IGX

http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavio ... lthy-87891

The more alcohol a society consumes, the fewer alcohol-related problems and alcohol-related
deaths (including cirrhosis) it has.

The aftermath of the Temperance movement still has American public institutions looking at alcohol as if Carrie Nation was alive and well, and it's costing us.

Good thing I hopped off the wagon a couple of months ago.

http://www.everygoddamnday.com/2014/06/ ... rs-at.html

Abandoned by Wolves wrote:http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavio ... lthy-87891

It's off-putting when a non-scientist with an agenda pretends like he's putting out science. Peele makes his money telling people with alcohol problems to follow his advice rather than quit drinking. Not exactly unbiased.

The more alcohol a society consumes, the fewer alcohol-related problems and alcohol-related
deaths (including cirrhosis) it has.

You accept this at face value? Have you heard about the problems Russia's having?

The aftermath of the Temperance movement still has American public institutions looking at alcohol as if Carrie Nation was alive and well, and it's costing us.

Prohibition was stupid, but the temperance movement didn't come about for no good reason. Before prohibition Americans over 15 were drinking at a rate about triple they do today. A shitload of booze. You also had women with few rights and usually no careers who (along with their kids) were completely dependent on men living in a culture where daily shit-facedness was acceptable. Passing Prohibition was a bad solution, but the problem was a serious one.

I never get on a soapbox on this subject, but it's worth looking at the story of Moderation Management, which had a similar message. The founder ended up drunk driving and killing two people.

People who drink too much alcohol are generally better off not drinking, because most of them are facing a binary don't-drink/over-drink choice. The fact that two drinks a day are healthy (for men) isn't relevant for those people. Yes, some problem drinkers do manage to cut back, I know a few, but it's a minority where the stakes are high. If somebody is facing consequences of their drinking, and are looking hard for ways to mitigate the problems while still being able to drink, those people are usually way too attached to drinking.

Prohibition was stupid, but the temperance movement didn't come about for no good reason. Before prohibition Americans over 15 were drinking at a rate about triple they do today. A shitload of booze. You also had women with few rights and usually no careers who (along with their kids) were completely dependent on men living in a culture where daily shit-facedness was acceptable. Passing Prohibition was a bad solution, but the problem was a serious one.

Very true. Very very true.

There's a fascinating chat with Andrew Hill on addiction in this podcast. Way too long for most of you ADD motherfuckers but I'd encourage any of you, esp. stick up the butt Spells to listen. It definitely challenged some of my thinking on drug use...will probably challenge you candy asses on the other side of the equation as well.

http://jrefan.com/the-joe-rogan-experie ... -hill-phd/

I should elaborate a little...I'm a rabidly pro drug person in general but having interacted with several super sharp self aware folks in the last couple years that have made me reconsider my sensibilities. this podcast has a little of the same where Hill talks about how some compounds just act so profoundly on the brain that mega caution is warranted. Spending a weekend with a buddy who was attempting (and failed) to kick H really drove this point home...so whether you come from the AA school of thinking or the full throttle junky let god sort em out school, I think there's interesting questions in here about how we learn and the plasticity of the brain.

take away phrase.

neurons that fire together wire together.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Abandoned by Wolves wrote:http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavio ... lthy-87891

It's off-putting when a non-scientist with an agenda pretends like he's putting out science. Peele makes his money telling people with alcohol problems to follow his advice rather than quit drinking. Not exactly unbiased.

The more alcohol a society consumes, the fewer alcohol-related problems and alcohol-related
deaths (including cirrhosis) it has.

You accept this at face value? Have you heard about the problems Russia's having?

The aftermath of the Temperance movement still has American public institutions looking at alcohol as if Carrie Nation was alive and well, and it's costing us.

Prohibition was stupid, but the temperance movement didn't come about for no good reason. Before prohibition Americans over 15 were drinking at a rate about triple they do today. A shitload of booze. You also had women with few rights and usually no careers who (along with their kids) were completely dependent on men living in a culture where daily shit-facedness was acceptable. Passing Prohibition was a bad solution, but the problem was a serious one.

I never get on a soapbox on this subject, but it's worth looking at the story of Moderation Management, which had a similar message. The founder ended up drunk driving and killing two people.

People who drink too much alcohol are generally better off not drinking, because most of them are facing a binary don't-drink/over-drink choice. The fact that two drinks a day are healthy (for men) isn't relevant for those people. Yes, some problem drinkers do manage to cut back, I know a few, but it's a minority where the stakes are high. If somebody is facing consequences of their drinking, and are looking hard for ways to mitigate the problems while still being able to drink, those people are usually way too attached to drinking.

I never thought that I would agree with your left leaning, bolshevik supporting, muslim tolerant viewpoints, but you have gotten this one right.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:People who drink too much alcohol are generally better off not drinking, because most of them are facing a binary don't-drink/over-drink choice. The fact that two drinks a day are healthy (for men) isn't relevant for those people. Yes, some problem drinkers do manage to cut back, I know a few, but it's a minority where the stakes are high. If somebody is facing consequences of their drinking, and are looking hard for ways to mitigate the problems while still being able to drink, those people are usually way too attached to drinking.

This issue too often falls right into that oh so common narrative.

You owe it to yourself to question those underlying assumptions. The AA narrative of powerlessness is not without lasting consequences.

By the same token, those of us who get away with hitting it a little harder than we ought to, owe it to ourselves to question whether it's blind luck or just that fact we have externals checks and balances and the discretionary income to buffer us from the serious impacts of risky behavior.

The black and white rubbish is crutch. The interesting stuff is always in the grey area.

Mark Kleiman is my go to on drug issues (even though he's a Democratic Party hack partisan politically):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... eiman.html

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:People who drink too much alcohol are generally better off not drinking, because most of them are facing a binary don't-drink/over-drink choice. The fact that two drinks a day are healthy (for men) isn't relevant for those people. Yes, some problem drinkers do manage to cut back, I know a few, but it's a minority where the stakes are high. If somebody is facing consequences of their drinking, and are looking hard for ways to mitigate the problems while still being able to drink, those people are usually way too attached to drinking.

This issue too often falls right into that oh so common narrative.

You owe it to yourself to question those underlying assumptions. The AA narrative of powerlessness is not without lasting consequences.

By the same token, those of us who get away with hitting it a little harder than we ought to, owe it to ourselves to question whether it's blind luck or just that fact we have externals checks and balances and the discretionary income to buffer us from the serious impacts of risky behavior.

The black and white rubbish is crutch. The interesting stuff is always in the grey area.

I pretty much agree, but I think "grey area" is not really helpful here. Because, well it's not really grey...

Most illicit drug users really are recreational.

Most illicit drug users are marijuana smokers. Note: the potency of "average" marijuana has increased exponentially over the past decade. So much so, that what most people think of when they think "marijuana" has no relationship to the illicit drug available today.

Very little of the revenue generated by the "illicit drug industry" is generated by marijuana.

Most "problem users"/chronic users etc spontaneously stop using.

There is a small % of illicit drug users who once they begin taking illicit drugs will never use "recreationally" and will never stop.

That small % cannot yet be predicted and appears to be largely independent of external factors. Also, different drugs have different rates of capture, though the extent of the variation is not clear.

That small % is also the cause of the overwhelming majority of things people consider bad about illicit drug use.

That small % is also responsible for the vast majority of money spent on illicit drugs.

Currently, alcohol is the drug which causes the most "harm" to society. However, no other drug has the availability and social acceptance of alcohol. It is unclear what the situation would be if more drugs were as accessible and acceptable as alcohol.

I'm 2/3's done with the podcast BD linked. They bounce around a variety of topics, but it's well worth your time. At the very least give the first 30-40 minutes a go. For me, it validated a lot of things I concluded on my own--especially the whole relinquishing of control/admission of powerlessness that I never bought into (although YMMV).

Happen to have had a 45 min drive...definitely a provocative listen thus far.

alkie anon has a low success rate--less than 10%

apparently drunks should consider naltrexone. i had never heard of this drug.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/arc ... us/386255/

The podcast touches briefly on the use of a breathalyzer for tracking ones drinking. I had bought a good, $100 one a few years back and never touched it. I think it's a good idea along the lines of calorie counting, ect, if it's a problem you want to manage vs. fully abstain from. I am going to start using mine. Now you can buy little ones at Costco for 30 bucks.

The podcast touches briefly on the use of a breathalyzer for tracking ones drinking. I had bought a good, $100 one a few years back and never touched it. I think it's a good idea along the lines of calorie counting, ect, if it's a problem you want to manage vs. fully abstain from. I am going to start using mine. Now you can buy little ones at Costco for 30 bucks.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:People who drink too much alcohol are generally better off not drinking, because most of them are facing a binary don't-drink/over-drink choice. The fact that two drinks a day are healthy (for men) isn't relevant for those people. Yes, some problem drinkers do manage to cut back, I know a few, but it's a minority where the stakes are high. If somebody is facing consequences of their drinking, and are looking hard for ways to mitigate the problems while still being able to drink, those people are usually way too attached to drinking.

This issue too often falls right into that oh so common narrative.

You owe it to yourself to question those underlying assumptions. The AA narrative of powerlessness is not without lasting consequences.

Not sure what narrative you mean. I meant nothing to do with AA or powerlessness, and I'm involved in neither, though I did quit drinking. The scale of how addicted somebody is is definitely blurry and there are different ways that may work for a given person to solve the over-consuming problem. Apparently LSD has been effective in helping some addicts reduce their consumption to manageable levels. But for most people who try and fail many times to cut back, the most logical solution is to try to quit instead.

To put it more simply, if people were dealing with serious consequences of doing too much CrossFit or eating too much Funyuns and tried unsuccessfully cut back several times, most people would say, "Maybe you should just stop CrossFitting/funyun eating and do something else." People who really emotionally resist that message may just be independent-minded, but a lot of them are addicts, because "Just stop doing activity/substance X because the consequences aren't worth it" is pretty reasonable advice.

Some people absolutely hate the idea of any model that deviates from a complete internal locus of control, but nonetheless are not going to solve the addiction problem without help. Those people might be well served by a 12-step program, even though they really, really don't want to. I don't think the people who have 20 years in AA started out thinking, "Yay, I get to admit I need help, this is awesome." They got beaten down over and over again and tried other options until they found one that worked for them. Others have found ways to cut drinking way down.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:But for most people who try and fail many times to cut back, the most logical solution is to try to quit instead.

I used to heartily agree with this given I've done just that with gambling, nicotine, and, perhaps some other stuff not to be named. For me, and again, YMMV, I really started to feel bad not about 'not drinking', but I felt awful about what I thought was a lack of ability to govern my will and my habits in general. I'm thankfully proving myself correct, thus far, but in the interest of being completely candid, I can easily see where the slope could be very slippery. I am fortunate in that I have an awesome wife who 'gets' what I'm doing (although not thrilled about it) and I am also cognizant of the fact that there is much to lose by way of loss of control.

I also recognize what I'm doing is a textbook type of relapse in mainstream addiction counseling but I'm cool with that, too.

I think there is too much focus on the subjective experience of chronic drug use here...

Objectively, almost all people spontaneously stop chronic use. Spontaneously = on their own and without correlation to a single event.

The ones who don't spontaneously stop are a very small minority and non-responsive.

I don't know, B16....I think 'subjective' actually matters here given our audience is for the most part, a bunch of washed-up meathead Gen X'ers with decent careers and lives. Also, 'scientific studies' are not really out there that show the full picture of what you're calling chronic use. There are a shit ton of people out there who are never polled or studied that don't even know they're at risk of strong withdrawals until they need to get their gallbladder removed or some shit like that requiring a few days of abstinence from an otherwise moderate drinker. I can't tell you how many people I personally know who don't go a day without a drink or three or five and every single one of them makes six figures and is for the most part, responsible with a nice life.

The 'spontaneous stop' is what I'm saying is more rare than you're implying.

Interesting thread.

I still have no fucking clue what you're talking about Spells.

Point....Research indicates drinking is actually healthy.

Counterpoint...NO it doesn't. that's wrong...."Some People drink too much and shouldn't"

Is that it?

My point...in case I was too oblique.

"We should question everything we think we know about addiction"....most of that science is turning out to be suspect.

"By the same token, even casual users should probably question their relationship with their pet chemistry...everything you tell yourself about why you're doing something is probably crap as well."

Everyone thinks their story is so fucking unique and I of course am no exception. What stunned me for ages was the fact that there were so many people who had no idea how much I was consuming and that it was on a daily basis--my tolerance was unreal and cloaked me better than I had ever imagined. I sat a lunches (plural) with grown men and women who were friends/coworkers/bosses of mine who listened to my story with tears in their eyes while I was utterly nonchalant about it. I do pride myself on *never* soapboxing, but when asked I simply tell everyone they should take some arbitrary breaks from drinking throughout the year....at least a couple of 3-4 week stints, and evaluate how they deal with it and feel about it. For most 'regulars' who are not alkies, it's way harder than it sounds.

The Venerable Bogatir X wrote:I used to heartily agree with this given I've done just that with gambling, nicotine, and, perhaps some other stuff not to be named. For me, and again, YMMV, I really started to feel bad not about 'not drinking', but I felt awful about what I thought was a lack of ability to govern my will and my habits in general.

I can see that. I personally find willpower and discipline to be highly situational, so if I have a goal that I am having difficulty focusing myself to achieve, I'll try to figure out a way to get out of my own way. That often involves a solution that works for me personally but would not work for my wife, for example, so I'll never be one of the OTW people.

There's also some extra ego-checking involved for me on the drug/alcohol thing, because I've seen both guys crushing it at life who turned out to be recovering alcoholics, and (different) highly successful guys who got taken down by booze, heroin, and even weed.

BD wrote:I still have no fucking clue what you're talking about Spells.

Point....Research indicates drinking is actually healthy.

Counterpoint...NO it doesn't. that's wrong...."Some People drink too much and shouldn't"

Is that it?

No

Point: "Drinking is healthier than not drinking."

Counterpoint: That's an incorrect binary way of phrasing it. The accurate way to put it is: Consuming a certain quantity of alcohol per day is healthier than consuming more or less than that range. However, consuming a lot more than the healthy range can shorten life quite a bit, while reducing quality of life considerably. The author's target demographic is the people who tend to drink so much that they are looking to solve a problem. Since those people tend (not 100%) to not be good candidates for drinking the healthy range, they would usually be better served by not drinking.

Author then makes laughably false statements like: "Societies that drink more are healthier than those who don't." It's obviously not true. He even includes liver disease.

Heaviest drinking country in the world: Maldova
Country with highest rate of cirrhosis in the world: Maldova

"Grandpa's Spells"
I can see that. I personally find willpower and discipline to be highly situational, so if I have a goal that I am having difficulty focusing myself to achieve, I'll try to figure out a way to get out of my own way. That often involves a solution that works for me personally but would not work for my wife, for example, so I'll never be one of the OTW people.

A big yes to that. For me, it's bigger than booze and the desired outcome is much more important to me than what goes on between my ears in any given 24 hour period: and that would be the tools I am giving my kids. Marines and non-Marines, I shit you not, the buck truly stops right there.