The history of alcohol: From the crack cocaine of its day to craft gin
economist.com
economist.com
I recommend the book to anyone with a curiosity in our history with alcohol - and it's a long history. The book, however, is a relatively light read. It's like a brief history of the world (although mostly the West) through the lens of alcohol.
I don't see how people even remotely thought this was a good idea. Not because of the alcohol content, but because spirits burn your throat.
I love gin. It's my favorite liquor, and I drink it often. But just thinking about downing a pint of gin like I'd drink ale makes my throat burn. It's very difficult for me to even do shots of hard liquor.
How did people back then stand to quaff gin like ale?
(I jest, but only slightly.)
Two things give some perspective on this. First, at the time in England, people did not really drink water. They drank ale as their primary drink. So they consumed a lot of alcohol on a regular basis. Two, they didn't really know they were consuming alcohol. It took some time for people to establish that the chemical that caused intoxication in distilled spirits, beer and wine was the same chemical. (Because of this, initial temperance movements were exclusively about spirits.) So people didn't have a clear basis for reasoning that this new thing could potentially harm them.
With that in mind, I am training my children on hard liquor from a young age.
WHO (World Health organization) stated that 25% of all deaths for 20-35 year olds is directly alcohol related. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs349/en/
In northern Canada and American Indian reservations, that might be true. Some places, it's heroin and others, it's meth, paint thinner or glue. (Police, nurses and social workers typically know what's going around.)
From a health perspective, most doctors would probably argue smoking. Philip Morris International is targeting Asian countries where they are as ubiquitous in most realms of life as was soda advertisements to kids in schools.
Alcohol abuse culture is prevalent in military, universities and sales/management.
I think the impact varies with location and social circles, and is hard to qualtitatively measure (apart from lives, hospital visits/bills, lost wages) because it's very qualitative.
Food is required for life.
Smoking, alcohol and drugs is non-essential and is self induced harm to the body for self-perceived emotional benefit. (Not to rule out emotional eating but...)
Bread doesn't taste at all like sugar does, it doesn't metabolize at the same rate, and to the best of my knowledge we aren't using it as an additive to flavor nearly every other food we eat.
Here is a anti-sugar post presenting the idea that 2 slices of bread has a HUGE impact on the body similar to soda. http://www.vanadia.com/stopbeingsweet/comments/soda-wheat-br...
[1] http://www.aaccnet.org/publications/plexus/cfw/pastissues/20...
I down voted due to "Bro Science" remark that is something not for communication sake but to just make someone mad. Not a fan of that technique in communicating ideas or debating.
20-35 years old rarely die "naturally". Usually through suicide, homicide, car crashes, overdose, etc
So, 25% of deaths in a group that naturally concentrates (one of) the least amount of deaths throughout age groups does not look strange
Now, I find it funny how some people want to exaggerate alcohol damage while ignoring several other factors (and other equally harmful things like fast-food)
Trying to solve alcohol abuse with DARE mentality is going to be equally effective (that is, not at all)
I am not trolling, but I am suggesting that governments do cause part of the problem by alcohol being legal while other drugs are illegal.
Further I do suspect that there's a fair amount of misery that the government does cause (irrespective of if you think it's morally right or not) and that one way people alleviate their misery is to drink. I'm not suggesting that it's an effective strategy, but merely that it is one that people choose. If governments looked at policies not just from a "how can we make people do what we want" perspective but also from a "how can we make compliance simple and straightforward" perspective they could quite literally move the needle on misery.
It's not that any one particular thing that a human being has to do to stay alive and legal is an impossible burden, it's just that there's no "department of if this is reasonable" and "the total cost of compliance on society department" or "how many hours a year does a person have to spend on forms bureau" and so you end up with a death-by-a-thousand-papercuts kind of situation.
Going to the DMV is irritating but tolerable, so is registering your car, so is paying your taxes, so are X, Y and Z. But by the time you add it all up you're probably working an extra week or two every year unpaid, and you don't get time off from work to make it happen during the government's business hours which decidedly aren't before 9am nor after 5pm.
Because the choice of what government you "patronize" has very high switching costs and the barriers to entry are insurmountably high (except for the most dedicated of revolutionaries) we get very little choice and a lot of things that could be better -- if only someone somewhere would bother to care -- don't happen because there's very little real pressure to improve them. I'm libertarian because I think governments are shitty and uncaring, not because I'm a true anarchist. I want ways to apply pressure to the government to be responsible and give a shit instead of abusing people just because they can.
I would say that when one thing is legal while others are illegal makes people think the legal thing is not dangerous when in fact it might be more damaging than other illegal drugs.
I don't drink and I choice to experience all emotions, the good and the bad. Other's just wash thema way.
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death#sthash.cJvyp...
Obviously alcohol is very safe in terms of having many more recreational users than abusers, but that is not as true in places where it is illegal.
https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22http%3A%2F%2F... and clicking the first link. Note: if you haven't read many Economist articles lately, it probably won't paywall, just popup advertise. Hence the need for private browsing or clearing the right cookie/s.