Quite frankly, I’m surprised by those numbers. I wonder how they break down by age or geography or socioeconomic status.
Can’t find that but I can find that a Gallup poll of those 18 and over finds somewhat similar numbers (albeit you need to calculate some to dig 'em out, as they report some as percent of those who say they ever drink). “Most drink” so long as you count drinking once every 3 months or less as drinking (some rounding errors and they do not report any number for more than once in 3 months but less than once a week):
36% of the total are complete abstainers
6% of the total drink less than once every 3 months
16% last drank 3 months ago (so 58% once every 3 months to never)
32% 1 to 7 drinks a week
6% 8 to 19 drinks a week
3% 20 or more (how much more not specified) per week
So less than half of Americans report one or more drinks a week.
Other data, I’d have to dig for the cite, confirm that early 20s tends to be a peak.
Apparently lower SES is associated with less moderate drinking. They tend to both drink less and drink more than higher SES groups, but less often in moderation.
Just a statement of fact, not judgment.: heavy drinking, especially beyond the early 20s, is not normative behavior in America.
3.2% of Americans self identify as vegetarians. Another behavior that is not normative.
yeah, but you also have to pick up the slack for people who aren’t as productive/arrive late/leave early/call in because they have to do something with their kids, or pet, or parents, or have car trouble, blah blah blah.
I can’t quite figure out what part of this matters to you, or why. (Not an argument, a serious statement.)
Alcohol is legal, has been used for millennia, and up to some point has little or no long-term effect on health and lifespan. In smaller occasional doses it has absolutely no known lasting effect, good or bad. It’s also relatively cheap. (Just closing all the doors against arbitrary drug arguments,there.)
Alcohol tolerance varies widely - not just in immediate effects of BAC, but in overall physiological tolerance over both the short and long term. That higher consumption statistically produces higher levels of illness and damage is just that - statistical. There are people who have destroyed their liver and health on a couple of glasses of wine a day, and bottle-a-day men in good health at 75. It’s on the individual to keep tabs on his or her health (physical and mental) and decide whether a change is needed. It is NOT on some arbitrary outside general standard imposed by the moral, the statistical or the judgmental, and you’re being at least two of those.
You’ve found a level of drinking you seem comfortable with despite your sensitivity to the potential risks. But like a lot of people on a lot of issues depending on personal choice, you seem to be alla way upset because some people, on exactly the same basis and data, drink more. Not drunks. Not self-destructors. Just people who can and do drink more than one drink a day or so, and don’t show any particular effects during or after the period of drinking, or over time. When a few such have spoken up, you wave your arms and shout statistics again.
Some of us can, and do, drink “heavily” and pay no price for it, short or long term, except to the nice lady at the liquor store counter. That may or may not be a lifetime condition, but some of us are of quite mature years and still have no problem with high levels of alcohol consumption.
You are using far too wide a brush, almost as wide as the Big Book crowd. It is not that simple unless you favor something awfully close to government/mass control of individual health choices.
Personal viewpoint on this? When I was younger, I thought “You can live forever by giving up everything that makes life worthwhile” was funny. When I passed 50, I realized that it contains some grains of truth. We’re all going to die of something. At a certain point, I think it’s worth trading off the risk of some fewer years against pleasure, comfort and personal choice to indulge in those. If you want to live as long as possible at any cost… feel free. Some of us consider that cost too high.
BTW, I don’t drink right now and haven’t had more than a few drinks in the last year and a half. Just personal choice. But I’m very much a “heavy” drinker in the years I do indulge - and in well over 35 years, I’ve had two killer hangovers (well-earned), maybe two other mild ones… and that ends the list of impact drinking has had on my life.
That lines up pretty well with what I was saying; most people do drink (70% by your numbers). I never really addressed the 30% that don’t drink, but the other 70% would fall somewhere in these statements of mine (the “or a few beers while at a holiday barbecue” in particular):
I wasn’t trying to say that the US is a hard-drinking nation, or that most Americans drink regularly; rather to point out that the patterns differ- adults over say… 30 in European countries drink a lot more and a lot more regularly than those in the US do. I don’t know that US younger people drink much differently though.
There’s also a lot of slop in the “special occasions” idea; that would encompass someone like my mother, for all intents and purposes, an abstainer, but who will have a glass of champagne or eggnog at the holidays, just like it would encompass the guy who downs 10 beers every Easter Weekend, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year’s and Cinco De Mayo. Or it would encompass the guy who has one beer on each of those occasions.
I personally have between 0 and 2 beers on weeknights, and may go as high as 4 on Friday or Saturday night- a max of 18 a week, although that is a very rare occurrence to have 2 a night during the week and then 4 a night both weekend nights. I’d think that maybe 10-12 a week is probably more normal.
And from what I’ve read and seen, that wouldn’t be unusual for Europe, but is on the high side in the US.
I’d also say there is a wide difference in drinking patterns, and it’s too common/too simplistic/too judgmental to say that all “heavy drinking” falls into the category of hard-party chugging, alky guzzling, or any other “Man, I’m gonna get drrrruuunnnnnkkkk” model.
Several drinks from dinner through bedtime, over 3-5 hours, at a steady pace, is neither the same thing nor produces anything like a party drunk. You can’t lump those together.
Maybe… just maybe, the dividing line is average BAC over the course of an indulgence. If you peak around 0.25, you’re drinking a hell of a lot differently than someone who stays around 0.08-0.10, or less, over time.
While I consider myself impaired if I’ve had a single drink within the last three hours - remember, I worked with MADD and believe in their original mission, and cheer its unexpected success overall - I don’t remember the last time I was anything like “drunk,” or even impaired enough for most people to notice. And that’s while falling under “heavy drinker” status.
The Harvard Grant Study was a 75 year longitudinal study of 268 Harvard graduates. Triumphs of Experience: The Men of the Harvard Grant Study details the findings of the study. There is entire section of the book that deals with the effects of alcohol on the men throughout their lives. The book shows a clear connection between alcoholism and less satisfactory lives. However, the book does not conclude that absolute level of consumption is the best predictor of negative life outcomes (though it is definitely correlated). Rather, they suggest that the most meaningful approach was to judge based on whether or not alcohol use caused *problems * in other areas of life. Some men were able to drink more heavily than others yet not have their consumption lead to negative outcomes.
Spending a Saturday nursing a preplanned hangover because of a reunion with college friends involving drinking too much beer and talking about the Glory Days is different than having to miss your son’s Little League game due to the inability to get out of bed. Both would be a red flag on an alcohol abuse screen. Is drinking to the point of a hangover healthy? Of course not, but the book/study suggest that context is important - drinking (whatever the quantity) to the point where alcohol becomes a net negative in life overall is where problems really arise.
I’m not sure what you mean by “no argument”.
With your qualifier “as long as …”, is there any argument against letting anyone do any specific thing?
This article from The Atlantic is…topical.
“The Irrationality of Alcoholics Anonymous”
But in a fair number of work places, drinking is often encouraged as a form of “team building”.
They should, but a lot of times they don’t. At my 20 year high school reunion, my wife was sort of surprised that a lot of people seemed to be pretty shitfaced and there weren’t any taxis driving them home.
We also live in Hoboken, NJ. A suburb city just over the Hudson from Manhattan that has a ton of restaurants and bars crammed into one square mile. People here often don’t have cars and they typically don’t need them if they do. And in the city, like every workplace seems to have it’s own designated bar within a few blocks. So social drinking is probably a lot more common than what you might find in the suburbs.
I’m writting at me worsetest in this thredd, for some reeson.
I don’t believe there should be any blanket or statute proscription against drinking, mass or individual, in the absence of any immediately threatening issues, regardless of the general health and well-being trends. It’s a personal decision and simple wear on health is not an adequate reason to issue such a demand.
That seems to be what some are proposing - “Drinking ‘too much’ is ‘bad for you’ therefore you should [not do it | be prevented from doing it].” I disagree; ‘too much’ is largely subjective and varies with the individual, and a whole helluva lotta shit is ‘bad for you’ - but we do it anyway.
You may die younger if you drink more than trivial amounts. Individual’s choice.
Good place for one of my old faves:
McPherson goes to the doctor, who examines him thoroughly before announcing, “Angus, it’s like this. Either you stop drinking whiskey, or you go blind.”
McPherson ponders deeply, and replies, “Waaail, Doc, I’m an old man noo, and I think I’ve seen all I want to see.”
Skoal.
That makes sense. And I agree with you. 
I agree that there’s a subjective component to “too much”. What I don’t like is people who drink and get intoxicated to the point of being violent or dangerously careless. At this point, it’s no longer solely a matter of the drinker’s well-being – others can suffer (sometimes traumatically) as a result of the drinker’s behavior.
Individual choice, yes, but unless the individual is living in isolation, there’ll probably be a negative effect on those who have a financial or emotional connection.
Difficult to do a societal cost/benefit analysis of consuming alcohol, but I 'm pretty sure that society would be better if there were fewer drunks.
For just one minute, try imagining The Andy Griffith Show without Otis. Can’t do it, can you?
I rest my case and call for a directed verdict.
How would you know if you are drinking heavily daily?
But not several times a week. I have a co-worker like that. Always a good reason, mostly sports-related. “The game ran long,” makes a better excuse if you are a participant than if you are a viewer.
What the living fuck does that have to do with anything? Further insults removed because of the forum.
An apparently true statement and something that might have fuck all to do with the thread if we were talking about Dietary culture.
Expanding upon and responding to bump’s statement that most Americans drink with actual numbers. That conversation continuing as follows:
And bump I also do not think we disagree. It merely clarifies that “most Americans drink” and “most Americans either drink very infrequently or do not drink at all” are both true. I don’t have the comparable numbers for other countries but I suspect your impression is true and that there is less complete abstaining and more frequent both moderate and heavy drinking in many other countries.
I am honestly amused by the fact that some people hear are having conversations against positions that no one in this thread has taken.
Simple points. The best data suggests that consumption of 1 to 6 drinks a week is healthier than drinking much less to not at all. It also suggests that health risks go up steeply after that and that the heavy drinkers, more than 2 drinks a day for males, are statistically at dramatically increased health risks, whether they are addicted or not, whether they get drunk or not. A small minority of Americans drink like that. Those increased risks include dramatic increases in the risks for dementia, for liver failure, for cancer of various sorts, for heart disease, and many more. The data is clear that the heavy drinkers cost the rest of us money with the consequences of their personal choice. These are simple facts and anyone who says “there is no harm” is making a false statement.
No one is stating that the only harm occurs from addiction to alcohol or from being drunk, or “hard-party chugging”. Those include some extra risks and costs of their own but the harms and cost are well documented at levels below that. “Heavy drinking” and “binge drinking” and “alcoholism” are overlapping sets but are not the same thing.
No one is arguing for Prohibition. Or for making heavy alcohol consumption illegal. Or for “any blanket or statute proscription against drinking, mass or individual, in the absence of any immediately threatening issues, regardless of the general health and well-being trends.” In fact the health perspective would argue for encouraging moderate consumption, so long as encouraging such ran an acceptably low risk of inadvertently increasing heavy consumption. Such is not viewed by the expert panels to be the case however.
Indeed people do all sorts of dumb shit, things that impair their health and cost others. And only a few cross the line that “the state” gets involved (e.g. seatbelts, in some states motorcycle helmets, and vaccination for school attendance).
Personally I am fine with heroin being legal for adults. At least they just OD and don’t cost me much. Just like the kayaker should be allowed to use up his liver and be cool with that, an adult should be allowed to OD if they want.
Nevertheless as the medical data has had a big impact on how our culture views smokers (no longer “cool”, more pathetic) and likewise it impacts how our culture views heavy drinkers (similarly pathetic, beyond the irrational pass given to those in their early 20s, especially on college campuses). That is separate stream than the religious temperance one.
Some are fine that their spouses smoke as they get irritable when they try to quit. Honestly that was my now long dead former senior partner, a closet smoker that everyone knew smoked and who everyone was shamefully a bit grateful each time he gave up on giving up. He was not a fun person to be around when he was trying to quit. And as economic analysis goes he saved society money! Diagnosed with metastatic lung cancer (to the brain) within 6 months of having retired and dead a few months later. (Sorry that the money saved doesn’t do it for me in this case. I loved that man.)
Wait. You bring up the topic of non-normative behavior and then complain when I riff on that theme, then you jump the shark to heroin use? Disingenuous much? Besides, your trope of the heroin user ODing is, well, a trope. At least among people I’ve met, the average heroin user uses a bit on weekends.
Anyway, it’s Wednesday and you know what that means.
DSeid, does current research still indicate that heavy drinkers outlive those that don’t drink at all, I recall reading this but was it just a bad study?
Interesting … trying to find some comparable sort of numbers for the U.K. to confirm the impression both you and I have bump and instead I find that U.K.'s drinking culture is changing. It appears, according to this poll anyway, that the younger generation in the U.K. is moving away from alcohol. Not as much abstinence as in the U.S. but one in four of them is completely opting out. But not Boomers
Same conclusion on a government site.
I wonder how the now more commonly sober youth view their heavier drinking elders’ habits.
kayaker, how is that jumping the shark?
Normative and non-normative are statistical issues. Yes, they impact how feel about what they do. Sometimes result in a smugness that I am “special” doing something (they think is) “better” (some vegans, since you brought that up, sometimes … not. Sometimes though people who do risky things both do not appreciate how risky what they are doing is and do not appreciate how uncommon their behavior is.
Heroin does fit A.B’s criteria of “As long as someone knows the risks and is prepared to deal with the consequences, there’s no argument against letting them …” better than alcohol as there are less impacts on others. The comment is not at all disingenuous. I would support legal and regulated (and taxed).
pool, I’ll try to do a literature search later today if I can. So far I am finding one study that claimed that looking at those who report no current drinking at 55 to 65 and with the abstract not defining the term. Lowest by far for moderate without binging. But other studies in the past came to other conclusions.
“Drinking Culture” ------> heroin ODs. 
I would not mind heroin and other opiates being decriminalized, but I do not see how that neatly ties in to drinking culture, any more than vegetarian lifestyle does.
I’m also a little uneasy with numbers from your polls. Self reported drinking habits are not accurate. I’ve always been honest with my PCP about my drug and alcohol use. We are the same age, on the same hypertensives, etc. Yet when I was reviewing my medical records online I noticed my drinks per week was way low. I asked him and he explained my reported numbers would flag me to his group and he would be expected to actively work on bringing my use down. He knows me well enough (we’ve had a beer together on occasion) to realize I wouldn’t appreciate his “intervention”.