Building from zero after addiction, prison, and a felony

> This question jumps past the more fundamental question of whether policymakers, and the government in general, should prevent people from making their own choices.

When your choices include terrorizing businesses and being a public nuisance to everyone else, then yes, government should prevent people from making those choices.

> I was only using your own framing. You're the one who lazered in on health.

Actually no I wasn't. It was shrubby who mentioned "health" in the medical sense. I was replying to them using "health" in the social wellness sense. ie making the point that "health" is a nuanced term and shouldn't be used in an absolute way like they, and yourself now too, have done.

Health isn't just about physicality. There are social and emotional benefits. For example, enjoying a beer, or glass of wine, with my wife on a Friday evening when we rant about work is a great way to unwind for the weekend. It improves our mental health to have that shared experience. Our relationship is closer for spending time together. It has a net benefit despite it being an unhealthy treat.

You could replace the `wine` with `cake` in statement and have a similar point. But I don't personally enjoy cakes. Also take notice of how I'm not telling you that you shouldn't eat cakes because I don't personally like it ;)

> With alcohol this is well established to be false.

Again, you're missing the point. People enjoy stuff that isn't healthy, but sometimes that can still promote other benefits. Such as mental health. "Health" is a broader term than you give credit for.

Also the links you shared do not prove your point. There's no actual data in either of them. It's just pop-science articles with zero substance designed into scaremongering people. For example their arguments that it takes just one drink to become an addict is just laughable. The real statistics they don't print show a very different story where occasional to moderate drinking is not going to significantly increase your risk of cancer nor anything else. You're talking about fractions of a percent in the change of risk -- and that risk was already a low percentage to begin with. This is where understanding how statistics actually work makes a difference ;)

For example, some studies studies only show a correlation in 5% of cancer cases being related to alcohol consumption and that was proven against heavy drinkers. And the percentage of drinkers who have that cancer are https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/a...

And a lot of these studies exaggerate what I'd classed as a "light drinker". Take that link I shared:

> Even light drinkers can be at increased risk of some cancers. For example, women who have just one drink per day have a higher risk of breast cancer than those who have less than one drink a week, and risk is increased even more in heavy drinkers and binge drinkers (3-7).

If you're drinking 1 drink per day then you have a dependency. That isn't occasional consumption. I would not class that as demonstrating moderation. If you need to drink every single day then you fall into the category I described in my previous comment when I said there is an underlying problem that needs addressing.

Most people do not drink every day.

---

So to summarize:

- light and occasional drinking is a rounding error of 0 in terms of physical health risk. But it can have much more significant positive effects on mental health.

- understanding the actual statistics and how they work matter if you're going to argue about the risks to health

- people don't become alcoholics from one glass of wine

- if you don't want to drink then I agree nobody should force you. But please don't share bullshit pop-science articles claiming we're all going to become cancer-riddled addicts from an occasional drink just because you don't understand why some people do enjoy the occasional glass of wine. That just demonstrates you don't understand the subject matter.

- and please don't ignore the parallels I made about coffee and cake. They demonstrate the hypocrisy of comments where people claim absence is the only smart choice.

(and no, those bullet points were not AI generated)

edit: sorry for all the crappy grammar. I'm multitasking...badly it seems haha

> Some folks just have to find a way both through the world and through their own head

You need to stop seeing me so hard rn

I love this question! Because yes, this one has a happy ending =)

I had estranged my mother, didn't really talk to my adoptive father, and purposefully kept my maternal grandparents (who I am closest with) in the dark because I didn't want them to see me like this.

I also have 3 much younger sisters, who I didn't talk to for the same reasons as the grandparents.

I've made a HUGE effort to reconnect and make amends with my family. I'm on good terms with my parents and talk to both of them regularly, I explained to my grandparents after I got sober and visit them at least once a year, and I reconnected with my siblings who I now text regularly and we host a "sibling trip" where we get together over a weekend once each year.

I am very grateful that they saw my efforts and gave me a second chance. My oldest sister in particular was very wary.

Thank you for asking. I didn't want to disclose it publicly, but when we met she was in a very bad place in life and actually had a planned suicide date.

It wasn't until years later she told me this.

We were able to send her back to university a second time to study something she is passionate about; she has a great support network of friends and (my) family. (Her family are drug addicts and gang members, so my family has sort of adopted her. It's a bit sad but none of her family were invited to our wedding.)

She's unemployed, but she's trying, and she says she never imagined that she could be so lucky in life.