Alchohol in the US!!!!!! (1 Viewer)

[Jrob_fire72]

Hello Everyone,

I was just talking to a fellow Marine and he stated how ironic was it that you could kill a person in Iraq and Afganistan at the age of 17. But you cannot drink in the U.S. until 21. I guess the responsibility factor goes out the door when it comes to killing a person. " Hey everone, if your going to drink you better be more responsible"....
If you are going to kill, don't think about it just do it. Can you please help me out on this one.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

If you're looking for rationality in prohibition, good luck!

 

[Captain America]

The newspaper reported today that my town is the #1 drunk town in America...

It's nice to be recognized for our efforts. :drink

 

[SixStringHero]

The newspaper reported today that my town is the #1 drunk town in America...

It's nice to be recognized for our efforts. :drink

I have you beat easy...

MY state used to be one of the top 3 for DWI arrests.

 

[Jrob_fire72]

Daaammmnn!!!:laughat:

 

[jfuh]

Here are a few others that don't make any sense.
Cigarrettes - gotta be 18 (not 17). Yet cigarrettes are a far worse drug then alcohol can ever be.
Next in line, birth control, gotta be 18.
Gambling - 21 strange.

 

[Thorgasm]

Here are a few others that don't make any sense.
Cigarrettes - gotta be 18 (not 17). Yet cigarrettes are a far worse drug then alcohol can ever be.
Next in line, birth control, gotta be 18.
Gambling - 21 strange.

Alcohol is far worse than cigarettes. I have to respectfully disagree with you.

 

[jfuh]

Alcohol is far worse than cigarettes. I have to respectfully disagree with you.

Let me elaborate then and I think you will be able to agree.
In varied concentrattions, and moderations, alcohol can actually be good for you.
Cigarettes regardless of the dossage is always harmful to the body.

 

[SixStringHero]

Let me elaborate then and I think you will be able to agree.
In varied concentrattions, and moderations, alcohol can actually be good for you.
Cigarettes regardless of the dossage is always harmful to the body.

I still can't see how even drinking 4-5 beers would be worse than than ONE cigarette.

Are we talking about physiological damage here, or debilitating effects?

 

[Jrob_fire72]

Well, lets see. I guess you could be wright. Cigarettes are far worse than alcohol. Even though both can kill you over time. But I would rather someone poor alcohol over my bleeding wounds than to blow smoke on it.

 

[Sir_Alec]

Cigarrettes - gotta be 18 (not 17). Yet cigarrettes are a far worse drug then alcohol can ever be.

More people die of drunk driving accidents than of lung cancer each year so. There is no good research that says the affects of second hand smoke are harmful for people not living with a smoker. I see your statement as a pure and simple lie.

 

[jfuh]

I still can't see how even drinking 4-5 beers would be worse than than ONE cigarette.

Are we talking about physiological damage here, or debilitating effects?

4 or 5 beers doesn't exactly coat your liver with tar or unmetabolisable particulates that do cause cancer.
But if you have 4 or 5 beers on a daily basis of course that would also lead to harmful effects.
The original premise however is that it's interesting how a minor can purchase cigs at the early age of 18 (nicotine is indeed addictive) yet unable to purchase alcohol until 21.

 

[SixStringHero]

4 or 5 beers doesn't exactly coat your liver with tar or unmetabolisable particulates that do cause cancer.
But if you have 4 or 5 beers on a daily basis of course that would also lead to harmful effects.
The original premise however is that it's interesting how a minor can purchase cigs at the early age of 18 (nicotine is indeed addictive) yet unable to purchase alcohol until 21.

Yeah. Prolonged heavy drinking will eventually lead to sorosis(sic? damn spell checker), but I still think it's quite a bit safer than being around smoke and cigarettes on a regular basis.

 

[jfuh]

More people die of drunk driving accidents than of lung cancer each year so. There is no good research that says the affects of second hand smoke are harmful for people not living with a smoker. I see your statement as a pure and simple lie.

Who's saying anything about 2nd hand smoke at the moment?
What other ailments come from cigarette smoke asside from lung cancer? Peumonia and various other upper respiratory ailments.

Now to your claim that I am lieing.
Source 1
Source 2:

Tobacco industry efforts subverting International Agency for Research on Cancer's second-hand smoke study
Elisa K Ong BAa and Dr, ProfStanton A Glantz PhDa, ,
The Lancet Volume 355, Issue 9211 , 8 April 2000, Pages 1253-1259

aInstitute for Health Policy Studies, Cardiovascular Research Institute, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA USA

Summary:
Scientific reports on second-hand smoke have stimulated legislation on clean indoor air in the USA, but less so in Europe. Recently, the largest European study, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), demonstrated a 16% increase in the point estimate of risk in lung cancer for nonsmokers, a result consistent with earlier studies. However, the study was described by newspapers and the tobacco industry as demonstrating no increase in risk. To understand the tobacco industry's strategy on the IARC study we analysed industry documents released in US litigation and interviewed IARC investigators. The Philip Morris tobacco company feared that the study (and a possible IARC monograph on second-hand smoke) would lead to increased restrictions in Europe so they spearheaded an inter-industry, three-prong strategy to subvert IARC's work. The scientific strategy attempted to undercut IARC's research and to develop industry-directed research to counter the anticipated findings. The communications strategy planned to shape opinion by manipulating the media and the public. The government strategy sought to prevent increased smoking restrictions. The IARC study cost $2 million over ten years; Philip Morris planned to spend $2 million in one year alone and up to $4 million on research. The documents and interviews suggest that the tobacco industry continues to conduct a sophisticated campaign against conclusions that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and other diseases, subverting normal scientific processes.

Source 3- Non-smoking wives of heavy smokes have a higher risk of lung cancer: a study from Japan

Source 4 - Even a little Second hand Smoke is Dangerous

Seems you've been a victim of falshoods spread by the tobacco industry. Want more articles on this matter? I've plenty.

 

[jfuh]

Yeah. Prolonged heavy drinking will eventually lead to sorosis(sic? damn spell checker), but I still think it's quite a bit safer than being around smoke and cigarettes on a regular basis.

That and a plethora of other ailments including but not limited to diabetes and the iconic beer belly.
The variance though is that alcohol in moderation has beneficial effects where as cigarettes on the other hand is harmful at any level. Yet, one is legal at 18 the other not until 21 hmmmm interesting.

 

[Sir_Alec]

Who's saying anything about 2nd hand smoke at the moment?
What other ailments come from cigarette smoke asside from lung cancer? Peumonia and various other upper respiratory ailments.

Now to your claim that I am lieing.
Source 1
Source 2:


Source 3- Non-smoking wives of heavy smokes have a higher risk of lung cancer: a study from Japan

Source 4 - Even a little Second hand Smoke is Dangerous

Seems you've been a victim of falshoods spread by the tobacco industry. Want more articles on this matter? I've plenty.

I don't pay attention to what smoking companies say I'm just addicted to their product. Can you give the numbers that say that more people die of smoking than drinking each year?

 

[jfuh]

I don't pay attention to what smoking companies say I'm just addicted to their product. Can you give the numbers that say that more people die of smoking than drinking each year?

I've no such data, and I doubt there are. Then again it's never a premise that I presented so why would I want to present an argument against it?
Now, are you going to retract that lie statement with the research deal?

 

[Sir_Alec]

I've no such data, and I doubt there are. Then again it's never a premise that I presented so why would I want to present an argument against it?
Now, are you going to retract that lie statement with the research deal?

No, you said smoking is worse than alcohol and I say no it isn't. How can a drug that kills less people be worse than the one that does.

I'll ask again:

Alcohol has severe side affects if done too much in a short period of time. Smoking doesn't. This is why alcohol is worse, because it kills faster. Some people smoke huge amounts all their life and nothing happens to them. While this is rare it has happened. If a person gets drunk every night then they will most likely die in a car accident or overdose.

 

[jfuh]

No, you said smoking is worse than alcohol and I say no it isn't. How can a drug that kills less people be worse than the one that does.

I'll ask again:

Alcohol has severe side affects if done too much in a short period of time. Smoking doesn't. This is why alcohol is worse, because it kills faster. Some people smoke huge amounts all their life and nothing happens to them. While this is rare it has happened. If a person gets drunk every night then they will most likely die in a car accident or overdose.

I've never argued against that.
What I've argued is that smoking regardless of what moderation is bad for you and will eventually kill you one way or another. Alcohol however if in moderation has beneficial effects.
Now you stated

There is no good research that says the affects of second hand smoke are harmful for people not living with a smoker.

I've shown you 4 different sources that back up my claim and you've made the claim that I've lied.
So again, are you going to retract the bs claim now in light of all this evidence that prooves my point and prooves against yours which you also said I've lied about?
Additionally somewhere you seem to have garnered the idea that I've stated smoking kills more ppl then alcohol? Perhaps you'd like to point out anywhere in my post where I've made any statement that is even remotely similar?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Alcohol however if in moderation has beneficial effects.

This claim has been debunked in recent research. A review of previous research found a fatal flaw in the claim that alcohol moderation has benefits. Researchers counted as "abstainers" people who have stopped drinking because of ill health.

Here are some links:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189754,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4491314.stm
http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-alcohol-bebefits-debunked.htm
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/lifestyle/consumerhealth/printer_1066145.php

 

[cherokee]

Hello Everyone,

I was just talking to a fellow Marine and he stated how ironic was it that you could kill a person in Iraq and Afganistan at the age of 17. But you cannot drink in the U.S. until 21. I guess the responsibility factor goes out the door when it comes to killing a person. " Hey everone, if your going to drink you better be more responsible"....
If you are going to kill, don't think about it just do it. Can you please help me out on this one.

What’s your point? Hell lets kick it up a notch.
If your life is in danger here you can kill at even a younger age..

By the way the drinking age...its what people and groups who thought the age should be 21 lobbied for. You don’t like it? Start a group and have it changed…….

 

[Thorgasm]

Yes, there is nothing good about smoking. That said, I still see it as less dangerous than alcohol. Nicotine overdoses are extremely rare. Alcohol overdoses are more common. Smoking does not effect the decision making process. Smoking causes fewer fatal car accidents. Smoking won't make you promiscuous. Alcoholism kills people but you won't see that as the cause of death on any death certificate.

Sure, it is true that studies point the moderate use of alcohol may be beneficial. These studies show correlation at best. They do not conclusively prove that it is definitely beneficial. If they did you know Pfizer would have their own line of beverages. Anything in small amounts is virtually harmless. I was not able to access source 4 in post #14. This study interests me. I am not accepting their claim blindly. I would guess it could cause irritation to the sinus and lungs. Perhaps people with asthma, allergies, or other respiratory problems it is dangerous to. The average person I would think are no more affected than being stuck behind a truck or a bus with their black exhaust.

 

[Iriemon]

More people die of drunk driving accidents than of lung cancer each year so. There is no good research that says the affects of second hand smoke are harmful for people not living with a smoker. I see your statement as a pure and simple lie.

I don't believe you are correct.

Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that tobacco use remains the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, causing approximately 440,000 premature deaths each year ...

http://www.drugabuse.gov/Infofacts/Tobacco.html

There were 16,694 alcohol-related fatalities in 2004 – 39 percent of the total traffic fatalities for the year.

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

Both these things are far more likely to cause an early death than a terrorist attack.

 

[Thorgasm]

I don't believe you are correct.

Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that tobacco use remains the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, causing approximately 440,000 premature deaths each year ...

http://www.drugabuse.gov/Infofacts/Tobacco.html

There were 16,694 alcohol-related fatalities in 2004 – 39 percent of the total traffic fatalities for the year.

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

Both these things are far more likely to cause an early death than a terrorist attack.

Your study is flawed as alcoholism is not used as a cause of death even though it kills people prematurely. You may be correct when addressing Alec as far as car fatalities go. Alcoholism has many ways to kill you besides car accidents. This is why alcohol is more dangerous than smoking.

 

[Iriemon]

Your study is flawed as alcoholism is not used as a cause of death even though it kills people prematurely. You may be correct when addressing Alec as far as car fatalities go. Alcoholism has many ways to kill you besides car accidents. This is why alcohol is more dangerous than smoking.

"You may be correct when addressing Alec as far as car fatalities go"....

That was the intent of the post.

As far as overall dangerousness, I don't know that I disagree. Clearly it is more dangerous to operate a vehicle drug than while smoking a cigarette. But I also don't know that alcohol overall causes more deaths than cigarette smoking, I believe the total number of fatalities is still much higher for smoking related deaths.