I haven't touched alcohol in probably 20 years. Never once missed it.

I have no problem with anything you just said. All those related studies seem only look at the moderate consumption of alcohol v. abuse of alcohol purely on a health level. What about all the other anguish that comes from the abuse of alcohol; violence, marriage breakdown, economic loss etc. Do these studies take that into account?

I`d be willing to bet you have never tasted a Pina Colada or a Bushwacker

I dont drink often, but when I do, I drink to excess. That's why I don't drink often.

There's grapes in beer?

you missed the 3 that said on net, taking into account the ngatives, its a positive health benefit.

As for economic loss, you'd have to do an analysis of all the positive impact to GDP from bars, restaurnats, distilleries, wineries, wine based tourism etc., against some lost productivity form hangovers. My bet is the economic production of the alcohol industry covers a fair number of hangovers. Also just think of the loss to the titty bar industry if the patrons were sober.

As for anquish, home wrecking etc., you've got to weigh that against the pleasure that millions of people who don't abuse alcohol get from wine at a family meal, the social interaction lubricated with alcohol, the joy of awedding day champagne toast, etc.

On balance, Society has come to a judgment, the responsible use of alcohol has sufficient benefits that we're not going to prohibit it to avoid some of the negatives.

You can decide its not for you, but arguing that it's bad in general and others should abstain is simply tilting at windmills.

On a minor side note, I'm in Hawaii this week and drinking begins poolside each day about noon.

ride up that big ass climb early in the moring. Hit pool bar at noon, and it can't get much better than that.

True that. Been keeping my eyes on weather . com, scoping best day to tackle Haleakala. I would love to eat right, drink lots of water and get plenty of sleep the night before, but that's not going to happen.

Dude, context is everything and you just took what I stated out of context. My point: This thread began in a self-rightous tone. I did not imply that people who don't drink are self-rightous because think they're better blah, blah, blah.. I have nothing but respect for those that are on the wagon, working through 12-step programs, or simply gain no joy out of the process. Frankly, I have nothing but respect for anyone who decides that abstaining from alcohol is what's best for them - no biggie. BUT this thread began along the lines of "I feel so much better, ride so much faster, spend so much so less, have a more meaningful life, drinking is evil, etc." - That's the self-rightous part that kinda rubbed me the wrong way.

Gave it up for good about 4 years ago. It had got to a point where I needed a couple of drinks to feel normal...big anxiety issues. Quitting was not easy, and I needed help doing so, but I feel so much better now, am riding more, enjoying life more. If you are jealous of those who are good with a drink or two, as you note, perhaps you should think about stopping all together. The rewards can be great. Most people can handle a drink or two, and as Merlin notes, studies show this can be a healthy choice. For some, like myself, one drink always led to another and stopping completely was the only choice. Only you can figure out which group you belong to.

double post (must have had a relapse )

You added the "drinking is evil" statement to the OP yourself (someone else said it later). I didn't get that vibe from the OP at all. You seem to be assuming that he drank a normal/moderate amount, and is now judging those who do the same. Maybe he drank too much, and as a result of abstaining, he feels much better. Maybe he is faster. Maybe he spends a lot less money now if he did drink a lot (which is highly likely if one drinks excessively). You bring up context, but you have not thought about the contextual possibilities that the OP might be in, especially considering his 2nd post in the thread.

That being said, I don't think that one can say that alcohol itself is evil. It has no morals or sense of self. It's just a chemical.

I think the OP is experiencing excitement over taming something that might have been weighing on him. I think everyone should be happy for him, and not all of a sudden turn the discussion toward themselves and how they might be offended.

To be clear, my comments in this thread weren't addressed to the OP.

Alcohol affects different people in different ways, and I'm not going to second guess somewhat else's decision about whether drinking is appropriate for them.

I am going to, and have in this thread, take issue, with anyone, without data, that contends alcohol is per se bad or " evil".

And from my personal perspective, I tend toward the high end of the moderate range, with my problem being too many empty calories to be the weight of a bike racer.

I should have clarified a bit better.. I wasn't directing my comments towards the OP, rather the love-fest for non-drinkers that ensued. My first post was on the second page and read: "the self-rightousness of this thread makes me want to drink" (or something to that effect). From there I was accused of calling non-drinkers self-rightous. A bit later my comments were used in a context that would suggest that I am insensitive to those that have or have had drinking problems. Nothing could be further from the truth. All in all, do what works best for you.

Gotcha, thanks for clarification.

I agree that many can get on their soapbox about this issue. It boils down to a personal decision taking into account one's own habits and whether or not they are healthy habits.

See, that is exactly my point though! Expressions like that are a public revelation of PERSONAL experiences with quitting. In there is no comparative language relating the experience to that of anyone else. Without that necessary comparison to others there is no "self-righteous" tone. Yet time and time again people hear these words from people who quit and automatically interpret it as "self-righteous." Just because that is their story doesn't mean it is yours or that they think it should be yours.

See the distinction? I know most people here probably respect folks who need to quit. My concern is more with the all too common tendency of drinkers to automatically judge new "quit stories of success" as self-righteous even when they are not. Especially true when the story teller is not known to have quit due to a "problem..."

Where did I say others should abstain from it? You can drink yourself stupid and I couldn't care less. In my opinion and experience, however, the stuff is evil.

Yeah, good luck with the responsible bit though.

oh slim, this is like a whole new carbon discussion for you.
a recent longitudinal study (cant remember if it was a university in socal) showed no statistically significant increase for cancer rates or respiratory damage from even high frequency cannabis smokers.

of course, if you want to be super healthy, you could always eat it, drink it, rub it in, or vaporize it.

there are plenty of good documentaries and peer-reviewed scholarly articles detailing a wide range of its benefits, and lack of significant
health risks. of course, if you are using old gubbamint research which did not use controls for individuals with family or personal histories
of psychological disorders, then its understandable why you might make such a ludicrous claim.

the next thing you know, you will make claims that lsd and certain mushrooms have no medical benefits, and that they will make you go crazy.

oddly enough, prior to its 1930s prohibition, cannabis was often used to treat asthma.

and natural tobacco isnt too bad for you, and alcohol is not either (for the record, i have touched tobacco, and am not fond of alcohol).

some good quick links from the folks at norml: https://norml.org/library/health-repo...alth-mythology

i dont see any windmills, but i am about to lay siege to the enemy yonder. dream the impossible dream.

You've done a good job of wriggling out of the hole you created for yourself by using flimsy semantics. But the point is, your first post was offensive in what was a rather benign and certainly not self-righteous thread to that point.

World Health Organisation says no.
https://www.who.int/substance_abuse/p...ruprofiles.pdf

2.1 ALCOHOL AND HEALTH
The harmful use of alcohol is one of the world’s leading health risks. It is a causal factor in more than 60 major types of diseases and injuries and results in approximately 2.5 million deaths each year. If we take into consideration the beneficial impact of low risk alcohol use on morbidity and mortality in some diseases and in some population groups, the total number of deaths attributable to alcohol consumption was estimated to be 2.25 million in 2004 (WHO, 2009a). This accounts for more deaths than caused by HIV/AIDS or tuberculosis. Thus, 4% of all deaths worldwide are attributable to alcohol. The harmful use of alcohol is especially fatal for younger age groups and alcohol is the world’s leading risk factor for death among males aged 15–59.
Approximately 4.5% of the global burden of disease and injury is attributable to alcohol. Alcohol consumption is estimated to cause from 20% to 50% of cirrhosis of the liver, epilepsy, poisonings, road traffic accidents, violence and several types of cancer. It is the third highest risk for disease and disability, after childhood underweight and unsafe sex. Alcohol contributes to traumatic outcomes that kill or disable people at a relatively young age, resulting in the loss of many years of life to death and disability. This section examines the causal links between alcohol and death, disease and injury.

But I'm still going to go grab a beer now.

ps
Where the heck is four beers considered moderate?

Uh...smoking anything always proves to be carcinogenic. I guess animals were never intended to smoke.

I wasn't going to get into a data-slinging match but I am pretty confident for everyone one of Merlin's studies, I could find one on the opposite.