U.S. alcohol-related deaths have doubled, study says
npr.org
npr.org
I've been an HN member for a long time, fairly prominent Bay Area tech executive, rich in the sense of both bank accounts and family.
Alcohol brought me to my knees in my late 20s / early 30s.
It started out as the typical "social lubricant" to help a natural introvert be better at connecting with people and was wonderful at that - I was the life of the party.
Over a decade it leaked into a "requirement" for just about anything and eventually drinking heavily 3 / 4 nights a week.
Eventually I sought paid help from therapists, coaches, natural remedies, medication, recovery specialists. Nothing worked. Eventually a therapist told me "you're screwed the only thing left to try is AA".
I was highly skeptical, an agnostic, still am more or less, but AA saved my life on account of the comradery i found in the rooms of SV meetings. People with the same story and same struggles who worked the steps and recovered.
One of the AA rules is attraction not promotion, this isn't promotion only my own simple testimonial. Statistics say that it doesn't work for a lot of people but knowing the general skeptical nature of HN and the crowd I want anybody struggling or who was in my situation to know that for this one skeptical / tech / entrepreneurial brain it was a lifesaver after trying basically everything else.
Now sober ~9 years and counting and wouldn't have it any other way.
I am happy to answer questions about the program if anybody is struggling, can give an anon email too if preferred.
edit: temp gmail account ohohuhunkjnuihuh@gmail.com
The turning point for me was a joke by a stand up comedian that kind of glorified being a drunk. Doug Stanhope had a line similar to “addiction is just a thing you like doing more than living your life”. I chose to live my life. I got hobbies, took classes, worked a lot and I got through the first few months by staying busy. Over time I balanced out my life schedule (also finding out I have workaholic tendencies).
Everyone’s path is different. I can’t believe mine has worked for 6 years. AA isn’t for everyone, but it works for many. It should be the default first option for people wanting out.
My best friend was a raging alcoholic for 20 years, he would go through cycles of moderate then heavy drinking, hit bottom, give it up for a few months, and repeat. Unfortunately he simply loved alcohol and really did not want to give it up.
Total abstinence seems like it gives up a huge positive, but insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Many people simply can’t have alcohol in their lives and be happy long term. That might not be you, but it’s something to think about.
I held out my hands no more power left in them head against a tree it was cold on my eyes moon that night solid I could touch almost couldn't get the leg was broken and teeth tore past the bones at me begging for help pictures all cut up knife had fallen I lay there my pieces moved and shifted against a tree I spit up from my stomach green when day came and mist steamed up to the top of the high tree just under the leaves at the top and looking down I could see my body lying there the leg all twisted and the face caved in lips drawn back showing teeth I could see and hear but I couldn't talk without a throat without a tongue sun moon and stars on the face down there worms in the leg weeds growing through the bones.
"Realizing it" happens gradually after an established pattern of behavior. Usually, years. You're like, I seem to drink a lot more than everyone else and maybe that's not good. Eventually other problems kick in like sleep issues, anxiety, possibly weight gain - and the solution is always drinking because you stop worrying about it, or can at least say "well this is one of the last times." You realize that this is a bigger issue and then decide to stop, but something inevitably draws you back in. There's always something. And since you slipped back in, you somehow find your way to drinking as much or even more than you did. And then you realize the issue is even bigger - you've established a pattern of trying to stop and it never sticks, no matter how sincere you were in that moment of decision. No matter how much you poured down the drain. No matter how much you know that being sober is actually the good life and that your problems are much easier managed when staying away from drinking.
And after many attempts of this, trying and failing, but probably knowing that deep down there's a part of you that doesn't want to stop, you hit a point where you feel the worst you've ever felt in your life, hurt someone, or instigated another serious problem. And if you're honest, you know where it all started.
Then you are on your knees. Some people try to fix the problem themselves in earnest, some seek help, some stay in the cycle and break out down the road, and some stay in until the (statistically early) end.
Hangovers turn into waking up drunk at some point. For me, they were a reason to drink. Withdrawal is like a hangover that lasts for weeks. The whole time, you will want a drink.
My bottom was the realization that my alcoholism was a way of checking out of my life. Once I realized that, I just had to start doing other things and dealing with the problems I tried to drown.
When you are in the pit of addiction, the first things you need are positive alternatives to drinking. It could be AA but I went a different route. I am not a meticulous scheduler, but I had a rigid schedule for the first few months. I even planned out my free time. I put myself back out into the world, and found that I loved it and the people in it.
I'll be a year sober next month.
avoiding was a non starter so the "escape plan" was I committed to leave, akwardly as it may be, before i picked up a drink.
aka if someobdy was pressuring me to drink to the point i felt i had to i would say "ok get me a beer i have to go to the bathroom" and then disappear and blame it on an upset stomach
and believe the truth that unless you take somebody else's drink away from them or ask them to stop drinking nobody cares if you have a beer or a coke in your hand
After the first year I learned that caffiene has a similar effect on me in social situations if i need to ramp up and can be just as engaging / moreso
> aka if someobdy was pressuring me to drink to the point i felt i had to i would say "ok get me a beer i have to go to the bathroom" and then disappear and blame it on an upset stomach
I hope this doesn't come across as rude, but I don't understand -- why was pretending to get sick easier than telling the truth -- "I can't, I've quit drinking", or a softened version, "I'm not drinking tonight", etc.? Or did you start off with that and they'd continue to pressure you? I don't think I know anyone who'd be that much of an a-hole, unless they were already very drunk themselves.
If you openly tell people that you “quit drinking” they will likely either assume alcoholism or openly ask you why. They are not likely to assume you just decided you don’t like the taste, so now you’ve got the label.
If instead you tell people you aren’t “drinking tonight”, you will absolutely get pressure to drink, because “drinking is fun”, and you don’t have a “real reason not to drink”. I’ve seen it many times and I’m ashamed to say that I’ve participated before as well, not because it was my intent to actually pressure someone to drink, but because it was “good natured teasing”. If I had a friend who loved steak and he suddenly ordered a salad at the steakhouse, I’d similarly be tempted to tease him about his dinner choice, even though I don’t actually care if he had steak, or wine, or whatever. I’ve since recognized that this behavior is not healthy and tried to weed it out of myself, but it’s very common.
This is by the way, why vegans complain about people teasing them or judging them about their food choices. With very few exceptions, it’s probably not malicious. It’s just people being stupid and not realizing the impact they’re having on others. In some cases, this can be just annoying. In others, this can be truly problematic.
It could be that people feel judged, criticized by someone who doesn't drink alcohol/eat meat. That person seems to be setting themselves up as better than others, or more ethical, or with better habits. And they spoil the vibe and camaraderie. People feel attacked and feel justified in striking back, or release that psychological tension with jokes that only seem funny to those with the tension.
I'm not an alcoholic myself, but I drink _very_ rarely so I'm often in a similar boat.
If you say "I'm not drinking" or "I don't drink" a very common follow up question is: "oh? why?"
For me, I've always been able to shrug my shoulders and say: "I dunno, just never felt like it". But I could _very_ easily see a recovering alcoholic feeling like they're in a very awkward position once that question comes up.
The last 20 seconds or so of this clip of Jim Gaffigan rings pretty true to me: http://www.cc.com/video-clips/fq3bvp/comedy-central-presents...
As an aside, a trick I use to control the number of drinks in a business situation is to order liquor neat. I can sip a scotch for an entire meal while other people drink multiple beers or mixed drinks. Don't order something that's easy to drink.
I wish people didn’t have to feel pressure to hide behind platitudes and white lies just to be socially acceptable.
If you have social anxiety, talk to a therapist. My drinking got out of control from a cycle having anxiety which was relieved by drinking which would cause anxiety.
Life is pretty boring in the beginning when you quit. You start to realize how much of your social life is dictated by drinking and how much time and money you spend on it.
As someone who's about to cross 4 years sober who was so stubborn he lost everything (a cardboard box would have been an upgrade), this is just f*cking hilarious. Boo hoo, he doesn't want withdrawal. Lol. Addiction doesn't work that way.
If they're a real drunk, and if what you say is true about him/her not getting drunk, they are going to have much more serious health problems than some PAWs. They are going to start having fatty liver, neuropathy, stomach problems, blah, blah, blah. Once it starts from heavy alcoholism, it doesn't stop until you stop or die. PAWs be damned. The only difference is the booze can and WILL kill you. That's one thing that the booze industry never tells you. Hell, people are still surprised to learn that alcohol is one of 2 or 3 substances where even the withdrawal can kill you. It's just not all fun and games even if you don't have the addictive alcoholic genes.
other interesting timing stuff for me
30 days until believing i could actually do it "one day at a time"
90 days until the cravings subsided reguarly
1 year until cravings for the most part behind
2 years until no more alcohol dreams !
my experience in general with norcal AA groups is "higher power" is used instead of "God" almost exclusively, people are very careful to not push God / religious understanding / etc
At step 3 you have to turn it over to a "higher power" which is a reflection of the understanding that it is unlikely you, yourself have the power to control alcohol and there must be something "Greater than" you - that can be "physics" that can be "the moon" and a guy who has been sober a very long time in the meeting i go to says his higher power is the "light fixture"
But it really depends on the group. There non-religious modifications to the AA program. They don't say a prayer every 3 minutes. It definitely worth going to a meeting or two just to listen to their stories.
His drinking buddy was my step-mother, who followed an identical trajectory. Less than four years later, she died in the same spot of the house, in her late 50s.
The most difficult thing for my sister and myself was how powerless we were to do anything about it. Despite him committing slow suicide by alcohol, we were advised by lawyers that we had no legal recourse and would just end up burning money in a court battle we could not win.
My last ditch effort was an ultimatum, that if he didn't stop drinking, I would no longer talk to him, nor allow him to meet any kids my wife and I might have down the line. He agreed to stop drinking, but then gave up 72 hours later.
His grandson was born 7 weeks ago, but he never got to meet him. He would have only been 65.
At one time she developed severe dementia due to neurological complications from alcohol. She recovered, but started drinking again after that.
I'm not saying what you should feel, but I know the frustration and anger a relatives addiction can cause.
Personally, I'm now fine with the fact that a person can destroy their life.
Because the option would be, that there would be an arbitrary threshold beyond which a persons right for self determination could be taken away, and unless it's bleedingly obvious (as in they are a vegetable) it's most likely an arbitrary and an unfair arrangement.
We are not yet masters of the universe. We are not even masters of human lives. But we've come up with societies that allow individuals freedom to live the lives they choose. This freedom includes the freedom for self immolation. The freedom for self immolation is the price we pay for all the other freedoms. Each one of us need to decide for themselves is this price worth the cost. Personally, for me, I say - yes it is. The price is pain. But the alternative would be even more unfair, and more painfull (i.e. there would be arbiters in the society with more or less arbitrary power to curtail personal freedom due to arbitrary life choices they made).
My adoptive father also died of alcohol abuse. I am Much older than you are though. He served in WWII, also most of his friends drank heavily--I suspect it was due to combat war related PTSD; but that is merely a guess.
I am very careful about how much I drink, and I do have an addictive personality. I just had a talk, tonight in fact, with my 20 year old about drugs--and was surprised to hear that coke is big again at my child's University. My kid drinks a bit, but has a 4.0 average as Bio major looking to get into Med School. No guarantee of a drug free life but my point is talk to your son about it when he's older.
Sorry for loss.
Congratulations on the birth of your son!
It seems like the pendulum swung too far in the opposite direction from how we treated mental illness in the previous century (aggressively locking people up in institutions).
It would be a huge benefit to society if we could find a (relatively safe from abuse) mechanism to treat people who are "functional" yet too mentally ill to stop their self-destructive behaviors. I'm not sure how that would/could work, but it's a worthwhile goal.
There is a way. When I was lost, dealing with my own problematic issues with drinking, I found another path. Taking a single dose of LSD-25 made me examine the root cause of my drinking, and made me understand just how self-destructive I had been. I've never been religious, but for those 8 hours I felt more connected to everything around me than I had in my entire life. I felt love for the first time. I touched the surface of God, of goodness, of kindness with my soul. And it healed me. Like a bright light, healing me of all of my old emotional wounds. It opened my eyes, so I could see for the first time.
That said, my point was about how to get a loved one into treatment against their will. That's dangerous territory because of abuse, but it's a topic worth continual exploration.
But has a therapeutic tool, I'd advocate for most people to have a (safe) psychedelic experience at least once in their life. It can profoundly change the way you see the world and yourself, and that has ramifications in how we cope with pain. Using alcohol for that is not a good thing.
I'd argue it's more of the same: finding a way to pretend they don't exist.
I know of similar circumstances and am wondering how much of alcoholism is caused by some other psychiatric condition.
Or perhaps pure idleness and boredom.
What do you do when you're a pensioner, you never cultivated lifelong learning so you're not equipped to take on a new challenge, there's no place in society for your residual skills? Maybe you kick back, relax, and pour a glass or two. After all, there's nothing else for you to do anymore.
Does alcoholism creep in at this stage?
He was forced to go to a hospital, where he went into a brief 72 hour coma while he was withdrawing from alcohol. From there, he was hospitalized for another 7 days, and then forced to transfer to a physical rehabilitation center, as he was unable to walk under his own power.
Once he was at the facility, he was no longer under a required hold. Once he realized this, he promptly left so he could go home and start drinking again.
We spoke with lawyers about whether or not I could be granted conservatorship over him, as he went through this detox / early recovery period. Because he hadn't lost his mental faculties in any way, we were advised that a judge was unlikely to provide conservatorship to me, and it would be an expensive and damaging process. Our best bet was to convince him at a personal level, which is what we attempted.
Should people be allowed to drink themselves to death? Should families be powerless to help a family member with a disease that makes is so addictive, they can no longer make rational choices in relation to that substance?
It's clearly a philosophical question, and it comes down to your views on personal liberty, and whether someone suffering from deep addiction is still capable of making informed decisions.
I, personally, believe that conservatorship laws are a reasonable approach to helping people get over the initial hump of detox and then understanding their addiction. I want people to have a fighting chance to come back from the brink, and we lacked the legal right to do so, in this case.
If you're fat and likely to die of heart disease, should your family be allowed to physically restrain you from buying another burger?
What about cigarettes, can you lock them up to force them to quit?
If you ride too fast should they be able to force you to sell your motorbike?
Should they be able to stop you from free-climbing?
I don't see how this is relevant to the question, unless you want to get into whether their burden on the medical system outweighs their right to do what they want with their bodies (but lung cancer/emphezema, diabetes/heart disease, and traumatic injuries from extreme sports would fall into that category as well).
> Smoking and junk food don’t have the huge impacts to how you treat those around you that being drunk all the time does.
We don't lock up sober assholes for being assholes either.
The question is: where does someone's right to do what their brain makes them want to do end? Individual autonomy is a big deal in a free society, as it should be. When you take away a person's freedom to act, I think you take away part of what makes them human.
Probably we all do this at some level. Hopefully we can encourage each other to do the right thing, but most of us won't at least some of the time. And, sometimes the other party really doesn't know best or understand all the circumstances.
However, incarcerating people against their will, forcing them to take medication against their will, possibly for months, is problematic.
We might tolerate that if it worked, but from the evidence we have we don't think it will work for many people with substance misuse.
Addiction treatment is hard. I don't know many people working in addiction treatment who are asking for more legal powers to detain people.
In England I sometimes speak to people with substance misuse disorders (comorbid with mental illness, or learning disability, or autism, or a mix). Many of them will have been detained for mental illness (they were not detained because of substance misuse). It's fair to say they have mixed views about compulsory treatment. Some of them hate it and think it caused them harm. Some of them think it was transformative. It is complicated.
People are asking how much capacity a person has if they are addicted.
It's also arguable that state regulated or state run health insurance should require some degree of self insurance for people making these detrimental choices.
The cookie and data protection dialog asks the usual question. The choices are to agree and continue, or "Decline and Visit Plain Text Site"! What? Someone still does plaintext sites? And to get the plaintext version you also get the privilege of not having to accept any of this:
"...use cookies, similar tracking and storage technologies, and information about the device you use to access our sites to enhance your viewing, listening and user experience, personalize content, personalize messages from NPR’s sponsors, provide social media features, and analyze NPR’s traffic. This information is shared with social media services, sponsorship, analytics and other third-party service providers."
This must be a hidden statement of some sort from the web administrators.
Basically they propose whether I want to get screwed in so many ways or, declining that, only get the content I actually want. Nobody genuinely interested in tracking me down and selling my data to the moon and back would do this.
This contrast presented is borderline between hilarious and very depressing, very much underlining what most sites actually offer you but I certainly wish all websites were exactly like this. Decline all shit and get the plaintext version - how much better could things get?!
Otherwise, Thanks a lot NPR for doing plain text at all!
Some very few people actually want plain text sites, but for most people, what this is saying is "accept our cookies, or we'll punish you by giving you a crappy view of our content".
I recall reading that under the GDPR you're not allowed to refuse service if the user refuses non-essential cookies - this feels like a workaround to force users to accept.
There are of course various other workarounds in place, such as displaying long, fake loading spinners if you click "refuse", or giving you hundreds of toggles to manually click.
The way companies deal with cookies really is a disgrace.
I used to think that I was going to drink at one point. I remember thinking, "if I was of age I'd like to buy that lady a drink." But by the time I turned of age and could, I decided I wouldn't touch it. I'd never really been offered alcohol growing up - so maybe that helped settle in the habit. But, I got offered it constantly once I was of age. I declined every time and never sought it out. I don't drink at all and even more so, I don't pay or contribute to alcohol bills directly. If my significant other wants a drink, I tell her to put it on a separate bill.
I used to think that maybe I'd drink but then I'd go to parties and smell beer. And I knew I wouldn't. I'd feel so much anger and resentment as soon as I smelled it. It pulled me back into hell. On top of this, I felt like I was the prime candidate for substance abuse. I have amazing executive control (I have suffered incredible emotional and physical pain over the last decade but I have never shed a tear in that time. Hell, I watched a lot of Disney movies and I still didn't. I do it just to prove that I still have control). You lose some of that control when you drink alcohol (from what I've been told).
So, I just don't. I don't care to know if I'm a jovial or mean drunk. I don't need to know if I'll have a substance abuse problem. Personally, I'd be quite happy if it didn't exist. I wouldn't have to deal with the problems it causes so frequently. I abstain from most other substances as well for similar reasons. (Caffeine really being the only thing that I normally ingest)
Edit: Let me mention that the guardrails on this have narrowed since my daughter was born.
I would think this was sarcasm if not for the edit.
This is distinction is important to note so friends and families can identify regressions earlier and thus better manage the resulting behaviors. I don't support strict abstinence or the 12 stepsbut every addict needs a system thatcatches them well before their live disintegrates. By recognizing when someone is slipping from casual use into binges and benders we can all save lives, money, time, and relationships.
This is a strange statement. Is this poorly phrased or do you actually think recurring alcoholics should continue endlessly drinking and relapsing rather than abstaining?
I also don’t think addicts should expect friends and family to be their guardrails. If you cannot drink in moderation without slipping into alcoholic behaviors, then it’s on you to stop rather than expect others to attempt to manage your addiction for you. It’s unhealthy, irresponsible, and inconsiderate to attempt to put that burden on others. Not only is this likely an ineffective strategy, but it drives others away.
I don't support forcing strict abstinence on people. For example, the fake marijuana crisis that ravaged Florida and the rest of America years ago wouldn't have occurred had marijuana been legal. Instead every impoverished broken person on probation had a new fix available to them. This time it was dangerous untested drugs made in sketchy Chinese labs.
If someone swears off (x) then that's their decision. If I tell you to never eat meat, drink milk, or travel via any method that consumes fossil fuels you'd rightly think I'm crazy. Just the same, telling addicts to stop drinking or drugging when just about everyone they know does is crazy. Do I need to explain why?
The expectation is not to have addicts rely on their family to keep them from falling off the wagon. Instead, when you accept the fact that strict abstinence is a pipe dream you have to start actually planning how you live around an addict instead of blithely thinking they'll never relapse you can help them get back on their feet. If that's too much to ask of you then you aren't their friend and should warn them that you're not going to help them when they're struggling. Because there's a solid chance that if someone is relapsing a lot of other shit went wrong. And if you're a close friend or family then you carry some responsibility for not helping them.
My attitude has caused weird things in relationships though. I was in a serious relationship when I was younger and while discussing kids I told her that if I ever had kids I would never drink again. The girl was beside herself and ended up mad at me about that for some reason. She just didn't understand what I saw and experienced growing up. Among other things, there is a smell that comes from heavy drinkers in the morning and it's not something I would ever want my kids to experience.
Possible too much information, but if someone can find comfort or benefit in knowing bits of my story then it's a good thing.
Besides I read a few rock star biographies. One thing that struck me is that from all the addictions they had, alcohol was for most the hardest to overcome. Because alcohol is so pervasive in our society, I think a lot of people under-estimate the risk.
This sound less healthy than drinking alcohol occasionally. It sounds as if you're glorifying some kind of stunted emotional capacity.
I assume this has worked well for you, and I’m glad if it has.
Are you married, or in a long-term relationship where you have a shared bank account? Will your attitude towards this change under those conditions? Or do you plan to continue asking your significant other to separate it out and specifically use her money to pay?
not to offend, but that doesn't define executive control to me. Generally it's not unhealthy to cry during emotionally turbulent episodes in your life; it's (crying) a method by which you're controlling your stress. Those i've met that don't cry tend to have longer periods between emotional 'episodes', but tend to act out much more aggressively. I tend to think that the supression of emotions does little to satisfy our need to express them, it just puts them on the backburner until they finally boil over much more violently than normal.
Another point, by which i'm not trying to offend you personally : is it healthy to villanize alcohol? It seems that would take the responsibility away from your father, when in reality he's the one who abused a substance that plenty of people can enjoy casually without issue.
I'm glad your coping with whatever methods you find that work personally, but I think that in a general sense that it is self-damaging to damn things in life based off of the experiences of others. Of course, that doesn't apply to suicidal ventures, but to avoiding common things in life.
This is modern pseudoscientific nonsense, born in part of institutional crises in academia.
>Those i've met that don't cry tend to have longer periods between emotional 'episodes', but tend to act out much more aggressively.
This is blatant projection of personal bias.
Some people, men in particular, deal with emotions stoically. It's a perfectly valid approach, eastern philosophy has been teaching meditation to a similar end for thousands of years, not to mention this particular gender norm existed until very recent time, while we built civilization.
I challenge you to cite a reproducible, unbiased study that rigorously demonstrates the necessity of crying for all, or at least a sizable majority of, people. The trouble is you're dealing with the softest of sciences, one which is particularly vulnerable to bias from institutional dogma.
I don’t think I’m in a good position to guess at which sex is treated worse by medical research but I don’t think it’s obviously men.
But if the person you’re responding to is truthful, it’s odd that if the rates were similar why we only hear about one of the two groups being affected, isn’t it? I think if you search you can find a lot of these across both sexes, actually. I’m not sure what the cause of throat HPV is, but if it’s oral sex on women maybe that reveals a societies taboo. It’s so taboo that we are willing to let people die rather than admit it.
Anyway just a few thoughts as I was skimming the posts here.
If you're arguing for the stoic-ness of traditional masculinity as a way to maintain mental health, as the comment I was replying to was, it's important to understand the real mental health issues and longevity issues associated with that same behavior.
You can blame masculinity, or you can blame society for how it react to men who seek help.
In the case of HPV caused cancer this is because there is (rightly) a massive screening program for cervical cancer and yet most men that have sex with men don't even know that they are at increased risk of HPV caused throat cancer. Similar programs exist for other diseases that exclusively affect women. They do not for diseases that exclusively or disproportionately affect men.
It always amazes me that casual and habitual drinking is an accepted thing. People even seem to take pride in their alcohol tolerance, and congratulate each other for drinking more of the substance than others would even attempt.
We tried prohibition during an extremely prude moment in the USA. It failed so miserably that we passed a constitutional amendment to revert a previous amendment, which is pretty incredible.
The stories of people who let any vice ruin their lives are powerful and important to know. But don’t let stories restrict the freedom of everyone. If alcohol was so bad then we never would have legalized it after prohibition. Everything is a trade off, and it’s better to let people make their own decisions than to throw people in jail.
Prohibition did not worked just like drug war don't work, but it did not started on whim for no reason.
yes, everyone agrees drinking and driving is stupid, dangerous, and selfish. yet there are so many bars that are located such that nearly 100% of the patrons drove to/from the bar. Yes, some may have a designated driver, but I suspect many many simply drink and drive because they feel OK to drive and walking home isn't an option.
I'm a 175 lb man and after a single beer I'm sure I'm not legally drunk, but I can sure as hell tell that my perception and reflexes are affected.
This has always irritated me. It isn't that the bars are located where they are: It is more that walking home simply isn't safe combined with the absolute lack of public transportation. I've seen some of these bars in places that don't even have taxis available - and honestly, even if they were I somewhat doubt patrons could afford the fare since most of the surrounding area was countryside.
To be fair, even living in the city where walking home is an option, actually doing so was a bad idea in the US. This is mostly because of public intoxication laws. On the other hand, I think some states have eased up on this because it seemed to encourage drunk driving. (Police in Indiana used to wait outside of bars for drunk people to come out of them).
Public intoxication laws are totalitarian bullshit.
I was disappointed that I didn't get any of the benefits I frequently found mentioned online. I didn't lose any weight, my skin didn't look better, my thinking hasn't become any more clear, I didn't become more productive and my relationships haven't improved. But those were all in pretty decent shape while I was still drinking regularly.
All in all, life just became a little more boring. It wasn't even that hard to reduce my drinking, after having come to terms with the life-becoming-more-boring part. I just wish there was some substance which would fill the same niche without the health risks. Weed isn't really it.
I've started meditating to try and raise my "boredom tolerance". It's too early to say if it has made any difference but I've met people who swear by it. I'm also trying to get more curious about other people and essentially rely on my extraversion to deal with boring situations.
In terms of substances to fill the niche I don't think there's anything that exists. Coffee is nice during the day but drinking it past a certain time leads to insomnia. I've mostly just taken to drinking a wide variety of non-alcoholic beverages LaCroix and non-alcoholic beer.
Pharmacologically speaking the closest drugs would be GABA receptor agonists (e.g. phenibut, benzos, GHB) but those can be quite nasty and even more addictive than alcohol. I have not personally tried them and don't plan on it.
The effects last for up to 2 hours, and there is no hangover. In a way that's difficult to describe, the effects also feel "cleaner" somehow than alcohol.
It can be psychologically addictive for some people, but does not cause physical dependency.
If you're adverse to snorting powder (very understandable), ketamine is water soluble, so you can dissolve it in saline solution and put in a metered nasal spray bottle (which typically deliver ~0.13 ml/spray).
It's definitely not a one to one replacement for alcohol, as I don't find myself doing exactly the same things as I would if I went out drinking, but what I do when I get high generally feels more fulfilling.
Maybe I just haven't come across the right kind. Thanks for the tip!
A few notes:
- It's comparing absolute, not per-capita, numbers. The US drinking age population is up >20% since 1999, so that accounts for some of this rise.
- The paper spends a lot of time discussing the fact that alcohol isn't reported completely in death certificates.
- Alcohol-related drug overdoes are broken out separately from alcohol overdoses, and this is up 580% (!) from 1999
But I find it a complicated topic. I've had so many great times drinking - sitting around with friends, late into the night, making real connections, debating things, laughing, and not being in a rush to check my phone or go somewhere else.
Yes you can do this stuff without drinking, and we should probably make more of an effort to as a society just to be more inclusive of those who don't drink. But in my own experience and own social circles, these kinds of interactions seems to happen less or at least in different ways without drinking. When I've hung out with groups of friends that don't drink, maybe they'll play a board game, or have a bbq, usually something that's a bit more of an activity than just sitting there doing nothing. And then when the activity's over people leave. There's something kind of unique about sitting around drinking, it can bring such an intense emphasis on the act of just being present and connecting with the people you're with.
Another aspect is always having somewhere to go. If you're out in a big city with friends there's basically a limitless number of bars you can go to, with fun and inspiring ambiances. I don't think there's really any equivalent without drinking. You can go out to eat but it only lasts an hour or two. Go to coffee shops, but they close at 9 or 10pm.
Obviously you can always do all of this stuff and be the person in the group who's not drinking, and that's totally cool. But once nobody in the group is drinking, the dynamic is a little different. And it's frowned upon to go to a bar with a group and not buy any drinks.
Anyway, not sure what my point is. I still drink regularly, though now I try to limit it to 2-3 drinks at a time and only 1 or 2 days a week. I don't think I have a problem with alcohol, but of course the confusing part about it all is that's exactly what someone who has a problem with alcohol would say. Maybe I should stop drinking just to be safe. But in the right circumstances, having a few drinks can really be a beautiful way to connect with your fellow human beings, and one that I've gotten a lot of genuine enjoyment out of over the years.
My grandfather was a severe alcoholic, beat my father, the whole 9 yards. My father was obsessed with not becoming an alcoholic and his children from not drinking to the point of, I would say near insanity in the way he talked to us and ranted against alcohol continuously.
Anytime anyone would drink alcohol around him, he would spew the most horrible vitriolic language about them and make all kinds of personal judgements about them while not knowing them at all. He also physically abused us to without even the excuse of alcohol like his grandfather.
Today I never speak to him and happily drink in moderation sometimes. Maybe that’s not right for everybody but perhaps just a little reminder that everything can go too far including worry about drinking.
This is a good read
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/fashion/a-glass-all-empty...
Ive always been suspicious that alcohol in the United States is basically a thinly veiled means to privatize social interaction. I spent 16 years drinking regularly and certainly the dangers werent explained in LMFAO's song "shots" when i was young, or by James Bond's seven martini car chases. The industry is large enough to require more oversight in my opinion, but states dependent on alcohol and tobacco taxes theres very little incentive to wash the grease off that hand.
the WHO and NHS both strongly advise against consumption of any alcohol in 2020, but for my parents I guess it was more like cigarettes. No one knows/there are health benefits/its harmless are all excuses im sure they heard along with the reinforced masculinity tropes.
Alcohol turned my parents into miserable wretches. My mother now suffers from Wernekes encephalitis. at age 62 now shes suffered more than a dozen seizures and a fractured hip. When she was admitted to hospital she could not be given painkillers, as she had consumed eleven cans of beer before arriving. she spent 2 weeks in a nursing home and suffering from withdrawal symptoms was so insufferably aggressive and abusive they threatened to discharge her after a week. She cursed every member of the family with scathing vitriol and merciless fervor. Not as though it would matter, as she refused any and all physical therapy until she could go home and have beer again. she still drinks around 3-4 cans a day, and hobbles about in a walker.
my fathers developed chronic gastritis and cant handle so much as a warm cup of tea. He has had a section of intestine removed as chronic alcohol related inflammation had destroyed it. He seems completely blind to what alcohol has done to him.
What does this mean?
Unless its government work. Then it would be fraternizing.
I think the best answer might be “if it’s interfering with your life in ways that bother you, you have a problem.”
I am what my doctor would term a “heavy drinker” since I probably average 20 units (10g by weight) per week.
That’s two cocktails, or half a bottle of wine, or three beers, every night.
I would say maybe once every two months I will have an additional drink, so I am very consistent at that level. The last time I recall being drunk is probably 18 years ago. I’ve never enjoyed having an excess of alcohol in my system.
Some doctors respond to this level of drinking with shock and horror. Others act as if it’s slightly too much and suggest maybe two nights a week without drinking would solve the problem. Others seem to think that problem drinking is when you get most of your calories from alcohol. I literally had a doctor tell me that this is the definition of alcoholism, and that it always goes hand-in-hand with malnutrition.
The only thing I am certain about from what I have read is that the healthiest quantity of alcohol you can drink is zero. That’s right. The studies that say one glass a wine a day improves your health and longevity - well, they all seem to be flawed in one way or another.
Here’s the thing - I really don’t like feeling very tipsy - that’s why it’s so rare I have more than two cocktails. What I do like is the taste. Of beer, wine, cocktails, straight whisky. I only drink when I eat, and I find it hard to eat dinner without a drink because I like the bitter or sweet taste of the alcohol with the food.
If I need to stop for some reason, eg because of oral surgery, etc, I don’t find it difficult.
But I still wonder whether I am slowly pickling my liver and just need to cut back.
Can anyone relate?
You know what? It hasn’t made a difference to my enjoyment of my meal. It did at first. Felt weird to have my food without a beer, but after the transition period it was just normal to not have one. This may be a part of the psychological dependency on alcohol.
I go months at a time without drinking, and generally stay between 2-4 drinks when I do, but as soon as I hit that 4th I want to keep going and have a hard time stopping. If I were to follow your program of 20 units per week it wouldn't be long before there would be trouble. That's problematic, IMO.
18 years without being drunk? You've got the best of both worlds.
The UK in contrast says a unit is 8g, and suggests no more than 2 units a day (so slightly more than half the US guideline).
Some countries call a unit 10g. If I recall correctly France suggests no more than 40g/day, so around 2/3rds of a bottle of wine (so 50% more than the US guideline).
So the suggested “healthy” limits for reasonable drinking vary considerably between countries and I am definitely exceeding the US guidelines, and even slightly exceeding the French guideline.
https://www.ameli.fr/assure/sante/themes/alcool-sante/defini...
"No more than 10 glass a week, with no more than two glass a day."
A glass = 10g alcohol, so 14g/day.
The web site also say there is no alcohol consumption without risk.
https://www.insider.com/drinking-health-benefits-heart-nutri...
It’s been a few years now but I have. Time and time again the conclusion seems to be that the studies that say drinking is beneficial are screwing something up, eg the result is based on including very sick people who don’t drink because of their poor health, and these people die younger (and thus skew the results toward making it look like drinking increases longevity).
The studies that correct for this and other issues generally either conclude zero alcohol is best, or in one case I recall a study that concluded 5g (in other words a third of a shot, a third of a beer, or third of a glass of wine) had a minimal positive impact and by the time you got to 10g it was neutral and anything beyond 10g started reducing lifespan.
Sorry I don’t have any references. I looked into this in detail a while back and didn’t save any of what I found.
As to "beneficial effects", keep in mind that the trace amounts of something healthy would pale in comparison to the negative effects of the alcohol, which is much less of a trace chemical.
Plus, other lifestyle choices could give a false positive[4]. Stuff like eating properly and exercising might not be properly controlled for, giving an unrealistically rosy picture.
[1]https://publications.iarc.fr/62
[2]https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/alcohol/index.htm
[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_and_cancer
[4]https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/is-red-wine-good-actuall...
[5]https://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/global_stat...
(The first page has a downloadable PDF. Didn't link directly because it auto-downloads, at least for me.)
EDIT: link formatting, removal of extraneous "keep in mind".
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
> Alcohol use is a leading risk factor for global disease burden and causes substantial health loss. We found that the risk of all-cause mortality, and of cancers specifically, rises with increasing levels of consumption, and the level of consumption that minimises health loss is zero. These results suggest that alcohol control policies might need to be revised worldwide, refocusing on efforts to lower overall population-level consumption.
Consider the following study: https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736... This study only calculates HRs between current drinkers, finding that the lowest mortality rates occur below 100g/week of alcohol. The issues with the conclusions of this study (issues which are apparent in many other alcohol studies) are addressed in the follow-up here: https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736...
I'm sure that similar issues exist with "Alcohol use and burden for 195 countries and territories" but the statistical model is too complicated to really see what's going on. I agree that at a population level alcohol is bad for longevity but at an individual level there seems to exist no evidence to suggest that moderate drinking is.
> Previous research has analysed all-cause risk due to alcohol use by either investigating all-cause risk in particular cohorts and survey series, or through meta-analyses of those studies.26,27 Past findings subsequently suggested a persistent protective effect for some low or moderate levels of alcohol consumption on all-cause mortality. However, these studies were limited by small sample sizes, inadequate control for confounders, and non-optimal choices of a reference category for calculating relative risks. More recent research, which has used methodologies such as mendelian randomisation, pooling cohort studies, and multivariable adjusted meta-analyses, increasingly shows either a non-significant or no protective effect of drinking on all-cause mortality or cardiovascular outcomes.7,14,28 Our results on the weighted attributable risk are consistent with this body of work. Taken together, these findings emphasise that alcohol use, regardless of amount, leads to health loss across populations. Although we found some protective effects for ischaemic heart disease and diabetes among women, these effects were offset when overall health risks were considered—especially because of the strong association between alcohol consumption and the risk of cancer, injuries, and communic-able disease. These findings stress the importance of assessing how alcohol use affects population health across the lifespan.
Just if you find the pattern changing for the worse, stop.
You might also spontaneously stop when you’re older. Lots of people do.
It seem logical the rise in death from alcoholism is broadly related to the "death from despair" phenomena many credit for declining US life expectancy.
[1]https://ourworldindata.org/alcohol-consumption, see chart "Alcohol consumption per capita"
Driveby conservative and liberal punditry regards men as uniquely targeted/at fault for their lots respectively, but I don't think this sex-specific interrogation yields any real solutions. At least not compared to universal class-based politics, which addresses the root of the issue rather than the way the problem manifests for a particular demographic.
The state of things does seem rather demoralizing, and it does weigh on me. (I think women suffer equally and will eventually catch up on this problem.)
Some of this has affected me very personally. Subjectively, it feels like I drink a lot to ameliorate these affects. I'm aware that statistically it will shorten my life, but living a shorter, less painful life is a hard alternative to give up.
I have no answers, and I don't think there are any.
[Study link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/acer.14239 Beware the awful log-scaling of plots.]
many parts of the legal system and quasi legal system; think colleges; de facto treat men differently. this is especially true in cases of divorce, domestic violence, and campus issues.
this is not to say there are not many cases where the outcome is correct but there are too many instances where the deck is stacked against them before they even get to the table.
I do expect women to catch up--despair is ultimately an equal-opportunity killer.
It's very strange that the same people who advocated libertarianism and complete freedom years ago when men were in complete control, are now advocating for collectivism and support when they are in trouble.
The conservative/libertarian view should be that if men want to drink themselves to death, the government should not get involved.
>Only cigarettes are deadlier than alcohol: More than 480,000 people die each year in the U.S. because of smoking-related illnesses.
I didn't realise how much worse this is compared to the opioid epedemic .
On a population basis, putting up Christmas lights kills far more people than BASE jumping. But the danger from each activity in isolation isn't comparable at all.
Far more people drink and smoke than use opioids.
The relationship between opioids and cigarette smoking/vaping appears to be complicated, to complicate things.
Opioid-related deaths tend to involve the rapid destruction of lives, often of young people full of potential, culminating in sudden death due to overdose. Their friends and family then have to live with that horror for the rest of their lives. In terms of lost potential and the psychological trauma inflicted, there’s no comparison. It’s understandable that people consider opioids to be a worse problem than smoking.
Probably because they're seen as socially acceptable behavior, and are readily available for anyone to purchase.
Maybe, but some people certainly have their "drug of choice".
Also I would have loved to have seen the median for this figure because as an average it’s astonishing
In the United States, 70.1% of the population aged 18 and older (about 173.3 million people) consumed alcohol in 2017, averaging approximately 3.6 gallons of pure alcohol per drinker, or about 2.1 standard U.S. drinks per day
When Canada legalized cannabis, the enabling legislation prohibited nearly all cannabis advertising. Producers are pretty much restricted to propagating their brand name. They most certainly can't have an ad that portrays cannabis users as sexy and cool.
Quebec went so far that selling clothing or bags with a cannabis leaf on them is now illegal. While that law is probably unconstitutional for its excessive restriction of free expression, it gives an insight into the mentality of the legislators, when it came to cannabis advertising.
And yet nothing stops Anheuser-Busch from proselytizing the message that getting drunk on Bud Light will get you showered you in women and make you the life of the party. Billboards, TV, Internet ads, radio, sponsorships.
Even the government alcohol monopoly advertises alcohol!
Prohibition doesn't count?
What about all the no-smoking-in-bars etc. laws?
And the warnings on the packaging?
The manufacturers don't do that voluntarily.
C'mon now.
And prohibition was later repealed when they wanted the tax money, even though it had overall health benefits to society.
In re: alcohol... I would hate to give up port. There's an argument there for the artistry of the brewer/vintner, but overall alcohol consumption is pretty vile.
But you said "no one dares to go after them" which is wrong, and set off my "wait, what?" reaction.
I say this because the people I know who have died from, or have alcohol problems, are (or were) pretty well off financially. I know that’s not typical, but being upper or upper-middle class doesn’t seem to matter in my experience.
Financial distress is tied in to all this substance abuse, both as a cause and a consequence.
It's better to lay off the booze completely or until one can gain control - if that's even possible for you. I find that it makes a bad situation worse.
For anyone going through this, my experience and general advice is as follows:
You need to feel the pain that you're going through instead of masking it with alcohol. Pain lets you know something's gone awry and that you need to address it asap.
I don't know if anyone has any literary references that alcohol enhances anxiety and depression - because I'd like to see it - but it was my experience.
The slightest silver lining was that no one in the family felt any need to step up and go through the traumatic experience of administering his estate: it had negative value, so what would have been the point? I'm not sure whatever happened to his car, which was left parked on the street somewhere. I also felt sorry for the people he had rented his house from, as he left it in a state that required considerable repair. They tried to get the family to pay for that, but of course they had no legal leg to stand on. I told the court I'd have no objection to them, as debtors, handling the estate, if they wished to do so, but they never did.
Several years ago I was going through a rough time in my life and started to have a drink when I go home from work. At first it was just a single drink maybe twice a week, but grew from there. Within a few months it grew into problematic territory. It never got to the point where it was interfering with other aspects of life and I didn’t ha e a physical dependency but I eventually recognized the issue.
Looking back it was clearly a coping mechanism. But the bad thing is how gradually it stuck up on me, and how long it took (About a year for me) to recognize it as a problem. The line I think is very much thinner than most of us think.
http://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-much-did-our-an...
However, during my visit to Canada last year I asked a waiter at a bar for an alcohol free beer and she basically made fun of me. Making the "that's like sex without an orgasm" joke.
I'm pretty confident to say that just about every bar and restaurant in the Netherlands serves alcohol free beer.
From strange reason alcohol is very different than drugs, it's freely available in shops, yet we all know at least 1 person that is an alcoholic or lots of us have at least 1 alcoholic person in the family.
I am pretty sure we all know at least one person addicted to caffeine and at least one person addicted to opiates, too.
If the headaches you are referring to are hangovers, this is common and happened to me. The community often refers to them as "Nalovers". Those stopped for me when my consumption got down to a safe level. I recommend sticking to the method if it is just that your hangovers are now much worse.
> One trend I’m most curious about right now is the rise of no or low alcohol drinks. I noticed this in Europe years ago — that nearly everywhere you went they not only offered, but touted non-alcoholic beverages in bars — highlighting the opposite approach the US was taking: pushing more extreme alcoholic drinks like Four Loko and the like, with non-alcoholic drinks being almost a taboo here. That is changing, quite quickly, it seems.
To clarify: I think alcohol can be a pernicious social and mental health problem.
But there’s also something weird with 1999. Suicides seemed lowest that year and I think that might relate to the drinking deaths as well.
Which makes comparing to that year a little dicey, because I think it creates a false sense of a trend that might not exist.
Are you looking at the year the death happened, or the year it was registered?
We think there's a "cohort effect" with suicide deaths. So, all people born in decade X have a higher rate of death by suicide, and we see this as they get older. Here's an example from England.
https://twitter.com/ProfLAppleby/status/1161940914308300801?...
Here's CDC suggesting that may be a factor: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6217a1.htm?s_cid...
> Possible contributing factors for the rise in suicide rates among middle-aged adults include the recent economic downturn (historically, suicide rates tend to correlate with business cycles, with higher rates observed during times of economic hardship) (6,7); a cohort effect, based on evidence that the "baby boomer" generation had unusually high suicide rates during their adolescent years (8); and a rise in intentional overdoses associated with the increase in availability of prescription opioids (1,2). Additional research is needed to understand the cause of the increase in age-adjusted suicide rates and why the extent of the increase varies across racial/ethnic populations.
That chart is fascinating.
I don’t think that really addresses my point though. My point is that comparing to 1999 might create a skewed statistical perspective because that seems to be around the time when Americans were engaging in the least self harm.
Helped me understand what is happening in myself and others. A lot of what we treat as normal begins to have an addictive element to it when taken even slightly too far. Social isolation isn't good for you and it causes ripple on effects. That's just one cause of addiction. Most of us have many factors simultaneously. This doesn't imply you're now an addict but the tendency is in place.
The vape lung disease is so concerning because it killed people in a few days or a week. Where as cigarettes would reliably shave X years off someone's life. I can easily make a decision to never use a vape at all or never from underground source.
My grandfather was an alcoholic.
He was stationed at various places in Europe during WW2 and saw some truly horrible things during that time. He had nightmares for the rest of his life.
After the war, he drank vodka for many years, then later switched to cheap, strong lager (something like 8-10%, which tasted like cat's piss), which he drank all day, every day, for another 20 years or so. He didn't eat much during this time, presumably because he was full of lager.
A bit of an aside, but I may as well add some more, since we're sharing stories. He ended up in hospital for a few weeks due to some condition caused by his alcoholism (surprising it took so long, really), and nearly died. He went through withdrawals during that time, and almost dieing gave him quite the scare - he never touched another drop from that day on. It was quite incredible how he was able to just stop with no relapse after drinking so heavily for so long.
Population is up 20-30%, and the population of people likely to die of alcohol poisoning much more so due to changing age structure.
Additionally, we lost a generation that had memories of prohibition and an active temperance movement, and we've had a dramatic increase in women's labor force and higher education participation, enabling them to drink as often as men.
So the "doubled" comment seems overly dramatic
Mokdad, A.H.; Marks, J.S.; Stroup, D.F.; and Gerberding, J.L. Actual causes of death in the United States 2000. [Published erratum in: JAMA 293(3):293–294, 298] JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association 291(10):1238–1245, 2004. PMID: 15010446
People on opioids might steal and lie to feed their addictions but I think the harm to others in the worst case is a lot less.
There is also no easy way to prevent access to it. Anything with sugar can become alcohol, including staple foods.
For other drugs, you need to have access to some specific plants, or grow them specifically for that reason. Chemicals are even harder to get by, you need both precursors and technical skills.
If alcohol was some exotic substance, it would definitely be banned.
I don't think this is unique to alcohol. Nicotine and driving seems pretty okay, but I can't think of any other deadly drugs out there which wouldn't impair your driving.
EDIT: As other users have brought up, nicotine kills plenty of people other than those using it, in the form of second-hand smoke.
One problem with collecting this data is that breathalyzers are cheap, easy, well-known, and available. If there's an equivalent for detecting impairment from other drugs, I don't know of it.
The dose makes the poison though. There’s a reason low levels of alcohol are allowed while driving too
Opioids and hallucinogens and THC/CBD probably all negatively effect driving, but it's much harder to compare due to less study, less scale, and less data (federally illegal/obstacles abound to study many of those things).
Nicotine is not really a problem with driving, it's like caffeine in that sense...stimulants aren't as dangerous for machinery operation.
Opiates, benzos, and alcohol all affect technical driving skills in a negative way.
I’m not opening the THC and driving can of worms.
Stimulant therapy on adults with ADHD has been shown to improve driving skill. Furthermore, ADHD is found more often in cocaine users than in the general population, likely due to self-medicating tendencies.
I'm very skeptical of this claim. Do you have any evidence?
Note that impressions of ones own performance while on drugs are not necessarily accurate.
Cocaine and methamphetamine increase impulsivity, and “real users” (addicts) of meth in particular are prone to stay up for extremely long periods of time, long enough where the meth wouldn’t counteract the physical exhaustion, which would account for meth leading to more accidents in real life conditions.
I still maintain that cocaine or meth would improve the driving skills and response times for a rested person.
Alcohol kind of creeps up on you over time.
I was in Greek Life in college. I don't regret a second of it, but the drinking culture was omnipresent (we did have dry brothers but if you drank you drank).
After college I moved back home. I had a few concerning episodes that one could "pass" as a mildly embarassing thing (vomiting after a comedy show once I was home, passing out during a family party). The first time my drinking came to a head was when my then-SO called me at a work retreat and I realized I had consumed about 30 drinks in the past 4 days- I was violently hungover and unable to consume food.
Several months later, we broke up, a relative died, and I came into enough money to pay off a significant enough chunk of my loans so that I could move out. During this time my therapist suggested I curb my drinking but I didn't really take him all that seriously. Dumb things kept happening- the most prominent event during this period was that I vomited while drunk gaming online with friends. Sometime after this I took my therapist's advice to quit drinking for a week. My mind cleared up a lot but I resumed after.
Things came to a head when I woke up one day after a day-long bout of drinking (I went to a tailgate and ended up going out to bars later that night). I felt like my liver was going to explode. The worst part was that I had errands to do that day and the entire time I felt like I was going to die.
I decided to indefinitely quit drinking. This was over this past November and December, and I had a few holiday parties to go to- I mostly teetotaled at them, but one conversation stuck out to me. A college friend who was older than me told me she had to re-calibrate her drinking life post-grad to function normally. I kind of realized that I hadn't done that.
I've started drinking again but I've kept it much more muted. I don't go to my local bar after work anymore. I don't really club. I never really drank alone much (the online gaming this was an outlier), so stopping that wasn't hard.
I do think there's a way to curb bad drinking habits, and I think I'm making headway in doing that, but the key is to recognize that your habits are problematic. Right now my mantra is
1) Have a predefined limit 2) Nurse the drink (I drink everything fast, so this is hardest) 3) Don't let people pressure you. Don't feel the need to drink at someone else's pace. Don't feel the need to take shots because someone bought them from the group.
I know this isn't perfect, and I'm not truly abstaining for good, but I'm in a way better place than I was before.
Don't make excuses for yourself. If you feel like alcohol is impacting you, do something about it.
It can be hard to not have anything to drink when everyone else is, but it’s better than making a fool of yourself somewhat frequently
The ally's secret face is terror. The alcohol ally is like a slime, slow moving, growing on you, at first only a fine veneer, like a slug trail. But later more layers collect, until you feel unclean. Feel your steps weighted. Feel every hour of the day a tedious distraction and ordeal. You finish as quickly as you can, so that you can return to your place among the rocks were the ally is happy and thrives.
The ally likes darkness. It doesn't like to move around a lot. A little feeding. Mostly, it likes you, your body, your brain, your dreams. It likes a chair, if you have one.
Once it's fed and watered, it tells you that you can leave your place among the rocks, that you can arise from your mossy boulders and enter the world of humankind, but you seldom do. At such times the growing weight of the layers of film that the ally has coated over you seems to lighten and soften. The mass becomes gelatinous and pliable, and you feel free.
Pain is banished or forgotten.
The world is light. You feel spontaneous. Problems are solvable or ignorable. And you can live like that for a very long time perhaps. For a very long time indeed. Maybe until you die.
Or maybe not.
Maybe the mass of stuff that the alcohol plant has deposited on you begins to harden. Maybe you haven't been able to feed it enough and the veneer has begun to crack. It's like the way the wine itself kills the yeast, its own mother, when the poison is fully formed. Then it is time for your friend across the table to unmask. He does, and you see that he is not there, that he has already departed. In fact, he has not been there for some years, or perhaps it is she. Only the coating, the facade deposited day after day by the poison, has been keeping you company.
In truth, you are totally alone, and frighteningly alone. And tonight, of all nights, you are out of food. A night like this, when you are alone and people that you don't want to talk to are knocking on your doors and windows. You are aware that soon they will abandon civility all together and just force their way in.
Oh, it's got you now. By the balls, by the short hairs, got your tit in a wringer, it does. It's got the hold on you. It's got tiny wet sucking fingers, green fingers - it's the slime, and it's got you.
It's saying it is time to start paying your dues. It's saying that it is time to start feeling all that pain that has built up on you like a crust. It's saying that it is time to get back to work. To free your words. To face your children, your spouse, your divorce, your ruin of your life, or perhaps its success. That it is time to deal with the devil you have created. For they are all your creations, all of them. It is your own children that call to you.
It's a sneaky kind of plant, a patient kind of plant. It is glad to wait, to let you control it. It is always ready to talk or parley and negotiate. But note, the plant is a shrewd negotiator. It loves to make deals, but it always takes the first night for itself: you say to the ally, "OK, I'll spend tonight with you, but tomorrow night I spend with my family, and you stay locked up in the cupboard." It will always say yes to deals like this, but never to the converse.
It's a nightmare. It's a slime well. Every direction is uphill, and it's all ice.
The ally says that it is time to deal with the devil you have created. It is your own creation, it is your art. It is, perhaps, gothic, but nonetheless there is an inner integrity to it. It is your genius, only your genius could have created such an elaborate prison for your own self. The ally is telling you you have built enough. Enough locks, enough doors, enough curtains and shades, bars and obstacles. They are all yours to burn.
Look upon it as the devil's firewood, and now you have a shed-ful. Call it your "material" in the alchemical sense. So there is still cause for hope, for now you have a practice, you have a discipline, a path - a true path and an everyday path - probably what you were after from the beginning.
Sun doctors, of course, avoid this wonderful creative opportunity, if they can.
(Dale Pendell, Pharmako/poeia)
Oh well, people drinking.... social darwinism. Drink away I guess
It was the same for me for about 6 months, maybe a year. Then people stopped offering drinks or asking why I didn't drink and things felt normal again. I think part of it was not going in to how bad it is for you because people who drink already know.
I don't get uncomfortable without a drink, but if I feel like other people are anxious that I'm not drinking sometimes it helps to have an opaque cup with water (at home) or a mocktail (at a bar) so from across the room it looks like I have a drink.
I've found that most 30+ yrs old people that asked why I don't drink don't really like drinking either and feel like they won't have fun or enjoy the party as much or fit in if they don't drink, but that they don't like the bloating or hangover effects if they have more than a drink or two.
But you're right, it is true that it makes people uncomfortable.
When someone offers me a drink, I usually just say thank you, maybe in a bit, or grab something else, or else just accept and not consume it or occasionaly take one small sip. As far as I know my colleagues have no idea that it's not something I ever do. I know this because I also have other colleagues who say, "I don't drink" and have witnessed them become a subject of speculation and intrigue among others when they are not around.
The extent of the myth surrounding alcohol and its role in society seems to drive people to make extreme conclusions about an individual's choice to use it or not ('they must have hit rock bottom' e.g.). My preference is to avoid something obviously bad for my physical and emotional health that has no clear upside, and to just leave it at that.
I'm about to cross 40 and I've stopped drinking completely. I don't enjoy the feeling and even after one beer I get depressed for three days following.
There are lots of comments when I'm doing something socially but I just don't care. It's not my job to make people feel good about their drug use.
I can see how people might feel abandoned when social bonds that formed in and around drinking now have to adapt. Keep going though, your body will appreciate it even if your friends don't right now. And if the friendship can't survive you not drinking, it might not be that healthy of a friendship anyway.
To a lesser extent so is smoking in Paris. When you go out smoking brings a lot of bonding opportunities that you miss if you don't smoke (standing awkwardly on the side isn't the same + passive smoking).
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-h...
https://www.insider.com/drinking-health-benefits-heart-nutri...
At the moment all the evidence we have says that msot people don't get any benefit from drinking. If you're a woman aged over 60 you get some benefit from drinking about one small[1] glass of wine a day (with some days drink free). No-one else gets that benefit. For everyone else the harm increases with dose, although the risks of small amounts of alcohol for most people are very small.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
(Note this article doesn't include harm caused by intoxicated driving or intoxicated violence).
[1] 125 ml of wine at 8% ABV, or about 88 ml of wine at 12%. That's really not much. Most people would have glasses that are 175 ml or 250 ml. (These are standard serving sizes in UK restaurants.)
Here is a quote right from this paper “Females, particularly in high SDI locations, experienced some protective effects for ischaemic heart disease and diabetes beyond 60 years of age. For males, only high SDI and low SDI locations had noticeable protective effects for ischaemic heart disease”
Not even close. Russia's 1990s "die off" was so severe that the current russian population is lower than it was in 1990. 30 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia still has less people. In the same period, the US population grew from 240 million to 330 million. In 2010, the US population was 308 million. So even in this "die off" decade, our population grew.
To show how devastating the soviet collapse was for russia just compare that to the devastation of ww2. After ww2, russia's population recovered after 10 years. They still haven't recovered in 30 years after the soviet collapse. This is also true for the economy as well.
The soviet collapse was far worse for russia than ww2 by any measure. It is by any objective measure, the worst thing to happen to any country in the 20th century. Were it not for russia's nukes, they'd be a source of pity. They've fallen so far and haven't gotten back up. And it's been 30 years. 1.5 generations.
That is literally not true, by a lot. Ww2 hit russia harder then west which was hit super hard. There was whole year of males basically killed (not sure which one, but the ones that were 18 when it all started I think). There were massive atrocities against civilian population, whole areas burned down and all that uncontrolled violence going on along with ethnical cleansing.
What happened is that post ww2, people had children. You lived in communism and people turned into familly instead of to career.
Post communist russia has less children for the same reasons why western countries have less children - you got options if you are ambitious and also need to work if you are not.
I know. Russia suffered greatly in ww2. That's my point. It's why I compared ww2 to the soviet collapse. That's how awful the soviet collapse was for russia. It was even worse than ww2. I never claimed the west suffered more than russia in ww2. No country suffered more than russia in ww2.
> What happened is that post ww2, people had children.
Not only that they had jobs and hope for the future. Life expectancy increased, everything got better. They became the 2nd largest economy in the world. Everything improved not just from ww2, but even prior to ww2.
The exact opposite happened after the soviet collapse. They stopped having children, people died in droves, life expectancy dropped dramatically, their economy tanked from being #2 economy in the world to a third world hellhole being picked apart by foreign vultures, etc. Even today, 30 years later, russia still hasn't recovered. It took russia 10 years to recover from ww2. In 30 years, russia has yet to recover. In other words, russia is worse off today in population, economy, international clout, etc than they were 30 years ago.
> Post communist russia has less children for the same reasons why western countries have less children - you got options if you are ambitious and also need to work if you are not.
We have less children because we are wealthy and selfish. Russia isn't wealthy. Also, given the growth the west has enjoyed in the last 30 years, we can afford to have less children ( though we probably should be having more ), but russia doesn't have that luxury.
Anyways, people think since bombs weren't dropped during the soviet collapse that ww2 was the worst thing russia experienced in the 20th century, but an objective analysis clearly shows otherwise. Winning ww2 helped russia advance and improve. Losing the cold war truly damaged russia in ways that it doesn't seem capable of recovering from. Not only that Russia has a higher median age than the US. So not only is russia older, it's poorer than the US. That doesn't bode too well for future russian prospects.
It is often oportunities to not be mom at home that attract women.
"Objective analysis" that centers on birthrate only is not objective at all. Especially when it ignores effects of Stalin rule on people and conflates ruling party health with populace health.
Comunist regime did not had healthy economy - it is one of reasons why it became weak.
By something like half a percent. Simultaneously birth rates are decreasing to near historic lows, immigration is being constricted, millennial life expectancy is on the decline, and suicides have spiked across all age groups.
Yes, I’ll concede that we’re not at the level of Russia or Japan yet, but something has definitely gone off the rails and not trending in a great direction.
[0] https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/us-immigra...
Do people not care if men die? I do not understand why these snippets are almost always put in press releases, even when the actual numbers show that men are astonishingly more likely to die from the disease. I've seen articles about how women's rates are rising faster, when the increase in men's death over the same period is greater than the absolutely total number of women affected! Its almost as if we have to mention that women are affected or people will just ignore the problem all together. So sad.