponic conditions with carefully calibrated nutrient solution and perfect amounts of light and carbon dioxide. They thrive, but their roots are weak.

Doesn't this just how that the plants are "smart" for the lack of a better word? Why bother expending energy to grow roots when you can obtain adequate nutrients without them?

The obligatory car analogy - you don't need a super-powerful engine in a car to achieve high speed on an downward sloping road (decline).

Want to bet the researchers couldn't get a date

[pgmrdlm]

Want to bet these researchers couldn't pick up a date if their life depended on it. They have no life, and are jealous of others that actually do. They don't even have to be religious, just jealous little pin heads. Yes, drinking to excess. Just like everything else is unhealthy. But social, 1/2 drinks with dinner and your other. WTF. Wonder if these numb nuts looked at people that exercise, have active life styles, watch their intake of everything, and live to be a ripe old age with out any disease were even factored in to this research. Again, pin heads that couldn't fuck a cardboard toilet roll because they are such losers.

Re:Want to bet the researchers couldn't get a date

[Anonymous Coward]

You argument is ironic.
Alcohol consumption is mainly used for "Dutch" courage so socially inept people can interact with the opposite gender.
It sure as fuck isn't because it tastes good.

Re:Want to bet the researchers couldn't get a date

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, get angry at the scientists that tell you their findings that you don't like.
You must be real popular with the ladies...you big stud.

Re:Want to bet the researchers couldn't get a date

[UnknownSoldier]

> It sure as fuck isn't because it tastes good.

You DO realize that there is good tasting alcohol, right?

Why would drink the stuff that tastes like crap??

Re:Want to bet the researchers couldn't get a date

[Scarletdown]

Probably most Airman fresh out of USAF boot camp and far enough into their tech school that they are allowed to drink. (Unless Air Training Command had since banned all alcohol for non prior service at tech schools since I retired.)

Then again, I discovered the secret to alcohol fixes in boot camp... Go to the Lutheran chapel service on Sunday. When I was in, they used real wine, and we couldn't get busted for that.

Re:Want to bet the researchers couldn't get a date

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, you write to the Lancet and let them know what they've overlooked. No one's comin' for yer guns and beeers, you silly little man.

Re:Want to bet the researchers couldn't get a date

[Tough Love]

I will bet that you can't get a date and that parties are more fun without you.

Re:Want to bet the researchers couldn't get a date

[Anonymous Coward]

Want to bet these researchers couldn't pick up a date if their life depended on it. They have no life, and are jealous of others that actually do. They don't even have to be religious, just jealous little pin heads. Yes, drinking to excess. Just like everything else is unhealthy. But social, 1/2 drinks with dinner and your other. WTF.

Wonder if these numb nuts looked at people that exercise, have active life styles, watch their intake of everything, and live to be a ripe old age with out any disease were even factored in to this research.

Again, pin heads that couldn't fuck a cardboard toilet roll because they are such losers.

I'm sorry that your substance abuse problem makes you so angry. I was an addict because I really enjoyed the drugs. Why not just rage-quit life altogether?

Re:Want to bet the researchers couldn't get a date

[houghi]

I have friends who do not drink, because they do not like it or because they do not like the feeling.
So they do not drink alcoholic beverages.

Even when I am drunk, I will NEVER force or try to entice people who say no to alcohol for whatever reason and will even speak up if others tell them to drink 'or be a wussy' or whatever they try to do to convice them.

I like drinking. I even like sometimes being very drunk. That does not mean that others do like it or do not like it. That is up to them.

And sometimes I like not to drinkl as well. And if they try to make fun of me, they get it coming.

So if a person does not like the taste for whatever reason. I say OK, do not drink that then.
Hey, some people do not like fish. Who am I to judge? I am not going around and try to convice them there is good tasting fish.

Re:Want to bet the researchers couldn't get a date

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the world enjoys the taste of alcohol.

Either you are a child ( children don't like the taste of alcohol, which is why they drink things that mask the booze like vodka and coke), an American (whose tastebuds are so childlike that think that Hersheys is chocolate and Bud is beer) or you are an outlier.

I'm guessing the former. You will most likely grow into the taste.

There are many enjoyable forms of alcohol. Decent red wine, good lager, good bitter, good ale, good stout, good brandy, and so on,.

Re:Want to bet the researchers couldn't get a date

[Daralantan]

Yes, drinking to excess. Just like everything else is unhealthy.

This reminds me of seeing an article about a study the other day saying that coconut oil was dangerous for you. Basically it boiled down to "If you have a lot it's still bad for you!!!!1111" But the article was titled something along the lines of "Researcher says coconut oil is more dangerous than poison!"

Re:Want to bet the researchers couldn't get a date

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would drink the stuff that tastes like crap??

To get drunk.

My main requirement was that it didn't make me sick either going down or when I woke up.

But if you're drinking just to get drunk you really should stop. I've quit numerous times and am currently on another sobriety binge. I woke up an hour ago (way before the sun) and I feel much better than if I had drank last night.

I'm one of those who can't seem to only drink one or two. So no matter how badly this study was done or presented I'm taking the headline to heart.

Sober I feel better both physically and mentally, I'm less stupid, I can remember things better, I sleep better, I eat better, I exercise...well, not at all, but at least I do more than sit around drinking and going to the liquor store.

And usually the quality of my /. posts is better (and I don't accidentally leave the subject out of sentences as often).

Re:Want to bet the researchers couldn't get a date

[Cederic]

If I could get something that tastes like schnapps and didn't make me drunk or fat I'd drink a hell of a lot of it.

It's mostly the sugar content that puts me off.

Re:Want to bet the researchers couldn't get a date

[Anonymous Coward]

> It sure as fuck isn't because it tastes good.

You DO realize that there is good tasting alcohol, right?

Why would drink the stuff that tastes like crap??

I agree. My motto is "Life is too short to drink cheap booze." Cheap meaning crap, not necessarily inexpensive.

Re:Want to bet the researchers couldn't get a date

[Anonymous Coward]

You DO realize that there is good tasting alcohol, right?

No, there is only alcohol that people have trained themselves to like. The stuff is inherently nasty, but you can learn to like some of it. Much of it is too nasty to ever be good.

Re:Want to bet the researchers couldn't get a date

[eth1]

> It sure as fuck isn't because it tastes good.

You DO realize that there is good tasting alcohol, right?

Why would drink the stuff that tastes like crap??

No there's not... Ethanol is ethanol, and it's awful.

There's just ways of covering up the taste that work better than others.

Re:Want to bet the researchers couldn't get a date

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, ethanol itself has no flavor.

Re:Want to bet the researchers couldn't get a date

[HornWumpus]

There is only coffee that people have trained themselves to like...

Even kids like sweet wine, but don't give it to them.

Re:Want to bet the researchers couldn't get a date

[HornWumpus]

What? You have never, in your life, tasted Vodka?

Vodka is science, 'just' pure ethanol and water *. If you spend more than about $12 on a bottle, you are a pretentious chump.

Other hard liquors are art.

* never say this around Ruskys, unless you are ready to fight. Also never tell them Vodka was invented by the Polish.

Re:Want to bet the researchers couldn't get a date

[HornWumpus]

Most children like sweet white wine (Gewurztraminer, speatlazel, bad Champaign etc). Tastes like 7up. Don't give it to them.

Re:Want to bet the researchers couldn't get a date

[angel'o'sphere]

There are as many kins of Vodka as there are kinds of Whiskey ...
And they have a similar far spectrum of taste and flavour (made from different grains or potato).

I always thought Vodka was invented by the Finns ... never mind.

Re:Want to bet the researchers couldn't get a date

[HornWumpus]

Nonsense.

Vodka is _pure_ ethanol and water. The purer the better. It's science, not art.

Re:Want to bet the researchers couldn't get a date

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to break it to you, but vodka really doesn't have any flavor. That's why flavored vodka was invented.

Re:Want to bet the researchers couldn't get a date

[angel'o'sphere]

If that is the case in your country, I don't want to drink your vodkas.

Hence the Ban on Pot

[rtb61]

So you know exactly why the alchohol companies spent so much to keep pot banned. Also the amount of profit generated by the alchohol industries is greater than the cost of the damage caused by alchohol, privative the profit, socialise the loss.

Re:Hence the Ban on Pot

[smi.james.th]

Well, parts of the profit are socialised as well. No government will advise citizens not to drink at all because they all get a juicy "sin tax" on the sale of alcohol.

Re:Hence the Ban on Pot

[Anonymous Coward]

You're being a cunt on the internet, your own decision. Were we to employ your solution, you would be brutally murdered, instantly.

Re:Hence the Ban on Pot

[Anonymous Coward]

the alchohol companies

It appears one of the industry representatives was hitting the alcohol too hard and forgot how to spell the word, alcohol.

Re:Hence the Ban on Pot

[Anonymous Coward]

A large number of governments advise their citizens not to drink. Muslim countries and those influenced by the church of Latter Day Saints discourage drinking without regard for lost revenue. A number of countries in Muslim areas provide very serious penalties for drinking.

Re: Hence the Ban on Pot

[Anonymous Coward]

Exmormon here. Mormons are fucking weird...

Re:Hence the Ban on Pot

[famebait]

In countries with sane healthcare the costs from alcohol related problems easily outweights the tax revenue from it.

Re:Hence the Ban on Pot

[Oligonicella]

Link to some stats for your spurious claim please.

Re:Hence the Ban on Pot

[Kjella]

Well, parts of the profit are socialised as well. No government will advise citizens not to drink at all because they all get a juicy "sin tax" on the sale of alcohol.

Uh, prohibition? "Dry" counties? Many muslims countries outlaw alcohol too. For many the juicy sin taxes are a compromise because they don't want to go back to the speakeasies and Al Capone, but they'd kill it if they could. They'd always find something else to tax.

Re:Hence the Ban on Pot

[Anonymous Coward]

> No government will advise citizens not to drink at all because they all get a juicy "sin tax" on the sale of alcohol.

In Hungary the incumbent government decreed every adult citizen has the right to distill at home, free of any tax or charges, a yearly 50 liters (~152 soda cans) of palinka. It's a fermented fruit spirit, usually made of plum, cherry or peach and roughly comparable in effect to whiskey or vodka. The European Union wasn't amused and started a legal proceeding.

Re:Hence the Ban on Pot

[Anonymous Coward]

Alcohol companies pay well to keep pot illegal so that they can kill their own customers. The more people die from alcohol consumption (directly or indirectly), the more raw power they gain from Once their power levels exceed 9000, they'll go kill the rest of us with kamehameha waves and shit.

Re:Hence the Ban on Pot

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately I don't know the details of that one, but distilling at home is usually considered a health and safety risk.
Even though it used to be (even is?) a popular "sport" in Sweden, despite being illegal.
In Germany you could even distill essentially for free (it was more complex than that, you got a little bit of money which offset some amount of the cost of the distillery) in exchange for giving half the alcohol to the state.
A nice side effect was that if you had good relations with the distillery you could get the "waste" (methanol etc) for free, which is really great for killing of mold and cleaning (just make sure you have nobody in your household who might try to drink it!).

Re:Hence the Ban on Pot

[Anonymous Coward]

The government health spokesperson in the UK (although not the government minister - there's a split) has indeed advised people not to drink at all.

Re:Hence the Ban on Pot

[Anonymous Coward]

Not like the longer you live, the more taxes you incur or anything

Re:Hence the Ban on Pot

[thegarbz]

Also the amount of profit generated by the alchohol industries is greater than the cost of the damage caused by alchohol

Only because an incredible number of laws banning the use of alcohol in certain scenarios and to certain amounts in an effort to protect people from themselves.

Re: Hence the Ban on Pot

[reanjr]

There are enough Mormons around so that their "weird" becomes simply "quirky".

Re:Hence the Ban on Pot

[Anonymous Coward]

what I found interesting in Jordan was that, being a mixed muslim/christian/jewish nation they allow liquor stores and there really wasn't anything stopping a muslim from partaking (although IIRC muslim ownership was prohibited, but all that does is create silent partners)

Re: Hence the Ban on Pot

[HornWumpus]

Until the last Mormon leaves the room. Then they go straight back to 'crazy'.

Re:Hence the Ban on Pot

[HornWumpus]

Outlawed for drinking, but available for 'medicinal uses' in places like Iran.

They all have bootlegging 'opportunities'. Every single one.

Re:Hence the Ban on Pot

[HornWumpus]

Missouri too. Though I think the limit is something like 5 gallons/year.

Distilling at home isn't hard, I pulled it off at 15. Throw away the first 5% and don't try and squeeze the last drop out of the mash.

bye

[Anonymous Coward]

I support the murder of anyone who tries to raise taxes to nanny me out of living my life.

Re:bye

[pgmrdlm]

Agree with you. The taxes fuck the poor, not anyone else. But these nanny's don't give a fuck about that.

Re:bye

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a vice tax retard, if anything their lives are being extended by not drinking the alcohol they "can't afford", as if that were even true you dumb cunt old dry drunk lol. Fought any other bums tonight yet? Not yet?

Re:bye

[Opportunist]

Excuse me, could I have that again? Taxes fuck the poor? Oh that's gonna be great, explain please!

Re:bye

[Gavagai80]

The theory is simple. All poor people are drunkards, which is why they can't get a decent job. To help them out, we should remove all taxes on alcohol and instead tax organic cruelty-free foods which rich people tend to buy.

This theory brought to you by the same people who keep America's gas taxes lower than anywhere in the civilized world so that the lower classes can afford to live further from their jobs and enjoy longer commutes and help keep the oil flowing and the planet warming.

Re:bye

[Anonymous Coward]

This theory brought to you by the same people who keep America's gas taxes lower than anywhere in the civilized world so that the lower classes can afford to live further from their jobs and enjoy longer commutes and help keep the oil flowing and the planet warming.

You should look into the difference in housing and apartment prices between downtown locations and suburb locations. I'll give you a hint: there's a reason why there are suburbs.

But you're right on the gas tax. It's just like a flat sales tax, but it's way steeper.

Re:bye

[Oligonicella]

The grasp of cause and effect boggles.

Re:bye

[bluefoxlucid]

If you drink X amount of alcohol in Y time, you die.

If you're rich, X amount of alcohol costs a small percentage of your income.

If you're poor, X amount of alcohol costs a large percentage of your income.

A tax on alcohol thus reflects less of a rich person's income than a poor person's income at a given level of intake; and the level of intake is bounded by death.

Alcohol taxes are on alcohol, generally, and so cheap 40% vodka faces the same tax as expensive 40% whiskey. In some states, the alcohol tax is a sales tax, so the expensive whiskey actually carries a higher tax.

This is very, very old news.

[Mr. Dollar Ton]

About as old as the news that practically all "research" that touts "benefits" from alcohol consumption in whatever forms has been sponsored by the alcoholic beverage industry.

But alcohol is an opium for the masses, it is very addictive, and selling addictive stuff that calms you down is good business, both for those who produce it and for those who have to keep the political peace.

Small wonder vodka's price in Russia always goes down when the elite gets themselves in political hot water ;)

Re: This is very, very old news.

[Anonymous Coward]

Should have been "dumbs you down", but otherwise good points.

Re: This is very, very old news.

[Anonymous Coward]

Population studies have shown for years that light drinkers live years longer than non drinkers. Does not show cause and effect, just a correlation.

Re:This is very, very old news.

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the studies showing a positive effect is the one mentioned here soo... they do note that the negative side effects eclipse the positive ones resulting in a net negative effect, but there are beneficial effects nonetheless.

Re:This is very, very old news.

[Anonymous Coward]

They query Thee about strong drinks and gambling.
    Say, "In them both be terrible sin,
    and something of benefits for men.
    But the sin in both is greater than the benefit of both."
Qur'an 2: 219

Re: This is very, very old news.

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, "the negative effects eclipse the positive" is a nice euphemism for "it is bad for you".

Re:This is very, very old news.

[Tough Love]

all "research" that touts "benefits" from alcohol consumption in whatever forms has been sponsored by the alcoholic beverage industry.

Not all. I have extensively researched the matter myself, with a sample size of one.

Re:This is very, very old news.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where have you published?

Re:This is very, very old news.

[Tough Love]

You just read it.

Re:This is very, very old news.

[Oligonicella]

sponsored by the alcoholic beverage industry

Just a few of those doing those 'alcohol industry backed' studies:

The School of Public Health at Harvard University
Catholic University of Campobasso
Kew-Kim Chew, epidemiologist, University of West Australia
Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University
Edward J. Neafsey, Ph.D., Loyola University Chicago
University of East Anglia

There are more. It looks like, according to you, the six universites above are in the pocket of the alcohol industry. Your claim, now go about backing it up.

Re:This is very, very old news.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, let's see...

[1] Claim: "Possible Health Benefits of Alcohol". Conditional on balancing risks and benefits. No disclosure on funding.
[2] Not accessible in Europe
[3] Conclusion: "Our findings suggest a modest negative association between alcohol consumption and ED". Conflict of interest: research done for Pfizer, interested in selling ED medicine, not reduction in ED.
[4] No beneficial effects discussed, not sure why it is even brought up.
[5] Not accessible in Europe
[6] No doi, so can't tell what the article is actually saying or who's funding.

Sounds like you don't understand very well the articles you've read.

Re:This is very, very old news.

[Anonymous Coward]

Gambling is addiction to random events. Religion is addiction to random events.

Re:This is very, very old news.

[Anonymous Coward]

Gambling is addiction to random events. Religion is addiction to random events.

A tautology. If there is no truth to religion, all that remains of reality is happenstance.

Without alcohol

[Anonymous Coward]

there are no Darwin awards; think of what that means for our evolution.

Re:Without alcohol

[novakyu]

But then, without alcohol, our gene pool would be far less ... diverse. Think of what that means for our evolution. #NotMeToo

This is stupid.

[Grog6]

The spread of the tech to make alcohol in various forms predates christianity, and roughly follows the spread of civilization.

Alcohol has obviously never caused problems before; somewhat like Opium, Cocaine, Maruhuana, or Barbituates.

If it's all new, everyday, we learn nothing as a society.

Re:This is stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

The scientific method also existed for a while, (not THAT long..) but they didn't have double-blind statistical studies to determine things about diet/lifestyle to this degree. Are you sure YOU simply aren't learning things?

Re:This is stupid.

[Scarletdown]

Now this has me wondering something.

Did Mel Brooks fuck up on an important fact with the Mighty Joint scene in History of the World?

I honestly can't remember if the plants Josephus was handling were in vegetative phase or if they were budding? If the former, then the smoke should not have caused the Romans to go biblical and get stoned. Or was the joint big enough that the traces of THC that may have been in the leaves made enough whee for a good hit?

Re:This is stupid.

[whoever57]

It's use isn't even limited to humans.

Fruit will sometimes occasionally ferment, due to random yeast spores and animals will eat the fruit and with it the alcohol.

Ever seen a bunch of drunk animals in your back yard? I have.

Re: This is stupid.

[c6gunner]

A drunk squirrel try to climb a tree is one of the funniest damn things I've ever seen.

Re:This is stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean "never caused problems before"? People were living like 35 years on average and had no idea what cirrhosis is. How do you know that there were no problems? Now, this is stupid.

Re:This is stupid.

[Mr. Dollar Ton]

There is no "scientific method", this is a red herring.

Re:This is stupid.

[Solandri]

The spread of the tech to make alcohol in various forms predates christianity, and roughly follows the spread of civilization.

Alcohol correlates with the spread of civilization because water in skins, pots, or barrels goes bad after a few days. But people figured out that adding alcohol to the water kept it good for months (we now know that it's because alcohol inhibits the growth of bacteria).

Long-term water storage thanks to alcohol is what enabled long-distance travel and exploration. Without it, you needed to find a potable water source or there had to be rain every 3 days, or you'd die. Which strongly discourages people from moving beyond familiar territory. Civilized people may have enjoyed getting drunk, but that wasn't why alcohol helped civilization to spread..

Re: This is stupid.

[Opportunist]

No, the funniest thing ever is the same squirrel the next day, shambling about with a hangover the size of Albuquerque.

Re: This is stupid.

[Oligonicella]

Nope. That footage of the giraffe with a hangover in the persimmon grove beats all.

Re:This is stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you actually believe that alcohol was intentionally developed to keep water from going bad?

Alcohol was discovered completely BY ACCIDENT in almost every civilization in the world. If it was added to water to keep it from going bad, this was an afterthought and a side-benefit...

When the grain or fruit these ancient peoples were storing got wet and fermented, or went bad in the heat and started fermenting it contained alcohol... Because food was hard to obtain, even bad or partially bad foods tended to be consumed.

When people ate or drank foods that had "turned" or fermented, and they all got shitfaced, they realized what happened and decided to do it all over again the next time...

Purely accidental. In just about every civilization.

Highest ristk

[zm]

The biggest causes of death linked to alcohol in younger people were tuberculosis

So... the highest alcohol-related death risk is a bacterial infection? Wat?

Re:Highest ristk

[Archangel Michael]

Alcohol isn't as dangerous on its own. They included the results of risky behavior and impaired operation of machines. That is like saying getting a blowjob is dangerous, because they included accidents caused while getting a blowjob while driving.

While I am sure that certain activities while impaired are more dangerous (driving), I would suggest that being stupid is dangerous, and alcohol makes one dumber than before. They don't call it "Beer goggles" for no reason.

Re:Highest ristk

[Anonymous Coward]

"Alcohol isn't as dangerous on its own." It causes cancer, 27% of deaths over 50 men related, according to TFS. I imagine you could die giving a blowjob, you seem kinda dumb for lying about the risks of alcohol consumption.

I drink, I have no need to lie or downplay it. Grow a pair seriously.

Re:Highest ristk

[Anonymous Coward]

"Alcohol isn't as dangerous on its own." It causes cancer ...

So do blowjobs, if the guy has HPV.

Re:Highest ristk

[David_Hart]

Alcohol isn't as dangerous on its own. They included the results of risky behavior and impaired operation of machines. That is like saying getting a blowjob is dangerous, because they included accidents caused while getting a blowjob while driving.

While I am sure that certain activities while impaired are more dangerous (driving), I would suggest that being stupid is dangerous, and alcohol makes one dumber than before. They don't call it "Beer goggles" for no reason.

A lot of well researched studies have indications that some alcohol is actually good for you (i.e. a glass of wine with dinner) which seems to directly contradict the final conclusions of this study. There is clear evidence that over-drinking results in higher health risks, both personally (liver disease, etc.) and for others (driving drunk). However, they also seem to have included any other bad correlations, no matter how weak, from other studies (i.e. cancer). It's like saying that living can cause cancer so we should abstain. Maybe that's a bit overboard, but the study strikes me as being a tad broad in it's conclusions which leads me to question their methods and where the money came from?

Personally, I don't drink much outside of the occasional glass of wine with dinner or a drink when out with friends.

Re:Highest ristk

[Maxo-Texas]

Alcohol is pretty bad on it's own in terms of killing you by having too much too often.

But, prohibiting alcohol has been found to be terribly destructive to people, property, and incredibly corruptive to law enforcement officers, judges, and congressional representatives (as well as governors).

Prohibiting drugs has produced huge numbers of murders.

Re:Highest ristk

[mr.mctibbs]

TB drugs cause liver toxicity with alcohol, its early symptoms have a lot in common with hangovers, and excessive alcohol use impairs your immune symptoms. Taken together, alcoholics become a lot more vulnerable to TB, which is otherwise pretty treatable.

I knew it!

[Anonymous Coward]

All alcohol is bad; just like all smoking is bad, all manner of food except select vegetables are bad, and too much free thought is bad.

Time to crawl back under my rock and take only shallow breaths for the rest of my life so I don't make a bigger carbon footprint either.

Re:I knew it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Marrying cute little girls is also bad.

Anything bad for MUH WHITE WUUUUMAN is bad.
Man is a mule for MUUUHHH WHITE WUUUMAN.

Prohibition v2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

Gosh, someone failed to study history. People want their booze and nothing will stop them from getting it.

With no regard of basic biology

[Anonymous Coward]

Those so-called 'researchers' could be from some anti-alcohol cult

They disregard a basic fact of biology --- metabolism

Re:With no regard of basic biology

[Scarletdown]

Those so-called 'researchers' could be from some anti-alcohol cult

You mean fundamental / evangelical Christianity?

Re:With no regard of basic biology

[HornWumpus]

Just the ones that 'found' a booze prohibition that's printed in invisible ink...Baptists and their spinoffs. (Punchline Baptist #1 says 'die heretic' and pushes Baptist #2 off the bridge.)

Is it though?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's my counter argument.

https://youtu.be/1cGEe2makeM?t=5m39s

Anyone else notice

[Anonymous Coward]

The rise of anti alcohol studies and the rise of both feminists and jihadists.

I am not saying they are the same. But they both hate alcohol and white men.

Re:Anyone else notice

[Opportunist]

I'd rather expect a rise of alcohol consumption with more feminist studies.

I mean, some of those things read like whoever wrote them was at the very least not sober.

Re:Anyone else notice

[Anonymous Coward]

Feminists drink, heavily.

Sounds like a terrible study.

[Anonymous Coward]

The summary is this:

First, we consolidated 694 individual and population-level data sources to estimate alcohol consumption levels among current drinkers. Second, we developed a method to adjust population-level consumption for alcohol consumed by tourists. Third, we improved pre-existing methods that account for unrecorded population-level consumption. Fourth, we did a new systematic review and meta-analysis of alcohol use and 23 associated health outcomes, which we used to estimate new dose–response curves of relative risk. Fifth, using the new relative risk curves and a new analytical method, we estimated the exposure of alcohol consumption that minimises an individual's total attributable risk.

Which just sounds like a lot of malarkey.

So they combined a bunch of data sources together (likely of very different quality, measures, etc), massaged it together to "estimate population level consumption by tourists", the massaged it a bit more, made some more estimates here and there... and BOOM alcohol is resposible for x% of cancer!

This is the kind of stuff that gives science a bad name. Where's the control? There isn't any. This barely qualifies as science.

People aren't going to stop drinking. We tried that already, and it didn't work out so well. It just feels too damn good to have a drink now and a again after the day is over. It's worth it! Frankly even if have a 10% increase in cancer from 1 drink a day, I'll take it. Do I really care if I have a 11% chance of cancer with an occasional drink vs an 10% chance of cancer with zero?

Realistically it just can't be THAT bad for you since we'd see large effects between drinkers and non-drinkers. Smoking, for instance increases your chance of lung cancer (over your lifetime) by a factor of 17. That is, smokers have about a 17% lifetime chance of getting lung cancer, and non-smokers have a 1% chance. That's HUGE, and the kind of thing we should be concerned about. But alcohol? Nonsense, the effect just can't be very big, or else we'd see it more obviously in the existing data.

If they really wanted to study this, take some similar populations. Study Mormons vs Ex-Mormons, or practicing vs non-practicing Muslims. But don't take data from 694 different studies and then do some weird data manipulation on it. Quite honestly, how do they know if they're right, or they just managed to tweak the data in the right way?

Re:Sounds like a terrible study.

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't read the study, you read a summary and said "malarkey" = you're an old Fox News turd without a science background. Your suggestions aren't similar populations you retarded git, and they DID controls. It's a massive study.

You're a fucking moron on the basis of your post alone.

Re:Sounds like a terrible study.

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading through these comments, including your own... Aside from the UI, I'd have a difficult time distinguishing between FoxNews and Slashdot.

Re:Sounds like a terrible study.

[Oligonicella]

Quite honestly, how do they know if they're right, or they just managed to tweak the data in the right way?

Oh, I'd put money on their tweaking the data "the right way".

Re:Sounds like a terrible study.

[cascadingstylesheet]

or practicing vs non-practicing Muslims.

Yeah, good luck with that. Theoretically being against alcohol as you chug one down in the strip club (see the 9/11 guys) is not the same as actually abstaining.

Re:Sounds like a terrible study.

[Anonymous Coward]

Which just sounds like a lot of malarkey.

No, it's standard statistical methodology, with a long history and well-supported through repeated testing. It's also really complex.

Re:Sounds like a terrible study.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wanna know where TB comes into the picture.

Re:Sounds like a terrible study.

[Anonymous Coward]

And on top of that, the difference that they found between zero alcohol consumption and 1 drink a day was 0.00004%. Yes, that's right, if you drink one glass of wine a day, you are more likely to get cancer (or cut your finger) by 4 hundred-thousandths of a percent. 4 more people per 100,000 people. But if you don't drink, 914 people out of 100,000 will get cancer (or cut their finger).

And it's not just cancer, It's cancer, illness and injury. So, if you drink alcohol, you might be more likely to get cancer, or more likely to poke yourself in the eye, The study isn't really sure.

Re:Sounds like a terrible study.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly this. All these meta-studies that tie "alcohol related" or "pollution related" or any other "associated health outcomes" are generally 100% BS. Here's how it works, they find some health outcome associated with the targeted behavior, they then make connections based on overall prevalence of that behavior and the associated health outcome. So, for example heart disease is associated with alcohol consumption, so they look at all heart disease, apply known consumption rates, and make assumptions about total number of premature deaths attributable to alcohol but never establish causality and never look at individual cases. Any time you see "related" or "associated" your BS detector should go off.

Re:Sounds like a terrible study.

[cmseagle]

Which just sounds like a lot of malarkey.

A little bit more goes into these studies than what "sounds" right. Not understanding the methodology of a study with a layman's knowledge of the topic is not a good reason to discard the findings of a paper published in the Lancet.

stoners

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds to me like a bunch of stoners are running and funding the program. not that there is anything wrong with that. alcohol is more dangerous than 'jane duh

Denmark vs. Pakistan

[Venona2018]

Countries with the highest rates of drinking: Denmark and Norway
Countries with the lowest rates of drinking: Pakistan and Bangladesh.

I'm betting people are happier in Denmark and Norway vs. Pakistan and Bangladesh. They certainly are wealthier, healthier, and live longer.

Maybe drinking is good?

Re:Denmark vs. Pakistan

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe lung cancers are more "efficient" thant liver ?

Re:Denmark vs. Pakistan

[LynnwoodRooster]

Denmark and Norway are also ~90% caucasian, and both countries have a strong Christian/Western Europe-based culture. Does that have anything to do with the wealth, health, and lifespan?

Re:Denmark vs. Pakistan

[Anonymous Coward]

You know the agricultural revolution was largely driven by alcohol production. Brewing goes back thousands of years longer than breadmaking. And hygienic conditions would make historical european cities barely survivable without a high alcohol tolerance. It's completely plausible that due to these evolutionary conditions alcohol consumption is less harmful to danes and swedes than it is to other ethnic groups.

Re:Denmark vs. Pakistan

[Anonymous Coward]

If you... somehow forgot the colonial leech parasitism that paid for their standards of living like a Trumptard might omit... sure? Learn history Lynnfag so you don't seem like such a brand new dripping fetus among your elders.

Re:Denmark vs. Pakistan

[rastos1]

Or maybe correlation does not imply causation?

Re:Denmark vs. Pakistan

[Anonymous Coward]

Please free yourself from mental illness, and then clean out some of that leftist racist victimhood dog shit filling your mind.

Re:Denmark vs. Pakistan

[Maxo-Texas]

Here's a list of life expectancy by country...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Japan... not teetotalers (longest lifespan).

Hell.. IRELAND (where they get drunk at 14 on Seagram Ice) has a life expectancy of 81.4 years and is 19th highest life expectancy in the world.

Here's a list of countries by alcohol consumption

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

(Pure alcohol consumption among persons (age 15+) in liters per capita per year, 2010)
Japan averages 7.2 liters of pure alcohol per 15+ citizen per year.
Ireland averages over 11 liters of pure alcohol per age 15+ citizen per year.

France is also high on lifespan and alcohol consumption. Italy isn't bad either.

Re:Denmark vs. Pakistan

[Opportunist]

Nope. It's definitely alcohol. Alcohol kills germs and is generally a preservative. Thus people last longer before perishing.

Ain't science great?

Re:Denmark vs. Pakistan

[Anonymous Coward]

If only they were 100% Caucasian, but the JEWS wouldn't like that, would they...
We have to have endless mass immigration until white people are minorities in their own countries -how kind of the Jew. And they wonder why we hate them.

Re: Denmark vs. Pakistan

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely. Pakistanis gang rape 1400 girls in England. Fuck these animals

Re:Denmark vs. Pakistan

[Anonymous Coward]

yup

http://theconversation.com/why-denmark-dominates-the-world-happiness-report-rankings-year-after-year-93542

Re:Denmark vs. Pakistan

[T.E.D.]

I'm betting people are happier in Denmark and Norway vs. Pakistan and Bangladesh

Yup, got it in one. Here's the world happiness list. Norway and Denmark are #2 and #3.

(Last year they were #1 and #2, but Finland made a big move)

so

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but, scientific conclusions mean nothing on a suicide-cult planet ruled by religious terrorists.

If it weren't for alcohol...

[Anonymous Coward]

... I would have killed myself long ago.

Re:If it weren't for alcohol...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please stop drinking, then.

95 proof

[Anonymous Coward]

I be sure to pass on this research to a healthy 95 year old moderate drinker that I know - I'll drink one in remembrance of when ./ had fun and useful articles

Lot more than zero

[Roger W Moore]

the number of Marijuana deaths is zero.

Was this study done by the same researchers that did this one because it sounds about as accurate? For a start the alcohol numbers above include drink-driving deaths and this also applies to marijuana and the rate is increasing.

Re:Lot more than zero

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, smoking weed almost certainly increases the risk of lung cancer and all the other morbidities found in long-term smokers. And yes, I'm fully aware of the fact that there are other ways to consume marijuana (edibles, varporizers, etc.), but last time I checked (admittedly quite few years ago), smoking was by far the most common way of consuming it.

Re:Lot more than zero

[jediborg]

The widely regarded FACT that 'the number of Marijuana deaths is zero' is based on the well observed historical precedent that no human has ever died directly from Marijuana Consumption. Yes of course if you count car accidents (like this study did, which i think weakens its arguments) that number is arguably non-zero, I say 'arguably' because every study i've read on the subject points out that all the accidents they looked at that involved marijuana consumption ALSO included alcohol consumption, making it unclear if it was the weed or the beer that caused the car crash

But back to that previous point, most substances have a toxicity level that will eventually kill someone. E.g. you can snort enough cocaine in one sitting to kill you. Ditto for alcohol, heroin, and most stimulants. But marijuana? The toxicity level is only theoretical. The theoretical number is so high no one has ever reached it. You can literally sit down at a table and non-stop smoke blunts your entire life and not die provided you don't smoke so much you suffer from oxygen deprivation no one in the history of mankind has EVER died DIRECTLY from smoking marijuana. Theoretically if i distilled THC (the active ingredient of cannabis) into a liquid concentrated enough, i could give you a shot that would kill you. They've done this to mice to prove it is possible, but no human has ever overdosed on weed.

Re:Lot more than zero

[dddux]

It is obvious we should ban driving, because it causes so many deaths.

Re:Wow pgmrdlm is an angry drunk.

[pgmrdlm]

Nope. X smoker, do not hate smokers. Drink, don't care if others drink. This study is biased that ignore a number of factors. You are the angry one pussy

Left out the key statement

[larryjoe]

The slashdot title stated the most sensational part of the study, but the summary left out the single-most important statement in the entire study:

"The level of alcohol consumption that minimised harm across health outcomes was zero (95% UI 00–08) standard drinks per week."

This statement is at odds with some studies and the hopes of many recreational drinkers. However, there have been other meta-studies that have found that studies that find a health benefit from moderate drinking often aggregate teetotalers due to religion/philosophy with teetotalers due to illness.

Re:Left out the key statement

[Vintermann]

There's many studies that have separated those and still find a positive "effect" (really a correlation of course).

The thing is, if you choose to be a teetotaller, you sadly isolate yourself from a lot of social activity, since alcohol use is so central to our culture. This has enough negative effects on average that it makes up for the health effects of very low consumption.

Although, since how much people drink is heavily mediated by how much people they know drink, teetotallers still contribute greatly to public health. Just mostly to people other than themselves.

Re:Left out the key statement

[shabble]

often aggregate teetotalers due to religion/philosophy with teetotalers due to illness

Leading to the 'sick quitter' hypothesis. And has been factored into more recent studies, and found to be not the issue it's presented to be...

https://health.spectator.co.uk...

Then, a few months before his death in 2005, he published a study based on 23 years of data which replicated the results of his previous studies while disproving the sick quitter hypothesis by comparing lifelong non-drinkers with moderate drinkers. The latter had lower rates of heart disease and lower risk of premature mortality.

[...]

The sick quitter hypothesis was repeatedly tested and found wanting. The protective effect on the heart was repeatedly shown to be real and not the result of unhealthy former drinks in the non-drinking group.

Re:Left out the key statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Claim here is that the spin is the only thing new. That Teetotalers (like myself) are still worse off than a drink a day types.

https://cei.org/blog/science-reporters-get-it-wrong-moderate-alcohol-consumption-isnt-dangerous

Re:Left out the key statement

[Cyberax]

I'm a teetotaler. I don't see myself excluded from social life, except for drunken parties that I don't care about. Perhaps you mistake your alcoholism for "social life"?

Re:Left out the key statement

[Anonymous Coward]

This statement is at odds with (...) the hopes of many recreational drinkers.

I for one hope that no one is drinking for medicinal reasons. If you don't drink because you like it then what would be the point?

Re:Left out the key statement

[drinkypoo]

I'm a teetotaler. I don't see myself excluded from social life, except for drunken parties that I don't care about.

Those drunken parties don't care about you, either. They're too busy having fun without people like you around.

Re:Left out the key statement

[Rick Schumann]

Okay, that's your Personal Choice, and you're welcome to it with a proviso: You don't get to enforce your 'personal lifestyle choices' on any other adult human being. We can't stop you from enforcing your no-alcohol beliefs on your children, but as soon as they're of legal drinking age, it's up to them. Stet? Stet. Now then, this so-called 'study' is just as likely to be enforcing a lifestyle choice as it is anything else, and it's 'data' flies in the face of other 'studies'. Therefore it is suspect, and in any case is subject to the rigors of the Scientific Method as any other 'study' is. Stet?

Re:Left out the key statement

[strikethree]

At least you are honest. I rarely drink alcohol and yet my social life is fine. That being said, I do not think that the behavior of social drinking should be called alcoholism.

Re:Left out the key statement

[fatwilbur]

Then perhaps the truth is as you state... you don't see it. Part of why I would agree with the point of the GP is abstainers tend to develop a holier-than-thou outlook towards those who choose to imbibe, and I can sense the same from you with your choice of the word "alcoholism" to describe moderate and social drinking.

Re:Left out the key statement

[T.E.D.]

This statement is at odds with some studies

If you look at it even closer, its not at odds at all, because they didn't look at any of those things (eg: heart disease incidence) that those other studies looked at. They just looked at deaths attributable to alcohol.

The fact that deaths attributable to alcohol is at a minimum when you don't drink isn't exactly a result that should be making news. I could make a study finding the exact same thing about Kale.

Re:Left out the key statement

[angel'o'sphere]

The positive effects don't come from alcohol, but the other stuff in the beverages, as in wine.

Re:Left out the key statement

[Cyberax]

Actually, I have no problems at all with alcohol drunken by others. I just don't like when it goes way out of control, to people blacking out or throwing up.

Re:Left out the key statement

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a teetotaler. I don't see myself excluded from social life, except for drunken parties that I don't care about. Perhaps you mistake your alcoholism for "social life"?

So like the authors of this study, you clearly don't get invited to those sorts of parties.

Still want to let Government handle health care?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what happens when you let government take on the burden of health care.

The more you mandate that government should take care of you, the less control you have over your own life style.

In its quest for the New Man, socialism only ever ends up in on place: Re-education programs, which devolve into "re-education" camps, which deteriorate into concentration camps, which transform into gulags, which must necessarily result in death camps. The individual must suppress his own expression, and submit to the betterment of the collective.

Fight me in real life

[Anonymous Coward]

Fight me in real life https://soundcloud.com/james-a...

Re:Fight me in real life

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, that was some funny shit.

Major study by religiously biased people

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not even have to check the names.

You didn't read the study, either.

[Anonymous Coward]

Either way, the conclusions are stupid.

In a Free Society, people should be able to drink, unmolested by the political whims of politicians.

And there you can see it already, folks.

[Anonymous Coward]

This other AC nailed it. The left's quest for a "New Man" will only ever end in Tyranny, just like it always has throughout history.

That does not mesh with message

[SuperKendall]

They included the results of risky behavior and impaired operation of machines.

And yet they claim no level of alcohol consumption is safe. That is obviously bullshit as a single drink every now and then will have zero effect on being more risky or impaired.

I say this as someone who basically does not drink at all, except for a sip of something to be polite under some conditions.

Re:That does not mesh with message

[bingoUV]

That is obviously bullshit as a single drink every now and then will have zero effect on being more risky or impaired.

Your data is eagerly awaited. Obviously it involves testing millions of diverse humans over a long term ?

Re:That does not mesh with message

[SuperKendall]

I would say, tens of thousands because I have seen at least that many people take one drink with no effect.

In fact I can say that of tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of people I have seen take a single drink over my lifetime, no sudden change in behavior was observed.

Were you too stupid to notice what happened as you lived your life?

Re: That does not mesh with message

[bingoUV]

Any evidence that their probability of disease in next 100 years did not rise by at least one in a quadrillion ?

Re: That does not mesh with message

[bingoUV]

Ah, you were stupid enough to draw false conclusions as you lived your life.

Re: That does not mesh with message

[Anonymous Coward]

Zero effect != no observed effect. Seemed obvious to everyone but you as your whole premis is incorrect.

Hmmmm.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. It's the beer.

Re:Hmmmm.....

[Shalhav]

Beer, religion; they go together.

https://www.loyolapress.com/ou...

High calories for those skinny desert fathers.

Poor abstraction of results

[guruevi]

Off course, consuming alcohol has poor effects on people that are depressed or go driving after drinking. Same with potheads and opioid addicts that go driving or using heavy machinery.

This is a meta-study too and they are expressly comparing Muslim countries with decidedly non-Muslim countries. I'm sure the statistics for those are very honest at less than 2% of the population drinking. I've worked with immigrant Muslims they all drink homemade hooch, statistics in Iran shows at least 10% of the population drinking.

Re:Poor abstraction of results

[angel'o'sphere]

And in Turkey or Tunesia everyone drinks.

Point is: the anti alcohol theme is a made up thing by some mullahs in the middle ages. Mohamed himself was not against drinking: he was against getting drunk/stoned! He proclaimed a man should not consume "drugs" to the point that his mind is altered and reasoning is affected.

But you see how religion, especially the make hierachies are abused to put power over people or pressure on them. Iran was once a big wine exporter, they had great wines. Now it is even forbidden to grow the grapes. They destroyed a fortune, probably worth 100ds of billions in our days money, in wine yards after the revolution. Imagine what one would pay for 100 acres of 80 or 100 year old wine plants?

sans alcohol, how many die

[Anonymous Coward]

Sans alcohol, how many die of the things they are self-medicating for? or sheer boredom?

Envious of someone else's wallet? Just wait longer

[Anonymous Coward]

Most rich families lose their wealth within 3 generations or so; in America, mobility across the socioeconomic strata is very common—in both directions.

If a playboy inherits wealth, then he'll either squander it all on the middle class, or he'll end up employing very smart people to manage his money in ways that are productive for society. Either outcome is exactly as it should be. Capitalism; embrace it.

get ready for Prohibition!

[kiviQr]

Making America Great Again? There is nothing like a combination of a free market idea and conservatism. Cheers!

I for one

[Snotnose]

drink a healthy amount of alcohol. My family may differ, but I let them see the sober side of me and they wise right up.

Re:I for one

[Daralantan]

Time for the "war on alcohol!"

Conserve the founders' love of individual liberty

[Anonymous Coward]

In the United States, a conservative is someone who is trying to conserve the ideals of the founding: A small, explicitly restricted government whose sole role is to protect each individual from an encroachment on his liberty—to protect him from someone else trespassing on his natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

"Behold the rain which descends from heaven upon our vineyards; there it enters the roots of the vines, to be changed into wine; a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy." —Benjamin Franklin

Prohibition is un-American, and no conservative could possibly support it or the War on Drugs.

Depressed

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I only drink when I'm sad and want to die.

Re:Depressed

[Anonymous Coward]

There's better treatment for depression. Like talking to professionals and medication.

Your quest for a "left."

[neoshroom]

This other AC nailed it. The left's quest for a "New Man" will only ever end in Tyranny, just like it always has throughout history.

The other AC missed it. Your quest for a "left" will only ever end in a circle around the globe, just like it always has throughout history.

When you complete the circle, you're a new man.

That's not what libertarians say.

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather, a libertarian would say: "On principle, a person should be able to put into his own body whatever he chooses; given the choice between a free society and a healthy society, I'll take my chances with a free society".

Get it yet?

A case for cannnabis?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cannabis is not only shown to be much less harmful than alcohol but also has many therapeutic applications.

Indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

I fell asleep at the wheel, jumped the curb, and ran over this guy's daughter as she was playing in the front yard. I totally mashed her brains all over the new sod.

When the toxicology report came proving my complete sobriety, the father felt much better.

Oh no the sky is falling EVERYBODY PANIC!!!11!!!

[Rick Schumann]

Yet another 'study' claiming something is going to kill you. Never mind that people have been drinking ethanol in moderation for about a million years.
WTF is this shit? Is Puritanism making a comeback? Is this more Dominionist bullshit? Or are they selling something?

Guess what: everything is going to kill you. Just scroll through the internet, you'll find somebody presenting all sorts of evidence that anything you care to name that you eat, drink, or breathe, is going to take DECADES off your life. Don't fall for it, folks.

Prohibition

[peppepz]

We know prohibition works so well to fix people's addictions... let's do it again for alcohol, too.

Re:Prohibition

[Anonymous Coward]

We know prohibition works so well to fix people's addictions... let's do it again for alcohol, too.

War on drunks!

taxation kills

[Anonymous Coward]

No, seriously, taxation will kill, and so will making it illegal.

Tell me what was Also Capone's business and what he went to jail for?

I find it difficult to trust the opinion of a scientist who didn't learn the basics of history.

Re:taxation kills

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody cares what Republican faggots find difficult to trust from what they can't read or don't understand, you all suck Putin's cock directly either way now. Deal with it bitch traitors. Trump hangs either way now.

Whew! I'm safe!

[93 Escort Wagon]

The study covered the 15-49 age group, and I'm over 50. Where's that bottle of whisky?

Re:Whew! I'm safe!

[Oligonicella]

I'm pouring a shot from it now.

Re:Whew! I'm safe!

[Anonymous Coward]

The study covered the 15-49 age group, and I'm over 50. Where's that bottle of whisky?

It's between the rum and vodka and right behind the aquavit.

Re:Whew! I'm safe!

[angel'o'sphere]

I was about to post exactly the same about an hour ago, ha ha :D

Re:Whew! I'm safe!

[93 Escort Wagon]

We old guys all think alike!

Re:Whew! I'm safe!

[dddux]

Damn, I have to close this tab and come back to it again in two years. Bummer. :/

Re: Envious of someone else's wallet? Just wait lo

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's what the wealthy want you to believe about the United States. How nice for them that you do.

US social mobility is terrible. The US does better than, say, the UK or Italy, but pretty much no other Western nation.

Re:Oh no the sky is falling EVERYBODY PANIC!!!11!!

[Anonymous Coward]

So does that mean it's not true?

APK finally gets an account

[Anonymous Coward]

This user has many of the characteristics of APK. Excessive anger? Check. Accusing people he doesn't like of being antifa members? Check. Demanding to meet people online to engage in violent behavior? Check. This user may well be APK.

Re:APK finally gets an account

[Anonymous Coward]

Not likely pgmrdlm's sentences are too cogent to be have been written by APK. Also note the lack of nested parentheses, random bolding, and capitalization. If it turns out this is actually APK it seems that this is APK when taking his medication.

EXACTLY as the holly quoran says

[Anonymous Coward]

Allahu Snack Bar.

Soon our scientist will scientifically prove to the kafir that woman skin is predisposed to cancer if it goes outside without hijab. We made them already prove that bacon and everything coming of dirty pigs is haram, in the new califat the will be no alcohol, no pig and women will wear hijab and niquab.
Also no kafir scientist anymore, the book of allah and prophet mohimed is enough science.

It's OK to be white.

[Anonymous Coward]

No colonized land was ever put to any good use until the Europeans showed up, and thereby pulled the worthless, barely-living nomads out of the fucking stone age.

The Europeans are the best goddamn thing ever to happen to this sorry planet (the truth of which is self evident in the fact that you cannot openly say so), and if you don't quit poking the sleeping giant with your baseless cultural marxism, then you're going to unleash upon the world a woeful backlash.

Show some respect for the culture and the people who gave the world almost everything of value, including freedom from a hundred thousand years of slave-trading.

Re:It's OK to be white.

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep flapping your retarded inbred gums, pappy. You don't count for shit.

Fake News

[Anonymous Coward]

Fake News

Markdavis *ridiculoused* himself again

[Anonymous Coward]

"And claiming that throughout all history, being high on pot has not directly caused or contributed to death, is just *ridiculous*." - No, it has not directly caused death, Mark. It's not ridiculous, it's a fact. SECONDARILY sure.

You out-pedanted yourself, you old coot. Drink!

This is only half of the story

[hyades1]

"Alcohol, says their report published in the Lancet medical journal, led to 2.8 million deaths in 2016."

These idiots clearly failed to grasp the other half of the equation. Alcohol probably prevented just as many deaths. Let's face it, if you couldn't decompress with a couple of beers after work, sooner or later you'd wind up skinning your boss with a letter opener and skull-fucking the company president and his snotty secretary to death with the rolled up hide.

Re:This is only half of the story

[thegarbz]

Let's face it, if you couldn't decompress with a couple of beers after work

Wow. Alcoholic much? Why do you need beers to decompress? There are far more effective methods. Go to the gym, take up combat sport, turn on the lobotomization box and set to binge.

Seriously, if your brain is actually dependent on alcohol to tolerate others then get some professional help quickly!

Re:This is only half of the story

[yarbo]

"drunk driving may kill a lot of people, but it also helps a lot of people get to work on time, so, it;s impossible to say if its bad or not," @dril

https://twitter.com/dril/statu...

Re:This is only half of the story

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignore this Mormon trash

Re:This is only half of the story

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like you need a new job.

Re:This is only half of the story

[dunkelfalke]

Not compressing in the first place is far healthier.

Re:This is only half of the story

[sad_]

maybe there are other things you can do to 'decompress'.
just a suggestion; boxing & karate. both good sports to get rid of some frustration and healthier then alcohol!

Re:This is only half of the story

[Anonymous Coward]

So the guy is threatening to peel his bosses face, among other things, and your solution is "Go learn how to fight."

Excellent.

I'm going to say he should do what he damn well pleases, and if that involves getting so shit faced that a push will send him to the floor on his ass in the event he should attempt to attack any one, all the better.

Re:This is only half of the story

[Anonymous Coward]

Very true, unfortunately to be able to survive within society we've created for ourselves this isn't always possible.

Re:This is only half of the story

[TeknoHog]

Agreed, but it looks like the consumerist-capitalist system depends on the existence of vices such as alcohol. Not simply because of the compression-decompression balance, but also to numb the minds that might otherwise threaten the system. Hundreds of years ago, coffee houses were regarded with suspicion due to their potential to fuel unwanted political activity, whereas pubs were the recommended way to turn off your mind after work. We've fixed that now by taking coffee to the workplace where it can serve the proper masters.

Re:This is only half of the story

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound young. It appears a rather sardonic +5, might be lost on you.

Everyone decompresses in their own way. Whether constructive, or destructive, said action is probably necessary.

It'd be nice to think alcohol wasn't an often go-to for such a thing, but the vast scope of humanity and their experience has taught me, people are gonna do what they're gonna do. You can only help to a point if it's destructive, before even those attempts turn to a negative on you, rather than positive on them.

I wouldn't be so quick to judge. There are far worse scenarios out there than what willful decompression with drinking provides.

Re:This is only half of the story

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all of us work in workplaces full of happy-go-lucky fuckfaces where no personality clashes ever occur. Sometimes you need a glass of whiskey or three when you get home after your boss has come into your office for the third time in two weeks screaming his face off about a mistake that he made but he wants to gaslight you into thinking it was your fault.

At least they pay me enough that I can afford top shelf.

Re:This is only half of the story

[drew_kime]

Let's face it, if you couldn't decompress with a couple of beers after work, sooner or later you'd wind up skinning your boss with a letter opener and skull-fucking the company president and his snotty secretary to death with the rolled up hide.

That's ... awfully specific. Was that the first thing off the top of your head, or have you been working on that for a while? Actually, I can't decide which of those is more worrying.

Re:This is only half of the story

[Anonymous Coward]

take up combat sport

Wow! Anger issues much? Why do you need to pretend to beat up people to decompress? There are far more effective methods. Grab a beer or two!

Seriously, if your brain actually needs to act out violence to prevent being violent then get some profession help quickly!

Re:This is only half of the story

[fatwilbur]

Whether it's right or not aside, I would argue self medication with drugs such as alcohol has been the long standing easiest and most effective approach to certain problems. Two beer to decompress seems better than the methods you've recommended.

Re:This is only half of the story

[hyades1]

Well played, my anonymous friend. Well played indeed!

Re:This is only half of the story

[hyades1]

The word before "trash" has one too many m's in it.

Re:This is only half of the story

[hyades1]

The AC's dealt with you effectively enough. I don't need to further amplify what a snotty little prick you are.

Re:This is only half of the story

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, that way the professionals can prescribe you their drugs.

Re:This is only half of the story

[thegarbz]

Why do you need to pretend to beat up people to decompress?

Did I assault you with words?

Re:This is only half of the story

[thegarbz]

The AC's dealt with you effectively enough.

Evidently they didn't hurt me as much as I hurt them. Poor poor feelings.

I don't need to further amplify what a snotty little prick you are.

I'm sorry you got triggered. Maybe you need to drink your brain in a stupor to deal with it before you go kill someone. .... And then get professional help.

Re:This is only half of the story

[hyades1]

Aren't you the little dick who's advocating engaging in fake violence to channel your aggressions?

Face it, you've been so thoroughly pwned by so many people here your poor bum must be feeling like you got on the wrong end of a horny rhinoceros.

Thanks for playing.

Re:This is only half of the story

[Miles_O'Toole]

Seriously, if your brain is actually dependent on dancing around like a fairy and pretending to hurt people to tolerate others, then get some professional help quickly!

Meanwhile, I hope you don't mind too much if us sensible people head down to the pub after work for a couple of pints with our friends, maybe served up by a cute waitress or bartender.

Re:This is only half of the story

[angel'o'sphere]

sooner or later you'd wind up skinning your boss with a letter opener and skull-fucking the company president and his snotty secretary to death with the rolled up hide.
Where do you work?
It sounds like fun!

Re:This is only half of the story

[angel'o'sphere]

Yeah,
but after doing my 90 minutes "combat sports", I definitely need 2 or 3 beers :D luckily my mates in the Dojo think the same!!

Re:This is only half of the story

[thegarbz]

Aren't you the little dick who's advocating engaging in fake violence to channel your aggressions?

I wasn't the one saying without alcohol people would die.

Face it, you've been so thoroughly pwned by so many people here your poor bum must be feeling like you got on the wrong end of a horny rhinoceros.

Yeah so thoroughly pwned that 4 people said something nonsensical including you, and I'm positively moderated. Are you a fake news Trump supporter? Or maybe you've just had too much alcohol.

Thanks for playing.

You're welcome, anytime.

Re:This is only half of the story

[thegarbz]

Meanwhile, I hope you don't mind too much if us sensible people head down to the pub after work for a couple of pints with our friends, maybe served up by a cute waitress or bartender.

Oh I'll join you. Drinking is a lot of fun. Just don't be a twat and pretend that without alcohol we would be out there killing each other.

Re:This is only half of the story

[thegarbz]

I agree. Drinking is even better after a sport, just don't pretend you need to drink or you're going to go and kill someone like the GP did.

Re:This is only half of the story

[dddux]

I wholeheartedly agree. He should take up some martial arts instead. Like Drink-Djitsu. /s

Re:This is only half of the story

[mfnickster]

> He should take up some martial arts instead. Like Drink-Djitsu.

Aikidos Equis
Captain Morgoeira
Krav Magarita

Re:This is only half of the story

[hyades1]

Gotta admit, I never considered you might actually have fantasies about getting hooped by a horny rhino. No wonder you have aggression issues you have to address by dancing around and posing, and pretending you can hurt people with the devastating power of your loud shouts and awkward postures.

Do you also break thin boards while loudly insisting you don't have aggression issues?

(snicker)

Re:This is only half of the story

[angel'o'sphere]

No worries,

I don't need to drink if I'm convinced a guy needs to be taken out of the gene pool. However I'm not easy to convince in regards to that :P

Re:This is only half of the story

[Miles_O'Toole]

From evidence here, I think it's pretty obvious you're both a drinker AND a twat.

And that you have aggression issues.

Re:This is only half of the story

[hyades1]

ROFL!

In all honesty, I love my job now. However, several years ago, I had a really, really bad one. Great money, but my direct boss was a dummy with connections, and the guy a step above him on the food chain was a full-on criminal psychopath.

Here's how I learned the whole company was rotten, not just the part I worked in: the psycho sexually assaulted a co-worker, and the company chose to solve the problem by buying her silence and handing him a golden parachute. No charges were ever filed.

I was already looking hard for another job, and one came along a few weeks after that. I left with zero regrets, and I made damned sure my boss couldn't scrub my fingerprints off all the work I had done and claim it as his own. That had been his particular failing. Like I said, the money was great so I wasn't too troubled about somebody stealing my work. I wouldn't do that now, of course.

So yes, I was using hyperbole. I do wonder, though, why so many people here here seem unaware that humans have used every mood-altering substance ever discovered to decompress, and they've been doing that since the dawn of recorded history, and no doubt for longer.

Re:This is only half of the story

[thegarbz]

From evidence here, I think it's pretty obvious you're both a drinker AND a twat.

Yeah of course I'm a drinker. Most people are. Very few people don't drink alcohol. Twat, you're entitled to your opinion. I've already generated mine, but I'm not twat enough to mention it in polite company.

And that you have aggression issues.

LOL. Actually the only thing clear here is you don't understand people, or english, or both. I've just added something else to my opinion of you. Stay in school kid, and get yourself some booze before you kill someone.

Re:This is only half of the story

[Miles_O'Toole]

LOL

Reading the other comments here, what's obvious is that you started a fight with somebody who is probably quite a bit more intelligent than you. Certainly he/she is a much better writer, and a lot better with humour.

And, unlike you, I bet they don't dress up in funny costumes and jump around in gyms pretending to punch and kick people.

Now that you've been properly schooled, bow to the sensei, accept your lesson, and try to move on.

Re:This is only half of the story

[angel'o'sphere]

I do wonder, though, why so many people here here seem unaware that humans have used every mood-altering substance ever discovered to decompress, and they've been doing that since the dawn of recorded history, and no doubt for longer.

Because they have no clue what all is "mood" or at least "body" altering, e.g. nicotine, caffeine, simple sugar, Muscat, even Chilly ...

Re:This is only half of the story

[hyades1]

Excellent point.

Re:This is only half of the story

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's face it, if you couldn't decompress with a couple of beers after work

Wow. Alcoholic much? Why do you need beers to decompress? There are far more effective methods. Go to the gym, take up combat sport, turn on the lobotomization box and set to binge.

Seriously, if your brain is actually dependent on alcohol to tolerate others then get some professional help quickly!

I need to drink to tolerate morons like you.

What is the politically correct way to die?

[petes_PoV]

Many people used to die from malaria, tuberculosis, pneumonia. Then we got drugs that prevented those. So they started to die from smoking-related diseases instead. So we all stopped smoking. Now people die from cancers: some caused by excessive drinking.

If that ceases to be a major cause of death, what is next? Obesity? We get told off for that, too.

So what will people die from in the future? Too much exercising? terminal anxiety? boredom?

How should we go about preventing those deaths and then, ultimately, at what point will all these studies, research groups and advice-givers give up and admit that everybody is going to die from something. What causes of death will be deemed "natural"?

Re:What is the politically correct way to die?

[thegarbz]

Many people used to die from malaria

To be fair, there's no healthy level for drinking malaria either.

Re:What is the politically correct way to die?

[Rande]

Probably never. They want to be able to blame people for them dying.

It's the ultimate 'blame the victim'. "That person died because they did something wrong."

Eventually it'll be 'They inhaled too much oxygen in their lives. Oxygen is a known factor in premature death.'

Re:What is the politically correct way to die?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, or water. Drinking water is highly addictive: once you start, you HAVE to drink more water. Stopping for just a couple of days will outright kill you. We should definitely ban water.

Re:What is the politically correct way to die?

[rastos1]

So they started to die from smoking-related diseases instead

Instead??

Re:What is the politically correct way to die?

[blind biker]

Cancer, dementia, and cardiovascular failure.

Reason: the only cell type that does not regenerate is central nervous system tissue - neurons, and cardiac muscle (myocardium). Hence, cardiovascular failure and dementia are inevitable in the long run.
As for cancer: problems occur when replication of DNA introduces errors. These errors are inevitable in the long run, and this leads to cancer.

Re:What is the politically correct way to die?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cancer, dementia, and cardiovascular failure.
Reason: the only cell type that does not regenerate is central nervous system tissue - neurons, and cardiac muscle (myocardium). Hence, cardiovascular failure and dementia are inevitable in the long run.

Humans Produce New Brain Cells Throughout Their Lives, Say Researchers

Re:What is the politically correct way to die?

[Anonymous Coward]

From cardiac arrest at an old age while sleeping.

Smokers or drinkers on the "enjoyment rather than longevity" bandwagon focuses too much on the math aspect of life expectancy and forget the pain in the ass that disease is. It's months of hospitalization, chemo-therapy, skinniness because of lack of hunger, pain, ugly cough, communing with friends and family about potential upcoming death, and reflecting on your past to decide whether it was worth it. It can be a matter of weeks or drag on to months or years. You can even survive it and then carry on health problems until a late end.

They attach much importance to the value of entertainment aspect of their youth, because that's the most impactful thing on how good life is at this age, but fail to foresee the most impactful thing on how good life is when you're old: health.

Re:What is the politically correct way to die?

[jbmartin6]

At any given point, something is the number one cause of death.

Re:What is the politically correct way to die?

[Anonymous Coward]

to be fair, monoatomic oxygen is super corrosive. I can't think of too many places you'd find that outside of the engine bell of a liquid rocket engine though. diatomic oxygen is only a little corrosive.

Re:What is the politically correct way to die?

[Anonymous Coward]

Those people who die young are so irresponsible. After all that our society did for them as they grew up, they bailed before paying it back. That is tantamount to that most heinous of crimes : theft of money.

I for one am glad that they're being called out for their unacceptable behavior. If we let people die before settling their debts, what example are we setting for future generations ? Our children will think of dying as a valid tax evasion technique. Soon enough, everybody's doing it, and the economy suffers.

Better nip that trend in the bud. Good job, science !

Re:What is the politically correct way to die?

[angel'o'sphere]

If that ceases to be a major cause of death, what is next? Obesity? We get told off for that, too.

No! No! The next thing is having sex! You can die due to an heart attack, or a brain seizure! It is super dangerous!

Well, other studies claim it is healthy for your immune system and cardio ... I'm confused now.

Re:What is the politically correct way to die?

[angel'o'sphere]

Reason: the only cell type that does not regenerate is central nervous system tissue - neurons, and cardiac muscle
This is debunked since .... uh? ... 40 or 50 years? Sure, I learned it in school 40 years ago, was already debunked at that time. Schoolbooks never updated ... but that is no reason not to stay up to date.

ALL CELLS REGENERATE!

Re:What is the politically correct way to die?

[ToddInSF]

People did NOT "start to die" from those "other" things; those other things killed people all along. You're stupid because you choose to be pig fuckin' ignorant.

What is really unhealthy

[Anonymous Coward]

Try and take my whisky away. Just see if you don't go to the hospital.

Evil Atheist is no Evil Historian...

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, irresponsible people like Carl Sagan, Bill Gates, or 11 of the US PRESIDENTS who smoked it? https://hightimes.com/culture/11-us-presidents-who-smoked-marijuana/

Re:Evil Atheist is no Evil Historian...

[Mr0bvious]

I'm by no means saying smoking weed is reserved for the irresponsible.

Because Prohibition went so well the last time

[Maxo-Texas]

Seriously...

No this is not nonsense

[aepervius]

When people speaks of marijuana death they usually do not speak about secondary death (accident, inattention) because that criteria tells nothing about the LD50 of drugs. In fact most if not all propaganda I ever had shoved by throat was always about frying your brain, and getting OD, etc... Nearly never about driving with drug, which falls under the "don't drive impaired , or drunk" ads.

As such the LD50 of pot is about so high you would have to inject pure THC to reach it. Smoker/ingester cannot be affected. The number of death caused by pot itself as a substance is indeed zero. Even alcohol *directly* kills as a substance and has a reachable LD50 not counting organs destroyed by abuse long term like liver. Pot does not have that in a really reachable way (yes it increase throat cancer risk,but the risk is negligible - you are better off moving from city to countryside to lower the risk).

Re:No this is not nonsense

[CrimsonAvenger]

When people speaks of marijuana death they usually do not speak about secondary death (accident, inattention) because that criteria tells nothing about the LD50 of drugs.

And yet, this article about alcohol does, in fact, include "secondary death (accident, inattention)" as part and parcel of the alcohol deaths....

Re:No this is not nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because Alcohol CAN ITSELF KILL YOU, and MARIJUANA CANNOT. DDDDDerp?

Re: No this is not nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Generally, if someone has a really bad problem with pot, it's likely an allergy, which some allergies can be deadly if your body is defective in that way.

Re:No this is not nonsense

[HornWumpus]

Pure...so 80% won't do? Back to the drawing board.

Re:No this is not nonsense

[Areyoukiddingme]

And yet, this article about alcohol does, in fact, include "secondary death (accident, inattention)" as part and parcel of the alcohol deaths....

Of course it did. It obviously has an agenda. A hopeless agenda, but an agenda.

In no culture in the world has an alcohol ban mattered one wit. That includes Muslim countries and the state of Utah. There's always some "legitimate" way around the prohibition, and if you run over it fast enough, the thin ice only cracks. The evils of Prohibition are well documented in US culture, both the original and the new version. Neither is good public policy.

Re:No this is not nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

in other news: CELL PHONE USAGE kills people! Driving even on handsfree takes up valuable amounts of attention needed to navigate traffic tests show! You should stop using your cellphone as it kills and puts people in danger.. (or just not use it while driving .. heh). Cellphone use is as dangerous as drinking when behind the wheel. Perhaps more because you know you are intoxicated, you dont know you are distracted until it's too late.

*inhales smoke free vapor of cannabis*

Ah, vindication. That's what that tastes like.

puritanical

[astrofurter]

It's just another self-righteous Puritan educated in Massachusetts, trying to force their joyless, abstemious lifestyle onto everyone else.

David, are you a fucking moron? Be honest.

[Anonymous Coward]

It kind of begs the question, how THE FUCK are you trying to doubt a study you haven't even read you fucking idiot? You and teetotalling loser Kendall here need to get a fucking clue, seriously.

You're not cut out for scientific analysis because you're TOO FUCKING INTELLECTUALLY LAZY TO EVEN READ IT.
Get the fuck on with your pseudo-doubts you dumb cunts, science omits your dumb shit every time either way.

Study Doesn't Make Sense

[Captain Kirk]

The same logic means that there is no safe level of cycling If we stop drinking becasue there is no safe level of alcohol, will we also stop cycling, swimming and all the other activities that have some risk of of injury but are nonetheless fun?

Re:Study Doesn't Make Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

The same logic means that there is no safe level of cycling

Not really, because cycling is a net benefit to your health, besides being fun.

Re:Study Doesn't Make Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

It might be a net benefit until you crash the bike. You might die immediately, get injured badly or be lucky and escape with minor or no injuries.

Re:Study Doesn't Make Sense

[pots]

The mechanism by which most cancers form, aside from direct mutagens like radiation, is repeated irritation/inflammation. This is how asbestos works, for example - a little piece gets stuck in your lungs and you have a little spot that's just perpetually inflamed. Eventually the cell churn will result in cancer. This is also why cervical cancer is particularly common, for another example, there are two different types of skin cells there and a lot of turnover between those cells for that reason.

This doesn't apply to exercise though, since muscle cells don't proliferate in the same way. So no worries about cycling, swimming, etc. You have fun.

Re:Study Doesn't Make Sense

[Rick Schumann]

Being a cyclist myself, I've actually had at least one doctor tell me "Rick, you don't need to do all that extreme exercise just to be healthy, you should just go walk a little every day, it's good enough." You can imagine what I had to say to the jackasses who unironically said that to me. Too many doctors will tell you what is safest instead of what is of the most overall benefit, and I believe it's because it limits their liability in case you do get injured; if your doctor says to you "Yes, you should do heavy sets of freebar squats and deadlifts in the gym and run 50 miles a week, it's GREAT for your health!" then you get injured doing all that? You could sue them for malpractice. If they tell you to do things you couldn't possibly get injured doing but might be a little less fit, then their liability is essentially zero.

Re:Study Doesn't Make Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

I drink, cycle and swim (though I avoid b and c if I've overindulged in a). Hell, I've even been known to climb cliffs with nothing more than rope, harness and chalk: it's amazing I didn't die years ago!

Re:Study Doesn't Make Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

But like drinking it's fun, so I'll take my chances.

So, I take it...

[Opportunist]

Drink as much as you want, it doesn't matter.

Problems.

[jd]

First, the study is incapable of distinguishing drinking from other risky behaviour drinkers may indulge in. It assumes behaviours are independent, when in fact they are not.

Second, of the five Blue Zones, four involve drinking. The French Paradox also does. France's contribution to the debate shows that the change in drink of choice altered outcomes, showing isolating the variable of alcohol may not be sensible to begin with.

No, then you're a fag.

[Anonymous Coward]

Smoke is just smoke, it's your weak bitch lungs that suck.

Re:No, then you're a fag.

[CriticalYetLazy]

Isn't the general function of lungs exactly that, to suck in gaseous compounds?

Re: No, then you're a fag.

[reanjr]

There are gases other than smoke. In fact, smoke isn't a gas, it's particulate matter in the gaseous air. Your lungs can be used to inhale cannabis without inhaling smoke, and plenty of people consume it this way.

To your health

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll drink to that. Oh, shit.

Life is 100% guaranteed to end in death.

[gerald.edward.butler]

In a recent study it was found that "living" has a 100% mortality rate over the life of an organism. No amount of life is safe. It always leads to death. The only answer is to refrain from living. My suggestion would be for the author's of the study (and all the political nut-jobs) to take the first steps in this direction. I'd be glad to assist with my trusty hammer.

Re:Life is 100% guaranteed to end in death.

[Anonymous Coward]

What about those squids or whatever they were, that can revert to larvae or whatever again and then grow back to adult?

Re:Life is 100% guaranteed to end in death.

[dddux]

Love your comment. You've pretty much said the same thing I was thinking. Thanks! LOL Sorry I have no mod points left. Cheers! :)

"Gerald Butler" lol, really? THE Gerald Butler?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Gerald Butler" sounds like some kind of old white faggot porno name. I bet he gets all the Young Republican cock in his face that he can handle with a name like that!

"gerald butler" is 1,000% likely to be a homo

[Anonymous Coward]

You can just tell this old faggot is not going to die without at least 3-4 cocks in his mouth. It's amazing he can breathe at all! Jesus Butler, don't choke, you don't have to try to talk!

Abstinence-only education

[TeknoHog]

Worked really well for teenage mothers. I'll drink to that!

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear that there is no healthy level of living, as every one who has ever lived is dead or will end up dead.

Re:Still want to let Government handle health care

[JonnyCalcutta]

Nice story

Vatican won't be happy and for a good reason.

[Anonymous Coward]

> No Healthy Level of Alcohol Consumption, Says Major Study

I don't think science is qualified to make that statement, since science cannot decide religious matters, ie. whether or not G-d exists is outside the dominion of science.

On the other hand, Jesus himself said and ordered at the conclusion of Last Supper: "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." He had even turned water into wine at the wedding of Caana.

Thus, consumption of alcohol is a religious mandate for Christians and if science proclaims even that minimalist act to be bad, then science reared against religion, which is not supposed to happen, since their dominions are entirely distinct.

Good for them to come to that conclusion

[SocietyoftheFist]

...pass me a beer.

Re:Envious of someone else's wallet? Just wait lon

[mark_reh]

Citation needed, please! It will make me feel better about Trump, and I desperately need something to make me feel better about Trump..

Prohibitionist mindset

[swb]

I won't disagree with the study's statistical conclusions, alcohol really is a pretty corrosive drug even if some plurality of the population manages to drink at moderate levels.

The problem is their desire to turn to meaningful legal restrictions on alcohol availability. Almost inevitably these will result in some levels of increased criminality to skirt restrictions on availability and obsessive behaviors like stockpiling or increased binge drinking among heavier drinkers.

It's hard to see any legal restrictions that don't come with side effects which greatly dilute whatever positive effects they produce. It may still produce some large-scale aggregate statistical benefit, but really are these worth it?

I know the math says "all drinking is harmful" but I wonder if the better benefit doesn't come with expending the money and effort associated with greater restrictions actually teaching people how to drink to achieve harm reduction -- strategies which allow users to achieve their desired effects of with the minimum amount of total alcohol consumption. It wouldn't surprise me if the answer was something counter-intuitive and counter to the morality surrounding alcohol consumption -- like instead of drinking 3-4 drinks over a 4 hour period, instead drink two drinks quickly, and then abstain the rest of the evening. You get a nice peak level of intoxication and end up reducing total consumption.

We rely far too much on cultural norms and habits for "teaching" alcohol consumption. My parents were light to moderate drinkers, but really everything I know about "how to drink" was discovered the hard way through experimentation, and often experimentation with deleterious side effects.

The only other option which seems equally valuable is literally advancing substitutes for alcohol consumption with fewer negative health impacts, like vaporized or edible cannabis concentrates. That's the first (and maybe only) one I can think of, but we haven't ever tasked our pharmaceutical industry to research the ability to produce substitute drugs that min-max harmful effects and desirable effects, either, so there aren't many other viable choices with more benign effects.

Even then, it may be that allowing small quantities of low-dose tranquilizers to be available to adults might actually be better than alcohol consumption. It'd be interesting to know what the health effects of 2-3 mg per week of xanax is like vs. 6 oz of alcohol per week. Of course there are known problems with addiction associated with xanax or other tranquilizers that may make this impractical, but on a mg-mg basis they may still be less unhealthy.

Alcohol consumption isn't going away. History has demonstrated time and again that prohibition is simply worse than the problem it tries to solve and that restrictions less than prohibition tend to be ineffective to the extent they are less than prohibition. They also produce side effects similar to prohibition to the extent they are extensive enough to be effective.

It may be true that "nothing" is actually better, but a zero mind altering substance culture seems impossible to actually achieve and something like a projected or confirmation bias by people with specific personality and psychological traits compatible with it.

Re:Prohibitionist mindset

[SCVonSteroids]

The only other option which seems equally valuable is literally advancing substitutes for alcohol consumption with fewer negative health impacts, like vaporized or edible cannabis concentrates. That's the first (and maybe only) one I can think of, but we haven't ever tasked our pharmaceutical industry to research the ability to produce substitute drugs that min-max harmful effects and desirable effects, either, so there aren't many other viable choices with more benign effects.

Whoa there honeybuns.
These things don't *substitute* for eachother. The effects I get from both are noticeably different. Sometimes I'll want one, sometimes the other. Sometimes a combination of both. It's all about the desired effect. But you can't simply replace them with something else. It won't be the same.

Re:Prohibitionist mindset

[swb]

I don't disagree that they aren't perfect substitutes for each other, but it's not about total replacement it's about trying to get people to prefer the less harmful one over the more harmful one.

I think long-term we'd have less total alcohol consumption, even if some people used both or if some people preferred alcohol.

At least anecdotally, it's the effect I've seen. People who smoke pot wind up drinking less, sometimes even not at all, at least when they're smoking pot.

I'll wait a week...

[Applehu Akbar]

...until either the next major study or the next 5 minor studies contradicts it.

Ah, statistics

[SemperOSS]

Just to get it off my chest first: I have skimmed the study but not read it in detail.

As usual the use of statistics is the crux of the matter. In the article they talk about the increased risk of alcohol-related harm without talking about the absolute risk of alcohol-related harm in general. (They say there are 2.8 billion deaths attributable to alcohol in 2016, 2.2% of female deaths and 6.8% of male deaths, but this does not convert into absolute risk.) A 37% increase in alcohol-related harm (i.e. for people having five drinks a day) may not cause a substantial bigger risk if the value that is increased is very small. And how do you establish a base?

So what then?

I also find it very interesting that 1.4% of tuberculosis deaths were linked to alcohol. I wonder what the causation is? Increased susceptibility to infection? If that was the case, I would expect pneumonia to be in there too, but I cannot easily find data covering just pneumonia. The nearest information I could get was a total of 4.1 million deaths of respiratory diseases in 2009, according to WHO (warning Excel spreadsheet).

This is another study that seems to pose more questions than it provides answers.

That's part of the problem.

[Qbertino]

That many people don't know how to have a good time without alcohol is part of the problem.

Re:That's part of the problem.

[justthinkit]

Agreed. Currently I professionally care for a person that needs 24x7 care. It is a very bohemian situation and they all have a great time drinking and smoking and THCing. Well, I have a great time right along with them and at no time do I wish I was drinking or smoking.

Drinking is like tattoos. One can somewhat justify it during one's teens, but that is about it.

It is not even about how harmful it is, which any LD50 analysis will tell you. It is about how insidious it is -- slowly enslaving you over a period of decades. It is about how harmful it is to newborns -- you haven't lived until you've had to care for a fetal alcohol syndrome person for a year or two -- woo hoo! And it is about the gigantic amounts of money involved in the booze industry that push everyone involved to do the ugliest things.

My dad made homemade wine for decades. Never over-consumed. Profited no one. His consumption was as close to balanced as it gets. But the thing is, his wine tasted awful...because alcohol tastes awful. In every single form. Not to see this is to lie to yourself.

Alcohol is a microcosm of society. All the best lies are said about it. People do the worst possible things to other people because of it. And for what? To be "loose"? Why not just be loose, when the situation dictates it?

While I'm at it, please allow me to take a giant dump on Lifehacker, who promote booze as if it is, in any way shape or form, a life hack. May they die in a pool of their own vomit.

Cheers!

Re:That's part of the problem.

[x0]

My dad made homemade wine for decades. Never over-consumed. Profited no one. His consumption was as close to balanced as it gets. But the thing is, his wine tasted awful...because alcohol tastes awful. In every single form. Not to see this is to lie to yourself.

No, it tastes awful to you...

I enjoy many types of alcoholic beverages just fine, as do the vast majority or people. If it were truly that bad, and people had to lie to themselves to 'enjoy' it, alcohol consumption would be a fringe affectation.

Stop projecting your experiences on others; It's annoying and smacks of virtue signaling.

m

Re:That's part of the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Amazing Story of Elizabeth Vargas

Re:That's part of the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

>If it were truly that bad, and people had to lie to themselves to 'enjoy' it, alcohol consumption would be a fringe affectation.
>Q.E.D.
And here we see an example of what a Q.E.D. would look like if it went through a botched abortion.

Re:That's part of the problem.

[Tyler Durden]

Well good luck with your sober good time.

Re:That's part of the problem.

[Sejus]

Always +1 the great white stanhope...

Re:That's part of the problem.

[angel'o'sphere]

"Officially" alcohol is a tasteless substance.
So if it tastes bad for you, you most likely simply don't like wine :P

Re:That's part of the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Alcohol, officially, is a poison.

Clearly, not funded by any alcohol company

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly, not funded by any alcohol company, so the researchers had to fine a way that 0% use was their recommendation.

Don't worry

[binkless]

This study's tendentious conclusions aren't the only ones you could come to

https://cei.org/blog/science-reporters-get-it-wrong-moderate-alcohol-consumption-isnt-dangerous

You can count on the socialist puritans at the guardian to spoil any party

100% of deaths...

[Anonymous Coward]

linked to living.

Does not match

[Bengie]

Even the occasional drink is harmful to health

The biggest causes of death linked to alcohol in younger people were tuberculosis (1.4% of deaths), road injuries (1.2%), and self-harm (1.1%)

I think they have a different definition of "occasional drink" than most people. They say "no safe levels", but seem to focus on people drinking themselves drunk. I get the feeling that they are not excluding the bias of many people who enjoy drinking a little too much, and instead of getting a causational link, they have a strongly correlated link.

The operational word is Control

[Anonymous Coward]

" alcohol control policies"
This is the word most important in this study.
Proles are stupid. We (enlighted and progressive elite) have to work hard (and have some perks) to protect those stupid proles.
We will regulate what they should do, what they should not do, what they must do ....

First they want to control guns
Then they want to control hate speech
Then they want to control "improper behavior"
Then .... they control everything ...
For your own good.

Proles of the World ... Obey!
Enlighted elites of the world .... Rule!

just smoke some good weed bro

[Anonymous Coward]

it's 100 times safer and you could not go for a rage

One Size Does Not Fit All...

[careysub]

This is really a population level meta-analysis rather than universal recommendations for individuals.

To illustrate a specific population that is under study that is not captured in a broad assessment like this there is the University of California Irvine study of the "Oldest Old".

Researchers from The 90+ Study have published many scientific papers in premier journals.
Some of the major findings are:
People who drank moderate amounts of alcohol or coffee lived longer than those who abstained.
People who were overweight in their 70s lived longer than normal or underweight people did.

A very interesting thing about the alcohol consumption part is that it is not just a correlation. It was effective as an intervention -- that is people who did not drink, but started moderate alcohol consumption after the age of 70 (which this study investigated) lived longer than those who never drank!

But maybe you need to wait until you are 70.

Also the benefit from coffee appears to actually be the benefit of consuming caffeine and does not matter what form. You get the optimum benefit consuming 100 mg a day.

leading risk factor????

[wisnoskij]

How did they study this? I live in society and can tell you with absolute certainty that their simply is not enough people who have never tasted alcohol to have a group to study.

And it is a rather bold claim. Why would one shot of whiskey in a lifetime cause cancer or heart disease, or whatever causes of death they are linking it to?

Dietary Science is a Backwater

[mothlos]

This is a population-level study which pits total consumption in a group against various risks of death. As far as I can tell it is unable to say anything about the clinical effect on an individual. It also claims 'causality' based on purely qualitative judgments. All this seems to actually say is that there is good reason to believe that the harm caused by alcohol to populations is positively correlated with the amount of alcohol consumed and that it seems unlikely that any protective effects are strong enough across these populations to offset the harms. What it doesn't seem to say is how these harms and possible benefits are distributed within a population except for the demographic information they used to define subpopulations.

I'm not an expert in the methods used here, so I might be missing something, but my reading says that the entire framing of the conclusions of this paper are weasely and designed as academic and media click-bait. That a prestigious journal would publish a paper written to misinform like this shows that claims that the media is misinterpreting the science to create interest is only part of the story. Dietary Science is one of the most difficult areas to work in and an area that the media is most likely to sensationalize, but it doesn't help when you let your own publish articles which serve the sensationalism on a platter.

Next up...

[atrex]

Next up, taxes on bread, meat, and sugar (especially sugar). Also, all sugar substitutes. Because everything is bad for your health other than fruits, vegetables, and plain filtered water. Also, a tax on fat people, because they're weighing down the health care system.

What was that

[Anonymous Coward]

Ben Franklin said about beer?

This reminds me of a joke.

[Jason1729]

A man asked his doctor how long he was going live.

The doctor asked if he drank, smoked, did drugs, or partied.

The man answer ed no.

The doctor said "then why do you care how long you're going to live?".

good portuguese wine

[quantic_oscillation7]

nonsense...

nothing beats a nice glass of a good portuguese red wine.

also a good chalice of vinho do Porto.

Fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

The summary is extraordinarily misleading (and is how the study is being reported in the trashy media around the world). Having read the summary of the paper, it does say the safest level of alcohol is zero, but it does nothing to imply that the first drink is very dangerous, there are not real claims on that in the study. The way this article is being reported is essentially false to generate hits and links.

Suicides among the rise in Marijuana users

[Anonymous Coward]

From the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR)

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/wr/mm6708a1.htm?s_cid=mm6708a1_e

Subjective analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

I would not categorize road injuries or self-harm as 'health related'. The actual bodies involved in such instances are probably perfectly healthy in moderate drinkers. You can't deny the nutritional content of good wines or beers anymore than you can other foods that contain those nutrients. This is not a 'study', as a real study has well-defined parameters and doesn't make false equivalencies. And I hate to break it people: we are all going to die, and alcohol or no alcohol, your body will age and deteriorate. For Pete's sake, enjoy your life.

88,000 deaths/year

[Anonymous Coward]

88,000 deaths per year due to alcohol related issues. Ban alcohol.

Re:88,000 deaths/year

[Anonymous Coward]

55.3mil people die every year because they were living. Ban life.

BS Flag waived

[sdinfoserv]

"The biggest causes of death linked to alcohol in younger people were tuberculosis" - stop, wrong, not even close....
tuberculosis is a bacterial lung disease passed on by breathing the bacteria of infected people. Contributing factors include compromised immune system. ie: from HIV, malnutrition and smoking...
https://www.medicalnewstoday.c...
stop the alcohol fear campaign.

Prohibition again. Worked so great.

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientists discover link between food / stimulant and health damage. So far so good. Stimulants are bad for your health. Who would've thought.

The next part is far more scary: "scientist suggest taxing, banning, removing stimulant after discovering its health damage potential".

That's where "scientists" confuse "the state" with "the parent of everyone". People willingly consume stimulants despite knowing they are bad for their health. There's a ton of empirical arguments against the banning of stimulants, not only because the prohibition era told us a thing or two, but because drugs, hardest opiates are available everywhere today and we don't need another battlefield to fight consenting adults that are willing to pay for and consume a stimulant.

It is a much deeper issue: Freedom means being able to harm oneself. It is super cliché to claim "suicide is self-expression", but it actually is. If self-harm is not allowed by the state, people are subjects, not free. And since "self-harm" can be defined as all kinds of things, including "not exercising" and "overeating", allowing the use of government force to keep the subjects healthy is a dictatorship. And a benevolent dictatorship isn't benevolent.

Freedom is hard to bear. Let's not forget that no matter how hard it is, it is the only adequate way for humans to live. Humans under external control are a sad sight. Losing one's health is less important than losing one's dignity.

Yanno

[nehumanuscrede]

Depending on what day / year it is ( and also who the corporate sponsor is ), there always seems to be
some " study " that concludes that $product is bad / good for me.

This changes so frequently, it's impossible to remember what is what anymore.

This year, X is good for you !
A few years from now, X is bad for you !
A few years later, X is good for you again ! :facepalm:

Just eat / drink what you want.
In the end, you're gonna die from something anyway.

This study brought to you by

[Anonymous Coward]

The society for the advancement of teatotallers every where.
Mormons and Muslims rejoice!

Remember there's "no safe amount".
Here comes prohibition 2.0 guys! Enjoy!

I'm most excited at the prospects this report has for those who are willing to bend the law a little when this report becomes codified as law (again). During the last prohibition my grand parents made a fortune as moonshiners, finally my chance to do the same!

*captcha*: Investor

Beer

[Anonymous Coward]

"Worldwide we need to revisit alcohol control policies and health programs, and to consider recommendations for abstaining from alcohol," said the report's senior author, Professor Emmanuela Gakidou. "These include excise taxes on alcohol, controlling the physical availability of alcohol and the hours of sale, and controlling alcohol advertising. Any of these policy actions would contribute to reductions in population-level consumption, a vital step toward decreasing the health loss associated with alcohol use."

Someone, please, get this guy a beer!

Too late, Professor

[biggaijin]

Sorry Ma'am, but we already have enormous excise taxes on alcohol, the hours of sale and physical availability are already strictly limited, and alcohol advertising is already strictly controlled. Any other suggestions?

Re:Too late, Professor

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the quote concerning these "public health initiatives" seems particularly clueless. When was the last time these restrictions weren't in place?

Nothing new here

[fropenn]

The knowledge that high-risk drinking (15 or more drinks per week for men, 8 or more drinks per week for women) is associated with poor health has been known for a long time. This study confirms this finding, but note that the high end of risk for their curve (in figure 5) includes consumption at the rate of 70 to 105 drinks per week. This is extreme high use and will of course distort the overall findings.

The surprising thing is that the risk for 1 average drink per day (7 per week) is nearly the same as the risk for no drinks per week (figure 5). 2 standard drinks per day (figure 5) is only slightly elevated risk (14 per week). Again, high-risk drinking, not all drinking, needs to be the focus of our efforts.

Note: I am a beer fan, but I would give it all up tomorrow if all of the world's problems from alcohol would go away.

Re:Nothing new here

[roc97007]

So, the study basically repeats stuff we've already known for a long time. Only the title has changed. The conclusions haven't even changed much. I heard the same stuff in high school a (ahem...) long time ago.

Repeat after me...

[jdharm]

Correlation does not equal causation.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Correlation does not...

But life without beer....

[Anonymous Coward]

I would totally give up alcohol to live forever.
Not for an extra 2 weeks though.

Homer Simpson Said It Best

[Zorro]

“Here's to alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.”

Only until the next study

[BinBoy]

Ah, so alcohol is back to being unhealthy again. What should people do with all that red wine they bought for heart health because of previous studies? Are eggs currently healthy or unhealthy? How about coffee? That switches every few years as well. Some even say diabetics should not try to avoid carbs. Don't worry about that diabetic coma. Walk it off.

Re:Only until the next study

[Anonymous Coward]

Eggs were "unhealthy" because of the war on fats, which was based on fraud made by an asshole in the 50s.
So, they should be "healthy" now and be so forever, but it will take a generation before we get rid of fat == bad.

What is our goal here?

[Anonymous Coward]

ZERO death????

Re:Oh no the sky is falling EVERYBODY PANIC!!!11!!

[h4x0t]

everything is going to kill you. Just scroll through the internet...

But studies show that too much time on the internet will kill me...

It should be noted ...

[Rambo Tribble]

... this research doesn't really establish a safe level for teetotalling, either.

Re:It should be noted ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Teetotalling is 0 consumption. Actual teetotallers are rather unusual being mostly either recovered alcoholics or those from a religion that bans it. People that voluntarily abstain completely are relatively unusual.

Without alcohol

[Grand Facade]

how would I ever get laid?

Alcohol assists Darwin, stupid people will still find a way to wreck themselves even without alcohol.

Saving these people is not a benefit to society, in fact it is a burden.

Survival of the fittest.......

Take away my bottled liquor at the store and I'll make my own.
Probably not as safe as commercial production....

Cancer! Only in California!

[ememisya]

Yea but the same study also says it is good for your heart. First time I ever heard of alcohol causing cancer. Nutrition science must be fun.

You live longer....

[whitroth]

And it will be far too long.

"So drinking and eating and loving you see,
Are bound to destroy Spi-ri-tu-al-i-ty.
Our tastes are austere and our virtue is sure.
We don't have much fun, but our honor is pure."
      - Away With Rum, By Gum/The Temperance Union Song

Re:Oh no the sky is falling EVERYBODY PANIC!!!11!!

[Rick Schumann]

If you have so much as ONE BEER your ENTIRE LIFE you will DIE, HORRIBLY, BEFORE YOUR TIME!!!1!!

You want to believe that bullshit, or do you actually have critical thinking skills?

Re:Oh no the sky is falling EVERYBODY PANIC!!!11!!

[Anonymous Coward]

They are studies supporting methods for the government to raise taxes and reduce public healthcare spending. If you tax booze, you reduce consumption, bring in some tax money, and don't spend as much in aggregate on healthcare costs.

"These include excise taxes on alcohol, controllin

[Anonymous Coward]

"These include excise taxes on alcohol, controlling the physical availability of alcohol and the hours of sale, and controlling alcohol advertising"

Fuck. There's no need for the advertising, but fuck additional taxes and restrictions. If you increase taxes, people have to drink stronger beers and worse red wine. The former because lighter beers (4% to 5%) get too expensive for the alcohol content, the latter because the really good wine gets too expensive. This hasn't made me exactly healthier.
Also, where I am the legal hours for buying alcohol were 10 PM, illegal hours were 5 PM (or undefined). They made the groceries illegally selling alcohol close at 2 PM, so you can only buy alcohol illegally till 2 PM. Great, yea.
(How it works is : they actually sell small groceries, and soft drinks. The alcohol in your face? They sell it as well, get a fine or sometimes a week of closure if they get caught)
Well it was more fun before. More people wandering in town at night. They want us to stay miserable, locked up in our tiny flats and drinking alone. I don't think that's good for health either.

'Virtue signalling'

[Rick Schumann]

Don't you think that this term 'virtue signalling' is just code for 'you are saying things I don't agree with and I want you to stop saying them'? A way of attempting to shame someone into silence so someone else's Echo Chamber can continue without opposition?

Re:'Virtue signalling'

[Ol Olsoc]

Don't you think that this term 'virtue signalling' is just code for 'you are saying things I don't agree with and I want you to stop saying them'? A way of attempting to shame someone into silence so someone else's Echo Chamber can continue without opposition?

That's a big part of it. It also signals to the group a person is trying to impress. This has been a source of annoyance to women, where some guy proclaims to be a male feminist, yet is anything but. In fact, many of these guys are real abusers and harassers, they just use the virtue signaling as a way to get close enough to women to do their dirty work. There was a video on Youtube that named a lot of them.

But yeah, its an issue on both left and right, and in the middle ground as well.

I do know one thing - the concept that fat people dying early being a big burdun on the healthcare system is bogus. The big drain of healthcare is the elderly people in nursing homes. My mother in law, in the last two years of her life, used nearly 750 thousand dollars in hospital bills, and gawd knows how much in meds.

A fat smoker that drops dead of a massive heart attack at say 60, doesn't cost anywhere near as much.

Re:'Virtue signalling'

[Anonymous Coward]

No. It's the difference between being enlightened by someone else's wisdom vs. being lectured by a moralizing hypocrite. The former would be nice, but we get the latter and it is not pleasant.

Re:'Virtue signalling'

[HornWumpus]

People cost the most in their last 2 years, doesn't really matter if they are elderly. It's just that most people live to be old these days.

Unless you apply the medicare discount rate, the bill amount is just propaganda. 750k$ billed, 75k$ paid.

Re:'Virtue signalling'

[Rick Schumann]

Oh I see. So I'm not ALLOWED to publicly say "I believe in XYZ" without being lumped in with a bunch of hypocrites or false-flag types? Meanwhile people who oppose what I believe in use it to attempt to shame me into shutting up and allowing their little Echo Chambers to continue unopposed? Fuck all that shit. The best way to get people to think about something important rather than just let it wash over them is to talk about it in public forums, both IRL and Internet, and I'll be DAMNED if I'm going to stop doing it.

Well technically...

[MJhasHIV]

It is poison.

Re:Well technically...

[WillAffleckUW]

It is poison.

So is Oxygen.

Please read the actual scientific paper

[WillAffleckUW]

Seriously, pay attention to who was the population studied for this paper, and then think about what that means.

As an example, if I did a study comparing different addiction rates, I'd find anything can be addictive, but alcohol is frequently more addicitive. I'd also find certain genetic backgrounds increased one's inability to process alcohol, whereas others were able to cope very easily with moderate ingestion.

If you're binge drinking, you're doing it wrong.

If you're drinking alcohol by itself, you're probably doing it wrong.

Moderation.

Wait a few years

[roc97007]

...another study will come out about the benefits of binge drinking...

It's a Feature

[Anonymous Coward]

Alcohol being unhealthy is a feature, not a bug. Stop trying to remove features!

Also, I believe that multiple studies have shown that red wine, and even IIRC other drinks, consumed in moderation, had health benefits (beyond a pleasant buzz).

Anyhow no one consumes alcohol for the "health benefits". That is some Public Health wanker shit, right there.

You can see some of the data vis here

[WillAffleckUW]

It's at healthdata.org in specific or causes of death.

The problem is the reporting systems used are fairly broad categories. So the post's inference may not be the one that scientists would state.

Another location is Vizhub COD.

Re:You can see some of the data vis here

[WillAffleckUW]

If a tree falls on a road and kills a drunk driver, did he die of alcohol or of driving too fast, or was it tree consumption?

Remember, we all die, but what is the true cause?

Re:Still want to let Government handle health care

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Well said.

Good data, Conclusion not supported by data

[themusicgod1]

1) The study supports up to 0.8 drinks / day (95%) in populations with a propensity for heart issues.
2) In general: this study does relatively well, probably better at all studies previous at meticulously looking at the costs of alcohol consumption to human life expectancy. Yet it does very little to look at the benefits. This might explain why previous meta-analyses got a little more rosy view - they put more effort into finding benefits, rather than looking at costs. This study might serve as a useful bottom range - (0.0-0.8 / day, depending on your risk profile as an individual to particular kinds of health problems)
3) The study seems to group a lot of likelihood on the >4 drink / day level - this is consistent, and provides a clearer view at these high levels than previous meta-analyses. But I can't help but think that this is bleeding through to the lower drinks. Especially with the messy data they have - there's a lot of noise in there, and some of their 95% CIs are perhaps a little premature.

there's always a bigger box

[epine]

News flash: people don't drink alcohol for the same reason they consume acai berries, as a net health benefit.

This hasn't always been true.

Before anaesthetics, I'd be shocked if a few people hadn't died holding off amputation for an extra 12 hours in a lethal arm wrestle between death and suffering.

Back in the elective surgery dark ages, I'm sure more than one person got seriously gin-faced, and then either limped home a few weeks later to tell about it, or scrawled a few nearly unreadable letters to lovers and friends, alt-handed.

So don't tell me there's no net health benefit, as if there never has been.

Another month, another study

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time there was a study that said alcohol was good for your health, now it's a study about how alcohol is bad for your health.

Just do whatever the F you want.

I doubt it is so easy

[angel'o'sphere]

People who drink a lot (yes the study is not about "a lot" but about "any consumption") usually also have other bad habits, like smoking, bad sleep patterns, overworked, stress.

Anyway, mankind is drinking alcohol since 10,000 years, probably longer. I drink since 35, and hope to live another 40 years. No reason to give up a good beer or a good wine. Or for that matter a good Scottish or Irish Whiskey

Re:I doubt it is so easy

[Bengie]

yes the study is not about "a lot" but about "any consumption"

I don't know about that. They just say people who drink 8 drinks per week or so. I know people like this. They drink all 8 drinks on Friday night. Maybe they should have tracked the amount consumed at a higher resolution than a week.

Fat drunk stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

Non-sequitur

[Anonymous Coward]

Read article and conclusion in above title do not follow from the results.

Simple way to decide which is dangerous:

[Anonymous Coward]

In my family 1 person has died from alcohol, one person has died from a car accident(drunk driver), one person lost ability to walk from a ar accident. 4 people have died from smoking related issues. 0 has died from cannabis. 0 from other drugs (no heroin/opiate use in my family).

There you go, 0 zero deaths vs several deaths.I think imma go with 0 deaths. I think if you look at statistics for nations they echo this experience.
The danger with pot , besides smoking - which is optinal, is the law and only the law. I myself have lost gainful employment opurtunities because I have a record for weed use, despite outclassing the competition in my field.
Also lost ability to get work visa in several countries. So when The Law recently came to me asking me to join their cyber security offense team because of my skillset being what they are and they being what they are, i laughed really hard and asked "are you serious?" They said I could think about it. I said i would call them ... when hell freezes over. The drug laws weaken respect for the law - and that is a real danger.

Insurance premium

[narsiman]

For drinkers shall rise.
Fitbits shall monitor inebriation and ...

Welcome our big data overlords

Better someone else

[eric_harris_76]

governments should think of advising people to abstain completely

Wouldn't the message be more effective if it came from a more credible source?

Such as those who did the study? Or better yet, those who replicated the study and got the same results?

Or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson?

Or my brother-in-law?

Muslims were right

[Anonymous Coward]

Turns out the Muslims have been right all along, No alcohol is the best alcohol

Cardiovascular diseases

[NewYork]

Cardiovascular diseases (268/100,000), not Alcoholism (2.3/100,000) is the leading cause of death;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate

And a LOLA pill will flush out excess Alcohol/Ammonia from the body https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepatic_encephalopathy#Treatment

Re:"Gerald Butler" lol, really? THE Gerald Butler?

[gerald.edward.butler]

I see you are an expert on homo-erotic porno. Get out of your grandma's basement and stopping slurping your retarded uncle Cal's jizz.

Unlke you...

[gerald.edward.butler]

Who will die WITH 30-40 cocks in your mouth and ass! Fucktard!

Re: Want to bet the researchers couldn't get a dat

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep hearing this, but it smells like nail Polish when the cap is off and sure tastes different than water. So I'm clueless wtf people are talking about. I think the ones who can drink vodka like water are just alcoholics.

Re:Well Fuck; ask Captain John Miller

[Anonymous Coward]

Licensed active pilot, age 102 (article from 2007)
https://blog.timesunion.com/pilotgirl/oldest-living-pilot-in-the-world/465/

Re: Want to bet the researchers couldn't get a dat

[Anonymous Coward]

It does have an odor, and most of the perceived "flavor" actually comes from the odor. The rest is trace ingredients from the distillation process or additives.