Why alcohol is still the most dangerous drug

“It’s cheaper, legal and kills more people than opioids. But public officials are much more united in the fight against drugs than alcohol.” - GOVERNING

Discussion

My best shot at absolutism about not drinking:

I personally would never recommend another person drink! (And I think that it is entirely unwise for preachers to do so).

That being said:

  • … I don’t believe the Scriptures prohibit drinking in moderation.
  • I know many people who drink in moderation, never get drunk, never drive impaired

I am not a not a prohibitionist.

[TylerR]

Bert,

No doubt some folks use alcohol as a whipping boy. But, I don’t believe Aaron is doing that, here. If you abuse alcohol, you will die younger and harm others, too. It’s not partisan to say that, is it?

Well, what would we infer from the relative incidence of articles about alcohol vs. those about the hazards of our food? Sorry, but statistically speaking, wine is a whipping boy right here that far deadlier hazards in life are not. Moreover, there are a number of times where basic errors are made (as in the article linked here) that ought to get them put in the circular file by any honest researcher. And yes, this extends to people at the WHO who also fail to differentiate between the effects of heavy drinking/drunkenness and moderate drinking. People naturally tend to be less critical about sources that say things to which they’re personally amenable, no?

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Very surprised J.B. ignored nicotine in his analysis. Still, I very much appreciate his attention to the dangers of alcohol.

This is one of the latest indicators of alcohol being on the rise again. It may not be the best article out there, but women drinking wine on a daily basis is a dangerous trend.

https://www.realsimple.com/health/women-relationship-with-alcohol

Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)

Not everyone who wants to point out the abuse of God’s temple by covering it with fat and clogging its arteries with cholesterol is doing so to defend their alcohol consumption or draw attention away from the dangers of alcohol. Personally I’m concerned as I see gifted servants of God who are unknowingly limiting their years of service by being over weight or obese. Culture’s obsession with “body image” has nothing to do with it. I’ve had a number of doctors tell me that one of the surest ways to lose a patient is to tell them politely and directly that they need to lose weight or risk severe consequences. I’ve also learned it’s a way for me to lose friends.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

[JNoël]

Very surprised J.B. ignored nicotine in his analysis. Still, I very much appreciate his attention to the dangers of alcohol.

This is one of the latest indicators of alcohol being on the rise again. It may not be the best article out there, but women drinking wine on a daily basis is a dangerous trend.

https://www.realsimple.com/health/women-relationship-with-alcohol

Note that the article’s prime point is that due to various societal factors (e.g. stress), more women are drinking heavily. That’s the big takeaway that is the huge risk. Women in the Mediterranean countries often drink wine daily without harm; almost all of your problems occur when people drink a LOT.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Bert,

Speaking of the WHO, they do not differentiate between moderate drinking and excess. The quote says that any amount is a carcinogen.

I’m suffering from the post-lunch slump. I think I’ll go make some coffee right now …

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

But remember the stories about the guy who had too much at the Golden Corral and came home and beat his wife and kids? Yeah, me neither. Or the one time that guy super-sized the Big Mac meal at McDonald’s and swerved all over the road until he plowed into grandma taking the neighborhood kids to church? Yeah, once again, me neither.

You know why? Because the affects aren’t the same and the warnings of Scripture aren’t the same. Food and alcohol are simply not the same. Therefore, we should not equate them unless we want to abandon the foundation of Scripture. The problem is that people are wont to equate things Scripture doesn’t equate. It is true that all sin is sin, but not all sin is the same (either in seriousness or in temporal effect). And in some cases, people have judged things to be sin that aren’t sin at all.

The fact that some can’t have a discussion about alcohol without raising food is a sad testament to our understanding of sin in Scripture and the warnings that Scripture gives. If we are going to embrace the “first fundamental” as some like to call it, then we should actually embrace its teachings and perhaps consider the proportionality of dangers and warnings.

Did you hear about the overweight preacher who had a heart attack and had to leave the ministry early with no disability income and a family to support and a church that didn’t know what to do with a pastor who couldn’t do his job anymore? I did.

Did you hear about the overweight preacher who had to have the church build a ramp into the building because he couldn’t climb the stairs? I did.

Did you hear about the overweight preacher who dropped dead at 41, leaving his wife with no income and two small children? I did.

I’ll concede that obesity may not be as “bad” a sin as drunkenness, but it is killing more of us than booze.

BTW, everyone who ever ate broccoli eventually died.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

[mmartin]

Bert,

Speaking of the WHO, they do not differentiate between moderate drinking and excess. The quote says that any amount is a carcinogen.

Agreed that this is exactly what they said. They are in that regard in conflict with the data, however, which state rather clearly that the relative risk is in the neighborhood of 1.04, which is statistically speaking basically undetectable. Really, along the same lines of other U.N. agencies overstating the case for global warming, and in evaluating data like these, you’ve got to remember that nobody gets his doctorate or tenure by retaining the null hypothesis—to get promoted, you’ve got to “prove” something new. Guess what side of the scales the finger is on?

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.