the buzz about alcohol

It would be interesting to see the percentage of those who do drink who are concerned about how much they drink, and the percentage of those who drink who have a close friend/family member who is concerned about their drinking.

I found it curious to see so many people saying they don't like the taste of alcohol, given "alcohol" means anything from intensely peaty Scotch whisky to very sweet and fruity variations of alcoholic lemonade.

I enjoy wine.... and a good scotch.....

I grew up with wine; my parents are wine people (even with a wine cellar of sorts). While not exactly legal in my state, as a kid, I was allowed a bit of wine with a special meal and probably around 16 or so, could help myself at special meals. I never even thought to "raid" my parent's stash. I grew up liking wine. And I still do. It's one of the luxuries I permit myself. Indeed, one of the favorite activities of my wife and I is going to wineries and to wine tastings. I've come to enjoy a nice Scotch, too (I always have a bottle of Glenlevit around). I'm not much into beer (but I will order such with Mexican food or pizza) but only the light lagars (such as XX and Corona)

I've only been drunk once in my life. I was in college and, well..... you know. I paid a very, very high price the next morning and SWORE to myself I'd NEVER, EVER do that again. And I've not. And if I'm away from home, I'm pretty sensitive because I'm very careful not to "drink and drive" and so I'll ask my beloved to drive... and she HATES that and says unkindly things to me (and I hate that).


I embrace "adult beverages" as a blessing and gift from God. But like all gifts, we need to enjoy such responsibly and as adults. Food, sex, etc.... all gifts to be enjoyed responsibly.



- Josiah

I enjoy everything from a good craft beer to a good wine to an aged Scotch.

In my younger days I overdid it a number of times, often going through the whole "never again" cycle only to figure that I was at a party and having a good time so why not have another couple of drinks. For me I'd mostly grown out of the desire to get drunk (concluding the morning after isn't worth the night before) before becoming a Christian and not wanting to get drunk for religious reasons. I still enjoy good beer, good wine and good spirits, but with far more moderation than in my younger days.

Of course one advantage of good Scotch is that it's too expensive to get drunk on it, even if you were so inclined. A friend of mine drinks cheap beer because it's what he can afford, but he goes through it at a much faster rate than I would. I keep suggesting he buy 12 of something nice rather than 24 of something cheap and savor them more, but he'd rather have a case of cheap beer.

tango said:

Of course one advantage of good Scotch is that it's too expensive to get drunk on it, even if you were so inclined.

Click to expand...

LOL, yup.....


And I don't drink cheap wine or scotch! That TOO helps keep things in control.....

It's also why I don't drink at sporting events or the theatre or amusment parks, etc. - it's just too expensive!


- Josiah

Josiah said:

LOL, yup.....


And I don't drink cheap wine or scotch! That TOO helps keep things in control.....

It's also why I don't drink at sporting events or the theatre or amusment parks, etc. - it's just too expensive!


- Josiah

Click to expand...

A friend of mine once teased me saying I poured Scotch by the thimble rather than the shot. When I told him what the bottle he was drinking from cost he decided not to push it. When you're drinking $20 bourbon you can pour shot after shot after shot if you're that way inclined.

jsimms435 said:

According to Barna Research

"Though we’re far removed from the temperance movement, Americans today still feel ambivalent about the effects of alcohol. For instance, among those of legal drinking age who do not drink, the most common reason given is seeing the negative effects drinking has on family members and close friends (27%). Another one-quarter (25%) says they don’t like the taste of alcohol. People also choose not to drink for health reasons (21%) and a dislike for putting intoxicating substances of any kind into their bodies (19%). Just one in 10 (10%) says they have an addiction and are in recovery."

the rest of the article is here
https://www.barna.com/research/buzz-alcohol-americas-views-booze/

Click to expand...

Hehe.

No one interviewed sees themselves as an addict that isn't "in recovery"? If I were being honest I'd have to abstain from the poll for this reason.

I have an addiction. Started hitting the beer heavy about 10 years ago after watching 3 people die from their diet related diseases, all within 3 years, none of whom were regular smokers or drinkers. Two never drank at all in their lives and one of them only once or twice a year. One of those people was my wife who died in her early 30's. I've survived them all by over a decade now, during which time I have consumed more than a few lifetime's worth of beer by the occasional drinker standards of even once a week, and smoked tobacco for the majority of that time also up until relatively recently.

How is it I'm not dead yet. How is it I have no diseases? Unlike friends who are on cholesterol lowering drugs, or have to push needles into their arms I take no pills. Don't get shots. Take no antibiotics. I'm a little overweight but barely.

If the study is anywhere near accurate perhaps the reason people are a bit blase is because while both alcohol and tobacco are considered moderate "sins" in western societies (and more so when they are addictions or hurt others like in drunk driving), and while they are both harmful, they don't deserve the emphasis governments give to them in terms of harm because they aren't the leading causes of suffering, death and disease.

Diet is, and nearly everyone is in denial about it.

Where that kind of thing is concerned there's also the immediacy effect - many people either know someone whose life went horribly wrong (or ended prematurely) because of some vice or other and so they resolve never to use such a thing even if the vice was only incidental, or indeed played no actual part in the issue. On the other hand many people know someone who smoked and drank heavily, ate a horrendous diet and then died peacefully in their sleep at a ripe old age, and therefore refuse to accept that some vices may be harmful.

It doesn't help when the scientists who allegedly know such things can't make up their minds. When the people who we are expected to accept know far more than we do tell us that something is safe, then that it's harmful, then that it's safe in moderation, then that it's helpful in moderation, how is the average person expected to figure it all out?

I think the Bible actually recommends a little wine.... and that it actually commands at least some consumption of such in the Passover Meal (OT) and Holy Communion (NT).

I think the medical community has fair consensus that moderate amounts are generally beneficial to good health.

Yes, ANY good gift that is abused is likely to become bad - not because the gift if bad but because it is abused. Too much water kills.

I think sometimes irresponsible people will blame EVERYTHING (even God) rather than see themselves as the problem.... always easier to point one figure at others and harder to note the 3 pointing back at self?


???


MAYBE?



.

Stravinsk said:

...How is it I'm not dead yet...

Click to expand...

I had a close friend and mentor some years ago who taught me a couple of principles that still make sense. When someone is trying to convince others that they're nothing like "those people" (whoever "those people" might be) listen closely to what they say, and even closer for a grain of truth. When you hear it, remind them to "hook a "yet" on it". It amazes me every time his principle works - but I see you don't need to be reminded to hook a 'yet' on it - you got it covered.

Stravinsk said:

How is it I'm not dead yet. How is it I have no diseases?

Click to expand...

Because something causing an increased risk of death and disease isn't the same as something causing death and disease? You know, statistics and all that. Sometimes people walk away from horrendous motor accidents with little more than bumps and scrapes and other times what seems like a trivial bump causes serious injury. When I was a teenager I remember hearing a report on the news about a collision between an articulated truck and a motorcycle. The result was pretty predictable - one died and the other suffered minor cuts and bruises. What was less predictable was it was the motorcyclist who walked away and the truck driver died. How did it happen? I have no idea. Maybe it was just one of those points at the extreme edges of a probability distribution.

It's kinda like the way that some consumer products fail within a week of unpacking them and others are still running 30 years later.

tango said:

Because something causing an increased risk of death and disease isn't the same as something causing death and disease? You know, statistics and all that. Sometimes people walk away from horrendous motor accidents with little more than bumps and scrapes and other times what seems like a trivial bump causes serious injury. When I was a teenager I remember hearing a report on the news about a collision between an articulated truck and a motorcycle. The result was pretty predictable - one died and the other suffered minor cuts and bruises. What was less predictable was it was the motorcyclist who walked away and the truck driver died. How did it happen? I have no idea. Maybe it was just one of those points at the extreme edges of a probability distribution.

It's kinda like the way that some consumer products fail within a week of unpacking them and others are still running 30 years later.

Click to expand...

Re: The statement I bolded and underlined -

It is the same, when you apply degree of application and time applied.

Sometime back, I remember reading in the newspaper about a frat in court because a pledge had died. He had been forced to drink ENORMOUS amounts of water. Pure, clean, healthy WATER. He died from it.

Does the blame fall on the water or on the abuse of it?

Should all abstain from water or from the abuse of it?

Just asking....

ImaginaryDay2 said:

I had a close friend and mentor some years ago who taught me a couple of principles that still make sense. When someone is trying to convince others that they're nothing like "those people" (whoever "those people" might be) listen closely to what they say, and even closer for a grain of truth. When you hear it, remind them to "hook a "yet" on it". It amazes me every time his principle works - but I see you don't need to be reminded to hook a 'yet' on it - you got it covered.

Click to expand...

Wow, now that is amazing. You managed to sound like a person with some special enlightenment YET actually just came off as a bit arrogant without actually proving any kind of point whatsoever. It's the type of response I'd expect from someone who doesn't actually have one.

Stravinsk said:

Re: The statement I bolded and underlined -

It is the same, when you apply degree of application and time applied.

Click to expand...

Not at all, it's entirely possible that the increased risk of death or disease still result in risks sufficiently low that death by natural causes precedes death by vice. Your statement would only hold true if you would otherwise live forever.

Stravinsk said:

Wow, now that is amazing. You managed to sound like a person with some special enlightenment YET actually just came off as a bit arrogant without actually proving any kind of point whatsoever. It's the type of response I'd expect from someone who doesn't actually have one.

Click to expand...

Keep convincing yourself that what happens to the rest of the world as they consume too much alcohol and tobacco won't happen to you, and you might find out it does How's that?