[Pepe1vo]

To put the percentages from the article in context, a teetotaller between 55 and 59 has a 5.9% chance of developing a stroke while a moderate drinker in the same age group has a 6.7% probability of suffering from a stroke. Which is still bad but not nearly as dramatic as the initial percentages make it sound.

I've noticed there is this weird neo-puritanical movement getting in vogue as of late, but I don't really understand why. Especially in educated groups it should come as absolutely no surprise that drinking is bad for your health and I don't know a single person who drinks because it's "healthy". We drink (in moderation) because it's makes for a good time and the negative externalities are understood and considered a worthwhile trade-off. For some people this trade-off is not acceptable which is totally fine too.

If you're serious about getting healthier I reckon that for a lot of people there is a lot more impactful changes to make than to stop drinking. E.g. no more processed foods, losing weight, exercising regularly, fixing indoor air quality and maybe less/no drinking if it's actually a significantly affecting health.

[P_I_Staker]

There's also this weird defensiveness, and all of society seems to contribute to "the cause". Alcohol should be as stigmatized as much as smoking and illicit drug use.

Maybe if you have just one with diner and get drunk a few times in your life, you'd be like the guy that does coke at a few parties.

The vast majority of heavy alcohol users suffer from the same behaviors that get you labeled as a drug addict: needing it to fully have fun, not being able to imagine stopping, being okay spending large sums of money on product, etc.

Yet people will lose your mind if you suggest it should be stigmatized like with other substances... and I don't think there's a problem with some "light" stigmatism with things like smoking, drinking, and cocaine use.

We just don't need to treat people as subhuman, but they should be similarly stigmatized. Like the chain-smoking dude presently is.

[soco]

I think there's also a difference in definitions. If you look at the comments here, there are many mentioning the effects the day after, after that night out with the gang. To me this would qualify as "heavy drinking that night" not just "drinking". So for some "drinking" means getting hammered, for me (and others) it means having a glass with a book in hand. And I see obvious (health) consequences only for one of those.

[mrighele]

I think that's because it depends not only how much you drink, but also how often.

For example if you drink 4 beers in one night, you may consider that night as heavy drinking, but you are not heavy drinking in general if you do it once every month or two. You're more of a drinker if you get a glass of wine every night while reading your book.

[scruple]

Yes, I take those comments to be about binge drinking. Which, I don't know, I assumed we all understood was absolutely horrible for your health.

[P_I_Staker]

I would estimate that the vast majority of drinkers and maybe the majority of average people think drinking is healthy in moderation. Most of those think 1-2 drinks actually makes you healthy.

Almost everyone I know would be surprised that drinking over 2-3 ever is considered dangerous drug abuse, and even in the 1-2 range there's enough risk to be concerned about cancer.

[Klonoar]

Eh, the people I know who gave up drinking just replaced it with weed.

Granted, it's anecdotal - and I'm sure there could still be a neo-puritanical culture movement - but as far as I can see it's just people getting tired of the absolute bullshit associated with alcohol.

(The other thing they all got in order with is good sleep, which alcohol seriously destroys)

Edit: Emphasis change.

[niemandhier]

To befair, you should consider P( Unpleasant Condition| Drinks ) and compare it to P( Unpleasant Condition| Does Not Drink ). Small increases of probability over many conditions tend to add up.