Neurological Journal: "alcohol Shrinks Your Brain"

[maklelan]

Then let me articulate another formulation available to people who hold my position: people die when water is misused. People die when automobiles are misused. People die when baseball bats are misused. That doesn't make water, automobiles, or baseball bats bad things that nobody should ever use.

Absolutely ludicrous logic. It doesn't at all compare. What is the proper use of alcohol? And let's use a definition that is universal rather than dependent upon a specific ethical framework, since for some people water, automobiles, and bats kill people when appropriately used.

[thesometimesaint]

J.S. Mill:

Obviously some level of alcohol use is acceptable to the world in general. As far as the individual goes what level of declining personality is acceptable?

I can't answer that question for the individual. On a practical level I have no major nonreligious objections to anybody having a single glass of wine with dinner. Beyond that, volume of alcohol ingested, individual tolerance to alcohol, social situation would be big factors. Of course never ever operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of any alcohol.

[maklelan]

But there were plenty of people in there due to automobile misuse, and you're not up in arms about people driving.

45% of all automobile-related deaths are attributed to alcohol, so you're overlapping here. Automobiles also have a crucial role in surviving and thriving in a modern society, which makes their use an acceptable risk. Alcohol (as a beverage) plays a 100% recreational role in modern society. These two situations are as far separated from each other as the earth is from the sky. Your logic is asinine. Here are some facts:

25,000 people are killed each year because they drank and drive, but 20,000 more people who did not drink are killed by drinkers and drivers each year. In total, over 100,000 people are killed each year because of alcohol. 60% of all homicides are alcohol related. 40% of accidental falls. 30% of all suicides. 30% of accidental drownings. 30% of all fire related accidents. Alcohol abuse is the third leading cause of preventable death in this country. That study considered more than 2 drinks a day for men and 1 a day for women to be alcohol abuse.

Do you have comparable statistics for water and baseball bats, or do you see how ludicrous it is to insist your silly analogy is legitimate?

[maklelan]

I agree. This principle is precisely why alcohol is not illegal in the U.S.

No, it's because the people discovered that drinkers and those who profit from them don't tolerate it being a crime. It was outlawed 80 years ago, remember? Do you remember why it was repealed?

[J.S. Mill]

45% of all automobile-related deaths are attributed to alcohol, so you're overlapping here. Automobiles also have a crucial role in surviving and thriving in a modern society, which makes their use an acceptable risk. Alcohol (as a beverage) plays a 100% recreational role in modern society. These two situations are as far separated from each other as the earth is from the sky. Your logic is asinine. Here are some facts:

25,000 people are killed each year because they drank and drive, but 20,000 more people who did not drink are killed by drinkers and drivers each year. In total, over 100,000 people are killed each year because of alcohol. 60% of all homicides are alcohol related. 40% of accidental falls. 30% of all suicides. 30% of accidental drownings. 30% of all fire related accidents. Alcohol abuse is the third leading cause of preventable death in this country. That study considered more than 2 drinks a day for men and 1 a day for women to be alcohol abuse.

Do you have comparable statistics for water and baseball bats, or do you see how ludicrous it is to insist your silly analogy is legitimate?

My intent wasn't to argue that alcohol and baseball bats are equivalent, or should be treated in the exact same way. Rather, it was to argue that the difference between alcohol and things Mormons generally consider permissible is not one of kind, but one of degree. There are trade-offs between the pros and cons of alcohol, as there are trade-offs between the pros and cons of water. All I'm saying is that it's silly to think alcohol's drawbacks require us to demonize or ban it.

The statistics you cite are definitely depressing, but I think there are better ways to ameliorate the situation than by banning alcohol, and I think lumping together irresponsible alcohol use with responsible drinking is a glaring conceptual failure.

[J.S. Mill]

No, it's because the people discovered that drinkers and those who profit from them don't tolerate it being a crime. It was outlawed 80 years ago, remember? Do you remember why it was repealed?

Because "drinkers and those who profit from them" constitute 75% of the voting population? Or because it was basically impossible to enforce?

[AKS]

45% of all automobile-related deaths are attributed to alcohol, so you're overlapping here. Automobiles also have a crucial role in surviving and thriving in a modern society, which makes their use an acceptable risk. Alcohol (as a beverage) plays a 100% recreational role in modern society. These two situations are as far separated from each other as the earth is from the sky. Your logic is asinine. Here are some facts:

25,000 people are killed each year because they drank and drive, but 20,000 more people who did not drink are killed by drinkers and drivers each year. In total, over 100,000 people are killed each year because of alcohol. 60% of all homicides are alcohol related. 40% of accidental falls. 30% of all suicides. 30% of accidental drownings. 30% of all fire related accidents. Alcohol abuse is the third leading cause of preventable death in this country. That study considered more than 2 drinks a day for men and 1 a day for women to be alcohol abuse.

Could you provide a link to the study (if a link exists)? My knee jerk reaction here is that the researchers were more than a little biased. If my math is correct, 100,000 death is ~4% of the total deaths in the US for a given recent year. Seems pretty high. I wonder what constitutes an "alcohol related" death. If 30% of suicides involved alcohol it might be reasoned that alcohol was a symptom and not a cause. 25K/year because they drank and drove? Again, how are the stats derived. If I have a beer after work and then get hit by a truck is that because of alcohol? I'd say of course not. US allowable BAC is absurdly low. Someone with a BAC of .08 is much less likely to kill someone on the road than the lady putting on her make-up while driving or the guy driving home on no sleep in the last 24 hours.

I had to take a remedial driving class last year (speeding ticket) in which the stat was thrown out that 1 out of 3 drivers is impaired by alcohol between the hours of 1-3 am. What an amazing ratio. However, I can only draw 2 conclusions from the stat: 1. driving while "impaired" is really not very dangerous or 2. There are no where near 1:3 drunk drivers on the road during those hours.

[maklelan]

My intent wasn't to argue that alcohol and baseball bats are equivalent, or should be treated in the exact same way. Rather, it was to argue that the difference between alcohol and things Mormons generally consider permissible is not one of kind, but one of degree.

But that doesn't make your value judgment legitimate. Tapping someone on the head and crushing their skull are also differences of degrees, but one is clearly "bad." I also pointed out that those things are of different "kinds" (automobiles=necessary; water=necessary; alcohol=purely recreational) but you felt it wasn't necessary to respond to that. Yes, bats are recreational, but then you get into degrees, and 100,000 people a year vs. maybe a dozen people a year is significant enough to conclude one is good while that other is not.

My whole point was to show you that it is in fact a big deal, and that people die all the time despite having never misused alcohol, contra your statement:

People die from alcohol when they misuse it. Big deal -- people die from water when they misuse it.

You then tried to argue that water, baseball bats, and cars, despite causing deaths, are not bad things. The inference: alcohol isn't a bad thing just because it causes deaths. I showed you that it is a very bad thing, especially for people who have had their lives turned upside down because of it. Saying that it's a matter of degrees doesn't validate >100,000 deaths a year for no significant value.

There are trade-offs between the pros and cons of alcohol, as there are trade-offs between the pros and cons of water.

Pros of water: Necessary for sustaining all life on this planet

Cons: about 1,000 deaths a year

Pros of alcohol: It's fun

Cons: Over 100,000 deaths a year

There are trade offs, and those trade offs outrageously conflict with your thesis.

All I'm saying is that it's silly to think alcohol's drawbacks require us to demonize or ban it.

No it's not. The United States thought it was not only logical, but necessary 80 years ago. Why did they do away with that ban? Too many people were breaking laws to get it, and too many people were not making money without it. Such significant saving graces.

The statistics you cite are definitely depressing,

But entertainment and money are more important, right? That's really all alcohol does for anyone.

but I think there are better ways to ameliorate the situation than by banning alcohol,

Like what? What are you going to do to reduce the alcohol related deaths in this country? Name three things that you will do.

and I think lumping together irresponsible alcohol use with responsible drinking is a glaring conceptual failure.

So you think people who use crack, marijuana, or heroin responsibly shouldn't be vilified?

[maklelan]

Could you provide a link to the study (if a link exists)?

Reports from the US Department of Health and Human Services, and Scientific American show over 100,000 people a year die in the US each year because of alcohol consumption. The number fluctuates between a little under 100,000 and a little over.

My knee jerk reaction here is that the researchers were more than a little biased. If my math is correct, 100,000 death is ~4% of the total deaths in the US for a given recent year. Seems pretty high. I wonder what constitutes an "alcohol related" death. If 30% of suicides involved alcohol it might be reasoned that alcohol was a symptom and not a cause. 25K/year because they drank and drove? Again, how are the stats derived. If I have a beer after work and then get hit by a truck is that because of alcohol? I'd say of course not. US allowable BAC is absurdly low. Someone with a BAC of .08 is much less likely to kill someone on the road than the lady putting on her make-up while driving or the guy driving home on no sleep in the last 24 hours.

I promise you Scientific American is not biased, and their research is sound.

[AKS]

Pros of water: Necessary for sustaining all life on this planet

Cons: about 1,000 deaths a year

Pros of alcohol: It's fun

Cons: Over 100,000 deaths a year

Well lets see, I'm gonna guess that the 1000 deaths due to water are not related to drinking (as in literally drinking water). Most are probably caused by aquatic activitities, boating and such. If thats the case (we dont know you still havent sited any sources) your pro of "Necessary for sustaining all life on this planet" is moot. A more apt analogy might be to compare outlawing boating to an alcohol ban. Further you haven't shown how you link alcohol to over 100,000 deaths per year.

[groove]

I think lumping together irresponsible alcohol use with responsible drinking is a glaring conceptual failure.

Theoretically, there is nothing wrong with crack cocaine, heroin, or drain cleaner. However, in practice, we all know that isn't the case because there are so many more facets with these issues. Ignoring the practical problems of alcohol based on a theoretical categorical equivalence with things like water is a conceptual failure.

[groove]

DDP

[groove]

DDP

[maklelan]

Because "drinkers and those who profit from them" constitute 75% of the voting population? Or because it was basically impossible to enforce?

Either way, it has absolutely nothing to do with "proximate cause" or a value judgment of liquor. Your statement was incorrect.

[maklelan]

Well lets see, I'm gonna guess that the 1000 deaths due to water are not related to drinking (as in literally drinking water). Most are probably caused by aquatic activitities, boating and such. If thats the case (we dont know you still havent sited any sources) your pro of "Necessary for sustaining all life on this planet" is moot. A more apt analogy might be to compare outlawing boating to an alcohol ban.

Accidental drownings are caused by more than boating, but alcohol is responsible for almost a third of those deaths, so maybe we should subtract those. We'd also have to subtract all of those except for deaths caused by recreational activity that did not include alcohol. What number do you come up with?

Further you haven't shown how you link alcohol to over 100,000 deaths per year.

I have.

[J.S. Mill]

But that doesn't make your value judgment legitimate. Tapping someone on the head and crushing their skull are also differences of degrees, but one is clearly "bad." I also pointed out that those things are of different "kinds" (automobiles=necessary; water=necessary; alcohol=purely recreational) but you felt it wasn't necessary to respond to that. Yes, bats are recreational, but then you get into degrees, and 100,000 people a year vs. maybe a dozen people a year is significant enough to conclude one is good while that other is not.

I didn't present this stuff as sufficient evidence to say alcohol is okay. I was only defeating the argument that alcohol is prima facie bad because it causes deaths.

My whole point was to show you that it is in fact a big deal, and that people die all the time despite having never misused alcohol, contra your statement:

That doesn't contradict my statement.

You then tried to argue that water, baseball bats, and cars, despite causing deaths, are not bad things. The inference: alcohol isn't a bad thing just because it causes deaths. I showed you that it is a very bad thing, especially for people who have had their lives turned upside down because of it. Saying that it's a matter of degrees doesn't validate >100,000 deaths a year for no significant value.

Well, if 100,000 deaths per year and a ban on alcohol were the only two alternatives, you'd have a point. But my position is somewhere in between.

Pros of water: Necessary for sustaining all life on this planetCons: about 1,000 deaths a yearPros of alcohol: It's funCons: Over 100,000 deaths a yearThere are trade offs, and those trade offs outrageously conflict with your thesis.

No, because as I've said, my thesis is not "treat water and alcohol the exact same".

No it's not. The United States thought it was not only logical, but necessary 80 years ago. Why did they do away with that ban? Too many people were breaking laws to get it, and too many people were not making money without it. Such significant saving graces.

Well, forgive me, but when the government rescinds obviously impractical laws, I consider that a good thing.

But entertainment and money are more important, right? That's really all alcohol does for anyone.

Entertainment and money are good things. If we adopted your strictly utilitarian (in the bastardized sense of the word) framework, sports cars and contact sports would be illegal, too.

Like what? What are you going to do to reduce the alcohol related deaths in this country? Name three things that you will do.

I've already mentioned the drinking license. I'd also call for beefing up drunk-driving laws (and fully enforcing our current laws) and regulate bars heavily.

So you think people who use crack, marijuana, or heroin responsibly shouldn't be vilified?

It's impossible to use crack or heroin responsibly because the chemical dependence associated with them is so strong. I don't think people who use marijuana responsibly should be vilified.

Theoretically, there is nothing wrong with crack cocaine, heroin, or drain cleaner. However, in practice, we all know that isn't the case because there are so many more facets with these issues. Ignoring the practical problems of alcohol based on a theoretical categorical equivalence with things like water is a conceptual failure.

Well, good for me that I didn't do that, then.

[J.S. Mill]

Either way, it has absolutely nothing to do with "proximate cause" or a value judgment of liquor. Your statement was incorrect.

My statement was correct; I just didn't give the best evidence for it.

My sitting at home drinking a glass or two of wine is not a crime because it is not dangerous. It's not a proximate cause of anything except my becoming a little more lightheaded and garrulous. Drinking wine is only illegal when paired with driving, operating heavy machinery, wielding a firearm, etc. because only then does it become dangerous.

[J.S. Mill]

maklelan, should car dealerships in the U.S. be allowed to sell cars that don't have the highest safety rating in existence? Should we all be required to drive Volvos?

[maklelan]

I didn't present this stuff as sufficient evidence to say alcohol is okay. I was only defeating the argument that alcohol is prima facie bad because it causes deaths.

I said it was bad because it has caused billions of deaths. It has caused about the same amount of deaths as every war in recorded history. If you weight that against its benefits, its consumption is a vice.

That doesn't contradict my statement.

Your statement was "No big deal." It is in fact a big deal. That contradicts your statement.

Well, if 100,000 deaths per year and a ban on alcohol were the only two alternatives, you'd have a point. But my position is somewhere in between.

Because your recreation is worth 25,000 deaths a year.

No, because as I've said, my thesis is not "treat water and alcohol the exact same".

That's what your original statement implied. You said "alcohol kills. No big deal--water kills."

Well, forgive me, but when the government rescinds obviously impractical laws, I consider that a good thing.

You've never had to confront the bad side of that decision.

Entertainment and money are good things. If we adopted your strictly utilitarian (in the bastardized sense of the word) framework, sports cars and contact sports would be illegal, too.

A few hundred deaths a year is incidental. The third worst killer in the country is indicative of something a little serious than that.

I've already mentioned the drinking license. I'd also call for beefing up drunk-driving laws (and fully enforcing our current laws) and regulate bars heavily.

I can't say I don't respect that, but there are thousands of people who are going to be robbed of their innocent loved ones every year because of that compromise, and I would rather deny everyone in this country the right to drink than have to watch anyone go through that. You don't appear to have ever had to deal with that. It changes your perspective.

It's impossible to use crack or heroin responsibly because the chemical dependence associated with them is so strong.

But it's not with alcohol?

I don't think people who use marijuana responsibly should be vilified.

So we should legalize it?

[maklelan]

maklelan, should car dealerships in the U.S. be allowed to sell cars that don't have the highest safety rating in existence? Should we all be required to drive Volvos?

We're already taking steps in that direction. I think it's a good thing, but safer cars will put a very small dent in the consequences of stupid and drunk drivers. I think about half as many people should have driver licenses as currently do, also.

[AKS]

maklelan, over 65% of the legal age population of the United States drinks. And yet you can possibly link 4% of deaths to alcohol. Wow, some killer. I read your links. No word on the methodology or how little alcohol had to be involved for the researchers to find causation. Sometimes you are just in the wrong place at the wrong time and the inclusion of alcohol into the discussion is purely incidental. Nevertheless with tens of millions of people drinking I guess it's not surprising that there are incidents with irresponsible people. That alcohol is involved in suicides its obvious, but again not shown to be a cause. Not to minimize the problems that alcohol can lead to, but I believe that the evils of alcohol are overstated in forums like this (to put it mildly).

[J.S. Mill]

I said it was bad because it has caused billions of deaths. It has caused about the same amount of deaths as every war in recorded history. If you weight that against its benefits, its consumption is a vice.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to CFR on this one.

Your statement was "No big deal." It is in fact a big deal. That contradicts your statement.

No big deal as in "the assertion doesn't affect the debate much". Obviously I'm not saying that people dying isn't a big deal in general.

Because your recreation is worth 25,000 deaths a year.

Me responsibly enjoying a beer does not cause 25,000 deaths a year. Proximate cause indeed.

You've never had to confront the bad side of that decision.

Be careful what you assume -- a very good friend of mine was killed three years ago after a drunk driver swerved into his motorcycle on the highway. My grief hasn't led me to call for a ban on alcohol, though (or motorcycles).

A few hundred deaths a year is incidental. The third worst killer in the country is indicative of something a little serious than that.

It is; that's why I advocate tighter regulation on alcohol sales and stiffer penalties for drunk driving.

I'm sure that several ten thousand people die unnecessarily every year because the car they bought had sub-optimal safety features. Should we outlaw all but the most-safe cars?

But it's not with alcohol?

It is with certain people, hence the alcohol consumption license I advocate.

So we should legalize it?

Hell yes.

[maklelan]

maklelan, over 65% of the legal age population of the United States drinks. And yet you can possibly link 4% of deaths to alcohol. Wow, some killer. I read your links. No word on the methodology or how little alcohol had to be involved for the researchers to find causation.

I can't link you to the entire Scientific American article, but it includes that information. Like I said, they're thorough.

Sometimes you are just in the wrong place at the wrong time and the inclusion of alcohol into the discussion is purely incidental.

Of course, but how much of the total are you going to attribute to that?

Nevertheless with tens of millions of people drinking I guess it's not surprising that there are incidents with irresponsible people. That alcohol is involved in suicides its obvious, but again not shown to be a cause. Not to minimize the problems that alcohol can lead to, but I believe that the evils of alcohol are overstated in forums like this (to put it mildly).

How much first hand experience have you had with the evils of alcohol?

[groove]

maklelan, over 65% of the legal age population of the United States drinks. And yet you can possibly link 4% of deaths to alcohol. Wow, some killer.

Without commenting on the accuracy these specific numbers, I would point out that if 4% is even close to the actual number then this is a cause for grave concern. By contrast I would point out the seriousness of concerns and dollars spent combating the flu virus which has a mortality rate of well under 0.01%

[J.S. Mill]

We're already taking steps in that direction. I think it's a good thing, but safer cars will put a very small dent in the consequences of stupid and drunk drivers. I think about half as many people should have driver licenses as currently do, also.

Are you saying we shouldn't have alcohol-license laws because they'd be difficult to enforce, and most people would get around them anyway? If you are, then your simultaneous call for a complete alcohol ban is hilarious.