Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would any non-trivial substance be deemed "safe" under these criteria?
There's a very small chance you'll choke to death every time you eat something.
[deleted]
No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation
681–690 of 1001 posts
Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation
#682I am fine with abstinence as a general recommendation, but critical thinking pointed out two issues with the WHF Policy Brief, which I suppose I have read in sufficient depth: 1. There is no citation on the sentence, "Recent evidence has found that no level of alcohol consumption is safe for health." This is really the only line we are interested in. 2. There is no comparison on the effects of alcohol on the body by…
If you want to feel some dissonance about this, you might note that this is the exact language the CDC uses for things like secondhand smoke -- "There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke" -- which everybody nods along to and accepts without much scrutiny. Source: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco... Meanwhile, when it's something like, say, cosmic radiation exposure from c…
The CDC has been unfortunately hopelessly politicized. It happened long before the pandemic.
OTOH, I would make the differentiating point that air travel has positive benefits to society and costs and one has to weigh those against each other. You can’t make the blanket statement “earth would be better off if air travel went away completely.”
It’s hard to find any benefit to smoking, first hand or second, so it’s easy enough to just shit on it. The ROI on whatever ills aviation may have is a topic of discussion, there’s 0 ROI on smoking.
Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation
#683Although I live in a place where weed is legal, I don’t use it. I enjoy the occasional glass of a nice scotch, though, and I love a good stout or porter beer. This is where it gets a little strange for me: by every metric I can think of, I’d be better off replacing alcohol with weed. There seem to be fewer negative effects, it’s not a source of empty calories, and looks like a better recreational drug in every way. A…
i'd recommend trying weed before putting too much more thought into this.
they're really not interchangeable as recreational intoxicants. i find marijuana a very different experience to alcohol, and personally i much prefer the alcohol. i had had the same thought as you, that maybe marijuana would be better for me, but ultimately i don't think it matters if it's better if i don't like it.
also, beer and whiskey are delicious and it's more about the enjoyment of consuming them for me than the effects of the alcohol. weed isn't very enjoyable - smoking is terrible, and edibles are just worse version of sugary treats.
Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation
#684Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. I find the claim "no level of alcohol consumption is safe" hyperbolic. You could claim with far more justification that "no amount of driving is safe" since you could be killed pulling out of your driveway but I think most people who drive on a daily basis would find this claim odd. "safety" is a relative, not an absolute condition, since in some sense being alive is unsafe.
That’s a rubbish comparison. Of course no amount of driving is safe—that’s commonsensical. You always have a chance of getting harmed when you decide to drive a car. But driving a car has a clear utility which is non-optional in a lot of cases. The utility of recreational alcohol use is, on the other hand, more akin to joyriding—so similar to a completely optional subset of car driving.
It's impossible to eat many foods without ingesting ethanol, including bread. The advice that "no amount" of ethanol is safe is ludicrous, including from a biological perspective, as the human body is well equipped to safely handle ingestion of ethanol in moderate amounts.
Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation
#685Earlier quoted context omitted.
> alcohol does not heal or help the mind Is it not possible that some people find alcohol in reasonable doses to be a net positive mentally and mood-wise?
What people experience as positive does not need to be that. Using alcohol to not/postpone/avoid solving an underlying problem for unhappiness would be an example.
Preface: I say this as someone who has been sober from alcohol for almost 5 years.
Something can be a "net positive mentally and mood-wise" without also being something that is "not/[postponing]/[avoiding] solving an underlying problem for unhappiness".
Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation
#686Although I live in a place where weed is legal, I don’t use it. I enjoy the occasional glass of a nice scotch, though, and I love a good stout or porter beer. This is where it gets a little strange for me: by every metric I can think of, I’d be better off replacing alcohol with weed. There seem to be fewer negative effects, it’s not a source of empty calories, and looks like a better recreational drug in every way. A…
I once fell into the trap of thinking that, this sticky green leaf was just a fun harmless substance.
It's a silent killer,compared to alcohol it's so easily abusable because you can never have too much.
What was half a roll after a long day of work became 2 or 3 rolls a day.
It makes you okay with being mediocre, and comes with a lot of sneaky short and long term mental side effects that are yet to be studied.
Lately I would rather have a scotch and 24 hour later have it out of my system, than live with a thin daily mental fog.
Yeah I stay clear of it these days
Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation
#687No post body was provided.
Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation
#688In this thread: a lot of people trying to justify their preexisting choice to drink or remain sober.
Also many pointing out that the notion that avoiding any consumption of alcohol is a ridiculous notion, as implied by the article, given that it's a common component of many foods.
Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation
#689I am fine with abstinence as a general recommendation, but critical thinking pointed out two issues with the WHF Policy Brief, which I suppose I have read in sufficient depth: 1. There is no citation on the sentence, "Recent evidence has found that no level of alcohol consumption is safe for health." This is really the only line we are interested in. 2. There is no comparison on the effects of alcohol on the body by…
If you want to feel some dissonance about this, you might note that this is the exact language the CDC uses for things like secondhand smoke -- "There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke" -- which everybody nods along to and accepts without much scrutiny. Source: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco... Meanwhile, when it's something like, say, cosmic radiation exposure from c…
While I somewhat agree with your overall point, level of control is important here. I can choose whether to get on a plane or take a drink. I can't control if someone farts standing next to me, or if they exhale smoke in my face.
Re: No amount of alcohol is good for the heart, says World Heart Federation
#690I am fine with abstinence as a general recommendation, but critical thinking pointed out two issues with the WHF Policy Brief, which I suppose I have read in sufficient depth: 1. There is no citation on the sentence, "Recent evidence has found that no level of alcohol consumption is safe for health." This is really the only line we are interested in. 2. There is no comparison on the effects of alcohol on the body by…
If you want to feel some dissonance about this, you might note that this is the exact language the CDC uses for things like secondhand smoke -- "There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke" -- which everybody nods along to and accepts without much scrutiny. Source: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco... Meanwhile, when it's something like, say, cosmic radiation exposure from c…
Did you look at any of the references at the bottom of the page? There are many, many dozens of studies in the report by the surgeon general. On page 421 when they analyze lung cancer risk, they have studies with volume and frequency of second hand smoke based on the volume and frequency of the smoking habits of the one spouse being a smoker and the other being a non smoker.