Self-reporting is notoriously inaccurate; how did they define the terms? Not a rhetorical question, I didn't have time to read the document in it's entirety, heh. How one given person in Anywhereville, USA defines heavy drinking could vary drastically from your definition, or my definition.
Why poll only for heavy drinking? Negative health effects don't begin to occur when one surpasses one's self-defined limit. Toxicity doesn't care if you can handle your liquor; drinking to intoxication can cause damage (I'm too tired to source, but anyone not on Z-drugs should be able to find a supporting source, it's an established notion), but it's probable that a great many people don' equate drinking to intoxication with heavy drinking. And, again, no set definition of what constitutes heavy drinking. Speed of consumption matters, as well.
Not arguing with you personally, Burnt Offerings; definitely doubting the validity of using the quoted source as a primary source for supporting your argument, however.
@ both jamesBrown and yourself, though- this seems like a disagreement that neither of you is going to 'win', imo; the issue is exceedingly complex and metabolic/cultural/individual variation make self-reported studies a useless indicator as to the depth of the problem. Please correct me if I'm wrong! How, though, does one determine the extent to which the populace of the United States abuses alcohol through self-reporting when the aforementioned differences affect a tremendous varation in the definition of excess?
Fwiw, I, anecdotally, note that a statistically significant portion of alcohol consumers in my life (see earlier post, but, again, I don't really even hang out with drinkers) use alcohol beyond it's therepeutic range. I refute the statement that most people use it responsibly, and parrot hotgirls.jpg.exe's comment regarding "post-hoc justification" on the part of consumers.
Burnt-Offerings: this is not directed specifically at you or your comments; rather, I like to talk, and disagree with the currently accepted cultural belief that alcohol is, in most cases, consumed 'responsibly' (though, again, without definition of responsible drinking, none of this is going to go anywhere).
I don't like the postulation that most people drink responsibly, as, if it's generally used responsibly (in the minds of the populace), it becomes easier to make false claims regarding the relative safety of alcohol, and, by way of that established rhetorical safety, do some of the following:
-demonize alcoholics, becase, if most people use responsibly, and alcohol is considered safe, they could be labelled degeneate pariahs incapable of 'saying No' (thank you, Mrs. Reagan) to a safe substance that most people use responsibly. Why don't they use responsibly like the rest of us??? Most people can do it!??
-increased instances of unrecognized problem drinking (what the fuck is heavy drinking; we should be focusing on problem drinking) normalized by societal views that cast aside those who suffer from alcohol addiction.
-Normalizing existing problematic drinking; hey, if you and everyone you know drinks, and you drink a six pack a night, and the majority of people drink responsibly... 'I can handle my liquor, and I do this all the time, I'm a responsible drinker.'
The reason I find it unacceptable to normalize drinking like that is not for moral reasons, it is purely ethical. People should know what they're getting into, and neither me nor my two siblings (still in secondary school, I've since moved on to post-secondary) ever received the smallest modicum of alcohol education beyond being taught of the dangers of drinking and driving.
People deserve the truth.
Let them make an educated decision.
Like tobacco, we should be aware of the risks before we decide to invite a dangerous (objectively- that low TI score) drug into their lives.
Other reasons, as well, but I wrote this all sitting on the toilet and my legs are getting awful sore and my toes went numb and it's cold in here and I want to stand uppp
G
