Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cancer Doctors Cite Risks of Drinking Alcohol

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 167 posts

Re: Cancer Doctors Cite Risks of Drinking Alcohol

#51

Post by tyingq »

cwkoss wrote: post #41
aidos wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favourite is always Professor David Nutt, fired from his position advising the Home Office for saying ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-advis... EDIT: David Nutt on how ecstasy isn't as dangerous as "Equasy" http://www.encod.org/info/EQUASY-A-HARMFUL-ADDICTION.html

I think his idea for 'hangover free alcohol' is pretty interesting as well. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/...

Interesting. Wonder why he predicts it so far out....not until 2050.

Not clear if that's because of cost, regulations, or something else.

Re: Cancer Doctors Cite Risks of Drinking Alcohol

#52

Post by maxxxxx »

dragonwriter wrote: post #48
maxxxxx wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop subsidizing junk food. Stop advertising junk food to children (if it's not ok for children to hear he f word it's also not ok to for them to hear about junk food). Subsidize healthy foods. Tax sugary drinks. Do you want more?

> (if it's not ok for children to hear he f word it's also not ok to for them to hear about junk food). Those two things are pretty much completely unrelated. It is certainly bad for children to be exposed to deliberate behavior-mabipulation efforts pushing unhealthy food choices, but that's not in any way related to whether or not it's bad for them to hear words currently viewed as naughty.

I was referring to the political difficulty and courage needed. If you can ban the F word you can also ban junk food ads. Same thing. Nobody can talk about first amendment or other concerns.

Re: Cancer Doctors Cite Risks of Drinking Alcohol

#54

Post by dragonwriter »

maxxxxx wrote: post #52
dragonwriter wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (if it's not ok for children to hear he f word it's also not ok to for them to hear about junk food). Those two things are pretty much completely unrelated. It is certainly bad for children to be exposed to deliberate behavior-mabipulation efforts pushing unhealthy food choices, but that's not in any way related to whether or not it's bad for them to hear words currently viewed as naughty.

I was referring to the political difficulty and courage needed. If you can ban the F word you can also ban junk food ads. Same thing. Nobody can talk about first amendment or other concerns.

> I was referring to the political difficulty and courage needed. If you can ban the F word you can also ban junk food ads.

That's even more wrong than the more literal version: restricting unpopular words takes zero political courage and has very little difficulty (and, in fact, provides political cover for advertiser-friendly actions commercial outlets would be inclined to take on their own.)

Banning advertisement that established moneyed interests engage in, OTOH, faces actual political difficulty.

Re: Cancer Doctors Cite Risks of Drinking Alcohol

#55

Post by taneq »

hyperbovine wrote: post #3

It would be better to know at what age this increases risk. If a lifetime spent drinking delicious, delicious red wine ends up taking me out 5yrs before Alzheimer's would, so be it.

Exactly. It's not just about the cost, it's about the tradeoff.

Re: Cancer Doctors Cite Risks of Drinking Alcohol

#56

Post by gozur88 »

maxxxxx wrote: post #31
gozur88 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh? What should we do?

Stop subsidizing junk food. Stop advertising junk food to children (if it's not ok for children to hear he f word it's also not ok to for them to hear about junk food). Subsidize healthy foods. Tax sugary drinks. Do you want more?

There's no evidence any of this actually works, and most people aren't interested in a government that tries to dictate what they should eat.

Re: Cancer Doctors Cite Risks of Drinking Alcohol

#57

Post by adriand »

scythe wrote: post #47
munificent wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Alcohol is definitely one of the most harmful drugs out there. What is your definition of "harmful" here? Is it just total amount of harm caused, or total harm divided by number of users? If the former, sure, but I think that just reflects how hugely popular it is. If the latter, I'd like to see your data. Some large fraction of the adult population consumes alcohol on a fairly regular basis so I imagine society wo…

I think mostly when people cite this they are referring to this study: https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/news/20101101/... Alcohol ranks very highly because of it's severe harmful effects on the body. However, behavioral effects tend to be those which make drug users a threat to society. But cocaine's harm is highly dependent on its form. In some pre-Colombian civilizations, as well as in some parts of mo…

A big obvious difference between alcohol and other drugs that also makes it popular is that in moderation it is not all that intoxicating or impairing. Unlike marijuana and mushrooms it is easily possible to have a drink or two and function normally. This accounts for a lot of its social acceptability. Simply put, unless you really overindulge, it doesn’t “fuck you up”.

This is also generally true of hard drugs like heroin and cocaine, but here I think the addictive qualities are what makes them a social problem.

Re: Cancer Doctors Cite Risks of Drinking Alcohol

#58

Post by gozur88 »

mobilefriendly wrote: post #23
gozur88 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People talk about obesity all the time. The problem is nobody knows what to do about it.

Eat less and be more active.

Spectacularly unhelpful as a policy prescription. People know what they need to do to lose weight. They just don't do it.

Re: Cancer Doctors Cite Risks of Drinking Alcohol

#60

Post by xtian »

adriand wrote: post #57
scythe wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think mostly when people cite this they are referring to this study: https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/news/20101101/... Alcohol ranks very highly because of it's severe harmful effects on the body. However, behavioral effects tend to be those which make drug users a threat to society. But cocaine's harm is highly dependent on its form. In some pre-Colombian civilizations, as well as in some parts of mo…

A big obvious difference between alcohol and other drugs that also makes it popular is that in moderation it is not all that intoxicating or impairing. Unlike marijuana and mushrooms it is easily possible to have a drink or two and function normally. This accounts for a lot of its social acceptability. Simply put, unless you really overindulge, it doesn’t “fuck you up”. This is also generally true of hard drugs like…

> Unlike marijuana and mushrooms it is easily possible to have a drink or two and function normally.

What do you think happens if you take a low dose of marijuana or mushrooms?

Post reply on HN