Drinking helps you live longer. Period. Full stop.

[Blaidd Drwg]

I think it's meant to be a lot of work. This is in the context of outpatient treatment so I imagine there's a lot of interaction and tracking.

WRT to 12 step stuff, you and our mutual NE friend have pretty well changed my mind on this subject...and it is observably true that there's some people are just wired wrong or oh so right for a chemical be it booze or whatever, such that total avoidance is not just prudent, it's potentially the only option. Certainly AA is a huge boon for many people.

Where I think we really get sidetracked is in this classic problem of lumping all things rec.chem into a category....Where this comes out the worst is in treating all addictions as chemistry problems when for the overwhelming massive majority it is simply not. I have met ZERO addicts who didn't in have missing pieces in addition to their chemical problems. As someone who has danced on the line between use and abuse, I know to question my own motivations.


For me the bottom line is that we tend to treat the mental health issues of addictive behavior the way we treat the chemical itself...avoid it and hope for the best.

[Sangoma]

No doubt, more drinking means less problems. AI would add a few more: driving faster makes roads safer, eating more makes you slimmer, watching more TV makes you fitter. The article demonstrates conclusively that health problems in the USA are caused by low alcohol consumption. Alcohol cures cancer.

[The Ginger Beard Man]

When I was a little guy, my Grandmother had a little sign on the wall of her kitchen. It claimed to be "An Old Mexican Proverb", and was decorated with a red nosed, borracho-looking mariachi singer.
It said:
"He who drinks gets drunk,
He who gets drunk goes to sleep,
He who goes to sleep does not sin,
And he who does not sin goes to Heaven.
So let's all drink and go to Heaven!"

[Sangoma]

Being slightly more serious about this, I would like to remind the respectful brethren of the utility of calculators. If we translate all cause mortality among men into percentages, then in non-drinking group of miserable wankers we get 1483/100,000 = 1.48%. While among the joyful throng of one drink a day who display the lowest mortality of 1167/100,000 it is 1.16%. Subtracting the lowest from the highest we can convincingly the tremendous difference alcohol makes to your longevity: whopping 0.32%! Taking into account that this study is observational, is based on self reported rates of consumption and is expected to have the drawbacks of the methodology employed - I can only say: WOW, MAN! This is why we need science.

[Blaidd Drwg]

There's plenty that reasonable minds can differ on in the article's bias but WRT to the science, but not remotely the only study. In fact, consulting my well worn copy of The Chemistry of Mind Altering Drugs, I'm seeing reference to many others including a prospective study from Denmark with 7,000 male subjects and 6,000 female subjects that lasted for full decade with similar findings.

[The Venerable Bogatir X]

I went to AA for a few months, stopped, and then got a very close friend into that same group (so I went back a few times for him, earlier this year).

We both left for the same reasons.....while these people were absolutely fantastic for the most part, AA was their new booze. Sure, they're not drinking anymore, but they did replace it with something that offered just as much drama and pain as the booze abuse itself. And I think this group (again, the socio-economic thing, this group is in a somewhat ritzy community) was not nearly as hardcore or stereotypical as most.

With that said, it was a great learning experience, I just felt very disingenuous about reciting prayers and their steps. Not my cup of tea, nor was all the God talk and definitely not all the drama that came with the breakout groups.

I agree with our bald, redheaded friend in that no one is counting, countless come and go, and their is no way to quantify AA's success rate or lack thereof.

[bennyonesix]

I think it's meant to be a lot of work. This is in the context of outpatient treatment so I imagine there's a lot of interaction and tracking.

I suspect there might also be what I think of as "Hours Cooking Delicious Meal = NO DESIRE TO EAT IT" effect.

WRT to 12 step stuff, you and our mutual NE friend have pretty well changed my mind on this subject...and it is observably true that there's some people are just wired wrong or oh so right for a chemical be it booze or whatever, such that total avoidance is not just prudent, it's potentially the only option. Certainly AA is a huge boon for many people.

This is what I have been arguing is the definition of addiction.

Where I think we really get sidetracked is in this classic problem of lumping all things rec.chem into a category....Where this comes out the worst is in treating all addictions as chemistry problems when for the overwhelming massive majority it is simply not. I have met ZERO addicts who didn't in have missing pieces in addition to their chemical problems. As someone who has danced on the line between use and abuse, I know to question my own motivations.

I would argue that this is more about your not really parsing out what is going on in those situations... Take one of your acquaintances as an example: what is the "but for" cause of their problem. Is it drugs or is it the "mental issues" or "missing pieces". Take away one at a time and see what happens to their behavior w/r/t the other..

For me the bottom line is that we tend to treat the mental health issues of addictive behavior the way we treat the chemical itself...avoid it and hope for the best.

Obv, I disagree with your construct. There are mental issues and there are addicts/addictions. They interact and exacerbate one another but there is no necessary relationship between the two...

[Yes, I'm drunk]

Being slightly more serious about this, I would like to remind the respectful brethren of the utility of calculators. If we translate all cause mortality among men into percentages, then in non-drinking group of miserable wankers we get 1483/100,000 = 1.48%. While among the joyful throng of one drink a day who display the lowest mortality of 1167/100,000 it is 1.16%. Subtracting the lowest from the highest we can convincingly the tremendous difference alcohol makes to your longevity: whopping 0.32%! Taking into account that this study is observational, is based on self reported rates of consumption and is expected to have the drawbacks of the methodology employed - I can only say: WOW, MAN! This is why we need science.

Shouldn't the % difference be quoted as the ratio between the groups i.e 1483/1167? Which suggests that there are 27% more non-drinkers likely to croak it than those who drink one tipple per day?

[bennyonesix]

Deep down I don't really believe in percentages.

[The Venerable Bogatir X]

Deep down I don't really believe in percentages.

I think there are so many layers to be considered and vetted out in each individual that making a run at a bonafide study would be impossible. Shit, do a poll here and that's going to be as good or craptastic as anything.

[bennyonesix]

No, I don't believe in percentages in general or anywhere.

They are *this* close to statistics for chrissakes.

[bennyonesix]

When I was a little guy, my Grandmother had a little sign on the wall of her kitchen. It claimed to be "An Old Mexican Proverb", and was decorated with a red nosed, borracho-looking mariachi singer.
It said:
"He who drinks gets drunk,
He who gets drunk goes to sleep,
He who goes to sleep does not sin,
And he who does not sin goes to Heaven.
So let's all drink and go to Heaven!"

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2UfQvEiYh4[/youtube]

[Blaidd Drwg]

B16, I'm not sure I track your logic here. Are you suggesting g there is a bright line when it comes to chemical versus habitual ddiction in your mind?

What seems abundantly clear is that even the experts in the subject cannot agree on the subject and for purposes of diagnosing dependence we look to DSM guidelines, not the chemical characteristics of a given compound or individual.

As an aside if any of you are interested in the chemistry side of this subject, I highly recommend the book I referenced above. It's the only evenhanded treatment of the subject I have ever seen and will disrupt many of the culturally entrenched notions a lot of you seem to have about about dependence/addiction. It's essentially an organic chem. textbook but is surprisingly readable.

[Blaidd Drwg]

Dbl post

[bennyonesix]

What I am saying is that the subjective experiences of people when they interact with "drugs" is not useful/a red herring.

The chemical response and the observed behavior of people who use drugs are what is important.

The subjective experiences (intense and occasionally agonizing) are what causes a great deal of the difficulty in dealing with the phenomena.

I am in the minority, but do as I do as a thought experiment. Don't use the concepts of "habituation" and "addiction". Approach the problem, in oneself or in another or in society from the standpoint of chemical processes and behavior.

[Blaidd Drwg]

What I am saying is that the subjective experiences of people when they interact with "drugs" is not useful/a red herring.

The chemical response and the observed behavior of people who use drugs are what is important.

The subjective experiences (intense and occasionally agonizing) are what causes a great deal of the difficulty in dealing with the phenomena.

I am in the minority, but do as I do as a thought experiment. Don't use the concepts of "habituation" and "addiction". Approach the problem, in oneself or in another or in society from the standpoint of chemical processes and behavior.

I grok and probably agree.

Based on what I've read of the science, I think we'll find that in reality, the chemistry plays a second tier (at best) role in the habituation, dependance addiction continuum. and this will ultimately lead us to treat "addiction" as behavioral symptoms not some inescapable chemical quagmire.

[Sangoma]

Being slightly more serious about this, I would like to remind the respectful brethren of the utility of calculators. If we translate all cause mortality among men into percentages, then in non-drinking group of miserable wankers we get 1483/100,000 = 1.48%. While among the joyful throng of one drink a day who display the lowest mortality of 1167/100,000 it is 1.16%. Subtracting the lowest from the highest we can convincingly the tremendous difference alcohol makes to your longevity: whopping 0.32%! Taking into account that this study is observational, is based on self reported rates of consumption and is expected to have the drawbacks of the methodology employed - I can only say: WOW, MAN! This is why we need science.

Shouldn't the % difference be quoted as the ratio between the groups i.e 1483/1167? Which suggests that there are 27% more non-drinkers likely to croak it than those who drink one tipple per day?

There are many ways you can present this to make it more impressive. It's actually 21% (316 death difference out of the 1483, the base line). But even if we accept 21% - the largest number we can get - as the final answer, it is still too small to be impressive for an observational study. This methodology is too crude to be able to detect such small differences, similar to claiming couple of yards difference in lengths of football fields while checking it by counting steps.

[Sangoma]

One giveaway in the article that hasn't been discussed in the text is the distribution of deaths from alcohol related cancers. Bothe are highest in non-drinkers and lowest in heavy consumers. Deaths from alcoholism and cirrhosis - highest in non-drinkers, how does that make sense?

But it's all meaningless anyway. If you like something you should only care if it's harmful for your health. Benefit is a bonus, but unless I am chasing a specific goal I don't care if, say, adding cream to my morning coffee is good for my health. It's good because I like it.

This is what this study missed: the data shows that light drinking pretty much doesn't do anything, neither harm or benefit. Therefore, keep enjoying your sundowners and don't overdo it. Which every grandmother knew since the beginning of times.

[The Venerable Bogatir X]

B16,

Out of curiosity, what's your perspective/motivation for the intense interest on the topic?

[Shafpocalypse Now]

BenwaldWunSeis has battled addictions for much of his life...glory hole peeping, drinking antiseptic, ecstasy, rolling chickenhawks on the boardwalk...push ups with strange t devices in public... are the ones I remember him mentioning on the pibbs.

[The Venerable Bogatir X]

Haha....were you around IG long enough to remember when our boy Mickey used to call himself chickenhawk, unaware of the 'alternate' definition?

Is B1six Rant?

[Shafpocalypse Now]

No. b1heartp is not rant.

[Blaidd Drwg]

This is what this study missed: the data shows that light drinking pretty much doesn't do anything, neither harm or benefit. Therefore, keep enjoying your sundowners and don't overdo it. Which every grandmother knew since the beginning of times.

I guess it depdends on what you mean by "light." The range of studies I've seen (only 4) the range of moderate is pretty broad with 1 to 5 drinks showing net benefits...5 seems like kind of a lot.

[The Ginger Beard Man]

Couple of things:

So the more you drink—up to two drinks a day for woman, and four for men—the less likely you are to die.

If I could have four drinks a day, every day, and stop there I'd never have gone to AA.
I found the article pretty interesting, and pretty reasonable. If someone,who hadn't stopped drinking yet asked me for advice, like "Should I go to AA, or I should try this therapy where they teach you to drink moderately first?" My answer would be to do everything you can to control it first. In my experience, it's better to make AA a last resort. The worst thing would be to get sober in AA for a couple of years, or a couple of decades, harboring doubts all the while, and the decide to drink moderately. Though I do know one guy I used to hang with who did that after about eight years and word is he's doing ok.
Again, AA should really be a last resort. It was for me. I spent ten years trying to figure out how to drink like a gentleman, and I just couldn't do it. Most of the people I drank with in college and the first few years after didn't have that problem. Good for them.
Now the podcast:
I think a lot of people have an idea of what AA is that isn't very accurate. Rogan says something along the lines of, "AA people think you have to do it their way...and pray to Jesus."
That's just ignorant bullshit. Seriously.
Now I live in NY, and it's different everywhere you go, but I hear people in AA talk about their yoga or Buddhist meditation class way more than about their lord and savior Jesus Christ. A buddy of mine got sober in Nashville around a lot of born agains and while he heard them talk about Jesus, they never shoved anything down his throat.
I've been to meetings in and around NYC, San Diego, Minneapolis, Sarasota, the Dallas Fort Worth metroplex, and Reykjavik and I've heard Jesus mentioned less than a dozen times. In near
Y 17 years.
What the Right Venerable Bogatir is doing is actually right out of the Big Book. It says in there that if you aren't convinced that you're an alcoholic, or that you need AA, then go do some more controlled drinking. If it doesn't work, come back.
Granted, AA has some sick fuckers and some assholes who want to tell you what to do, that there's only One True Way, and that if you don't do what they say, you're gonna die a horrible and lonely death. But I say, Fuck those people.
You usually find them in Pacific Group/Atlantic Group type meetings (The Cult Within The Cult), and I try to steer clear of those.
I think I wanted to go on a little more of a rant than that, but that will do for now. I may drop back in if I remember what else there was.

[Blaidd Drwg]

GBM...your perspective is probably the most valuable one on this thread.