What is driving the current “anti alcohol” rhetoric online

[Tim_vb]

You clearly seem to keep missing the point of this entire thread. I am not trying to prove anything. I am just making the case for the positive side of an industry that supports at least 270 000 jobs in South Africa alone, and directly contributes at least R56B to the local economy each year, with an estimated multiplier effect of at least 1.57 according to the latest available data. (and this is all just for the wine industry, I dont have the info for the breweries, which will be similar).

I dont need to prove booze is okay - the numbers speak for themselves. The counter argument yourself and others keep making constantly jumps onto the "but some people can't control themselves, which makes it bad" train. That is all good and well, and I dont think I, or anyone who is making the "pro booze" argument here, has tried to deny or reduce the seriousness of the abuse issue. But the potential for abuse doesn't explain why everyday folk, who aren't prone to addiction, are suddenly shunning something as culturally and socially important, while simultaneously embracing other equally or similarly harmful habits.

But you specifically claimed that sugar isn't as bad because people do not end up in rehab from sugar overindulgence, and then you refused to defend that statement.

you asked why people are reducing alchohol consumption then you ignore all the answers

• Its only has negative consequences for your personel health
• On a societal level its single most destructive substance consumed

Anything can look good when you cherrypick numbers. When you start adding up death and destruction attributed then the picture is very different.

 

[porchrat]

You clearly seem to keep missing the point of this entire thread. I am not trying to prove anything. I am just making the case for the positive side of an industry that supports at least 270 000 jobs in South Africa alone, and directly contributes at least R56B to the local economy each year, with an estimated multiplier effect of at least 1.57 according to the latest available data. (and this is all just for the wine industry, I dont have the info for the breweries, which will be similar).

I dont need to prove booze is okay - the numbers speak for themselves. The counter argument yourself and others keep making constantly jumps onto the "but some people can't control themselves, which makes it bad" train. That is all good and well, and I dont think I, or anyone who is making the "pro booze" argument here, has tried to deny or reduce the seriousness of the abuse issue. But the potential for abuse doesn't explain why everyday folk, who aren't prone to addiction, are suddenly shunning something as culturally and socially important, while simultaneously embracing other equally or similarly harmful habits.

But you specifically claimed that sugar isn't as bad because people do not end up in rehab from sugar overindulgence, and then you refused to defend that statement.

Reality is they're both bad.

You may not have an alcohol problem personally, but the reality is that it does a lot of societal damage.

How that's handled I don't know, and I get it you have a bias, but let's not pretend there aren't a lot of very serious negatives to alcohol.

 

[Zellephant]

Reality is they're both bad.

You may not have an alcohol problem personally, but the reality is that it does a lot of societal damage.

How that's handled I don't know, and I get it you have a bias, but let's not pretend there aren't a lot of very serious negatives to alcohol.

There are very serious negatives to a lot of things. No one is ignoring the negatives of alcohol abuse.

But things need to be looked at in perspective. Whereas the current generation of “influencers” driving the “maxing” movement and harping on about the virtues of a life lived without alcohol, are cherry picking. While simultaneously being the loneliest and most depressed generation ever to have lived.

Healthy, responsible alcohol consumption is part of a centuries deep social network of real and meaningful interaction with others, community building, economy growing etc etc etc. This part of the equation seems to be getting completely missed. While making out as if a few drinks once in a while is going to be so detrimental to your health that it’s best just to never even touch the stuff, but at the same time surviving on antidepressants and therapy pets and who know what else, embracing vaping culture as if suddenly getting your high out of a electronic device dispensing an industrially procuded chemical vapour is somehow better.

 

[Jean Claude Vaaldamme]

but at the same time surviving on antidepressants and therapy pets and who know what else, embracing vaping culture as if suddenly getting your high out of a electronic device dispensing an industrially procuded chemical vapour is somehow better.

Jassis, do you just make shyte up as you go?

 

[EthanMH]

Now that’s scary, how many people quit alcohol because benzodiazepines/antidepressants.

 

[Zellephant]

Its only has negative consequences for your personel health

Really? Only negative consequences. I think it has been very well established already that only in excess does it have negative impacts on personal health. Even if you back the argument that some scientists make that there are no benefits from moderate consumption, they all agree that there are no negative personal health consequences unless large quantities are regularly consumed.

Also, how can the social engagement built around the consumption of this product not be a positive impact? Especially in a time when people are lonelier and more depressed than ever before?

On a societal level its single most destructive substance consumed

There is a statistical problem here: alcohol is legal, widely available and consumed by a very large proportion of the adult population. Consequently, its total societal burden is going to be large. That doesn’t necessarily mean alcohol is intrinsically more destructive than every other substance. It means that a potentially harmful substance is being consumed on a very large scale.


And there is an even more fundamental distinction: the existence of harm does not establish that the substance is, in itself, socially destructive. Alcohol can be abused, sometimes catastrophically, while moderate consumption by millions of adults produces no comparable social consequence. The same distinction applies to numerous other potentially harmful products and behaviours.

 

[Tim_vb]

Jassis, do you just make shyte up as you go?

while defending the production and consumption of an CNS depressant

 

[Tim_vb]

Really? Only negative consequences. I think it has been very well established already that only in excess does it have negative impacts on personal health. Even if you back the argument that some scientists make that there are no benefits from moderate consumption, they all agree that there are no negative personal health consequences unless large quantities are regularly consumed.

Also, how can the social engagement built around the consumption of this product not be a positive impact? Especially in a time when people are lonelier and more depressed than ever before?

There is a statistical problem here: alcohol is legal, widely available and consumed by a very large proportion of the adult population. Consequently, its total societal burden is going to be large. That doesn’t necessarily mean alcohol is intrinsically more destructive than every other substance. It means that a potentially harmful substance is being consumed on a very large scale.


And there is an even more fundamental distinction: the existence of harm does not establish that the substance is, in itself, socially destructive. Alcohol can be abused, sometimes catastrophically, while moderate consumption by millions of adults produces no comparable social consequence. The same distinction applies to numerous other potentially harmful products and behaviours.

Again you ask a question then keep on rejecting the answers because they don't fit into your personal views of the world

the WHO is pretty clear on why alcohol is so destructive and dangerous

No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health
4 January 2023 News release Reading time: 3 min (759 words)
The World Health Organization has now published a statement in The Lancet Public Health: when it comes to alcohol consumption, there is no safe amount that does not affect health.

It is the alcohol that causes harm, not the beverage
Alcohol is a toxic, psychoactive, and dependence-producing substance and has been classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer decades ago – this is the highest risk group, which also includes asbestos, radiation and tobacco. Alcohol causes at least seven types of cancer, including the most common cancer types, such as bowel cancer and female breast cancer. Ethanol (alcohol) causes cancer through biological mechanisms as the compound breaks down in the body, which means that any beverage containing alcohol, regardless of its price and quality, poses a risk of developing cancer.

The risk of developing cancer increases substantially the more alcohol is consumed. However, latest available data indicate that half of all alcohol-attributable cancers in the WHO European Region are caused by “light” and “moderate” alcohol consumption – less than 1.5 litres of wine or less than 3.5 litres of beer or less than 450 millilitres of spirits per week. This drinking pattern is responsible for the majority of alcohol-attributable breast cancers in women, with the highest burden observed in countries of the European Union (EU). In the EU, cancer is the leading cause of death – with a steadily increasing incidence rate – and the majority of all alcohol-attributable deaths are due to different types of cancers.

Risks start from the first drop
To identify a “safe” level of alcohol consumption, valid scientific evidence would need to demonstrate that at and below a certain level, there is no risk of illness or injury associated with alcohol consumption. The new WHO statement clarifies: currently available evidence cannot indicate the existence of a threshold at which the carcinogenic effects of alcohol “switch on” and start to manifest in the human body.

Moreover, there are no studies that would demonstrate that the potential beneficial effects of light and moderate drinking on cardiovascular diseases and type 2 diabetes outweigh the cancer risk associated with these same levels of alcohol consumption for individual consumers.

“We cannot talk about a so-called safe level of alcohol use. It doesn’t matter how much you drink – the risk to the drinker’s health starts from the first drop of any alcoholic beverage. The only thing that we can say for sure is that the more you drink, the more harmful it is – or, in other words, the less you drink, the safer it is,” explains Dr Carina Ferreira-Borges, acting Unit Lead for Noncommunicable Disease Management and Regional Advisor for Alcohol and Illicit Drugs in the WHO Regional Office for Europe.

Despite this, the question of beneficial effects of alcohol has been a contentious issue in research for years.

“Potential protective effects of alcohol consumption, suggested by some studies, are tightly connected with the comparison groups chosen and the statistical methods used, and may not consider other relevant factors”, clarifies Dr Jürgen Rehm, member of the WHO Regional Director for Europe’s Advisory Council for Noncommunicable Diseases and Senior Scientist at the Institute for Mental Health Policy Research and the Campbell Family Mental Health Research Institute at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Canada.

 

[EthanMH]

I think what @Zellephant is trying to argue is that the first order effects of alcohol may be bad, but people discount the ripple effects of other societal vices? Which you do.

 

[Jean Claude Vaaldamme]

I think what @Zellephant is trying to argue is that the first order effects of alcohol may be bad, but people discount the ripple effects of other societal vices? Which you do.

Nope, hy is bang hy hardloop uit familie and vriende wat saam met hom sal sit en suip.

 

[Herr der Verboten]

I like WHO.... guys butter bad for you, rather go margarine - 'tis better and best for your heart.

 

[Zellephant]

while defending the production and consumption of an CNS depressant

If all you see in beer, wine and spirits is “a CNS depressant”, then therein lies the problem. To entire cultures, they are also food and drink, agricultural products, living heritage, craftsmanship, hospitality and a means of preserving traditional ways of life that stretch back centuries. Reducing something with that much cultural, economic and historical significance to its pharmacological effect is about as intellectually useful as claiming wine is ethanol and cheese is fat.

Again you ask a question then keep on rejecting the nsers because they dont fit into your personal views of the world

I’m not rejecting answers; I’m interrogating propositions. That is normally how a discussion works. I’ve put a good deal of effort into making my case: I’ve discussed the value of the wider economy built around the industry, its cultural and historical importance, and its positive social and economic contributions. I’ve also deliberately separated the very real issue of alcohol abuse from the question actually being debated — why ordinary people, and particularly “maxxing” influencers, are suddenly rejecting alcohol on health grounds despite having no history or context of problematic use.

What I’m seeing in response is not much engagement with those arguments. Instead, they are being dismissed as “irrelevant” because someone has asserted that alcohol has a “net negative” impact on society. But that assertion is itself an argument, not a trump card. Asking what “net negative” means, how it is measured, what gets included in the calculation, and what countervailing benefits are being excluded is not rejecting an answer — it is testing the proposition.

And I’m perfectly happy for my arguments to be subjected to exactly the same scrutiny. If they’re wrong, demonstrate where they’re wrong. That is debate. Simply declaring an opposing argument irrelevant because it doesn't fit your conclusion isn't.

 

[porchrat]

There are very serious negatives to a lot of things. No one is ignoring the negatives of alcohol abuse.

But things need to be looked at in perspective. Whereas the current generation of “influencers” driving the “maxing” movement and harping on about the virtues of a life lived without alcohol, are cherry picking. While simultaneously being the loneliest and most depressed generation ever to have lived.

Healthy, responsible alcohol consumption is part of a centuries deep social network of real and meaningful interaction with others, community building, economy growing etc etc etc. This part of the equation seems to be getting completely missed. While making out as if a few drinks once in a while is going to be so detrimental to your health that it’s best just to never even touch the stuff, but at the same time surviving on antidepressants and therapy pets and who know what else, embracing vaping culture as if suddenly getting your high out of a electronic device dispensing an industrially procuded chemical vapour is somehow better.

The reality is that a life lived without alcohol is objectively healthier just on that point alone. I agree that, health-wise, it is best to never touch the stuff. This is objective truth.

If this offends or upsets you I can't really help.

That doesn't mean one can't consume alcohol. It's just don't do it thinking it's for your health or anything. It's not. It's damaging to your body. We're all adults. We all know this.

The growth, sale and refinement of poppies for opium production can also a big economic booster. There are whole social networks built around opium sale and consumption too. The social aspects of the use of opium also stretch back millennia. On the extremes opium addiction and alcohol addiction have eerily similar impacts on your life. Is opium suddenly a good thing because of these facts?

I don't think anyone's missing that there's economic benefit to producing a product people consume. This is a universal truth. It's just irrelevant to what that does to you health-wise. They are separate issues.

 

[Zellephant]

I think what @Zellephant is trying to argue is that the first order effects of alcohol may be bad, but people discount the ripple effects of other societal vices? Which you do.

I was beginning to wonder if I was really that bad at bringing a point across. Everyone seems to be assuming I don't believe there are negative effects from alcohol consumption or something. I definitely do.

Nope, hy is bang hy hardloop uit familie and vriende wat saam met hom sal sit en suip.

Ek sal darem lank dood wees voordat dit n probleem raak.

 

[Tim_vb]

I was beginning to wonder if I was really that bad at bringing a point across. Everyone seems to be assuming I don't believe there are negative effects from alcohol consumption or something. I definitely do.

Ek sal darem lank dood wees voordat dit n probleem raak.

No one is disputing that there are no negative effect caused by other vices. The question was "What is driving the current “anti alcohol” rhetoric online?

 

[porchrat]

No one is disputing that there are no negative effect caused by other vices. The question was "What is driving the current “anti alcohol” rhetoric online?

This. The main driver must be that it's healthier not to consume alcohol.

They're right. It is. Nobody can fault that stance.

I don't drink alcohol to be healthy. I like the taste and I enjoy the social aspect of it. I also have historically enjoyed the CNS depressing aspect of it, though this motivator faded with age. I'm probably also conditioned to some degree. It's very refreshing having an ice cold beer at the end of a long hard summer's day for example.

 

[Zellephant]

The reality is that a life lived without alcohol is objectively healthier just on that point alone. I agree that, health-wise, it is best to never touch the stuff. This is objective truth.

It all depends on what you are replacing it with - or not replacing it with, though.

If this offends or upsets you I can't really help.

It doesn't offend me. I dont agree, but it doesnt offend me. I definitely see the enjoyment and fulfilment it brings to a well-rounded life as a benefit. Others seem to disagree. I see the connection it brings me to my forefathers through tradition and shared memories and rites of passage and so forth as a benefit. All of these things contribute to one's wellness.

That doesn't mean one can't consume alcohol. It's just don't do it thinking it's for your health or anything. It's not. It's damaging to your body. We're all adults. We all know this.

I agree that overconsumption is damaging to your health. I do not agree that moderate consumption as part of a healthy lifestyle has any meaningful effect on my body. I do beleive in the cardioprotective properties of moderate consumption.

The growth, sale and refinement of poppies for heroin production is also a big economic booster. There are whole social networks built around heroin sale and consumption too. On the extremes heroin addiction and alcohol addiction have eerily similar impacts on your life. Is heroin suddenly a good thing because of these facts?

Opium is critical to society in the medical field, and there is definitely a place in medicine for opioids, but no, I do not think that opium is suddenly a good thing. I made this argument many, many pages ago already. Alcohol is unique here in that there are real ways to enjoy it as part of a healthy, well-rounded day. Wine and beer and spirits can be enjoyed for their craftsmanship and flavour alone. They are legitimate flavour enhancers when used in food or paired with meals.

Heroin shares none of these properties. Heroin can only be used for the net effect of getting high. So it is vastly different.

Marijuana is also similar in this sense. You can't really enjoy it for any reason other than to get the neurological effect. A weed brownie flavoured isn't improved by the marijuana; the brownie is, in fact, used to mask the taste of the marijuana. Although it is a "herb", I have never heard of any recipe where it is used to enhance the taste.

I don't think anyone's missing that there's economic benefit to producing a product people consume. This is a universal truth. It's just irrelevant to what that does to you health-wise. They are separate issues.

When the alternatives people consume in its place do not have remotely the same real benefit, or when the alternatives rely heavily on some sort of multinational industrial complex - then it is relevant.

 

[porchrat]

It all depends on what you are replacing it with - or not replacing it with, though.

It doesn't offend me. I dont agree, but it doesnt offend me. I definitely see the enjoyment and fulfilment it brings to a well-rounded life as a benefit. Others seem to disagree. I see the connection it brings me to my forefathers through tradition and shared memories and rites of passage and so forth as a benefit. All of these things contribute to one's wellness.

I agree that overconsumption is damaging to your health. I do not agree that moderate consumption as part of a healthy lifestyle has any meaningful effect on my body. I do beleive in the cardioprotective properties of moderate consumption.

Opium is critical to society in the medical field, and there is definitely a place in medicine for opioids, but no, I do not think that opium is suddenly a good thing. I made this argument many, many pages ago already. Alcohol is unique here in that there are real ways to enjoy it as part of a healthy, well-rounded day. Wine and beer and spirits can be enjoyed for their craftsmanship and flavour alone. They are legitimate flavour enhancers when used in food or paired with meals.

Heroin shares none of these properties. Heroin can only be used for the net effect of getting high. So it is vastly different.

Marijuana is also similar in this sense. You can't really enjoy it for any reason other than to get the neurological effect. A weed brownie flavoured isn't improved by the marijuana; the brownie is, in fact, used to mask the taste of the marijuana. Although it is a "herb", I have never heard of any recipe where it is used to enhance the taste.

When the alternatives people consume in its place do not have remotely the same real benefit, or when the alternatives rely heavily on some sort of multinational industrial complex - then it is relevant.

Spoken like someone that's never really dabbled with marijuana. Different strains have different effects. You get hybrids creating even more different effects. There's a serious social scene associated with this. Sharing and comparing the experiences you have with them. Very similar to alcohol. Just like with alcohol this stretches back centuries. That it's not specifically based on taste is largely irrelevant.

Health experts are in pretty unanimous agreement that any health benefit you may get from alcohol consumption is minor when compared against the potential health risks from even moderate consumption.

You aren't drinking alcohol for your health mate. Nobody is. If you think you are you've fallen for a con.

The increased cancer risk alone is enough to quash this myth. There is no safe threshold at which you eliminate risk. It is objectively healthier to never touch alcohol. This isn't something that's up for debate. The evidence is overwhelming. That you choose not to read it doesn't change this fact.

 

[Tim_vb]

If all you see in beer, wine and spirits is “a CNS depressant”, then therein lies the problem. To entire cultures, they are also food and drink, agricultural products, living heritage, craftsmanship, hospitality and a means of preserving traditional ways of life that stretch back centuries. Reducing something with that much cultural, economic and historical significance to its pharmacological effect is about as intellectually useful as claiming wine is ethanol and cheese is fat.

I’m not rejecting answers; I’m interrogating propositions. That is normally how a discussion works. I’ve put a good deal of effort into making my case: I’ve discussed the value of the wider economy built around the industry, its cultural and historical importance, and its positive social and economic contributions. I’ve also deliberately separated the very real issue of alcohol abuse from the question actually being debated — why ordinary people, and particularly “maxxing” influencers, are suddenly rejecting alcohol on health grounds despite having no history or context of problematic use.

What I’m seeing in response is not much engagement with those arguments. Instead, they are being dismissed as “irrelevant” because someone has asserted that alcohol has a “net negative” impact on society. But that assertion is itself an argument, not a trump card. Asking what “net negative” means, how it is measured, what gets included in the calculation, and what countervailing benefits are being excluded is not rejecting an answer — it is testing the proposition.

And I’m perfectly happy for my arguments to be subjected to exactly the same scrutiny. If they’re wrong, demonstrate where they’re wrong. That is debate. Simply declaring an opposing argument irrelevant because it doesn't fit your conclusion isn't.

Except you are not interrogating your own position.

Your question "why ordinary people, and particularly “maxxing” influencers, are suddenly rejecting alcohol on health grounds despite having no history or context of problematic use." implies there is level of alcohol consumption that is safe or beneficial to society.

The implicit assumption is the issue and its been called into question. I know its futile to argue a point when it forms part of the person's personal identity (live on a wine farm, produce and consume wine as part of your lifestyle etc etc). So for the record and anyone else reading the consensus of published research in public health asserts that alcohol is one of, if not the most dangerous (to society and the individual), commonly available narcotics and alcohol does not have a lower limit that does not have a negative effect on your health.

The question that can be considered is why now 16 years ofter the research was published has it taken root in the public consciousness? Then you need to ask how long did similar public health messages take to form part of a general understanding in society compared to other public health messages like exercise is good for your health, smoking is bad for your health etc.

Formulate your question better and you might get answers you are looking for

 

[Tim_vb]

I agree that overconsumption is damaging to your health. I do not agree that moderate consumption as part of a healthy lifestyle has any meaningful effect on my body. I do beleive in the cardioprotective properties of moderate consumption.

please link to source data and also review why this considered a textbook example of poorly defined test