Should drinking be considered as bad as smoking?

[QUOTE="JPOBS"][QUOTE="rawsavon"]Drinking has some health benefits...can even provide some nutrients Smoking has 0 benefits There is no second hand drinking ...Smoking is worsedonwoogie

whereas the risk of second hand smoke to others is intrinsic to smoking a cigarette.

try again?

[QUOTE="UbiquitousAeon"]Driving while intoxicated is completely separate from simply having a drink.

MrGeezer

And smoking continuously over the course of many years is different than simply having a smoke. Again, if diseases caused by excessive smoking is an argument that tobacco is "bad", then alcohol is "bad" due to drunk driving, unwanted pregnancies and rape, liver disease, and lives ruined by alcoholism.

If the extreme use of one drug counts, then so does extreme use of the other.

A lot of people know that drinking is worse for you.

That one's easy, considering alcoholism killed my oldest brother.

i give it to smoking being the worse one

As for the drunk driving it's usually something very unavoidable i usually drink about 1 or 2 a week. And will get absolutely bombed here and there however i never once drove drunk in the few years i have been drinking. I think that people that do it are just irresponsible, as they are the ones who drive to the parties while sober. Like it is totally unavoidable, if you felt like driving just say no to a beer or whatever someone offers you. But anyway people that drive drunk i just assume they are dumb sober or drunk.

Drinking in excess should be considered as bad as smoking. One or Two drinks should not.

I think you paranoid people, religious fundamentalists, people scared of alcohol and tobacco cuz mom said it was the devil, etc need to just live your lives and leave the rest of us drinkers and smokers alone.

If done in moderation, someone who drinks and smokes can live well into their 80s and beyond.

Smoking is debatable, but drinking is extremely healthy

Am I sensing something approaching a conclusion here?

Palantas

If that's what you're sensing, you're way off. Chemicals aren't "bad".

I think you paranoid people, religious fundamentalists, people scared of alcohol and tobacco cuz mom said it was the devil, etc need to just live your lives and leave the rest of us drinkers and smokers alone.

If done in moderation, someone who drinks and smokes can live well into their 80s and beyond.

Smoking is debatable, but drinking is extremely healthy

mrbojangles25

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

Just putting this out there, but it's always possible that moderate drinkers are generally wealthier, better educated, more intelligent and receive a better standard of healthcare than the average abstainer. It's kind of tough to conduct the kind of controlled long-term study needed to separate out drinking alone as a positive health factor.

Palantas

That's possible, however no amount of theorizing changes the simple fact that cigarettes kill way, way more people than booze does. This should settle the issue, assuming you consider dead people to be a problem.

And btw, water kills way more people than violent videogames. Judging by murder rates in the USA, blacks kill more people than whites. I suppose that should settle the issue, and we would have to conclude that water is worse than videogames, and blacks are worse than whites?

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

Just putting this out there, but it's always possible that moderate drinkers are generally wealthier, better educated, more intelligent and receive a better standard of healthcare than the average abstainer. It's kind of tough to conduct the kind of controlled long-term study needed to separate out drinking alone as a positive health factor.

MrGeezer

That's possible, however no amount of theorizing changes the simple fact that cigarettes kill way, way more people than booze does. This should settle the issue, assuming you consider dead people to be a problem.

And btw, water kills way more people than violent videogames. Judging by murder rates in the USA, blacks kill more people than whites. I suppose that should settle the issue, and we would have to conclude that water is worse than videogames, and blacks are worse than whites?

whereas the risk of second hand smoke to others is intrinsic to smoking a cigarette.

try again?

JPOBS

No it isn't. You have to actually INHALE the smoke, or otherwise come into physical contact with it. You're not going to suffer from the second hand smoke of a guy smoking alone in the middle of nowhere.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="UbiquitousAeon"]Driving while intoxicated is completely separate from simply having a drink.

JPOBS

And smoking continuously over the course of many years is different than simply having a smoke. Again, if diseases caused by excessive smoking is an argument that tobacco is "bad", then alcohol is "bad" due to drunk driving, unwanted pregnancies and rape, liver disease, and lives ruined by alcoholism.

If the extreme use of one drug counts, then so does extreme use of the other.

Really? Thanks for the obvious. I never said that those were diseases.

I smoke. And I drink.

Both in moderation.

WHAT NOW?!

What I mean in "moderation" is... Less than a pack a month and 2 glasses of wine once every two weeks? I do prefer drinking over smoking though... I don't like smelling like tobacco.

I smoke. And I drink.

Both in moderation.

WHAT NOW?!

What I mean in "moderation" is... Less than a pack a month and 2 glasses of wine once every two weeks? I do prefer drinking over smoking though... I don't like smelling like tobacco.

voluptuoushrewd

A pack a month is still an awful lot.

And you're better off avoiding cigarettes entirely since their entire design is meant to contribute to addiction and increased sales. They are sold as cigarettes because that form better enables them to become a HABIT, which contributes to people smoking way more than they should.

For starters, if you're going to smoke, then cigarettes are a bad idea.

But that's one of the things going on here. Everyone assumes that "smokers" means "cigarettes", when that is absolutely not the case. Other methods of smoking certainly have their risks as well, but not to the same extent as cigarettes. And for most people, smoking a pipe is inconvenient enough that they just plain don't do it very often.

If that's what you're sensing, you're way off. Chemicals aren't "bad".

MrGeezer

You've expressed that opinion more than once. I've asked many times how you do determine the badness of an item, since you apparently don't care about people dying.

Since people getting killed isn't a good metric for you to determine the "badness" of a recreational item, what is?

I

If you can come up with something than vaguely makes sense, I'll just agree to disagree and leave you alone.

Moving on...

And btw, water kills way more people than violent videogames. Judging by murder rates in the USA, blacks kill more people than whites. I suppose that should settle the issue, and we would have to conclude that water is worse than videogames, and blacks are worse than whites?

MrGeezer

Hmm...is water a recreational product? Are black people recreational products? Good job. You picked completely different types of concepts and compared them to this one. I've only posted this about half a dozen times, I can't imagine how you keep missing it:

Since people getting killed isn't a good metric for you to determine the "badness" of a recreational item, what is?

I

There. I made it bigger and bolded the "recreational item" part.

Alcohol is also not a recreational item. Nicotine is not a recreational item. They are simply physical items, nothing more, nothing less. Recreation is not in any way inherently tied to them. They simply are what they are. And if someone chooses to use them as recreation, so be it. Just as if a 4 year old kid decides to use water as recreation by drowning his brother in the family swimming pool.

I don't know why you keep on asking me to come up with a metric for determining if a drug is bad, because I've already spelled it out...drugs are not bad. No physical object is "bad" on its own. It ALWAYS comes down to how it is used.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't heroin and opium have an extremely larger chance of leading to harder drugs or addiction ;)

FrostyPhantasm

Leading to harder drugs? I wasn't aware there were any harder drugs than Heroin or anything derived from poppy plants for that matter.

*On topic: IMO Cigarettes are worse for one reason; I can go months on end without any alcohol, I go so much as one day without a cigarette and I'm ready to kill someone.

Alcohol is also not a recreational item. Nicotine is not a recreational item. They are simply physical items, nothing more, nothing less. Recreation is not in any way inherently tied to them. They simply are what they are. And if someone chooses to use them as recreation, so be it. Just as if a 4 year old kid decides to use water as recreation by drowning his brother in the family swimming pool.

I don't know why you keep on asking me to come up with a metric for determining if a drug is bad, because I've already spelled it out...drugs are not bad. No physical object is "bad" on its own. It ALWAYS comes down to how it is used.

MrGeezer

So this is what you're all upset about? That people are saying "alcohol" and "tobacco" instead of "alcohol as used in America" and "tobacco as used in America"? If that's all it is, I'm comfortable with conceding that all my prior posts should be read as to incorporate that language.

They are both poison in their own ways. That's the way I look at it.

So this is what you're all upset about? That people are saying "alcohol" and "tobacco" instead of "alcohol as used in America" and "tobacco as used in America"? If that's all it is, I'm comfortable with conceding that all my prior posts should be read as to incorporate that language.

Palantas

Upset? That sounds a lot like the pot calling the kettle black, buddy. You've been deliberately continuing this argument at least as much as me.

Secondly, even "alcohol in america" and "tobacco in America" fails, because people don't use alcohol and tobacco the same. You're getting closer to making a true statement, but you're still not there.

Upset? That sounds a lot like the pot calling the kettle black, buddy. You've been deliberately continuing this argument at least as much as me. Secondly, even "alcohol in america" and "tobacco in America" fails, because people don't use alcohol and tobacco the same. You're getting closer to making a true statement, but you're still not there.

MrGeezer

What's it matter how precisely they are used? They are used. You're not getting any closer to making any useful commentary on this issue, at all

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Upset? That sounds a lot like the pot calling the kettle black, buddy. You've been deliberately continuing this argument at least as much as me. Secondly, even "alcohol in america" and "tobacco in America" fails, because people don't use alcohol and tobacco the same. You're getting closer to making a true statement, but you're still not there.

Palantas

What's it matter how precisely they are used? They are used. You're not getting any closer to making any useful commentary on this issue, at all

Yeah, and using them isn't bad.

What, pray tell, are YOU contributing here?

Yeah, and using them isn't bad.

MrGeezer

Half a million dead people a year disagree with you. What is your metric for determining the "badness" of anything?

What is your point here anyway? Is your point that this issue cannot be decided?

What, pray tell, are YOU contributing here?

MrGeezer

Pointing people to relevant statistics. I looked them up the last time this issue came up, and someone else did this time.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Yeah, and using them isn't bad.

Palantas

Half a million dead people a year disagree with you. What is your metric for determining the "badness" of anything?

What is your point here anyway? Is your point that this issue cannot be decided?

What, pray tell, are YOU contributing here?

MrGeezer

Pointing people to relevant statistics. I looked them up the last time this issue came up, and someone else did this time.

And in any given year, I guarantee that those half a million dead are the minority of smokers.

If other smokers can smoke without killing themselves, then what's the Half A Million's excuse?

Smoking has far worse health effects and turns healthy pink lungs into ugly black ones. Not to mention it can damage your heart, screw up your respiratory system pretty bad and it stinks. Even second hand smoking has been proven to trigger asthma and other health problems.

Drinking alcohol won't really do anything to you unless you are drinking like crazy 6+ days a week. Sure it has it's effects but at least you wont die from it if you are smart and not a alcoholic.

And in any given year, I guarantee that those half a million dead are the minority of smokers. If other smokers can smoke without killing themselves, then what's the Half A Million's excuse?

MrGeezer

Who knows. I don't know care. Smoking killed them or strongly contributed to their deaths, and that's good enough for me. Drinking killed a lot less people, and that's enough for me to decide this issue. Apparently that's not the "truth," 'cause according to you, I'm not making true statements. Would you care to make a true statement?

Speaking of questions, you are the forum king of ignoring stuff:

What is your metric for determining the "badness" of anything? What is your point here anyway? Is your point that this issue cannot be decided?

I

For **** sakes, if you don't care to answer the question, just "I don't care to answer that."

[QUOTE="JPOBS"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

And smoking continuously over the course of many years is different than simply having a smoke. Again, if diseases caused by excessive smoking is an argument that tobacco is "bad", then alcohol is "bad" due to drunk driving, unwanted pregnancies and rape, liver disease, and lives ruined by alcoholism.

If the extreme use of one drug counts, then so does extreme use of the other.

MrGeezer

Really? Thanks for the obvious. I never said that those were diseases.

[QUOTE="donwoogie"][QUOTE="JPOBS"]Why did this thread go any longer than the second post? thread ending post is thread ending. JPOBS

whereas the risk of second hand smoke to others is intrinsic to smoking a cigarette.

try again?

Both in excess will destroy some part of the body, so it's hard to really say. It's also hard to compare them both since one destroys the lungs and air passages, while the other destroys the pancreas and liver...

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="JPOBS"]drunk driving, unwanted pregnancies, and rape arent diseases caused by anything silly. JPOBS

Really? Thanks for the obvious. I never said that those were diseases.

Uh no, he is actually one of the best debaters on this forum.

Uh no, he is actually one of the best debaters on this forum.

CBR600-RR

Really? I've been trying to get the guy to define his position for several pages now, and instead I get comments like this...

You're getting closer to making a true statement, but you're still not there.

MrGeezer

...followed by nothing. How useless.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

Re. alcohol and health...

Just putting this out there, but it's always possible that moderate drinkers are generally wealthier, better educated, more intelligent and receive a better standard of healthcare than the average abstainer. It's kind of tough to conduct the kind of controlled long-term study needed to separate out drinking alone as a positive health factor.

The American Heart Association says people should not start drinking to protect themselves from heart disease, while the most recent United States dietary guidelines say that "alcohol may have beneficial effects when consumed in moderation."

There's a lot of hedging of bets going on from authorities on this one, which suggests that the jury's still out (and open to *cough* suggestions?) on this one.

jimmyjammer69

[QUOTE="JPOBS"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Really? Thanks for the obvious. I never said that those were diseases.

CBR600-RR

Uh no, he is actually one of the best debaters on this forum.

Really? I've been trying to get the guy to define his position for several pages now, and instead I get comments like this...

Palantas

That's subjective. As to this current argument....his points are not inherent to alchohol and thus have no meaning within the context of this debate. However, as a smokescreen I suppose they work for some people. But they don't answer the question. In fact, he hasn't answered the question once. He's dodged every argument.LJS9502_basic

Well, this subject he seems to be losing.

Don't worry, you're one of the best. :P

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]I'm not sure I get the significance of your point. Do they all represent the average moderate drinker? Are alcoholics equally represented in all socio-economic classes too?jimmyjammer69

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

Really? I've been trying to get the guy to define his position for several pages now, and instead I get comments like this...

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Yes they are....LJS9502_basic

Drinking is not so bad when done every once in a while, but smoking is always bad. But when abused, I would say both are equally as bad. I don't drink or smoke myself, but I have done research and stuff.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

Really? I've been trying to get the guy to define his position for several pages now, and instead I get comments like this...

jimmyjammer69

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]Even if you had some proof of that claim, I still wouldn't get your point. It is a fact that abstinence is more common among lower income families, so poorly controlled studies likely end up with overlapping risk factors and falsely attribute the health benefits of wealth to the more prevalent moderate (light) alcohol consumption among richer families. Total abstainers are also far more likely to be teetotal due to existing health problems, confounding results even further.jimmyjammer69

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No it's not a fact. I sell liquor for a living. I've worked in various socio economic stores. And they all are busy. People will do without some things to get their liquor. It's not true that drinking only belongs to certain socie economic cIasses. The wealthy drink better but not more.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/controversies/20090929102948.html Oh, well in that case you must know far better than the people who study this for a living. ;)

jimmyjammer69