Report on alcohol consumption

[blackstrap]

Maybe the WoW has a point.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

The medical research evidence on alcohol use certainly seems to be moving in the same direction as the medical research evidence on tobacco use did last century. In my nation, our government has accepted and finally started using the public health message that there is 'no known safe level of alcohol consumption'.

Edited August 30, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[JustAnAustralian]

More and more research for years has been coming out with that alcoholic drinks are overall harmful, that is, the harm from the alcohol outweighs the benefit of any other component of the drinks.

When the Australian alcohol consumption guidelines were updated recently the report that came with it ( https://www.mja.com.au/system/files/issues/215_11/mja251336.pdf ) was pretty clear

Quote

A guideline that eliminates risks from alcohol altogether would advise no consumption.

Of course they're not going to do that, no one would accept it so instead "the committee retained the aim to ascertain the upper level of drinking that would limit lifetime (absolute) risk of dying from an alcohol related cause to less than one in 100", and they reduced the guidelines for maximum consumption from 14standard drinks/week to 10/week.

It will be interesting to see what they do in the next update when it comes around.

 

 

[DT_]

1 hour ago, blackstrap said:

Maybe the WoW has a point.

Sure, alcohol is bad, but society thinks alcohol consumption is a good thing. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, DT_ said:

Sure, alcohol is bad, but society thinks alcohol consumption is a good thing. 

Spending US$7.7 billion on advertising annually can certainly help shape public opinion!

Edited August 30, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Spending US$7.7 billion on advertising annually can certainly help shape public opinion!

That’s the premise on which tobacco advertising was eliminated from the airwaves a couple of generations ago. 

[MrShorty]

11 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Of course they're not going to do that, no one would accept it so...they reduced the guidelines for maximum consumption from 14standard drinks/week to 10/week.

I think governments and churches have long struggled with deciding when something should be outright banned and when something should be regulated and when something should be left up to individuals to decide for themselves.

Do we think alcohol is the only consumable whose net effect is to shorten life rather than lengthen it? We had a discussion about energy drinks (that could probably easily extend to other carbonated beverages). What about junk foods?

I have long thought that Joseph Smith's philosophy of "teaching correct principles and leaving people to then govern themselves" is a good one, but it does leave open the likelihood that some people will then choose things that we don't think they should choose. And so we continuously struggle with just how much freedom to give people -- because they might choose something that bothers us.

Edited August 30, 2022 by MrShorty

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, blackstrap said:

Maybe the WoW has a point.

 

Alcohol is really bad for you.  And as you note with this, even in moderation there are not much benefits.  But that does not mean the WoW had any more insite than any other temperance movement.

Edited August 30, 2022 by Teancum

[jkwilliams]

13 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The medical research evidence on alcohol use certainly seems to be moving in the same direction as the medical research evidence on tobacco use did last century. In my nation, our government has accepted and finally started using the public health message that there is 'no known safe level of alcohol consumption'.

Are you saying alcohol consumption is illegal in your island of the sea?

[Calm]

My issue is whether advertising of primarily harmful substances falls under allowing them to govern themselves or teaching correct principles.  Do we focus on the right of someone to exercise their agency by trying to influence others to essentially harm themselves or do we focus on the teaching correct principles, which could include to some extent refusing to allow those who want to teach false principles access to any sort of pulpit, including advertising as has happened somewhat with tobacco. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Are you saying alcohol consumption is illegal in your island of the sea?

Sounds to me like it is treated more like tobacco here, educating with warnings and such. 
 

Total derail…maybe someone can send me a link that explains this. I want to know why the US is still giving money to tobacco farmers.  It has been decades since the government actively recognized the cost of tobacco.  Any company has more than enough time to phase out growing the stuff. To me anyone still growing it is actively choosing to do so and not just inheriting a problem and so deserves help while they try to shift to a better way of doing things. What is the justification for this?

https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/thank-you-subsidizing-smoking

Edited August 30, 2022 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Sounds to me like it is treated more like tobacco here, educating with warnings and such. 

That seems wise to me. I hardly ever drink alcohol, and it's always just beer. I can count how many beers I've had this year on one hand. I'm not too worried about killing off those whatever-you-call-em cells, you know the ones in my head. 

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by jkwilliams

[Rain]

25 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I think governments and churches have long struggled with deciding when something should be outright banned and when something should be regulated and when something should be left up to individuals to decide for themselves.

Do we think alcohol is the only consumable whose net effect is to shorten life rather than lengthen it? We had a discussion about energy drinks (that could probably easily extend to other carbonated beverages). What about junk foods?

I can tell you I have had a life time of struggle because of how consumption of sugar was taught to me as a child and teen diabetic.  I wish rather than telling me not to eat it and that it was bad and harmful they instead taught me that is raises blood sugar and how to watch how I feel when eating every kind of food.  Of course when I first became diabetic all we had was inaccurate urine testing, but just helping me listen to how I feel after each thing I ate would have completely changed things for me.

Instead it was "you can't have sugar".  "If you have sugar you will get kidney disease and die."  "If you have sugar you will lose toes and feet."

25 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I have long thought that Joseph Smith's philosophy of "teaching correct principles and leaving people to then govern themselves" is a good one, but it does leave open the likelihood that some people will then choose things that we don't think they should choose. And so we continuously struggle with just how much freedom to give people -- because they might choose something that bothers us.

 

[Nofear]

Scientific Reasons to Abstain from Alcohol

A summary of some of the issues and current data. The blog writer isn't a scientist or such, though it is a hobby of his.

[edvantageous]

I believe many of these new studies that are motivating governments to change recommendations and acknowledge the risks of alcohol consumption are based on the UK Biobank:

Quote

UK Biobank is a large-scale biomedical database and research resource, containing in-depth genetic and health information from half a million UK participants. The database, which is regularly augmented with additional data, is globally accessible to approved researchers and scientists undertaking vital research into the most common and life-threatening diseases. UK Biobank’s research resource is a major contributor to the advancement of modern medicine and treatment and has enabled several scientific discoveries that improve human health.

Since 2006, UK Biobank has collected an unprecedented amount of biological and medical data on half a million people, aged between 40 and 69 years old and living in the UK, as part of a large-scale prospective study. With their consent they regularly provide blood, urine and saliva samples, as well as detailed information about their lifestyle which is then linked to their health-related records to provide a deeper understanding of how individuals experience diseases.

The data – the largest and richest dataset of its kind – is anonymised and made widely accessible by UK Biobank to researchers around the world who use it to make new scientific discoveries about common and life-threatening diseases – such as cancer, heart disease and stroke – in order to improve public health.

For the first time, at such scale (hundreds of thousands of participants over decades who give regular blood samples, genetics data, and health surveys), researchers can see the health impacts of lifestyle choices without violating the ethics of compelling participants to make decisions that could harm them or impact their health negatively. One such UK Bionbank study by the American Medical Association concluded:

Quote

Genetic epidemiology suggested that alcohol consumption of all amounts was associated with increased cardiovascular risk, but marked risk differences exist across levels of intake, including those accepted by current national guidelines.

As these populations continue to age and new participants contribute to the data, we will all benefit from better understanding disease and the health impacts of our lifestyle choices. It's pretty neat...

[The Nehor]

But the Word of Wisdom says mild beer is okay so who knows?

Also why is the Word of Wisdom only a temporary commandment if alcohol is always bad. So confused.

[jkwilliams]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

But the Word of Wisdom says mild beer is okay so who knows?

Also why is the Word of Wisdom only a temporary commandment if alcohol is always bad. So confused.

It's not a commandment. It's just been part of the temple recommend requirements since 1930. I wonder if 3.2% beer qualifies as a mild drink.

Edited August 30, 2022 by jkwilliams

[blackstrap]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I wonder if 3.2% beer qualifies as a mild drink.

My mom's home made root beer, if left to age more than 10 days, had a bit of a kick to it. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

It's not a commandment. It's just been part of the temple recommend requirements since 1930.

This is not entirely accurate. Brigham Young in the April 1867 General Conference taught that he had been divinely instructed to teach the Saints to obey the Word of Wisdom as a commandment, and many of the other speakers in that conference spoke on the same topic. It was at this time that obedience to the Word of Wisdom was also clearly formulated as abstinence from alcoholic drinks, coffee, tea, and tobacco.

Brigham spoke repeatedly on this topic as he travelled around the Church that year, reminding the Saints of what had been introduced in the April conference. Here is a quote from one of his many addresses (and one that I have shared on this forum multiple times in the past when various versions of this topic have been raised):

Quote

I said to the Saints at our last annual Conference, the Spirit whispers to me to call upon the Latter-day Saints to observe the Word of Wisdom, to let tea, coffee, and tobacco alone, and to abstain from drinking spirituous drinks. This is what the Spirit signifies through me. If the Spirit of God whispers this to his people through their leader, and they will not listen nor obey, what will be the consequences of their disobedience? Darkness and blindness of mind with regard to the things of God will be their lot; they will cease to have the spirit of prayer, and the spirit of the world will increase in them in proportion to their disobedience until they apostatize entirely from God and his ways.

This is no new or strange thing that you are required to do. Thirty-five years ago we were called upon to reform in our lives, by giving heed to the same Words of Wisdom; and if any man comes to you and tells you that you must have a little tea and a little coffee, by the same rule he may urge you to take a little tobacco and a little intoxicating liquor, or a little of any other substance which is hurtful to man. This destroys their claim and right to the spirit of revelation, and they go into darkness.

We don't update the D&C each time the Lord inspires a prophet to clarify, expand, or even revoke earlier revelations for obvious reasons, but it's wrong to ignore this process in a Church that claims it as one of our defining hallmarks.

Edited August 31, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

But the Word of Wisdom says mild beer is okay so who knows?

You used to.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You used to.

That was a joke.

[LoudmouthMormon]

Missionary: "Alcohol isn't good for you - the WoW pegged it a long time ago!"

Dude: "Untrue.  I drink alcohol specifically for the health benefits."

Missionary: "And what would those health benefits be?"

Dude: "For one thing, it keeps me from being Mormon."

 

Seriously though, alcohol will always be with the human race.  No matter how bad alcohol is eventually shown to be, no matter how much the cultural winds turn against it, there'll always be alcohol.

Fun bit of trivia: Remember covid shutdown, where only "critical businesses" were allowed to be open?  Not a lot of news covered it, but pretty much all the governments had gun stores and liquor stores on the list of critical businesses.

[jkwilliams]

20 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This is not entirely accurate. Brigham Young in the April 1867 General Conference taught that he had been divinely instructed to teach the Saints to obey the Word of Wisdom as a commandment, and many of the other speakers in that conference spoke on the same topic. It was at this time that obedience to the Word of Wisdom was also clearly formulated as abstinence from alcoholic drinks, coffee, tea, and tobacco.

Brigham spoke repeatedly on this topic as he travelled around the Church that year, reminding the Saints of what had been introduced in the April conference. Here is a quote from one of his many addresses (and one that I have shared on this forum multiple times in the past when various versions of this topic have been raised):

We don't update the D&C each time the Lord inspires a prophet to clarify, expand, or even revoke earlier revelations for obvious reasons, but it's wrong to ignore this process in a Church that claims it as one of our defining hallmarks.

I'm not going to argue about this, but what you're suggesting just doesn't fit how the Word of Wisdom was presented and practiced throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. 

[SkyRock]

I talked with an older gentleman some years ago who remembered there being beer at ward parties when he was a kid.  Sort of like my mom remembered the very old polygamist family(married pre Manifesto) in her ward in southern Utah.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not going to argue about this, but what you're suggesting just doesn't fit how the Word of Wisdom was presented and practiced throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. 

What I am 'suggesting' are the actual words of Brigham Young spoken to the Saints in 1867. I can provide heaps more quotes if you'd like -- including Brigham calling out bishops and other leaders for not practising what he and the other apostles were teaching ('presenting') -- but I can certainly understand why you wouldn't want to argue with the historical record.