I think HN should add drugs/alcohol to the forbidden topics list next to politics. All it does is bring on a bunch of pointless anecdotes: humble brags from teetotalers and awkward justifications from everyone else.
There is no forbidden list, and banning politics was a short-term experiment years ago that failed miserably.
Of course, if you think a post is inappropriate given the guidelines re: intellectual curiosity, you are free to flag it individually, which happens heavily enough to bury them a lot (but not universally) for political posts despite them not being banned.
Not a pleasant name.
Me, I don't drink, but don't really care, whether or not anyone else does (unless they are driving).
As drunk people on the dancefloor are quite annoying and even dangerous.
("Ecstatic dance" is a new trend that captures this clear, but wild party sentiment, that I love)
The issue with the original framing is people that go sober are almost certainly doing it because of the negatives of alcohol.
The other reason you don't hear the opposite is because most people realize alcoholism is a thing. Nobody is going to advocate someone needs to drink to be happy.
Drinking is not for everyone. These not shame in sobriety.
> it is very telling that nobody talks about it because it is a sign that alcohol is mostly a negative thing and has negative impact on people's life.
Alcohol can be a very negative thing. Nobody denies that. Similarly, opiates can be very negative things. However, opiates are not always negative and neither is alcohol. With most psychoactive drugs, how bad they are depends entirely on how much they are impacting the life of the user.
And, as with most psychoactive drugs, alcohol is enjoyable to consume. It's not 100% a negative thing.
> If it wasn't we would be hearing far more from ex-teetotalers how much more their life improved after taking up alcohol the way you hear from people who get sober.
You hear from vegans all the time about the benefits of veganism, you don't often hear from ex-vegans. Does that mean consuming meat/animal products is mostly negatives?
You hear pretty frequently from converts to a faith about the benefits of that faith, less frequently you hear from ex-members about the benefits of leaving. Does that mean there are no negatives to faith?
Crystal healers will tell you all about the benefits of putting topaz on top of random things, you don't often hear from ex-crystal healers about the negatives of buying topaz. Does that mean crystal healing is only positive?
This is the issue I take with your point. I certainly believe there are negatives to alcohol, there are also positives. I say that as an ex-teetotaler. My life hasn't spiraled out of control and I'm not in any major danger. Part of that is because I keep my consumption in check. Alcohol can be a huge negative to many people, which is why it's not something everyone should do. That doesn't mean that it can't be consumed responsibly or provide happiness to those that do drink responsibly.
Personally I think the debate about whether there's a healthy level of drinking is pointless when all the evidence suggests the risk scales linearly. My grandfather would have one drink at weddings and one drink at Christmas. As far as I can tell, the difference in life expectancy and general health between two drinks versus zero drinks per year is negligible.
"moderate drinking" today is considered having a few glass of wines per week and you need really good discipline not to go from there to less moderate drinking.
(In the case of addiction is obviously good to stop)
Like stop eating meat, or stop drinking milk, vegetarian, doing keto diet, Huel meals, Herbalife, powder protein, creams, drugs, vitamins... or other crusade you find your self at the moment that you need to announce to everyone, especially when they didn't ask you