Slashdot Mirror
Alcohol Causes One In 20 Deaths Worldwide, Says WHO (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Alcohol is responsible for more than 5% of all deaths worldwide, or around 3 million a year, new figures have revealed. The data, part of a report from the World Health Organization, shows that about 2.3 million of those deaths in 2016 were of men, and that almost 29% of all alcohol-caused deaths were down to injuries -- including traffic accidents and suicide. The report, which comes out every four years, reveals the continued impact of alcohol on public health around the world, and highlights that the young bear the brunt: 13.5% of deaths among people in their 20s are linked to booze, with alcohol responsible for 7.2% of premature deaths overall. It also stresses that harm from drinking is greater among poorer consumers than wealthier ones. While the proportion of deaths worldwide that have been linked to alcohol has fallen to 5.3% since 2012, when the figure was at 5.9%, experts say the findings make for sobering reading.
the rate of death attributed to alcohol has been falling since 2012. Sounds like a better trend to me.
95% chance you won't die from alcohol.
The glass may be half empty but the bottle is half full.
Alcohol may cause 1 in 20 deaths, but it probably play a part in about 1 in 20 conceptions, so overall its a zero-sum game
To be fair, it is the number one way to screw up your life. And if not the number one, it's in the top two. This drug is widely available, people self-medicate with it because it has social blessing, it's advertised everywhere and yes, there's even a word for abusing it that's in common parlance -- alcoholism. It's not just the deaths it's the messed second, third and fourth order consequences.
Let me give a simple example: alcohol abuse makes you a lousy parent.
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
List of causes of death by rate
I think that there are more pressing causes of death, which might increase the need for a drink.
Undid some funny moderation, because I think there are a couple of people worldwide who like to use every opportunity to ban alcohol, even though it is not really a leading cause of death worldwide.
It's a poor mechanism for population control. It kills those in their 20s disproportionately often. This means the resources used to raise and educate these people are wasted since they died before they could make a sufficient contribution. A more cost efficient mechanism would target those past retirement or the very young or ideally prevent conception in the first place. As others have pointed out, alcohol may even increase the number of unplanned pregnancies, making the overpopulation problem worse.
It kills those in their 20s disproportionately often because those in their 20s tend to die rarely from cardiac arrest, cancer or a stroke.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The number one way to screw up your life is having sex. From STDs to pregnancies to rape allegations...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Thank you for explaining the joke.
*golfclap*
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You only noticed that now? Never heard of that bullshit called the "12 step program?
The whole thing starts with "admitting" that you're not responsible for drinking.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And yet 19 out of 20 people manage to live responsibly and not kill themselves. Did anybody question how many of those people enjoy a little alcohol in moderation without becoming fuckwits?
It's basically pointing out that some people can't control themselves, and that some people are just fucking awful parents who failed to introduce their offspring to drinking, partying and enjoying life in a controlled manner, leaving them to "break free" and binge out, to their own detriment.
Why blame the alcohol? Oh right, cos nobody wants to ever have to have personal responsibility. It must be something else what caused it sir.
Let's say for whatever reason, opium and alcohol switch places historically and instead of alcohol being the dominant legal drug, opium derivatives become legal.
Like alcohol, the dominant forms of opiates that remain legal are low-concentrate varieties, such as smoking opium or low-strength tinctures -- in the same way that beer and wine are popular, although like spirits, morphine or heroin also exist, but are consumed mostly diluted cocktail style. For the most part, opium is sold in regulated stores and always in well-known concentrations by a well-regulated industry.
Society has recognized for centuries the problems of opium use, but as its deeply ingrained in culture only the US ever tried to ban it during Prohibition which was a complete failure. Alcohol is seen as much worse, and society is presently engaged in a "alcohol crisis" fueled by over-prescription of therapeutic alcohol and black-market alcohol which is tainted.
Would we more or less be in the same place we are now, kind of turning a blind eye to the dangers of opium -- relying mostly on the culturally ingrained "rules" for to not overdose regularly?
It seems to me that most people ignore the large-scale problems with alcohol availability and despite cultural acceptance it's probably way more dangerous than we ever consider. Millions of people are alcoholics and millions more are borderline functional alcoholics and there are vast social problems associated with alcohol, like drunk driving, violence, domestic abuse, etc.
I think there have been attempts to quantify the risks associated with the various varieties of psychoactive substances and almost always alcohol and tobacco come out 1 or 2 with opiates further down the list maybe behind barbiturates, which society mostly has avoided as a long-term crisis or black market drug.
The latter is kind of interesting considering the popularity of Seconal and Quaaludes in the late 1960s and 1970s -- it's somewhat surprising that with the surge in illciit lab-made fentanyl and other "research chemicals" that there hasn't been a parallel surge in illicit lab-made Quaaludes or Seconal.
If we blame alcohol, we can raise the taxes on it. If we blame their behaviour then what can we do? Trying to change their behaviour costs the tax payer money whereas raising taxes on alcoholic drinks brings in tax revenue.
Eliminating factors that taint the result is crucial. Else bullshit like "people lived healthier lives in the past because way fewer died of cancer" becomes fashionable. Yes, fewer people died of cancer in medieval times, but mostly because other diseases that we have eliminated today got them first.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If paying for it bothers you, well you're going to pay for it anyways in societal costs. More health care, more law enforcement involvement, more broken homes. If you're sole metric is taxes, then you really are missing the bigger picture.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Well, I remember when I was in my teens and 20s, I died from alcohol every weekend at least twice. (Living in the EU, so nothing illegal)
So that might influence the numbers a bit.
Now I die every weekend from cardiac arrest because of the fact that my kids behave like I used to do. So that influences the numbers also a bit.
The stroke is the cause of the little death or La petite mort. That has not changed that much over the years. (Or what stroke where you talking about?
I am litteraly dying.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Bad comparison. Countries have tried restricting both firearms and alcohol. We know that banning alcohol goes badly in general (e.g. US prohibition, Islamic countries today). In contrast, over the last 50 years, many countries have substantially increased restrictions on firearms (the UK, Canada, and Australia), and we haven't seen the same problems from alcohol prohibition. Addictive substances built into culture are very different than weapons. There are some decent potential arguments for few restrictions on firearms(e.g. right of self-defense), but a comparison to alcohol empirically doesn't work.
The plant itself has been familiar in the west for hundreds of years, as hemp has several other uses besides the intoxicating effects, which have also been known for a long time. An interesting anecdote from the wiki article of the history of cannabis::
As for this:
I think this statement was true 50 or maybe even 30 years ago, but trends are changing fast across the West. With legalization proceeding in many places, the social status of weed has changed considerably in the past decade and a half. Roughly about half of the people I know (most of them under 30 with some exceptions) smoke occasionally, one even as an alternative to alcohol as he cannot drink due to issues with migraine. And this is in a country where the plant is still illegal (for now, although legalization is pretty much unavoidable in the coming 10-20 years as attitudes are changing even among the politicians as more and more data is coming in about the failures of a total ban on drugs and the benefits of decriminalization or legalization).
While it may not be exactly 'mainstream', with use increasing even among the older populations ("According to data gathered from the latest survey done by the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the number of people age 65 and up who said they use marijuana grew 250 percent between 2006 and 2013') as they read news about how it's become legal in more and more places, I'd say it's fast on track for becoming a mainstream alternative.
Keep in mind also that it's been more common than most people think throughout the last decades. It's true that alcohol has a way longer history in the West, but the statistics are also heavily slanted by the prohibition approach to cannabis which understandably makes people less likely to admit to using it, thereby creating an image of it as more marginalized than it actually is.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
You mean that program that has helped millions of people stop drinking and get their lives back on track? Are you actually against harm reduction? That's some seriously hard-hearted shit right there. Wow.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I'd say it's fast on track for becoming a mainstream alternative.
Keep in mind also that it's been more common than most people think throughout the last decades. It's true that alcohol has a way longer history in the West, but the statistics are also heavily slanted by the prohibition approach to cannabis which understandably makes people less likely to admit to using it, thereby creating an image of it as more marginalized than it actually is.
I would agree with that. I think the two things are going hand in hand. The mainstream usage of it, and the push for legalization. It certainly isn't the taboo substance it once was. If you see films from the 60's-80's people smoking pot were usually losers or degenerates. Nowadays films will show everyday people, respectable people using it. Culturally, it is being portrayed more positively. I expect it to be legal almost anywhere in the Western world within my lifetime.
I doubt the same will be true for LSD though. Peyote and Magic Mushrooms might follow suit eventually as they're pretty harmless and don't have as much negative social stigma- I can see society adopting those as MJ becomes too "mainstream" and loses street cred for those on the edge. Peyote and Mushrooms will be the MJ equivalents for our grandchildren.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I disagree.
Do to alcohol what was done to tobacco.
You'll notice that in cases where the person dying is not the person drinking, it often is illegal.
Methinks something got lost in translation. The 5% of deaths caused by alcohol include people who were not drinking, but killed as the result of someone else drinking. An easy example would be people when someone drunk crashes into them. Because of this potential harm to others we are justified in regulating alcohol (eg. set minimum drinking age, maximum BAC for driving). Regulate doesn't mean outright ban, but please don't put myself, my family, or my friends at risk due to your decisions.
Not only that, alcohol doesn't drink itself. It's not responsible for ANYTHING!
Alcohol consumers, using bad judgement, are the responsible parties with respect to the deaths cited.
You sir must learn to subscribe to the proper victimhood mentality, this is 2108 after all. We can't have people thinking and taking responsibility for themselves. Your vote entitles you to be absolved from such burdensome things. Indeed, many inanimate objects are to blame for your actions. And if that doesn't quite fly, then try blaming society as a failed collective system.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
The number one way to screw up your life is having sex. From STDs to pregnancies to rape allegations...
You missed: children.
"Oh no... he found the
You appear to be confusing two separate issues; whether gun control reduced crime rates by a lot with whether or not it was at all similar to alcohol prohibition. Alcohol prohibition wasn't just ineffective, but it also lead to a massive crime waves and literally thousands of additional deaths from tainted alcohol.
The only countries that have less problems with guns than the US are western countries that are less diverse than the US
You think Canada is less diverse than the US? I'm Canadian, and my office resembles the United Nations hosting a gay pride parade.
We do have gun control, though.
It's frustrating (bordering on bizarre) how so many Americans grasp at any straw to explain gun violence, while refusing to concede the one commonality: The absence of gun control.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
The only western country to break into the top 20 most diverse is Canada. The United States ranks near the middle, slightly more diverse than Russia but slightly less diverse than Spain.
Cars kill more people.
Most deaths from alcohol are caused by cars.
It's like blaming alcohol for all the deaths caused by tanks. The tank fired the weapons, the amount of alcohol imbibed is only a contributing factor. Or like blaming the need to use lungs to breathe when it's the smoke that's killing you.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Nixon definitely did weaponize drug policy as a tool for dealing with his enemies -- hippies, left-wing types and minorities.
My problem is that I don't think drug policy really changed all that much when this happened, the only real difference was that post 1960s there were just a LOT more ordinary white people doing drugs, mostly marijuana.
But before that, drug policy had historically been used to suppress minorities too -- Chinese, Blacks, Mexicans. Sure, Nixon made it worse but it wasn't like it was great before that. In many ways, I think what Nixon made worse was not the racist aspect of it, but the concentration of authority and creating the DEA, making anti-drugs much more of an intensive effort.