291–300 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but wine makes food taste infinitely better. I don't want to eat my rare filet with a glass of water, I want to eat it with and chilled bottle of natural Syrah from the North Rhone (preferably Dard et Ribo)
You chill red vine? Savage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most victimless crimes have victims, they’re just hard to singularly identify.
No. Not even close. Most victimless crimes have literally no victim. There is no victim without some sort of harm. The reason we have speed limits and drugs are illegal is because if you go overboard enough with them there is a high likelihood of harm. In the vast majority of cases people don't go overboard and there is no actual victim though. These things are crimes because our system of justice is not good at puni…
It’s the reason that shooting a shotgun down a busy street is (and should be) a crime even if you don’t hit anyone.
Also, many violations of regulatory requirements are “victimless” but are entirely necessary cooperation for things to work properly, or to prevent consequential harm. Particularly for things where shared resources are used, like spectrum, roads, airports, the air we breathe, etc.
Who is hurt when I blow a little bit of lead dust into the air? Probably no one, and certainly nobody identifiable. Who is hurt when everyone blows lead dust in the air? Potentially many, and still likely unidentifiable.
This hits very close to home to me because I am currently taking care of our kids while my wife had to fly across the USA to help with her Uncle's funeral. He was a high functioning alcoholic for many years until he joined AA and cleaned up. He was a very active member of AA and lead his local chapter. He had just come to visit for the holidays and passed a week and half later from a heart attack.
My mother's side of the family came from a long line of abusive alcoholics, and she was the first to break the cycle. So I made the personal choice to not even try it to keep it going. Sometime I do wonder if I'm missing out, but I don't want to take the risk of getting addicted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Smoking is for sure worse than alcohol consumption: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-deaths-by-risk-... Global yearly deaths by smoking: 7.1 million Global yearly deaths by alcohol usage: 2.84 million
To be clear, this data is showing correlation, not any kind of causation. Regardless, if we accept the argument that people need to be coerced for their own good into avoiding harmful behaviors, the data linked seems to argue that we should be restricting access to sugar and high glycemic index foods (flour) much more than alcohol since "High blood sugar" at 6.5MM and "Obesity" at 4.7MM both beat alcohol by a large m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you are thinking of as the side effects of drug addiction are mainly the side effects of prohibition. Alcohol addiction is a serious problem, with serious negative consequences. So we made it illegal. And then we had two problems instead of one. Drug laws do not decrease addiction rates. They do make drugs unnecessarily expensive, and force addicts to interact with violent criminal gangs to get them. The negativ…
Which drug will do more harm if freely available to all children? Alcohol, meth, heroin or crack? I will pick alcohol every time over the others.
Currently far, far more children die due to alcohol than the others, and while that's definitely due to availability it's not obvious that wouldn't still be the case if all were legal.
Funny that they're saying this now because fermented drinks used to protect people from health issues when the water supply was not clean enough to drink.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, it is always good to know the science but we should balance that against the benefits. I like this quote from David Spiegelhalter[0] "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 the government does not recommend that people avoid driving. "Come to think of it, ther…
I don't see it as a good quote and was puzzled as to its inclusion. It is simply a play on the words 'safe level' and equating it to other things. My best guess is that it's meant to appeal to the "I hear you but wish to continue drinking anyway" thought process, which is fair. This kind of equation is not.
The problem with articles like this is that they lack context on the relative risks of various activities. Is drinking a daily glass of wine more or less bad for your heart than skipping your daily aerobic exercise? Surely we can put some numbers on that.
Why aren’t we looking into the merits of a daily or weekly cigarette? At a certain point it really looks like it’s just poison and wet should knock it off.
https://peterattiamd.com/ama23/
The dose makes the poison. For some poisons there is a minimum threshold dose below which there is no detectible harm. For others that threshold is zero.
Who thought that Alcohol is actually good for the heart? Here is the good news: It won't either kill your healthy heart if you don't abuse it
I remember studies in the 90s (the ones I can find specifically were done by Eric Rimm) that touted health benefits from a glass of red wine. These weren't randomized control studies, they rarely controlled for anything that might impact someone's drinking or what they drink, and they've been torn apart in the years since.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, it is always good to know the science but we should balance that against the benefits. I like this quote from David Spiegelhalter[0] "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 the government does not recommend that people avoid driving. "Come to think of it, ther…
I don't see it as a good quote and was puzzled as to its inclusion. It is simply a play on the words 'safe level' and equating it to other things. My best guess is that it's meant to appeal to the "I hear you but wish to continue drinking anyway" thought process, which is fair. This kind of equation is not.