What is driving the current “anti alcohol” rhetoric online

[SeRpEnT]

Alcohol is bad. Make the world safe for the great coming of.... ISLAM.
/cues Jaws tune

 

[Zellephant]

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.

OMG, did you actually pay attention to what I was saying? I understand full well how marijuana is consumed, what different strains do and all that. My point was, like heroin and pretty much every other neurostimulant drug, except alcohol, marijuana can only be consumed for its effect. You can't use dagga to improve the flavour of a meal, or smoke it for its taste alone. I can open a bottle of wine to share with friends, and we can drink it exclusively to enjoy the taste. Same with a good whiskey. At that level of consumption, no one is having any narcotic effect, and we are just enjoying the craft of the winemaker or distiller.

There is no way to consume heroin like that, nor marijuana or any other similar substance. You consume other "drugs" purely for thier effect. You enjoy a drink for lots of reasons, and it happens to have alcohol in it. That is the main difference.

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.

Potential being the key word here.

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

On a purely objective level, sure. But I promise you, many, many people are - and it's helping them be healthier.

You might not be drinking the alcohol for your health directly. You drink the alcohol because it's delicious - the health benefits of sitting out in the sun, sharing stories across generations, connecting with your roots, etc are all side benefits. Also, the little bit of social lubrication/confidence boosting it may give some is a real wellness benefit, and it scales significantly in improving your life - it can help you meet new and interesting people, fall in love, have a family, etc etc etc - and this has been working well for humanity for centuries.

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.

Agreed - but like I said, the real measure depends a hell of a lot on what you replace it with.

 

[Zellephant]

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

Ronksley et al., “Association of alcohol consumption with selected cardiovascular disease outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis”, BMJ 2011

Brien et al., “Effect of alcohol consumption on biological markers associated with risk of coronary heart disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of interventional studies”, BMJ 2011

I will save you the trouble, though - I am sure you will be hitting back with the "Sick Quitter" theory.

 

[porchrat]

OMG, did you actually pay attention to what I was saying? I understand full well how marijuana is consumed, what different strains do and all that. My point was, like heroin and pretty much every other neurostimulant drug, except alcohol, marijuana can only be consumed for its effect. You can't use dagga to improve the flavour of a meal, or smoke it for its taste alone. I can open a bottle of wine to share with friends, and we can drink it exclusively to enjoy the taste. Same with a good whiskey. At that level of consumption, no one is having any narcotic effect, and we are just enjoying the craft of the winemaker or distiller.

There is no way to consume heroin like that, nor marijuana or any other similar substance. You consume other "drugs" purely for thier effect. You enjoy a drink for lots of reasons, and it happens to have alcohol in it. That is the main difference.

There are plenty of experiences that are enhanced while under the effects of narcotics. Including meals. Just as alcohol can enhance the experience of a meal. These experiences can be, and are, shared socially, just as they are with alcohol.

Not sure what you're on about, but you're wrong here.

Just because it doesn't happen in the realm of direct flavour on your tongue like alcohol does is irrelevant.

Potential being the key word here.

On a purely objective level, sure. But I promise you, many, many people are - and it's helping them be healthier.

You might not be drinking the alcohol for your health directly. You drink the alcohol because it's delicious - the health benefits of sitting out in the sun, sharing stories across generations, connecting with your roots, etc are all side benefits. Also, the little bit of social lubrication/confidence boosting it may give some is a real wellness benefit, and it scales significantly in improving your life - it can help you meet new and interesting people, fall in love, have a family, etc etc etc - and this has been working well for humanity for centuries.

Agreed - but like I said, the real measure depends a hell of a lot on what you replace it with.

Many, if not all health problems are potential. Let's not be silly now.

The fact remains that alcohol can have a devastating impact on your health. Any consumption of it. Not just at extreme levels. Are you honestly confused about why, given that fact (note, not a maybe, not a theory, this is fact, the evidence is overwhelming at this point), people are beginning to advocate for a lifestyle in which you don't consume alcohol? That you don't do something that is objectively unhealthy? Come on man.

You also do not require alcohol for those social interactions. They happen with other drugs, and can happen without them. This is not something unique to alcohol. Stop pretending it is.

 

[Tim_vb]

Ronksley et al., “Association of alcohol consumption with selected cardiovascular disease outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis”, BMJ 2011

Brien et al., “Effect of alcohol consumption on biological markers associated with risk of coronary heart disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of interventional studies”, BMJ 2011

I will save you the trouble, though - I am sure you will be hitting back with the "Sick Quitter" theory.

Cherry picking means choosing only the best or most useful items from a group, while leaving the rest behind. In arguments or research, it means picking only the facts that prove your point while ignoring facts that do not

Counter point below

Overview of evidence
There is strong evidence that consuming alcoholic drinks is a cause of many cancers. There is no threshold of consumption below which there is no risk of at least some cancers.

Goal
For cancer prevention it’s best not to drink alcohol.
If you do consume alcoholic drinks don’t exceed your national guidelines
Children and pregnant women shouldn’t consume alcohol

Evidence
Alcoholic drinks of all types have a similar impact on cancer risk. This Recommendation therefore covers all types of alcoholic drinks, whether beers, wines, spirits (liquors) or any other drinks, as well as other alcohol sources.

The important factor is the amount and frequency of alcohol (ethanol) consumed. Even small amounts of alcohol can increase the risk of several cancers. There is no threshold of alcohol consumption below which cancer risk does not increase, at least for some cancers.

There is strong evidence that consuming alcohol INCREASES the risk of the following cancers:

• mouth, pharynx and larynx
• oesophageal (squamous cell carcinoma)
• breast (postmenopausal)
• liver
• colorectum

There is probable evidence that consuming alcohol INCREASES the risk of

• stomach cancer
• breast cancer (pre-menopause)

There is also probable evidence that consumption of alcoholic drinks helps protect against kidney cancer. However, this finding is far outweighed by the increased risk for other cancers.

 

[Zellephant]

Cherry picking means choosing only the best or most useful items from a group, while leaving the rest behind. In arguments or research, it means picking only the facts that prove your point while ignoring facts that do not

Counter point below

Overview of evidence
There is strong evidence that consuming alcoholic drinks is a cause of many cancers. There is no threshold of consumption below which there is no risk of at least some cancers.

Goal
For cancer prevention it’s best not to drink alcohol.
If you do consume alcoholic drinks don’t exceed your national guidelines
Children and pregnant women shouldn’t consume alcohol

Evidence
Alcoholic drinks of all types have a similar impact on cancer risk. This Recommendation therefore covers all types of alcoholic drinks, whether beers, wines, spirits (liquors) or any other drinks, as well as other alcohol sources.

The important factor is the amount and frequency of alcohol (ethanol) consumed. Even small amounts of alcohol can increase the risk of several cancers. There is no threshold of alcohol consumption below which cancer risk does not increase, at least for some cancers.

There is strong evidence that consuming alcohol INCREASES the risk of the following cancers:

• mouth, pharynx and larynx
• oesophageal (squamous cell carcinoma)
• breast (postmenopausal)
• liver
• colorectum

There is probable evidence that consuming alcohol INCREASES the risk of

• stomach cancer
• breast cancer (pre-menopause)

There is also probable evidence that consumption of alcoholic drinks helps protect against kidney cancer. However, this finding is far outweighed by the increased risk for other cancers.

Thanks LLM

 

[Tim_vb]

Thanks LLM

World Cancer Research Fund is a registered charity in England and Wales (1000739). A company limited by guarantee. Registered company in England and Wales (2536180).

Anyway its fascinating seeing such a clear example of a defensive identity response. I hope I never become like this as I age and lose the mental agility to reconsider previously held viewpoints

 

[Zellephant]

There are plenty of experiences that are enhanced while under the effects of narcotics. Including meals. Just as alcohol can enhance the experience of a meal. These experiences can be, and are, shared socially, just as they are with alcohol.

Not sure what you're on about, but you're wrong here.

Just because it doesn't happen in the realm of direct flavour on your tongue like alcohol does is irrelevant.

Name one other recreational “drug” that is routinely incorporated into recipes or consumed as a food or beverage purely for its flavour and sensory characteristics, rather than for its psychoactive effect.

That's the distinction I'm making. With beer, wine and spirits, the alcohol isn't something added afterwards because we want the drug effect. It is an intrinsic by-product of the production process. We ferment grapes to make wine; we ferment grain to make beer; we distil fermented products to make spirits. The alcohol is part of the resulting product.

People don't do food-and-wine pairings because being tipsy makes the food taste better. They do them because the flavour, aroma and characteristics of the wine complement the food.

Of course, I'm not disputing that narcotics can subjectively enhance other experiences. MDMA might make music feel different; cannabis might alter the experience of food; opioids might produce pleasurable sensations. That's not the point.

The distinction is what the product is being consumed for. You can appreciate a great wine without wanting to become intoxicated. Its flavour, aroma, texture, provenance and craftsmanship have value independently of its alcohol content.

That's fundamentally different from consuming a psychoactive drug because you want the psychoactive effect and then discovering that it also changes how you experience dinner or music.

I dont disagree that other psychoactive drugs can enhance experiences; I'm arguing that treating wine, beer and spirits as pharmacological delivery systems in the same conceptual category as recreational narcotics ignores the fact that they are also food and beverage products with sensory, culinary, agricultural and cultural value independent of intoxication.

If that distinction isn't clear, I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it.

Saying to someone, once this hits MDMA, listen to this song, because its bassline comes alive when you're high, is not the same as, take a bite of this ganache, okay, now a small sip of this malbec, swirl it around, and then take another bite of the ganache - see how much richer the flavour is.

 

[Tim_vb]

Name one other recreational “drug” that is routinely incorporated into recipes or consumed as a food or beverage purely for its flavour and sensory characteristics, rather than for its psychoactive effect.

That's the distinction I'm making. With beer, wine and spirits, the alcohol isn't something added afterwards because we want the drug effect. It is an intrinsic by-product of the production process. We ferment grapes to make wine; we ferment grain to make beer; we distil fermented products to make spirits. The alcohol is part of the resulting product.

People don't do food-and-wine pairings because being tipsy makes the food taste better. They do them because the flavour, aroma and characteristics of the wine complement the food.

Of course, I'm not disputing that narcotics can subjectively enhance other experiences. MDMA might make music feel different; cannabis might alter the experience of food; opioids might produce pleasurable sensations. That's not the point.

The distinction is what the product is being consumed for. You can appreciate a great wine without wanting to become intoxicated. Its flavour, aroma, texture, provenance and craftsmanship have value independently of its alcohol content.

That's fundamentally different from consuming a psychoactive drug because you want the psychoactive effect and then discovering that it also changes how you experience dinner or music.

I dont disagree that other psychoactive drugs can enhance experiences; I'm arguing that treating wine, beer and spirits as pharmacological delivery systems in the same conceptual category as recreational narcotics ignores the fact that they are also food and beverage products with sensory, culinary, agricultural and cultural value independent of intoxication.

If that distinction isn't clear, I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it.

Saying to someone, once this hits MDMA, listen to this song, because its bassline comes alive when you're high, is not the same as, take a bite of this ganache, okay, now a small sip of this malbec, swirl it around, and then take another bite of the ganache - see how much richer the flavour is.

Of course, I'm not disputing that ethanol (narcotic) can subjectively enhance other experiences. ethanol might make music feel different; ethanol might alter the experience of food; ethanol might produce pleasurable sensations. That's not the point.

 

[saor]

I dont disagree that other psychoactive drugs can enhance experiences; I'm arguing that treating wine, beer and spirits as pharmacological delivery systems in the same conceptual category as recreational narcotics ignores the fact that they are also food and beverage products with sensory, culinary, agricultural and cultural value independent of intoxication.

Sure but I think a lot of people punting the whole 'no alcohol' thing see all that and would rather a life without any drug rather than a life with one. I can understand someone wanting to untether a substance from it's cultural and culinary roots and say "you know what - I'd actually prefer to live a life without this drug, no matter how small the quantity." I haven't touched alcohol for a few years now, not really a conscious choice - I just didn't like the effect of even a small amount of alcohol. But then I also stopped drinking coffee every day just because I don't like the idea of needing a substance every day. Haven't missed alcohol one bit. I also don't care if other people drink. Dunno - I don't really disagree with a lot of what you've said, I just find it odd that you can't see past your own reasons for drinking and see why someone would choose not to.

 

[porchrat]

Name one other recreational “drug” that is routinely incorporated into recipes or consumed as a food or beverage purely for its flavour and sensory characteristics, rather than for its psychoactive effect.

That's the distinction I'm making. With beer, wine and spirits, the alcohol isn't something added afterwards because we want the drug effect. It is an intrinsic by-product of the production process. We ferment grapes to make wine; we ferment grain to make beer; we distil fermented products to make spirits. The alcohol is part of the resulting product.

People don't do food-and-wine pairings because being tipsy makes the food taste better. They do them because the flavour, aroma and characteristics of the wine complement the food.

Of course, I'm not disputing that narcotics can subjectively enhance other experiences. MDMA might make music feel different; cannabis might alter the experience of food; opioids might produce pleasurable sensations. That's not the point.

The distinction is what the product is being consumed for. You can appreciate a great wine without wanting to become intoxicated. Its flavour, aroma, texture, provenance and craftsmanship have value independently of its alcohol content.

That's fundamentally different from consuming a psychoactive drug because you want the psychoactive effect and then discovering that it also changes how you experience dinner or music.

I dont disagree that other psychoactive drugs can enhance experiences; I'm arguing that treating wine, beer and spirits as pharmacological delivery systems in the same conceptual category as recreational narcotics ignores the fact that they are also food and beverage products with sensory, culinary, agricultural and cultural value independent of intoxication.

If that distinction isn't clear, I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it.

Saying to someone, once this hits MDMA, listen to this song, because its bassline comes alive when you're high, is not the same as, take a bite of this ganache, okay, now a small sip of this malbec, swirl it around, and then take another bite of the ganache - see how much richer the flavour is.

My point is that psychoactive effects, by their inherent nature, change our perception. Tastes, colours, sounds. All can be altered.

What you're talking about is, at its core, that alcohol changes your experience of something like a meal. I'm saying psychoactive compounds can do that too. That they don't do it through the exact same mechanism (direct taste... I'm repeating myself here, please grasp this this time around I won't repeat it again) is irrelevant. You're talking about the experience, not the mechanism of action. Mechanism of action is irrelevant.

We're talking about sharing the altering of experiences. This is not something unique to alcohol. You cannot treat it as such.

 

[Zellephant]

Of course, I'm not disputing that ethanol (narcotic) can subjectively enhance other experiences. ethanol might make music feel different; ethanol might alter the experience of food; ethanol might produce pleasurable sensations. That's not the point.

I see what you are trying to do here, but it clearly shows you are missing the point I was making. Alcoholic beverages, in contrast to all other recreational drugs (with the exception maybe of coffee and cocoa), are on a daily basis consumed by hundreds of millions of people all around the world for their own unique flavours and characteristics. In those situations, they are not being consumed for the ethanol content. The ethanol content only becomes a factor in altering experiences once overused and intoxication enters the chat.

Other substances are taken purely for their intoxicating effect, whereas with beer, wine and spirits, it is a side effect - and in many instances not even a very desirable one. Food, for example, I cannot think of any culinary experience that is enhanced by being drunk. Sex is worse the drunker you are, music too.

 

[Lupus]

I see what you are trying to do here, but it clearly shows you are missing the point I was making. Alcoholic beverages, in contrast to all other recreational drugs (with the exception maybe of coffee and cocoa), are on a daily basis consumed by hundreds of millions of people all around the world for their own unique flavours and characteristics. In those situations, they are not being consumed for the ethanol content. The ethanol content only becomes a factor in altering experiences once overused and intoxication enters the chat.

Other substances are taken purely for their intoxicating effect, whereas with beer, wine and spirits, it is a side effect - and in many instances not even a very desirable one. Food, for example, I cannot think of any culinary experience that is enhanced by being drunk. Sex is worse the drunker you are, music too.

Actually cannabis can be taken for the exact same reasons alcohol is, plus it can actually have medicinal benefits.
Alcohol has no medicinal benefits besides cleaning a wound and even that isn't ideal.

 

[Zellephant]

I don't really disagree with a lot of what you've said, I just find it odd that you can't see past your own reasons for drinking and see why someone would choose not to.

I understand my own reasons well enough, and I accept that I am deeper into the industry, lifestyle and culture of alcohol as an everyday way of life as the "average person".

At an individual level I am not really concerned with whether or not someone chooses to drink or not. I am concerned and intrigued by it seemingly becoming a movement and popularised lifestyle choice now, and not one promoted from the usual corners (there have always been muslims and Quakers and JW and so on that have opposed us, and that was understandable). The promotion of it is coming from far less expected corners now, and like I said in the opening post, it seems to be a big trend amongst influencers now as well - and then from there people are jumping on the bandwagon so to say, but dont really have justified reasons to.

I do also have a legitimate concern about what people are replacing it with, because a lot of them are not just personally not drinking, but they are choosing not to attend events and gatherings where others are. They are shunning the whole lifestyle built around it - so it is more than just a personal choice not to drink for them.

It is hard not to consider this against the backdrop of a society that is generally becoming more isolated, more addicted to virtual or hyper-curated experiences, and more and more disconnected from organic, social interaction.

For all the ills that alcohol abuse has, it cannot be denied that it has always been central to bringing people together to share real experiences. So what seems to be a trending social media tendency espousing the virtues of walking away from a lifestyle that includes Oktoberfests and wine festivals and so on - does raise some concern for me.

I want to believe they are somehow replacing the social element that alcohol consumption brings to one's life with something more wholesome - but this is not what I am seeing play out.

My point is that psychoactive effects, by their inherent nature, change our perception. Tastes, colours, sounds. All can be altered.

What you're talking about is, at its core, that alcohol changes your experience of something like a meal. I'm saying psychoactive compounds can do that too. That they don't do it through the exact same mechanism (direct taste... I'm repeating myself here, please grasp this this time around I won't repeat it again) is irrelevant. You're talking about the experience, not the mechanism of action. Mechanism of action is irrelevant.

We're talking about sharing the altering of experiences. This is not something unique to alcohol. You cannot treat it as such.

I do hear what you are saying, but my point is that when it comes to alcohol, the alcohol itself can be the experience. When its an ingredient in a meal, and adds flavour, then that is the experience. It is not altered by the alcohol, it is made by the tannins in hte wine. the alcohol is an irrelevant byproduct.

Same with an actual tasting or a food pairing. The actual taste of the wine or whiskey, etc is the experience. The alcohol isn't altering or enhancing the experience; the drink, which happens to contain alcohol, is the entire experience.

That is impossible to replicate with other drugs, where the enhancement of the experience by being under the influence of the substance is the entire point.

 

[saor]

Same with an actual tasting or a food pairing. The actual taste of the wine or whiskey, etc is the experience. The alcohol isn't altering or enhancing the experience; the drink, which happens to contain alcohol, is the entire experience.

Dunno. I reckon you remove the alcohol from all those things and people will give a lot less craps about some grape liquid with dinner.

 

[Zellephant]

Dunno. I reckon you remove the alcohol from all those things and people will give a lot less craps about some grape liquid with dinner.

Of course they would. Because it wouldnt taste anything like wine. You do understand what wine is and how it is made etc correct?

 

[Lupus]

Dunno. I reckon you remove the alcohol from all those things and people will give a lot less craps about some grape liquid with dinner.

I went to one of those pretentious things a few years ago when I still drank. I think grape juice would've complimented the food better to be honest. Especially when they are like you can taste chocolate with this and undertones of gooseberries, I tasted ethanol, the next one was like this one has hints of cinnamon and and... All tasted identical each and every single one.
Tasting notes in wines and even whiskies are actually psychological, the human brain is pretty stupid and when you're told something has these tasting notes, most of the time you'll go oh yeah it does... Hence why they give you those specific descriptive flavours and such.
As you will take a sip and go ooooh yeah it does taste like that and I can taste the woodiness.

 

[KulQkumba]

Dunno. I reckon you remove the alcohol from all those things and people will give a lot less craps about some grape liquid with dinner.

They will give a lot less craps because alcohol-free wine tastes schidt. ...and don't even get me started on those beer-zeroes

 

[saor]

Of course they would. Because it wouldnt taste anything like wine. You do understand what wine is and how it is made etc correct?

Yes. I'm just saying if you could perfectly replicate wine, whisky etc without alcohol - nobody would sit around being all wanky about the fine aromas coming from the drink.

 

[KulQkumba]

I went to one of those pretentious things a few years ago when I still drank. I think grape juice would've complimented the food better to be honest. Especially when they are like you can taste chocolate with this and undertones of gooseberries, I tasted ethanol, the next one was like this one has hints of cinnamon and and... All tasted identical each and every single one.
Tasting notes in wines and even whiskies are actually psychological, the human brain is pretty stupid and when you're told something has these tasting notes, most of the time you'll go oh yeah it does... Hence why they give you those specific descriptive flavours and such.
As you will take a sip and go ooooh yeah it does taste like that and I can taste the woodiness.

Heathen!