>> ^Hive13:

>> ^chilaxe:
So unfortunate. Next time don't be a smoker and drinker.

My Grandfather was a lifelong health nut. He never drank, never smoked, exercised every day and was a staunch vegan. I have never seen him drink a soda or even a cup of coffee. He died after stage 4 throat cancer took over and spread to his lungs and lymph-nodes.
Everyone will eventually get some form of cancer. Sure, drinking and smoking have an profound increase in the likelihood, but don't toss out holier than thou statements like this when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. My grandfather was a good man that died too soon from something nature does to us all given time.


And by nature, you mean the poisons human industry has added to the environment that pollute our air, water and food, right?

It's sad for sure, but it's his choice as it should be, and we will have to bear the burden of losing his voice early because of it.
>> ^chilaxe:

>> ^NinjaInHeat:
>> ^chilaxe:
So unfortunate. Next time don't be a smoker and drinker.

Yes, that was exactly his point when he said he doesn't regret it.
Be a smoker, be a drinker, do whatever makes you happy, be aware of the consequences, accept them.

I think it's sad that's dying, and it's sad that he's relatively young (60 years old) with much more to contribute to the world. That seems like a high price to pay for some simplistic chemical addictions.

>> ^NinjaInHeat:

>> ^chilaxe:
So unfortunate. Next time don't be a smoker and drinker.

Yes, that was exactly his point when he said he doesn't regret it.
Be a smoker, be a drinker, do whatever makes you happy, be aware of the consequences, accept them.


I think it's sad that he's dying, and it's sad that he's relatively young (60 years old) with much more to contribute to the world. That seems like a high price to pay for some simplistic chemical addictions.

>> ^chilaxe:

So unfortunate. Next time don't be a smoker and drinker.


My Grandfather was a lifelong health nut. He never drank, never smoked, exercised every day and was a staunch vegan. I have never seen him drink a soda or even a cup of coffee. He died after stage 4 throat cancer took over and spread to his lungs and lymph-nodes.

Everyone will eventually get some form of cancer. Sure, drinking and smoking have an profound increase in the likelihood, but don't toss out holier than thou statements like this when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. My grandfather was a good man that died too soon from something nature does to us all given time.

>> ^chilaxe:

So unfortunate. Next time don't be a smoker and drinker.


Yes, that was exactly his point when he said he doesn't regret it.
Be a smoker, be a drinker, do whatever makes you happy, be aware of the consequences, accept them.

So unfortunate. Next time don't be a smoker and drinker.

I make my own beer and wine. Now I will now outlive non-drinkers AND save money.

Of course heavy drinkers live longer over non imbibers. "A good laugh..." and all that. Also getting laid means you have something to live for. Boredom kills.

@rebuilder. Thanks for instructing me how best to argue my points. I'll take it under advisement.

I never made an argument against taxation based on a claim it didn't work. I made an argument saying it's a monolithic punishment for something that isn't always black-and-white or sometimes isn't even correct. If there's any truth to drinking moderately leading to prolonged life, then wouldn't that refute the claims that drinking leads to health problems, as well? We know heavy drinking may lead to cirrhosis and cancer, but not in every case, and not every drinker is a heavy drinker. Hell, some people smoke all their life and never experience a single health problem.

To me, these are excellent points that demonstrate how a one-size-fits-all punishment is morally objectionable. But to you, I suppose, that's being intellectually dishonest. Hey, try something for me. Try adding to the discussion with a perspective instead of trying to trap me like some hall monitor. I bet you'd find it more rewarding.

Simple carbs are bad for you. Everyone knows this? None of the "omg carbs KILL BABIES" people or studies seem to contrast simple carbs vs. complex carbs. Are they stuffing them full of white bread? White rice? There was a study recently that showed just having *some* brown rice with your white rice measurably reduced the risk of diabetes, but I didn't see any of the He-Man Caveman Diet people mention that.

Some studies (though not all, admittedly--there are conflicting reports) indicate that sugars that are unbalanced in favor of more fructose (HFCS) cause problems that eating table sugar doesn't.

For the fatty meats, you also have to be careful about what exactly they're eating. Hamburger is the refined flour of the red meat world and steak is the 100% whole wheat bread. There's a difference in how they're digested, and there's a difference on their effects on the body. I'm too lazy to go find the reference, but there was a study comparing eating small amounts of hamburger vs. steak every day for some period of time, and the hamburger group had higher cholesterol and blood pressure and whatnot (could be misremembering the exact problems).

And for this study, the only thing that's moderately surprising is that the heavy drinkers are healthier than the non-drinkers. But it it utterly unsurprising that the moderate drinkers are healthier than both; this has been common knowledge for a while. Well, I am kinda surprised that 3 drinks a day is moderate drinking. That's a lot more than I drink. I wonder how the data would skew if they broke it down to 1 every few days, 1 every day, 2 every day, 3 every day, etc.

I'd put $5 on the some-complex-carb--eating, some-steak-eating, vegetable-eating, sugar/simple-carb--reducing, HFCS-avoiding, moderately-drinking person being healthier than any of the other permutations. Moderation isn't as sexy as being able to get all religious about being anti/pro-meat or anti/pro-carb or anti/pro-booze, though, I suppose!

^I think the reason for abstention is a big problem with this study. They say the control for past alcoholism, but there could be other health reasons people abstain from drinking.

Of more concern: "The sample of those who were studied included individuals between ages 55 and 65 who had had any kind of outpatient care in the previous three years" This would seem to imply preexisting conditions.

Pretty much this study has the same problem as any study with an uncontrolled independent variable. Even if there's a correlation (I don't recall them mentioning the statistical analysis used) you can't assign causality with certainty.

EDIT: As for the sin tax the moderate drinkers, who were by far the healthiest group in this study, probably wouldn't be noticeably affected by this. I don think they say in the video but most health studies define moderate as 1-2 drinks a day (glass of wine/bottle of beer). While the heavy drinkers would be more heavily affected by it. Maybe moderate drinkers should be subsidized by the heavy drinkers so they aren't punished for their good habits

It'd be interesting to see how this would play out in mice since they can ethically control (ethical in a sense of ethically legal) which mice drink heavily, moderately and not at all.

I agree that this is just one article and one study, and I do not know all of the criteria. I just pose this as a "what if" is all.

@kronosposeidon, your examples are good ones, but I'm not sure they're relevant to this study or to this Sift Talk post. Also I think your balls smells like coffee, and the word is pronounced 'anecdote' not 'anticdote', and you're wrong that pirates are cooler than ninjas. Now that we have that out of the way...

Not all drinkers drive and not all drinkers that do driver get into accidents. Not all drinkers seek or wish to seek rehab. Alcohol is a depressant. Word. But prohibitionists use that as a selling factor for abstaining. It's also a helluva lotta fun when you're riding the high.

Unfortunatly, the paper is not available for free. But based on the abstract, I'd like to make an observation:

A model controlling for former problem drinking status, existing health problems, and key sociodemographic and social-behavioral factors, as well as for age and gender, substantially reduced the mortality effect for abstainers compared to moderate drinkers. However, even after adjusting for all covariates, abstainers and heavy drinkers continued to show increased mortality risks of 51 and 45%, respectively, compared to moderate drinkers.

So, they define abstainers simply as people not drinking at the time of the study and use a model to account for all other factors.

And what do you make of this?

"Our findings demonstrate that abstainers were significantly more likely to have had prior drinking problems, to be obese, and to smoke cigarettes than moderate drinkers and scored significantly higher than moderate drinkers on health problems, depressive symptoms, and avoidance coping," he [Charles J. Holahan] said. "In addition, abstainers were significantly lower than moderate drinkers on socioeconomic status, physical activity, number of close friends, and quality of friend support and significantly less likely to be married than moderate drinkers. Moreover, all of these factors that were associated with abstention significantly predicted mortality."

To me, this sounds like the "additional factors" have considerable influence and accounting for them in a statistical model unknown to me doesn't make this study particularly appealing to me.

If I were to put it over the top, I'd say that it basically states that heavy drinking, yet otherwise healthy people at age 55-65 are less likely to die in the following 20 years than clinically obese, chain-smoking, abstaining couch potatoes.

As for your main point, sin taxation: I'm deeply biased, which somewhat disqualifies my opinion.

Heavy drinkers might be physically healthier than non-drinkers, but what other costs are associated with heavy drinking?

- More auto accidents (in the U.S., about a third of all motor vehicle fatalities involved alcohol)
- More absenteeism from work (heavy drinkers call in sick more often), which ain't good for the paycheck or the economy
- Heavy drinkers are obviously more likely to end up in a psych ward or rehab for alcoholism than non-drinkers (the psych ward and rehab ain't cheap)
- Heavy drinkers are more prone to depression. Depression itself is a costly disease (I hope I don't need citations for that statement.)

And don't forget the non-monetary costs of heavy drinking, like the joy kids have with a drunk mommy or daddy.

Having said all that, I don't like sin taxes. I'm a big proponent of progressive taxation, and sin taxes are one of the most regressive forms of taxation. Probably not the reason you were looking for to oppose sin taxes, but there it is anyway.

Drink free or die!

I think I remember reading a paper in science or something that caffeine drinkers have higher bloodflow in their brains then normal. Also, I do not know how I would stay awake right now with out it. There are literally, three huge empty things of coffee on my desk right now.