This is what i was told by somebody, but i’m having problems believing this.
We were arguing marijuana vs alcohol, and he believes moderate alcohol is healthy, and will make you live longer, while moderate marijuana is not.
to quote: "*here’s a good review article discussing the ‘U’ shaped curve of alcohol with total mortality, something found in almost every single prospective epidemiological study.
The conclusion: moderate drinkers are healthier and happier than people who abstain (and alcoholics). *"
now if this study is valid, it says the least risk is at 8.5g of alcohol a week. I’m not big on measurements (grams anway) - how much liqour is this?
thanks, and any websites/references would be appreciated as well
How much liquor is that? Not much, about a single beer or mixed drink a day. Once you start exceeding that amount, the beneficial effects fade rapidly, and alcohol becomes a big detriment to longevity and well being.
So yes, drinking in moderation is healthy. But most people who are enthusiastic about this finding tend to not drink in moderation, at least not in the “moderation” necessary to get the benefit. Many drinkers consider that kind of consumption to be essentially the same as abstinence. YMMV
Marijuana does have some useful properties (actually the THC which is what gets you stoned). The two uses that come to mind are for glaucoma patients and to relieve the more unpleasant side effects of chemotherapy for cancer patients. A real plus to THC is it is not addictive (at least not physically). There is a strong movement to allow THC use for medical purposes and some states have even passed laws allowing it but the Feds “All Drugs are Evil” attitude doesn’t want to present an impression of marijuana as being useful.
I have also heard that THC is less harmful to the body than aspirin is although it has been a long time since I read that tidbit so I don’t have a cite to back it up. Unfortunately, the most common delivery method for THC is smoking it which is definitely not healthy. If you could get your hands on THC pills you could avoid the smoke issue.
All of that said I don’t think THC is especially beneficial to your day-to-day health in the way a small amount of alcohol is as QtM mentioned.
The problem with this study (although I haven’t seen the whole thing) and others like it is that they rarely do an adequate job of controlling for factors that clearly bias the study. There was an Italian study a few years ago that concluded that a glass of wine a day was good for you. But the study’s conclusions were based on a sample of people who could afford alcohol–those in a higher socio-economic level, and those that couldn’t afford to purchase alcohol–those in a lower socio-economic level. Well, those who can’t afford proper health care, a good diet and who have no time to exercise also cannot afford to buy alcohol. This could totally be wrong, and alcohol could be great for you, but the potential bias should have at least been investigated. Right?
Well the link is only the abstract of the article, it doesn’t spell out the types of studies that were under review. But in general the problem is selection bias. The conclusion of this study is essentially that abstentation is a risk-factor for mortality–but this may only be true if other factors aren’t controlled for. For example, people with terminal cancer, AIDS, leukemia probably don’t drink at all. But again it’s not clear what types of studies were under review.
whack, THC is crap as far as the legitimate medical community is concerned for treatment of glaucoma. It’s effects on intra-ocular pressure are small, variable, inconsistant, non-dosage dependant, and in the few individuals where it may be even partly effective, requires them to be actively ingesting the THC every 2-3 hours. So if you wish to argue that THC has medicinal uses (an idea I am not really opposed to, especially in cancer and AIDS cases of intractable nausea and the need to increase oral caloric intake), the case would be far better served by not mentioning the glaucoma stuff. IMHMDO.
Alcohol in moderation has cardiovascular benefits. It raises your HDL-cholesterol and in addition red wine contains some phytochemicals which are vascularly beneficial. In moderation means 1-2 bottles of beer a day or 1-2 glasses of wine.
Although theoretically red wine should give you the most benefits, studies have shown that it doesn’t make any difference whether it’s red or white wine or beer. I’ll see if I can find some cites.
Maybe a significant amount of non-drinkers don’t like the taste?
“And no, you cannot save up all the abstinent days and cash them in on a big binge.”
lol. I knew a guy who did that. He went into his employer alcohol treatment program & they let you
drink only a certain amount per day & he would just do them all in one day.
Seeing this thread, i couldn’t help being reminded of this:
The Japanese, on average, eat a relatively low-fat diet, and have lower rates of cancer and/or heart disease than either the British or the Americans.
The French, on the other hand, on average tend to eat a relatively high-calorie diet, but also have lower rates of these diseases than either the british or the Americans.
The Italians, on average, drink quite a bit of red wine. They, too, tend on average to be healthier than either the British or the Americans.
The Japanese, on the other hand, don’t drink that much red wine. But they have the longest average life span in the world.
Conclusion: eat and drink whatever you like–it’s speaking English that kills you!
