Studying for finals on a Friday night (zero down, three to go), I decided to have a glass of red wine and some lovely aged cheddar to make the experience a bit more pleasant. And once again I'm struck with the fact that I simply cannot metabolize small amounts of alcohol that well. One glass - less than four ounces - and I'm seriously noticing the effect. Bah!
On the other hand, I have a very long plateau period between "feeling it" and "near-falling down drunk", which would probably be dangerous if I weren't aware of it. And I appreciate the fact that, when I feel like getting tipsy, I can do so cheaply (both for the wallet and the calories).
I better watch out next semester though when I start attending the department's weekly micro seminars, which always include wine and snacks afterwards.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I can always feel the alcohol after one drink. I'm tipsy after 2, and people think I've had 10 after 3. It's bizarre, because I used to weigh over 300 pounds, and my dad was an alcoholic. Shouldn't I have some built in tolerance or something?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I handle it really well, by which I mean I leave it in the store and don't buy it, and when offered it by friends and family, I say no thanks. Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
I think I have an average tolerance for alcohol. Wine seems to go straight to my head though.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I have asian flush syndrome, so I really don't have much of a tolerance.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I use it in the lab all the time. I've never broken any bottles, poisoned anyone or started a fire with it. Can't get much better than that record.
Posted by Steev (Member # 6805) on :
All I know is if I start on a glass of red wine the bottle will be empty within the hour. Therefore I can't touch the stuff. I can't even smell it.
So, I do what Taitiana does.
[ December 18, 2007, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: Steev ]
Posted by adfectio (Member # 11070) on :
quote: my dad was an alcoholic. Shouldn't I have some built in tolerance or something?
Actually, if I remember correctly, this makes you more likely to be affected by it. Then again..... it may just mean you're more likely to become an alcoholic. High School health class was too long ago to remember.
I can usually take a few shots worth before feeling anything. My whole family drinks on occasion, and it's just not something that affects us. I think I've seen my dad 'drunk' once. And that was really just more of a tipsy.
Posted by Steev (Member # 6805) on :
My grandfather was an alcoholic and I discoverd I was capable of being that at age 8. I haven't touched the stuff since then. However, the smell of alcohol causes the most overwhelming cravings I have ever experianced.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
I have a pretty low tolerance, although I don't get the glow despite my Chinese ancestry. One drink and I feel it, two and I'm tipsy. At four (at least within an hour or so), I'm pretty drunk.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
It always amazes me that eating can so drastically alter my tolerance for alcohol. I can be plain old drunk if I've had one drink on an empty stomach. If I start after a meal it would take three or so for the same effect.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
I'm in Europe now and finding out about this. I'd say I feel it at one shot and am mildly drunk at the 7 shot range.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
You know, I have no clue. I've only three times in my life had more than one drink in an evening. Maybe I should change that on my first legal new years eve.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I've only had hard liquor once (my dad bought a shot for me for my 21st birthday), and really don't like wine all that much, so I really only have experience with beer.
I rarely have more than two, and usually just one, but I guess that comes with the territory when you go for the expensive microbrews. However, I am now doing a weekly beer column for the school paper, and I believe that anyone who reads the paper gets the impression that I drink way more than I actually do.
But after one beer, I definitely get a buzz...especially when they're around 9% ABV. Juxtapose is right, I get dramatically more of a buzz on an empty stomach. I've never gone more than three, and therefore never really been 'trashed' or even remotely in danger of passing out, and I don't ever really plan on doing so.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The meeting and eventual marriage of my parents is perplexing since it was a complete fairy-tale Cowboy Meets Princess story. The only way they could have possibly found something in common between them, initially, was that they could both probably drink a horse under the table and were probably doing something just as ridiculous and booze-related when they met.
This confluence did more than just ensure my existence; it also meant that I inherited a completely undeserved tolerance for alcohol. And to all of you who stand here lamenting about your low alcohol tolerance? Let me tell you something about my experiences on the other side of the fence with high alcohol tolerance.
It sucks!
If you have low tolerance you can get perfectly buzzed off of one gin and tonic or you can get delightfully loopy off of a single long island and there I'll be, jealous, because in the same sort of situation I have to spend over $40 to get the same effect and oh by the way you still have room for food and your buzz won't wear off by the time the entree has arrived. Bah.
You have it made. Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Indeed, I have a pretty low tolerance, and I'm perfectly fine with that. I don't typically drink to get drunk, though, don't really see the point.
OK, The White Whale, what are your preferred brews? My favorites are Rochefort 10, St. Bernardus 12, Ommegang Three Philosophers, and Unibroue Trois Pistoles.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Mike, I turned 21 only this year, so actually have a very small list of beers I've had so far.
But of those I have had, I am a big fan of Dogfish Head 90 and 120 Minute IPAs, and the Victory Beers, especially Hop Devil (if you can't tell, I'm a fan of hops).
But I also like really dark stouts...but have only had a few. Rogue and Youngs (my friend likes those) ahd have only tried a few Belgian brews, with that unique malt flavor and have enjoyed those.
I actually have a bottle of Ommegang Rare Vos here I'm going to split with my dad, probably tomorrow for the Buffalo game. It was right next to the Three Philosophers at the store, but I saw that had...was it cherry? And opted for the Rare Vos.
I'm going to continue my column next semester, and would really appreciate recommendations for beers...so those four you like I will definitely try. Any others?
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: This confluence did more than just ensure my existence; it also meant that I inherited a completely undeserved tolerance for alcohol. And to all of you who stand here lamenting about your low alcohol tolerance? Let me tell you something about my experiences on the other side of the fence with high alcohol tolerance.
It sucks!
If you have low tolerance you can get perfectly buzzed off of one gin and tonic or you can get delightfully loopy off of a single long island and there I'll be, jealous, because in the same sort of situation I have to spend over $40 to get the same effect and oh by the way you still have room for food and your buzz won't wear off by the time the entree has arrived. Bah.
You have it made.
Welcome to my life story. Except throw in some hearty German ancestry and a history of alcoholism in the family, and I'm always the most sober person at the table after having drunk more than anyone else.
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
My Mom's Dad was a severe alcoholic and my Dad is an alcoholic (he has never neglected our family or lost a job over it, but I don't excuse his addiction) so there is a history of high tolerance for alcohol in my family. I am very careful about how much I drink because of this.
I don't go more than two beers at a time, but I know my limit is above that because I once had five when someone kept buying me and my friends free drinks. I was a little frightened because I felt no worse after five than I did after two.
I can probably handle a fair amount, but I won't dare try.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
Please define the words "well" and "handle". Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Except throw in some hearty German ancestry and a history of alcoholism in the family
Uh oh. My grandfather's name was Bill Koch and he was an alcoholic.
We're related, aren't we.
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boon: Please define the words "well" and "handle".
If you don't drop a bottle after six or more, then you can handle alcohol well. Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
I've discovered it depends on what I'm having. Even if it's of the same proof it can have completely different effects. I can go at my flask full of cheap 80 proof whiskey and not feel it for a long time and have it come on slow and steadily. My flask is 6 oz which (according to some sources) equates to 6 shots. By the end of that I'm happily drunk but not trashed. One shot of good, expensive gin (still only 80 proof) and I feel it. A two shot gin and tonic later and I was happily drunk.
By the same token it takes 4 to 5 crappy light beers (supposedly about 4.5%) to really even get me buzzed. Two 12 oz bottles of NewCastle (same percentage) or a single pint will get me to the same place.
It usually seems to take between 9 and 11 'drinks' to make me need a toilet and be hung over the next day (done that twice, first time to see what it took, the second time quite by accident -- hope to avoid ever doing it again). If I stay under 8 I can feel that I need to stop drinking but I'm fine. Happily drunk, but still very in control of myself. Wouldn't trust myself to drive or anything, but you get the idea.
To get the idea of what I mean by tipsy, I don't trust myself behind the wheel once tipsy. If I'm even remotely feeling it I make someone else drive.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I think alcon talking about alcohol is the funniest thing ever.
I mean this in a sweet endearing way. It's entirely possible that he won't even get it.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
No, I get it Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
It was possible finals had fried my brain. And you know I haven't seen you in over a year.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: Mike, I turned 21 only this year, so actually have a very small list of beers I've had so far.
But of those I have had, I am a big fan of Dogfish Head 90 and 120 Minute IPAs, and the Victory Beers, especially Hop Devil (if you can't tell, I'm a fan of hops).
But I also like really dark stouts...but have only had a few. Rogue and Youngs (my friend likes those) ahd have only tried a few Belgian brews, with that unique malt flavor and have enjoyed those.
I actually have a bottle of Ommegang Rare Vos here I'm going to split with my dad, probably tomorrow for the Buffalo game. It was right next to the Three Philosophers at the store, but I saw that had...was it cherry? And opted for the Rare Vos.
I'm going to continue my column next semester, and would really appreciate recommendations for beers...so those four you like I will definitely try. Any others?
Yep, Three Philosophers is the one with cherry. It's actually quite subtle and not overpowering at all. Unlike, say, pure Lindeman's Kriek.
If you enjoy teh hops, anything from Stone Brewing will satisfy you for sure.
Take a look at http://beeradvocate.com — you'll get plenty of recommendations from there.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phanto: I'm in Europe now and finding out about this. I'd say I feel it at one shot and am mildly drunk at the 7 shot range.
No one is mildly drunk at the equivalent of 7 shots of alcohol (unless that's over the course of 7-8 hours, on a full stomach). You may not be rip-roaring drunk, and you may not get all silly (or belligerent) but you are definitely drunk enough to be impaired at that point.
I say this as a guy whose started a night with an hour of power. No, I don't recommend it. I prefer my current tolerance which is a couple of drinks and I feel it. But now my drinks are tasty microbrews, not cheap stuff like National Bohemian.
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Mike, Whale: Okocim Porter rocks if you can find it. I prefer it to the Zwyciec Porter. I also have a guilty pleasure in Young's Double Chocolate Stout, and when I am looking for lighter drink, an Otter Creek Copper Ale is usually perfect. Yes, I prefer the darker stuff, which makes fall/winter happy time for me, and summer makes me a sad Panda, what with all the wheat and fruit beers that are out (and a dearth of dark beers).
-Bok
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Mike, I visit Beer Advocate regularly. It makes it easy to sound like I know what I'm talking about. But I always avoid reading about beers I'm about to drink...I don't want to get a skewed idea about the beer.
Bokonon, The Young's Double Chocolate Stout is good, I think I reviewed it... here...althoguh I actually had to hurry through this review, and it wasn't my favorite.
It's actually more fun to write bad reviews about beer. The first beers I reviewer were the Mag Hat Variety Pack, which really weren't good at all. For April Fools, our paper always writes a fake paper, and I'm going to review Keystone and Busch beer. I always talk about the color and smell of the beers, and I've never had Keystone or Busch, but I'm looking forward to putting them to the test.
IMO, I think it's more fun to drink beers slowly, with other people, instead of tossing them back for the sake of getting drunk. I've never actually tried to get trashed, but it only seems like a step down from how I currently drink beer.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I've found the key to handling alcohol well is to, whenever you happen to find yourself handling alcohol, make sure you just don't for whatever reason decide to drink it.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I can't metabolize it.
And there are so many drinks I like. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'm another person with a disappointingly high tolerance.
Posted by krynn (Member # 524) on :
i found that the more frequently i drank, the higher my tolerance was. the whole year i was 21 i already had a great tolerance for alcohol. bar tabs with my friends were always in the hundreds unless we went to a couple choice bars where we knew most of the people that worked there and the owners.
now, i drink much, much less frequently and recognize that i can't hold as much as i used to. good thing i have no desire to drink that much now anyway. 3 drinks does to me what 7 used to, and i think i prefer it that way.
Drinking is honestly a social thing now. whereas when i was younger it was more about partying. i am almost always sober enough to drive anyone home if they need a ride, and when im not usually another friend in the group will be. i think we are just getting more mature with age.
EDIT: we are in the mid to late 20's.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
Last time I drank any alcohol was on my last birthday. I drank 2 mixed drinks over the course of an hour or so and was...tipsy but not so drunk I couldn't walk a straight line. Then I ate a bunch of barbecue food, drank nothing but water, and drove me and the kids back to where we were staying a few hours later.
I don't think I've had more than half a beer or so at a time since I turned 21 other than that.
So...uhh...yeah, probably not well at all, but I don't intend to find out.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I love wine and some hard liquors, but I have almost no tolerance at all. I also don't really enjoy the sensation of being drunk. Lightly buzzed? Okay. Actually drunk? Bleagh. As a result of that I don't drink much, and as a result of not drinking much I have an incredibly low tolerance. The snake is eating its tail!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: I handle it really well, by which I mean I leave it in the store and don't buy it, and when offered it by friends and family, I say no thanks.
I've been wondering since you posted this. I know the post was at least somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but do you mean to say simply that not imbibing alcohol is a good choice for you, or are you also suggesting that having alcohol is a bad choice for everyone that does it?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I would argue that having alcohol is a bad choice for most people, unless they know they will be limiting themselves to just one or two drinks, they enjoy the taste, and they don't greatly mind consuming something that ruins a fairly large number of human lives. For people who fit into that somewhat narrow category, it is probably just fine.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't think it's all that narrow a category at all. I suspect billions of people enjoy alcohol responsibly, and enjoy both the taste and the health benefits of alcohol. I suspect you have seen one too many After-School Specials on television.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Tresopax,
(1)Why is alcohol a bad choice unless you limit yourself to just one or two drinks? If you aren't greatly affected mentally or physically by three or four drinks, like some people in this thread, why the limitation to one or two? If it's a health concern (no binge drinking type rule), then I'd imagine that given, all the various ways to hurt your health, limited binge drinking (if we're counting 3 or 4 drinks in an evening binge drinking )shouldn't be at the top of list of concerns.
(2) Why is alcohol a bad choice if you don't enjoy the taste of it? According to studies, some alcohol, such as a glass of red wine daily, is actually quite a good choice for your health. So you could find alcohol to taste as bad as prune juice (no offense to the prune juice lovers out there!), and drink it for just as good a reason as people drink prune juice.
(3) Why bring the "greatly mind consuming something that ruins a fairly large number of human lives" into the argument? Why should alcohol matter any more than the other things that are ruining people's lives? Twinkies, McDonald's, and other junk food causes the death of far more millions of Americans, just not as visibly as alcohol often does. Does that mean I should stop consuming junk food in moderation, just because others aren't as disciplined (or in the case of alcoholics, careful to avoid setting off their disease) as they ought to be? Or should I feel guilty for consuming it? If you're concerned about things that ruin large numbers of human lives, perhaps starvation or disease (or obesity if we're limiting ourselves to America) should be at the forefront of your mind, instead of alcohol.
I don't think any of those criteria are good, even if, as Icarus points out, the criteria may not be all that limiting.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I imagine Tresopax avoids automobiles as well.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
Ew to Tresopax's comment that "they don't greatly mind consuming something that ruins a fairly large number of human lives".
If you can't control yourself - that's your* problem. If so-and-so can't quit drinking after feeling a warm fuzzy feeling and having previously secured a designated sober driver - that's their problem.
Yeah - drinking too much has the capability to ruin a life ( i can speak firsthand about my cousin dying by the hands/foot/whatever of a drunk driver ) . That doesn't make drinking bad for everyone. Only those that can't handle it. It's YOUR responsibility to realize that you can't handle it. Unfortunately, it's our responsibility to pick up the pieces if you don't.
*please note - the 'your' is not Tresopax.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Tresopax,
(1)Why is alcohol a bad choice unless you limit yourself to just one or two drinks? If you aren't greatly affected mentally or physically by three or four drinks, like some people in this thread, why the limitation to one or two? If it's a health concern (no binge drinking type rule), then I'd imagine that given, all the various ways to hurt your health, limited binge drinking (if we're counting 3 or 4 drinks in an evening binge drinking )shouldn't be at the top of list of concerns.
It's also worth pointing out that there's nothing necessarily wrong with drinking to or somewhat past the point of intoxication. If it isn't a habitual act, if you take precautions to do so in a safe spot, if you either drink somewhere where you can spend the night or arrange for transportation for yourself, if it doesn't violate your religious beliefs, and if you don't drink so much that you endanger your health in any significant way, getting drunk isn't a bad thing. It isn't something that I enjoy, but I have no problem with other people doing it and finding pleasure in it.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I agree, Noemon. I was just trying to make the simplest, least objectable counterargument.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Oh, sure, I was more adding to what you were saying than arguing with you about it.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Dandy.
Tonight I was clever, and didn't have any wine while studying for finals. I did slack off and go to dinner with a good friend from undergrad who was in town for the weekend. He just finished his finals (he's still a senior), and apparently went to one exam still drunk (no, not hungover) from the day before when he had flipped out while studying. (He's a very, very good student, ended up finishing the exam first anyways, and we've both been out drinking with prof before, so I doubt it was a big deal. Ah, undergrad life.)
Hopefully that will not be my fate when I'm studying for tomorrow for the third final on Tuesday. No flipping out, no drinking. Tuesday night, though...
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
This thread won't be complete until some posts in it while drunk. Since its Sunday night, I guess we'll have to wait a bit.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Well, when I originally posted, I was feeling the wine. Not enough to make mistakes in typing, but enough to need to pay attention, if you know what I mean?
Depending on how I'm feeling (i.e. if I'm not exhausted), and what my classmates are doing, Tuesday night might be the lucky night. If I do get drunk, I'll try to remember to post.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Let the record show that I am posting slightly buzzed. Time for bed. Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I had a higher resistance when I was younger. Now I tend to get sleepy after two or three alcoholic beverages, but then, I rarely drink more than one. Even when my resistance was higher, I rarely enjoyed the effects: everyone around me would be laughing their heads off, and I would be getting a kind of numb emotional detatchment that made me even more aware when people around me were behaving like idiots.
Playing "First Person Shooters" gave me a weird kind of point of reference for the only time in my life I've been well and truly drunk (bachelor party.) It was like going from sixty frames per second to, say, three... I would turn my head ninety degrees, and there was nothing "between" looking forward and looking to the side. (Which truly made me wonder how stupid someone would have to be to attempt to drive in such a state...)
These days, I'll have a glass of wine if the bottle's open and people are being sociable, but that's pretty much it. And that's where I'm comfortable.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:(1)Why is alcohol a bad choice unless you limit yourself to just one or two drinks? If you aren't greatly affected mentally or physically by three or four drinks, like some people in this thread, why the limitation to one or two?
Because, in all seriousness, a large percentage of the people I know who think they aren't affected mentally or physically by three or four drinks, clearly actually are. It obviously depends on what the drink is, though.
quote:(2) Why is alcohol a bad choice if you don't enjoy the taste of it? According to studies, some alcohol, such as a glass of red wine daily, is actually quite a good choice for your health. So you could find alcohol to taste as bad as prune juice (no offense to the prune juice lovers out there!), and drink it for just as good a reason as people drink prune juice.
I suppose, if you really think the health benefits of alcohol are that great that they'd be worth drinking stuff you don't like, this would follow. I'd go with drinking something even more healthy though, if that is the case. I actually don't know anyone who claims to drink purely for health benefits, but I have no doubt some are out there.
My main point here was not that "taste" is the only reason to drink, but rather that "to alter your state of mind" is NOT a good reason to drink. The latter is usually what people seem to be after when they say they are drinking something alcoholic but don't enjoy the taste. And to drink something in an effort to impair yourself, even slightly, is both unethical and disrespectful to yourself. I say unethical because it is essentially the same as giving control of your body and actions to somebody with poorer judgement than you. I've heard many claim that things they did while drunk were really done by the alcohol - but this of course is an excuse; their unethical decision to drink too much in the first place put themselves in the situation where they might do something wrong. And secondly, I say disrespectful to yourself because if you are intentially impairing yourself the implication is that, at least temporarily, you don't want to be your normal self. Often the reasoning behind this has something to do with having too many inhibitions, or being unable to have fun. I don't mean to say that there is anything wrong with trying to change yourself, or trying to get rid of your inhibitions. The problem is doing it artificially. If you want to change yourself, you should actually change yourself - your real personality. Relying on alcohol or other things to do it for you, when you can actually do it yourself, is treating those things as a crutch, and disrespecting your ability to be the person you'd like to be. (There are definitely cases where a person can't change themselves, I'd like to note - which is where prescription drugs do come in handy, such as with psychological diseases.) This point is tricky to explain, but I think it is what is most distinctively troublesome about alcohol and other mind-altering drugs. Eating or drinking something purely for the sake of changing yourself temporarily goes beyond just being potentially unhealthy and dangerous, because it also harms the way you look at yourself. I've most definitely known people who became considerably less fun once they began believing they could not have fun without a few drinks.
So, bottom line: The reason matters. If you enjoy the taste, that is fine. If you want the health benefits and believe they are significant, that is fine too. But if you are out to adjust your mental state a bit, I think there's a problem.
quote:(3) Why bring the "greatly mind consuming something that ruins a fairly large number of human lives" into the argument? Why should alcohol matter any more than the other things that are ruining people's lives? Twinkies, McDonald's, and other junk food causes the death of far more millions of Americans, just not as visibly as alcohol often does. Does that mean I should stop consuming junk food in moderation, just because others aren't as disciplined (or in the case of alcoholics, careful to avoid setting off their disease) as they ought to be? Or should I feel guilty for consuming it?
You should feel guilty if you consume things without paying any consideration to the harmful effects those things may have on society. But I don't think you should feel guilty if you do consider it, yet think the benefits of consuming it outweigh the benefits of taking a stand against it. You obviously cannot take a stand against everything that is in any way harmful.
The difference between alcohol and cars or fast food, is that the benefits are much less. Cars are extremely beneficial - they allow me to do many things I could not do otherwise. Fast food is less beneficial, but does allow me to have a quick meal, at a low cost in both time and money, that (hopefully) tastes pretty good. The benefits of alcohol are considerably more limited - it tastes good to some people, and it may have some health benefits. In my view, that's not enough to justify consuming something that seems to be more harmful than either cars or fast food.
People take stands against all sorts of things. Some people don't eat meat. Some people don't go to Walmarts. Some people won't vote for anyone who is pro-choice. I'm not saying any given stand on principle is necessary to take. But what I am saying is that one should at least consider the moral implications of something on society before one does it. If you don't think it is so bad that it warrants not doing, so be it. But if you really do think something like junk food destroys enough lives, and you don't get that much value out of it, you could definitely consider not consuming it. It is a matter of personal judgement.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:And to drink something in an effort to impair yourself, even slightly, is both unethical and disrespectful to yourself. I say unethical because it is essentially the same as giving control of your body and actions to somebody with poorer judgement than you.
If I impair my judgment in a way that does not affect society, and I am comfortable with and willing to accept the decisions I make while slightly impaired, is it still unethical? For example, I've done many things while very tired. During those times, which could easily be avoided by sleep or a scheduling change, my judgment is probably not its best? Is that unethical too?
quote:You should feel guilty if you consume things without paying any consideration to the harmful effects those things may have on society.
This does not describe the majority of people I know, that is, most of the people that I drink with do consider the harmful effects they may have on society and often times take measures to prevent such effects while in an inebriated state.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If I impair my judgment in a way that does not affect society, and I am comfortable with and willing to accept the decisions I make while slightly impaired, is it still unethical?
Yes - because you don't know what decisions you will make while impaired and you don't know whether or not they will hurt society, yourself, or anything else. I would think, though, that making yourself slightly impaired is only slightly unethical, while trying to become very impaired is correspondingly very unethical.
quote:During those times, which could easily be avoided by sleep or a scheduling change, my judgment is probably not its best? Is that unethical too?
I'd think that avoiding sleep intentionally in order to impair your judgement is similarly unethical. Missing sleep because you have a good reason is not necessarily unethical, but neither is having your judgement impaired slightly because you enjoy the taste of alcohol. Remember, my point was that drinking is a problem in part when the intent is solely to impair oneself.
quote:This does not describe the majority of people I know, that is, most of the people that I drink with do consider the harmful effects they may have on society and often times take measures to prevent such effects while in an inebriated state.
Yes, I would think that is true.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tres: you know what decisions you will make when not impaired? Furthermore, you know whether or not you will hurt society, yourself, or anything else, in advance?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Remember, Tres believes in qualia. The idea that someone can fundamentally change their own behavior by ingesting a drug has to seem like the worst sort of self-abuse.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm just not entirely sure he knows the difference between a couple of glasses of wine and, say, dropping acid.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres: you know what decisions you will make when not impaired?
No, but I know that the decisions I make will be based upon my judgement, and not some watered-down version of my judgement.
In my view, we never really know for sure what's right or wrong, but the one fundamental ethical rule that we should always follow, no matter what belief system we have, is that we do what seems right according to our best judgement at the time. That would be my opinion.
But that is why doing something now to intentionally prevent myself from using my best judgement in the future seems to me to be inherently unethical.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ah, so do you view choosing to talk a bit more than one usually might as an unethical thing if it happens after one has had a few glasses of wine? That's one sort of 'impairment' we're talking about here, after all; mild changes in probability of engaging in certain kinds of innocuous social behavior. It is a change in one's normal 'decision-making' (insofar as the many subconscious vagaries that are involved constitute decisions), but for issues which I do not, in the general, view as morally constituted -- whether or not I tell a few more bad jokes, say.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
It depends -- do the bad jokes involve puns?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
As I said, intentionally making yourself slightly impaired is only slightly unethical, because the chances that'd you end up making a significant decision and have the decision changed by the slight impairment is.... slight!
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
What about other forms of slight impairment, like decision making when you're tired, or hungry?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Along that line, given that one is in a wide variety of mentally different states throughout even a single typical day, which one is the ethical one?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I think that if you are intentionally making yourself tired or hungry just to alter your mind and impair your judgement, then that is unethical in a similar way.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that I am bothered by the word "impaired". I am not sure that a pleasant "buzz" is necessarily an impairment.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I would back it up and question the assumption that impairment is a goal. Most people who drink for the effects and not merely for the health benefits would not agree that they are seeking to impair themselves. I think they would argue that what they are seeking is the enjoyable feeling that moderate quantities of alcohol can provide, and that one only becomes impaired when one has a more than adequate amount of alcohol. I don't agree that being more loquacious, for instance, is an impairment--not is it a goal for most people, but a willingly accepted mild side-effect.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ah, so the difference is in changes that are intentional. One thing that impacts people's decision making is their sleep schedule. What is the default sleep schedule with which to compare the other possible choices for impairment?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Emotions can "impair" judgment as well. Considerably more (for me) than the occasional glass of wine. I don't intend to avoid having emotions.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Good heavens. I think you're taking an argument with Tresopax far too seriously.
You're starting to sound like him.
It's enough to drive me to drinking.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
It's unethical to make the decision to start drinking if you're tired or hungry. Just FYI.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Wow, I really thought Scott had won the thread there, but then JT pulls off an incredible turnaround at the buzzer. Incredible!
--Enigmatic
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I would back it up and question the assumption that impairment is a goal. Most people who drink for the effects and not merely for the health benefits would not agree that they are seeking to impair themselves.
That is a good point. I suppose the line in my thinking would be the difference between simply intending to have an experience versus intending to alter your own state. For instance, tasting a glass of orange juice gives you the experience of that taste, but it generally doesn't alter your thinking. I suppose a buzz, to some degree, could be categorized in the same way, since it is an experience too. But there is a very very thin line between drinking to experience something that makes you happy and drinking in an effort to alter yourself so you are happier, if you understand the distiniction I am getting at.
quote:One thing that impacts people's decision making is their sleep schedule. What is the default sleep schedule with which to compare the other possible choices for impairment?
I would only say a sleep schedule could be unethical for that reason only if you designed it intentionally for the purpose of altering your own mind, or if it were so extreme that your decisions are radically altered. But getting a little less sleep because you have too much work to do is no more unethical than drinking a glass of wine for health benefits - in both cases you have a reason for it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Fun or enjoyment is a reason.
edit to add: Scott, no one is forcing you to read it. Don't, if it bothers you.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Good heavens. I think you're taking an argument with Tresopax far too seriously.
Icarus asked a question. I answered it with my opinion. Then other people asked further questions about my opinion. Then I answered those. Is that not what I should have done? If you would prefer that I ignore when people ask questions, rather than spend my time trying to write a somewhat thoughtful response, I can certainly do so. After all, it would be far easier and less time-consuming to simply jump into threads without really adding anything meaningful, and only throw out one-liner insults at folks.
[ December 17, 2007, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Tres, as someone who has often taken an argument with you far too seriously, I have learned that you often seem to craft arguments simply to be contrary (or to argue from a position that is largely theoretical/ideal, rather than rooted in practical reality).
Arguing for argument's sake, or arguing against a theoretical absolutist, isn't something to take too seriously.
Now, it may just *seem* that way and you are always truly honest in your arguments, or you may simply enjoy the role of Devil's Advocate (often in your Xap persona), but either way, it can feel as though one is beating their head against a wall discussing a point with you.
That said, I shared your position until my third year of college, during which time I had never taken a drink. I now have become something of a connoisseur of beer and wine - seeking out new and interesting flavors and styles. If you had told me nine years ago that would be the case, I would have laughed at you - but things and views change.
I am curious if you have the same opinions in another decade that you do today.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
There are a good many medications that could impair your thinking (like a sleep aid that leaves your drowsy for part of the day) that I very much doubt we'd want to call unethical.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I don't want to get involved in this debate any further than I already have, but I'm feeling the need to point out that many of the people who are arguing with Tres are missing a key part of his argument. In his view of things, behavior that results in a change in mental state is only immoral if the person engages in that behavior with the specific intent of inducing that change. That's certainly a point that can be argued, but ignoring it or missing it is just resulting in the discussion going around in circles.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Tres, how are you defining "specific intent to alter one's mental state"?
I generally think that people intend the known consequences of their actions. If someone knows that alcohol changes their mental state, and they knowingly drink alcohol, then they intended to change their mental state.
If the reason they took the drink was actually the taste - or to improve their health - then they intended more than one thing with the act of drinking.
If only the taste consequence was desired, then tasting something good is their motive. But they still intended to alter their mental state if they knew that would happen when they took the drink.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I get that; I just don't think that "altered" is necessarily "impaired".
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Kate, was that in response to me? You weren't one of the people I thought was missing Tres' point.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Dag, I think your separation of motive & intention is a very useful one, and one I agree with. With this distinction in mind, I would agree that if your motive in drinking alcohol is to impair your judgment ("Let's get really drunk and make some bad decisions! Yee-haw!"), then you're making a morally bad choice. And, sadly, I have witnessed behavior or overheard conversations (on college campuses) that suggest that some young adults (mis)use alcohol in this way - they deliberately get drunk in order to get "an excuse" to do things that they know are wrong. However, I would be very surprised if any regular poster on Hatrack did this.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Altered isn't necessarily impaired however numerous studies confirm that alcohol consumption IMPAIRS a variety of mental processes including information processing, simple reactions times, choice reaction times and a variety of higher order cognitive abilities.
In a completely unscientific study at a party while I was in graduate school, a group of largely guys were measuring their reaction times/ reflexes in starting and stopping a stop watch before and after consuming alcohol. Pretty much everyone was astonished at how their reaction time slowed even when they weren't obviously drunk. Of course the magnitude of the effect was quite different on different people, but it was a very consistent effect.
I think that even if you don't feel impaired after drinking a couple glasses of wine or a couple beers, a quantitative test would be able to detect impairment. Whether that impairment is significant enough to be of serious concern is another matter.
Its also worthy of note that "mental state" is a very broad term that could refer to a wide range of mental abilities. While research shows that some mental abilities are clearly impaired by alcohol, there are other abilities like creativity, conversational ability, empathy, and perhaps others which may actually be improved (at least for some individuals) by alcohol.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
What about certain kinds of fasting? It's deliberately avoiding food in order to have a spiritual experience, which is probably partially brought about by not eating. In fact, there are a number of religious experiences where the goal is an altered state of consciousness.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Shigosei, you are a marvel.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Tresopax, do you consider the use of pain killers, especially strong prescription ones, unethical? Both can severely impair your judgement and motor skills. Alleviating pain through the use of painkillers is no more a health benefit than, say, alleviating stress or social anxiety through moderate alcohol consumption. Both typically have the aforementioned alleviation as the goal of consumption.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Alleviating pain through the use of painkillers is no more a health benefit than, say, alleviating stress or social anxiety through moderate alcohol consumption.
That may not be true. There are several studies indicating that proper pain management speeds healing.
I also don't think "fasting" is a valid comparison unless you are simply getting nickpicky about words. Although fasting, meditation, and chanting are often done to achieve an altered mental state, I've never heard of anyone wrecklessly driving a car off a mountain road, robbing a convience store or getting pregnant because they'd fasted or meditated too much.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:That may not be true. There are several studies indicating that proper pain management speeds healing.
There are several studies indicating that proper management of your stress & anxiety levels maintains health.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Do those studies say that drinking is "proper management" of stress and anxiety levels?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Do those studies say that drinking is "proper management" of stress and anxiety levels?
Those studies tend to avoid naming what does and doesn't qualify as "proper management," since what works as stress relief varies near infinitely between people.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I can just imagine the tale now. A group of buddhist monks, after a week long session of fasting and meditation enter an altered mental state, they go on a rampage destroying ancient art works through out the temple, eventuall they break down the doors to the nuns quarters and . . . .
Christians everywhere are outraged by the horrendous effects of fasting and meditation. Laws are passed prohiting minors from meditating and making it illegal to drive a car unless you have eaten within the last 4 hours. Children who come to school without having eaten a proper breakfast are suspended. Special clinics are set up to help people break the habit of fasting and prayer.
FPMA (fasters, prayers and meditators annonymous) groups form through out the country.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Fasting at a certain level not uncommonly produces hallucinations. I have seen the effects of bad judgment calls in such cases, including unintended pregnancy.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Do those studies say that drinking is "proper management" of stress and anxiety levels?
Those studies tend to avoid naming what does and doesn't qualify as "proper management," since what works as stress relief varies near infinitely between people.
A study that tests actual pain management techniques, including pain medication, can provide direct evidence that pain medication can help speed healing.
A study that avoids naming what qualifies as proper management of stress and anxiety provides no direct evidence that alcohol helps provide health benefits by properly managing stress and anxiety.
Edit: I should note that I'm not saying studies don't exist that provide evidence of alcohol's health benefits with respect to proper management and stress and anxiety. Such studies may exist - I don't know.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
[Edited to add: this is not directed to Dagonee's post, but rather in regards to the prior posts]
The thing is, if one takes an absolutist stance with regards to a choice which is intended to impair judgment, then one has taken an absolutist stance. Relativity regarding more worse effects is beyond the point.
[That is to say, even if fasting usually doesn't have bad efects on judgment for as many people as alcohol does, for the absolutist stance, this is irrelevant. I myself don't find the absolutist stance of "anything intended to alter consciousness is bad," so I can't and won't defend it well. But I am trying to keep these positions in the various scenarios offered from being muddled, because I think that introduces yet more confusion.]
If one does not take an absolutist stance, then the most informed and useful approach to assessing damage is to assessing by relevant subgroups -- some groups have virtually no to no negative sequelae, and some have a lot. Many are in between. So one can assuredly say that depending on which group characteristics you fit, you might tend to have bad outcomes -- and in those cases (if one's argument is based on outcomes), it is wrong to make that choice.
However, a corollary is going to be that not all groups are going to be risking much if anything, and so (by outcomes) an across-the-board condemnation just isn't supported.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Do those studies say that drinking is "proper management" of stress and anxiety levels?
Those studies tend to avoid naming what does and doesn't qualify as "proper management," since what works as stress relief varies near infinitely between people.
Would you please give us some references to such studies since I find it impossible to imagine how such a study could be done.
Unless you define "proper stress management" in some terms, it would be impossible to have a control group that didn't have proper stress management. Without that, there is no way to make a conclusion that proper stress management improved health.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think the evaluation of acts which impair judgment is multi-dimensional. Some of the factors that matter:
1) The benefits derived from the act.
2) The amount of impairment.
3) The type of impairment.
4) The possible consequences of impairment.
5) The probability of the consequences occurring.
6) The ability and willingness to cure any negative consequences that do occur.
These factors inter-relate in unexpected ways. Moreover, a person performing a mind-impairing act can take steps to alter each of these factors - arranging for a designated driver, limiting one's intake of mind-altering substance, etc.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:A study that tests actual pain management techniques, including pain medication, can provide direct evidence that pain medication can help speed healing.
A study that avoids naming what qualifies as proper management of stress and anxiety provides no direct evidence that alcohol helps provide health benefits by properly managing stress and anxiety.
If you'd like me to be more specific, there have been several studies that show alcohol may help reduce stress and anxiety levels.
quote:Non-catastrophic events showed the greatest buffer effects from alcohol use. For depressive symptoms the greatest buffer effect was produced by occasional drinking; moderate drinking had a less pronounced effect. For somatic symptoms, buffer effects were suggested for both moderate and heavy drinkers.
quote:Stress reduction, mood elevation, increased sociability, and relaxation are the most commonly reported psychosocial benefits of drinking alcohol (Baum-Baicker 1985; Hauge and Irgens-Jensen 1990; Leigh and Stacy 1991; Makela and Mustonen 1988).
quote:That moderate alcohol consumption may be beneficial to mental health was initially suggested by Bell, Keeley, and Buhl's (1977) seminal correlational study based on interviews with 2000 randomly selected adults in the southern United States. Abstainers (including former heavy drinkers, a confounding factor) scored highest on anxiety and heavy drinkers highest on depression; light or moderate drinkers scored lowest on both. Bell et al. (p. 121) concluded "that the heavy alcohol user cannot be differentiated from the abstainer on the basis of psychopathological symptom configurations." The finding that abstainers often display rigid, avoidant coping styles has been supported by more recent research (Mertens, Moos & Brennan, 1996; Watten, 1996). These findings suggest that abstainers share certain coping characteristics with problem drinkers or alcoholics, as indeed certain alcoholics alternate between these two extremes.
In another important correlational study, Lipton (1994) found with a southern California population a strong U-shaped relationship between alcohol consumption and depression in the presence of chronic strain combined with negative experiences, replicating a similar finding by Neff and Husaini (1982) in rural Tennessee. Although these studies did not control for the possibility that some abstainers had stopped drinking because of a preexisting health or drinking problem, Lipton found that overall results were unaffected when controlling for self-reported physical health. Moreover, relatively few of the large proportion of abstainers (66%) in Neff and Husaini's study were likely former problem drinkers, showing that moderate drinkers can have a psychosocial advantage over abstainers even where abstinence is a norm. Studies using other populations and methods also have found superior mental health among moderate drinkers (Liu, Waterbor, & Soong, 1996; Winefield, Goldney, Winefield, & Tiggeman, 1992).
Notwithstanding the dearth of prospective or better-controlled community studies, there is substantial evidence that moderate drinking is an indicator and perhaps a cause of good mental health. The U-shaped curves found in studies in which some controls were applied or where age considerations ruled out any substantial proportion of former problem drinkers increase the credibility of these findings, suggesting a parallel with physical health outcomes.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The thing is, if one takes an absolutist stance with regards to a choice which is intended to impair judgment, then one has taken an absolutist stance. Relativity regarding more worse effects is beyond the point.
This I agree with completely and not just regarding this particular discussion. It is hard to find any absolutest stance that can't be pushed to an extreme that illustrates its obsurdity.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Kate, was that in response to me? You weren't one of the people I thought was missing Tres' point.
Oh! N'mind then.
Originally posted by Rabbit:
quote: Altered isn't necessarily impaired however numerous studies confirm that alcohol consumption IMPAIRS a variety of mental processes including information processing, simple reactions times, choice reaction times and a variety of higher order cognitive abilities.
In a completely unscientific study at a party while I was in graduate school, a group of largely guys were measuring their reaction times/ reflexes in starting and stopping a stop watch before and after consuming alcohol. Pretty much everyone was astonished at how their reaction time slowed even when they weren't obviously drunk. Of course the magnitude of the effect was quite different on different people, but it was a very consistent effect.
I think that even if you don't feel impaired after drinking a couple glasses of wine or a couple beers, a quantitative test would be able to detect impairment. Whether that impairment is significant enough to be of serious concern is another matter.
Its also worthy of note that "mental state" is a very broad term that could refer to a wide range of mental abilities. While research shows that some mental abilities are clearly impaired by alcohol, there are other abilities like creativity, conversational ability, empathy, and perhaps others which may actually be improved (at least for some individuals) by alcohol.
Exactly. The alteration may be an impairment for certain things, but an enhancement of others. Depends on your goal. For driving, impairment; for something else? Maybe not.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:The thing is, if one takes an absolutist stance with regards to a choice which is intended to impair judgment, then one has taken an absolutist stance. Relativity regarding more worse effects is beyond the point.
This I agree with completely and not just regarding this particular discussion. It is hard to find any absolutest stance that can't be pushed to an extreme that illustrates its obsurdity.
I just realized that this itself could be seen as an abolute condemnation of absolutism.
Anyone want to try to push it it its logically obsurd extemes!
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
There is some research out there rom the late 90s and the oughts that shows a benefit to cognitive processing in some older adults from moderate alcohol consumption.
For example, this study out of the Netherlands (link is to BBC lay article) of 8000 people that showed that "Light-to-moderate alcohol consumption (one to three drinks a day) was associated with a 42% risk reduction of all dementia and about a 70% reduction in risk of vascular dementia (dementia caused by a series of small strokes)."
The benefit seemed most pronounced in people with a genetic predisposition to Alzheimer's. although the benefit is not limited to that group. Preventing dementia is certainly one element of maintaining improved mental health, and though there are many ways to go about this, moderate alcohol use (especially for certain subgroups) when there are no relevant contraindications may well be one reasonable and justifiable way to do so.
There are other recent confirmatory studies, and many more are under play but not yet completed or not yet published. I can find more if it matters to someone.
---
Look, one doesn't have to believe that all alcohol use is all bad for everyone, or even that it is a lesser choice for everyone, in order to make the choice oneself not to imbibe it, or to make the claim that or some people, it is likely a very bad choice indeed. But if one takes it further than that, I think that it is moving beyond the realm of what is supported by the research and into a realm of what one supposes or hopes might be supported by it. (Not that hoping for or supposing things in itself is bad, just that it might not be supported.)
---
Edited to add: And not that anyone here is necessarily making that claim, either! I think Tresopax may be, but that's just my read on what he has written, and I think it's best to let him speak for himself.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I thought it was "absurd", with an "a" at the beginning.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres, as someone who has often taken an argument with you far too seriously, I have learned that you often seem to craft arguments simply to be contrary (or to argue from a position that is largely theoretical/ideal, rather than rooted in practical reality).
Arguing for argument's sake, or arguing against a theoretical absolutist, isn't something to take too seriously.
Now, it may just *seem* that way and you are always truly honest in your arguments, or you may simply enjoy the role of Devil's Advocate (often in your Xap persona), but either way, it can feel as though one is beating their head against a wall discussing a point with you.
I do not ever spend multiple pages crafting arguments on this forum simply to be contrary. That is a waste of my time/effort and yours. You can take that as a fact.
I do base many arguments in theory, because that is the way I think. And I do often argue against widely accepted common sense assumptions when I think there is a strong argument to be made against them that others are skipping over and which I myself can't see a clear answer to. I don't do this to mess with people. I do it because I believe, in complete seriousness, that even widely accepted assumptions should be questioned and that it is better to try and look at things from a variety of perspectives rather than just whatever one we are used to. The most important question for me to ask, in my view, is the one that is still unanswered, yet nobody else is asking.
If you or others feel that you are banging your head against a wall, I suspect the reason is because I sometimes don't, in the end, accept what you consider to be the common sense truth. But do you really expect me to? Give me some credit - I'm not just making stuff up on the spot; I've thought considerably about these things before. It is not likely that I'm just going to do a 180 on any given topic simply from a single thread, no matter how long it goes. Similarly, I don't expect TomDavidson to accept religion just because someone tells him to in a thread, I don't expect Reshpeckobiggle to reject creationism just because someone points to evidence against it, and so on. People, including myself, have thought out their positions, and the arguments against their positions - it will take more than a few posts to change them.
So, I don't see how any of this justifies taking my posts any less seriously than anyone else who is giving their opinion on a serious topic. But more importantly, (and this is not directed at anyone in particular) if you don't wish to take my view seriously, just skip over it and leave it be. Don't jump in with a one-line insult that adds nothing to the thread (and distracts me from people who are asking real questions). Don't skim over my post and then respond against whatever strawman position you think I probably am taking. Don't go to sakeriver or elsewhere and complain about me, as if it isn't on the internet where everyone can see it. And don't put comments on other threads along the lines of "This is the first time I agree with him!" Don't do this for me or for anyone else. If you don't want to treat some Hatracker seriously, just don't read his or her posts. Thank you.
Now, back to your regularly schedule thread:
quote:Tres, how are you defining "specific intent to alter one's mental state"?
I generally think that people intend the known consequences of their actions. If someone knows that alcohol changes their mental state, and they knowingly drink alcohol, then they intended to change their mental state.
I'm actually not very sure how to define it. But I do think it is possible to intend one consequence of an action, and simply accept other consequences as known-but-possibly-undesireable side effects. For instance, if I have insomnia and take a medicine to go to sleep, but I know it will give me a headache when I wake up, I am not taking it with the intent to get a headache.
Perhaps motive is the better word, legally speaking.
quote:What about certain kinds of fasting? It's deliberately avoiding food in order to have a spiritual experience, which is probably partially brought about by not eating. In fact, there are a number of religious experiences where the goal is an altered state of consciousness.
That's a tricky question. I don't really know much about fasting as a method of altering your state of mind. If you know it will impair your judgement in some way, I could see how that would be unethical too.
Fasting seems to skip over my second concern though - which I (for lack of a more descriptive term) labeled disrespecting yourself. When people seek to alter themselves through alcohol, it seems to carry with it the idea that there is some flaw in themselves they want to get rid of for a while. Commonly, I've heard people claim they are more fun while drunk. I think this is disrespctful to one's self because it presumes you are incapable of being fun on your own, that you need an artificial means to fix yourself. In the case of fasting, I would think there is no such implication - you are not saying there is something wrong with you. So fasting, as I understand it, would only carry half of the problem.
But again, as I said, I don't really know much about fasting or what people intend to do through it.
[ December 17, 2007, 11:26 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I think this is disrespctful to one's self because it presumes you are incapable of being fun on your own, that you need an artificial means to fix yourself.
Y'know, if you also find the use of any/all mood enhancers/modifiers (e.g. the vast majority of drugs prescribed through psychotherapy) unethical and disrespectful of oneself, then your viewpoint is at least consistent.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Look, one doesn't have to believe that all alcohol use is all bad for everyone, or even that it is a lesser choice for everyone, in order to make the choice oneself not to imbibe it, or to make the claim that or some people, it is likely a very bad choice indeed.
And I myself and am example. I have chosen not to drink alcohol for a variety of reasons and yet I recognize that for many people moderate alcohol use isn't a bad thing and in some situations for some people moderate alcohol use can be beneficial. But I have also known people who have seriously skewed up their lives by excessive drinking and for me any potential benefits are out weighed by the risks.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I thought it was "absurd", with an "a" at the beginning.
And you are correct. Obsurd means to cause hearing damage which was not my intended meaning.
D**N the freaking non-phonetics of the English language.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: This I agree with completely and not just regarding this particular discussion. It is hard to find any absolutest stance that can't be pushed to an extreme that illustrates its obsurdity.
Oh, for sure.
I also am not under the impression (illusion ) that everyone who drinks is doing it to get positive longterm effects. This would be even harder to swallow in the case of binge drinking, which represents by far the most significant social & physical morbidity and mortality from alcohol use. Binge drinkers are usually not dependent (in the medical sense) on alcohol, and thus are not generally in the group thought of as "alcoholics," but they are most seriously affected by problem drinking.
I'd argue that alcohol abuse (particularly binge drinking, particularly in certain circumstances) is the single greatest cause of life problems in the US, other than other medical or mental health disorders. I'm not pro-gettting-boozed-up across the board at all, in case that wasn't clear.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: But I have also known people who have seriously skewed up their lives by excessive drinking and for me any potential benefits are out weighed by the risks.
Which I think (for all that's worth ) is a very reasonable and justifiable decision to make, and I admire you both for thinking it through carefully and for following through on your decisions. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I think the evaluation of acts which impair judgment is multi-dimensional. Some of the factors that matter:
1) The benefits derived from the act.
2) The amount of impairment.
3) The type of impairment.
4) The possible consequences of impairment.
5) The probability of the consequences occurring.
6) The ability and willingness to cure any negative consequences that do occur.
These factors inter-relate in unexpected ways. Moreover, a person performing a mind-impairing act can take steps to alter each of these factors - arranging for a designated driver, limiting one's intake of mind-altering substance, etc.
This is probably all correct... But I am not very confident in the average person's ability to weigh all these factors very well, especially once they've started drinking. I say this not based on any scientific study, but just based on things I've observed friends and other people choosing to do.
quote:Look, one doesn't have to believe that all alcohol use is all bad for everyone, or even that it is a lesser choice for everyone, in order to make the choice oneself not to imbibe it, or to make the claim that or some people, it is likely a very bad choice indeed.
I am not arguing that all alcohol use is bad. My claim, now modified from what it was intiailly, is that it is fine as long as you (1)don't use too much, (2)have the correct sort of intentions/motives for using it, and (3)don't feel a moral obligation to avoid something that causes the sort of damage that alcohol does to the world.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
If one is fasting to achieve enlightenment or spiritual insight, then one might be viewed as thinking of oneself as incapable of doing it on one's own.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: My claim, now modified from what it was intiailly, is that it is fine as long as you (1)don't use too much, (2)have the correct sort of intentions/motives for using it, and (3)don't feel a moral obligation to avoid something that causes the sort of damage that alcohol does to the world.
Understood. Thanks for the clarification.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Y'know, if you also find the use of any/all mood enhancers/modifiers (e.g. the vast majority of drugs prescribed through psychotherapy) unethical and disrespectful of oneself, then your viewpoint is at least consistent.
I'd distinguish between trying to fight psychological diseases versus trying to alter other personal traits. I think there is a difference.
But I don't, for instance, like the consistent usage of coffee in the morning to make you more alert - for precisely that reason.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:The thing is, if one takes an absolutist stance with regards to a choice which is intended to impair judgment, then one has taken an absolutist stance. Relativity regarding more worse effects is beyond the point.
This I agree with completely and not just regarding this particular discussion. It is hard to find any absolutest stance that can't be pushed to an extreme that illustrates its obsurdity.
I just realized that this itself could be seen as an absolute condemnation of absolutism.
Anyone want to try to push it it its logically absurd extemes![?]
Death to all extremists!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Death to all extremists!
We will have you shot first, at dawn!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I have a hypothetical question,
If we could eliminate all alcohol from our society (and I know that such a thing is likely impossible but if it weren't impossible) and in doing so we could prevent all the deaths by drunk drivers, all the crimes committed by binge drinkers, all the premature deaths from alcohol abuse, all the divorces caused by alcoholism, all the children born with fetal alcohol syndrom, all the fights between drunks all the child and spouse abuse done by drunks and all the societal problems caused by excessive alcohol use would you want to do it even though it would mean also giving up all the pleasure experienced by moderate drinkers and any health benefits incurred by moderate drinkers?
Would the trade off be worth it to you?
And once again I recognize that this is a fully hypothetical question since we can't eliminate alcohol for our society. But if some magical power existed in which we could make it so that alcohol didn't exist, would that be overall a good or a bad thing?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I'd distinguish between trying to fight psychological diseases versus trying to alter other personal traits. I think there is a difference.
I think there is a difference, too, but the two (among other things) are often so entangled that they become indistinguishable from each other. I don't think one is any more or less deserving of a treatment than the other.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I have a hypothetical question,
If we could eliminate all alcohol from our society (and I know that such a thing is likely impossible but if it weren't impossible) and in doing so we could prevent all the deaths by drunk drivers, all the crimes committed by binge drinkers, all the premature deaths from alcohol abuse, all the divorces caused by alcoholism, all the children born with fetal alcohol syndrom, all the fights between drunks all the child and spouse abuse done by drunks and all the societal problems caused by excessive alcohol use would you want to do it even though it would mean also giving up all the pleasure experienced by moderate drinkers and any health benefits incurred by moderate drinkers?
I think the damage caused by alcohol outweighs the benefits others may obtain from it. I think if the universe had never contained alcohol, it might be a better place.
But if someone discovers a way to eliminate it tomorrow, I won't support it.
Edit to clarify: I'm referring to alcohol for consumption, since Rabbit's post seems to want to differentiate between that and other forms of alcohol, e.g. isopropyl.
[ December 17, 2007, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: erosomniac ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: I think if the universe had never contained alcohol, it might be a better place.
I'm undecided about Rabbit's hypothetical in the present. But in the past, wine, beer and spirits had an important role in providing cleaner beverages than often disease-ridden water. Millions could have died in an alcohol-free universe.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:But in the past, wine, beer and spirits had an important role in providing cleaner beverages than often disease-ridden water. Millions could have died in an alcohol-free universe.
Quite true!
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I agree with erosomniac, on every point.
To add a bit: I think it depends on societal context. In some times and places, drinking the local brew was a better choice, health-wise, than drinking the likely-contaminated water. I don't think that it's required that alcohol be a bad societal force, either by human nature or anything else.
Also, in studying economics, I've found that people generally underestimate the small, marginal benefits of a thing spread across a large population when confronted with a few large, in-your-face costs. (Free trade & manufacturing layoffs is probably the classic example.)
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
The awesomeness of this thread went downhill fast once we got to page two. To do my part to correct this slide, on Friday I'll try to get really drunk, make some terrible choices while drunk and then (hopefully) report back on Saturday. All this theoretical hand waving isn't getting anywhere, we need some actual experimental data.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by HollowEarth: The awesomeness of this thread went downhill fast once we got to page two. To do my part to correct this slide, on Friday I'll try to get really drunk, make some terrible choices while drunk and then (hopefully) report back on Saturday. All this theoretical hand waving isn't getting anywhere, we need some actual experimental data.
As with any experiment, you should be careful to review all the available literature before hand so that you don't waste your time repeating work that someone else has already published.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Would the trade off be worth it to you?
And once again I recognize that this is a fully hypothetical question since we can't eliminate alcohol for our society. But if some magical power existed in which we could make it so that alcohol didn't exist, would that be overall a good or a bad thing?
I honestly don't know. As was mentioned, having it as a beverage was critical at some times in the past. And although I'm not a big believer in making lives harder in order to build character, I'm not sure that making a bad choice unavailable (given that I think in some contexts, it may be a good or at least tenable choice) is better than helping people make better choices in general.***
Maybe, maybe not -- not sure, and definitely not certain I could understand the full ramifications enough to make a good choice here myself. Interesting question, though.
---
Edited for clarification:
*** I think the negative sequelae from problem drinking are very real and very serious. I don't think this is inherent to alcohol, however -- that is, I don't think that "demon alcohol" (to use an old phrase) is the corrupter of man.
I do think there are a lot of people who have a tendency to make choices that get them into trouble (all of us do, to some extent, but some more than others), and that if it weren't alcohol, it would be something else. The problem is in the bad decision-making, not in this substance, which can (I think) itself be used in ill or okay ways.
And to go further out on a limb, I suspect many patterns of making bad choices are driven by an attraction to chaos and problems or a lack of comfort with stability and health. Again, that's just a problem looking for a tool, and there are many tools to drive chaos other than alcohol. I suspect if we *poof*ed out alcohol, those bad decisions would still be made (just different context), and that chaos and trauma would be just as attractive for some.
---
And again added:
I also am not sure that a drive to chaos and drama is always a bad thing. I think it has been behind some of our greatest and inspiring works of art, for example. Just to be clear on that.
[ December 18, 2007, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I'll report in tomorrow night with some experimental data. Does anyone want to draw up a research methods section, or are we just winging this thing?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Tres, I appreciate the answers you've provided. I perceived your original post as making an absolute statement, and as implying a criticism of people who didn't share your absolute position (since you framed it in the guise of advice). Your position seems not to be as cut and dried as it originally appeared, after all. I don't agree with you on many of the particulars, but you have been thoughtful and responsive and I appreciate that.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Seconded. Very much so.
---
Note: editing my last post re: Rabbit's question
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: As with any experiment, you should be careful to review all the available literature before hand so that you don't waste your time repeating work that someone else has already published.
It's frequently beneficial to replicate a previous experiment in order to learn proper methodology.
In this particular instance, I recommend running the experiment multiple times to ensure accuracy.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I'll report in tomorrow night with some experimental data. Does anyone want to draw up a research methods section, or are we just winging this thing?
Well, there always JIR Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Thirded.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
For what it's worth, my partner has just last week been asked by the Canadian federal government to head the research team selected to provide plan and implementation strategies for dealing with problem drinking in that country. I've been doing lit review and editing on draft proposals for the last few months, so the topic is fresh on my mind. As are the problems.
But for all the problems, an abstinence model of treatment is not as effective as a harm reduction model: i.e., helping people learn about and enact better decisions about when and how they drink *** rather than telling them or necessarily encouraging them not to drink at all. The research is pretty clear on this, and it holds across cultural and national boundaries when methodologically assessed as a matter of general policy.
(Of course, the Rabbit Hypothetical is not what is being measured against! It is being assessed against the abstinence model of treatment in this world, where alcohol still exists around us. A different beast, for sure.)
---
Edited to add:
*** And these decision-making skills seem to be transferrable to other types of choices. Without those skills, after alcohol abstinence, the tendency is to find another way to "abuse" (i.e., engage in problem behavior with negative sequelae).
---
Edited agin to add: Alcoholics Anonymous, which is based on the abstinence model, works extremely well for some problem drinkers. However, it doesn't seem to work (for whatever reason) for most people who try it, even though it works very well for some. The numbers for Brief Intervention (the standardized harm reduction approach) are much better overall.
[ December 18, 2007, 12:38 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I perceived your original post as making an absolute statement, and as implying a criticism of people who didn't share your absolute position (since you framed it in the guise of advice).
In fairness, my original one-sentence post was an absolute statement, and not really an accurate statement of what I think. I intended it to be largely tongue-in-cheek; I wasn't quite expecting to get in an actual discussion of what distinguishes when drinking is or is not a good idea, although I probably should have.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I brought up fasting because I've made a choice not to use it as a spiritual practice precisely because I'm well aware of how much not eating interferes with my ability to think clearly. I would not look down on other people for doing it, and I think some people handle it much better than I do.
Also, what's wrong with acknowledging that I do need artificial means to fix myself? I don't drink coffee, but I do take stimulants to stay awake during the day. I'd be unable to have a normal life without artificial help, but I really don't think that makes me less of a person.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I do.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: For what it's worth, my partner has just last week been asked by the Canadian federal government to head the research team selected to provide plan and implementation strategies for dealing with problem drinking in that country. I've been doing lit review and editing on draft proposals for the last few months, so the topic is fresh on my mind. As are the problems.
Congratulations to your partner, it sounds like an honor, and a lot of work. To further your research, shouldn't you two get on-board with HollowEarth's research proposal to get totally smashed and make awful decisions? Be sure to post a shot-by-shot account here. Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Good thing I wasn't asking your opinion, Icky Posted by tt&t (Member # 5600) on :
I handle alcohol very well.
I like the taste (of some but not all), but I can choose whether or not to drink and how much to drink, and I know my limits really well. I would usually drink 1 to 2 glasses and unless I've eaten just before that I would get a bit of the "buzz" (and I do like that feeling). But my actual limit would be about 5 drinks - although I'm not falling down drunk, I would start to feel a bit strange. More than 7 and I'd be feeling sick, and I do not like throwing up from drinking at all, and haven't done that for many years, since I learnt the limits! I can't even remember the last time I even got close to having 5 drinks, but I do have 1 or 2 quite regularly, and I do enjoy it, especially with some cheese and crackers and good company.
In saying that, I have no doubt that I would immediately choose to rid the world of (drinking) alcohol as of tomorrow if this would stop the damage and deaths that it currently causes. But there are many other things I would like to rid the world of, and it's unlikely that any of it will happen...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I was going to comment on the original thread question, but I feel like I just walked into a gathering only to find the people within arguing, and prudence cautions me to slowly back out of the room before someone hears the floorboards creak.
But! I'll answer it anyway, prudence be damned!
Other than the occasional drinks at family holiday parties I never really had a drink before I was 19 (19 being the age around here that people start drinking since Canada is only a few minutes away), and after that I rarely did because even with Canada being so close it wasn't worth the hassle. When I turned 21 I tried to like beer, I really did, but after a couple years and trying different beers I sort of gave up. I found one beer, Franziskaner, that I really liked, but otherwise a sip of beer makes me gag, and though my brother calls it an acquired taste, I don't imagine it's worth the effort. Wine too I've never developed a taste fore.
Fruity girly drinks aren't bad, but I don't drink them (usually) for two reasons: 1. I'm always afraid of having my man card instantly revoked. And 2. Much more importantly, those things are wicked expensive and not worth it at all.
When I'm drinking to get drunk (which happens exactly once a year when I go camping in July), I drink Jaeger, which I find delicious.
Other than that I make a very yummy drink called rum slush (rum mixed with orange juice, iced tea, lots of sugar, lemonade, frozen over a couple days and then mixed with Sprite or 7-UP) that I've had a least a taste of since I was a kid, so I'll always like it.
For the most part, pertaining somewhat to the argument at hand, I don't drink that often (socially once in a great while) mostly because alcoholic drinks are just too expensive and I'm rather frugal about things like that. Still if there's a gathering of sorts amongst my friends and we're in a party mood I've been known to toss back a beer, sometimes even two! But the fact that I don't drink that often and I'm rather on the skinny side leaves me with a pretty weak tolerence. One shot of Jager or two beers and I'm probably not safe to drive for awhile until it wears off. I'm a lightweight, but hey, it also makes me a cheap date.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Congratulations to your partner, it sounds like an honor, and a lot of work. To further your research, shouldn't you two get on-board with HollowEarth's research proposal to get totally smashed and make awful decisions? Be sure to post a shot-by-shot account here.
*grin
It wouldn't go over well.
----
I have imbibed alcohol to the point of getting silly (in a disinhibited state, I am terribly cheerful, and that takes for me like one margarita), but I've never made a bad decision with consequences in such a state.
I did drink specifically to get drunk once, and that was to the point of throwing up, and that was alcohol poisoning. My mother had just told my brother and me that her breast cancer had reoccurred with metastesis, and he wanted to know what that meant. In her and our situation, it meant many bad things, and I had a keen sense of not wanting to be able to think that night for a period of time. We were with very close friends we had had for over fifteen years, one of whom as the designated driver was not drinking anything that night (actually, so was another), and they had offered to take care of us that night.
It was awful, horrible, and I'd never do it again.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: My claim, now modified from what it was intiailly, is that it is fine as long as you (1)don't use too much, (2)have the correct sort of intentions/motives for using it, and (3)don't feel a moral obligation to avoid something that causes the sort of damage that alcohol does to the world.
This is much better than your initial statement. I still disagree with it, however, because I'm not going to let you dictate which motives are the acceptable ones.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Edited agin to add: Alcoholics Anonymous, which is based on the abstinence model, works extremely well for some problem drinkers. However, it doesn't seem to work (for whatever reason) for most people who try it, even though it works very well for some. The numbers for Brief Intervention (the standardized harm reduction approach) are much better overall.
CT - As a member of Alcoholic Anonymous myself, I would love to see this data that you speak of. Because I can't wrap my mind around how a true alcoholic can ever consider "just learning about how to make better decisions when they drink" as opposed to not drinking at all. I can tell you that I can't drink without becoming drunk. My decision has to be made prior to the first drink, or else no good decision will be made at all.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I still disagree with it, however, because I'm not going to let you dictate which motives are the acceptable ones.
*I* don't dictate what motives are acceptable. Reality dictates it - and I can just offer my opinion on what reality is saying.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
That doesn't even make sense. But, regardless, you're making a judgment about other's motives that's not yours to make.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I can't wrap my mind around how a true alcoholic can ever consider "just learning about how to make better decisions when they drink" as opposed to not drinking at all. I can tell you that I can't drink without becoming drunk. My decision has to be made prior to the first drink, or else no good decision will be made at all.
It's clear to me that AA was designed* by and for people who are in a similar situation to you. The distinction seems quite clear to me in the parts of the Big Book I've read.
I think a lot of people, though, have lost that sense of distinction - that is, they don't believe that it's possible to have a serious problem with alcohol and not be an alcoholic as defined in the Big Book.
*I'm using "design" for convenience to refer to how AA came to be.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Edited agin to add: Alcoholics Anonymous, which is based on the abstinence model, works extremely well for some problem drinkers. However, it doesn't seem to work (for whatever reason) for most people who try it, even though it works very well for some. The numbers for Brief Intervention (the standardized harm reduction approach) are much better overall.
CT - As a member of Alcoholic Anonymous myself, I would love to see this data that you speak of. Because I can't wrap my mind around how a true alcoholic can ever consider "just learning about how to make better decisions when they drink" as opposed to not drinking at all. I can tell you that I can't drink without becoming drunk. My decision has to be made prior to the first drink, or else no good decision will be made at all.
Sure.
Note that you may be conflating "problem drinking" with just "alcoholism" (usually medically tied to "alcohol dependence," although used in a highly variable way colloquially). Most problem drinking is from binge drinking, not alcohol dependence, and that is where the primary burden of morbidity and mortality from alcohol lies.
Most people referred to Alcoholics Anonymous are not dependent on alcohol in the medical sense, and yet they may be problem drinkers. Brief Intervention is established as an effective tool for problem drinking without dependence (again, most cases of problem drinking), and it is being studied for use in dependent populations (e.g., those admitted for hospital treatment of alcohol dependence).
AA and the abstinence approach is very useful for some people (as I noted as clearly as possible above), and you may well be one of those people. Brief Intervention appears by the research to be more helpful for more people longer term. That doesn't mean AA isn't right for you, just that the most effective standard referral for most patients with problem drinking is probably somewhere else.
---
Wikipedia article on BI for reference
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Dagnabbit. And now Dagonee is dancing with me. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
JT, I think that Tres believes in objective moral truth - that is, that there are actions which are wrong and actions which are right, and that these things just are by the nature of the universe. There a number of philosophical accounts as to the grounding of this moral reality. God often plays a large part. Personally I think that moral facts are similar to logical or mathematical truths, and tied up into the fabric of any logically possible universe.
Of course, there's lots of argument regarding how to know/learn moral facts - which is Tres is referring to when he says that he "can just offer [his] opinion on what reality is saying."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
CT, can you clarify what you mean by "morbidity" in "that is where the primary burden of morbidity and mortality from alcohol lies"?
I know it means incidence of disease, but it's not clear to me which incidents are included in your statement.
I assume things like cirrhosis would be included. Would STDs acquired during careless drunken behavior? How about trauma from alcohol-caused accidents?
And does it include social harms (job loss, marital problems, etc.)?
I'm probably asking a question with a very obvious answer.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: CT, can you clarify what you mean by "morbidity" in "that is where the primary burden of morbidity and mortality from alcohol lies"?
I know it means incidence of disease, but it's not clear to me which incidents are included in your statement.
I assume things like cirrhosis would be included. Would STDs acquired during careless drunken behavior? How about trauma from alcohol-caused accidents?
And does it include social harms (job loss, marital problems, etc.)?
I'm probably asking a question with a very obvious answer.
Sure. Brief answer: includes all of those negative sequelae of illness, which is often (now) taken to include associated ills, such as the burden of side effects of treatment. Often used within public health to include financial costs, etc.
Different people may use the word with a more or less restrained definition, and it's usually apparent from context. For example, "morbidity rate" usually just refers to the occurrence of the disease itself.
Good question, certainly. In this case, I'd be happy to substitute "negative sequelae" for "morbidity and mortality." [and have that include trauma, STDs, unwanted pregnancy, and the rest of what you indicated]
---
On a side note, Brief Intervention is not primarily about learning how to make better choices after you start drinking. It is primarily about the choices made and understanding of yourself and the consequences of your decisions before you start drinking. For some, the best choice is not to start at all -- but for most problem drinkers, the path to get to the most effective not-drinking-state is not the 12-step one, but a different sort of process. At least, according to the research, which does show (IIRC) that AA is very effective for some subgroups of people, and that is great, too. [Although identifying in advance who would fall into that group isn't easy. It's hard to find a definition of "alcoholism" that fits just that group without being tautological: i.e., "you are the sort of drinker who would be benefitted by AA, because that is the sort of drinker you are."]
[ December 18, 2007, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
CT, I understand that some people have a genetic defect in the enzymes that process alcohol. Some are even missing the enzyme completely. This defect causes alcohol to remain in their blood stream for a much longer period of time so that they get drunk with very little alcohol and stay drunk for a longer time. I have read that people with this defect have a very strong predisposition to becoming alcoholics and that people who have this genetic defect (particularly those who are completely missing the enzyme) can never really drink responsibly.
Are you aware of any studies that look at various alcohol treatment programs specifically for this subset of alcoholics?
I ask this in part because this defect is particularly common in many native american tribes include Inuit or Eskimo groups in the Northern Canada. Since alcoholism is a serious problem in this problem, it may be worthwhile for your partner to look specifically at programs that work for this subset of alcoholics.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks for the info, CT.
I've heard of what Rabbit just wrote about, including the greater chance of alcoholism in such people.
But, I've also heard that an unnaturally high tolerance to alcohol (before one would normally develop a high tolerance through heavy drinking over time) can indicate a greater likelihood of alcoholism. Anecdotally I've found this to be true, although I obviously don't know a statistically relevant sample.
Any thoughts on why both extremely low and extremely high tolerances seem to indicate such a greater likelihood? The dichotomy never struck me until today.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:And don't put comments on other threads along the lines of "This is the first time I agree with him!"
But it's so rare!
I do this with Lisa, too, btw. It happens rarely enough that it is shockingly noticeable to me. I will refrain from now on, though.
quote:So, I don't see how any of this justifies taking my posts any less seriously than anyone else who is giving their opinion on a serious topic.
I try not to take anyone's posts seriously in the sense that I get upset about them and dwell on them outside of hatrack. I used to - and our arguments in years past have driven me to - but I try not to any longer.
I do take them seriously in the sense that I weigh the argument at hand before responding. I think that's just a semantic difference though, and I should find another word to use for the former.
quote:But more importantly, (and this is not directed at anyone in particular) if you don't wish to take my view seriously, just skip over it and leave it be. Don't jump in with a one-line insult that adds nothing to the thread (and distracts me from people who are asking real questions). Don't skim over my post and then respond against whatever strawman position you think I probably am taking.[quote]
I try not to do this, either, though I admit that I may be guilty of it in the past.
[quote]Don't go to sakeriver or elsewhere and complain about me, as if it isn't on the internet where everyone can see it.
Since I don't post anywhere else, I'm going to assume this isn't directed at me.
quote:If you or others feel that you are banging your head against a wall, I suspect the reason is because I sometimes don't, in the end, accept what you consider to be the common sense truth.
The "banging my head agianst the wall" bit is not because we disagree, really. It's mostly because of arguments based purely in theory without concern for actual practice - but also because of tangential questions picking at a small aspect of a larger argument without addressing the larger argument itself.
Though the endless questioning of premises does get old, too.
I do apologize if at some point over the last 6 years that I have offended. I will, in the future, do my best not to.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If we could eliminate all alcohol from our society (and I know that such a thing is likely impossible but if it weren't impossible) and in doing so we could prevent all the deaths by drunk drivers, all the crimes committed by binge drinkers, all the premature deaths from alcohol abuse, all the divorces caused by alcoholism, all the children born with fetal alcohol syndrome, all the fights between drunks all the child and spouse abuse done by drunks and all the societal problems caused by excessive alcohol use would you want to do it even though it would mean also giving up all the pleasure experienced by moderate drinkers and any health benefits incurred by moderate drinkers?
Hrm. I think eliminating alcohol would almost immediately cause millions of people to begin experimenting with other mood-altering substances. The initial social stigma against those other intoxicants would, I suspect, wear off fairly rapidly.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
What about when I buy unpasteurized OJ and stick it in the fridge for a few days, and it turns to alcohol? Under such a system, would I be prosecuted for
-allowing it to happen -drinking it, since it's safe -letting someone else have a sip, such as a neighbor?
Prohibition sure as heck didn't work.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Tom: that's why we need to find aliens from Jupiter or something, to see if they can enjoy our music, and if they drink alcohol. It would answer a lot of questions.
We would be able to see how messed up we (humans) really are, or are not.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Speaking of music, my music therapy student friends in college were always doing research on how music affects one's state. I don't have any of their research, but I know from personal experience that listening to different types of music DEFINITELY changes my state, and I often listen to certain types of music with an "altered state" being my motive.
It's the best of the drugs.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
Note that you may be conflating "problem drinking" with just "alcoholism" (usually medically tied to "alcohol dependence," although used in a highly variable way colloquially). Most problem drinking is from binge drinking, not alcohol dependence, and that is where the primary burden of morbidity and mortality from alcohol lies.
Most people referred to Alcoholics Anonymous are not dependent on alcohol in the medical sense, and yet they may be problem drinkers. Brief Intervention is established as an effective tool for problem drinking without dependence (again, most cases of problem drinking), and it is being studied for use in dependent populations (e.g., those admitted for hospital treatment of alcohol dependence).
CT - first, thanks so much for the links. I will read through in great detail.
Secondly, I would like to say I think in AA we do acknowledge the difference between the physical-dependent alcoholics (daily drinkers) and the binge-drinkers (what you are terming "problem drinkers" as opposed to what you consider to be true "alcoholics") We pretty much say the program works for both (obviously) and still consider binge-drinkers to be alcoholics if they have no control over their decisions to binge drink It is still dependence.
So this is what I have a hard time with in understanding how a non-abstinence program works for binge drinkers like myself (I was never a daily alcoholic, or dependent drunk, but would binge for several days and then be totally dry for a few months, depending on when opportunity would arise again).
When I came into AA, because I wasn't a daily, dependent drinker, I for awhile convinced myself that I was NOT an alcoholic and didn't need the program. So another drunk put me to "the test", so to speak. (I think I've told this story here before, so forgive me for repeating) He said, "Fine. If you can walk into a bar every night this week, and CHOOSE to only have one drink, and walk out of that bar after that one drink, and go home, then you don't need this program."
So I went to the bar each night that week. I ordered one drink (I always ordered Black Russian). I drank it. Immediately I would be hit will an overwhelming crave for alcohol, and I had an immediate physical buzz that impaired me from having the slightest inclination to even THINK about walking out of there with only one drink. I really had my mind made up when I went in, that I would pass this challenge. But I failed each and every night.
To me, that was a pretty sure sign of alcohol dependency, even if I didn't turn to it daily.
So as a binge drinker, total abstinence is still the best way to go; (for me); so that is why I have a hard time seeing the benefits of teaching them "controlled" drinking.
(Yes, I have sometimes been tempted to see if now, 20 years later, I could have a drink or glass of wine and control my decisions beyond the first one. But I have decided it just isn't worth it to test myself).
(Understand that why I'm an alcoholic myself, I have absolutely nothing against people who choose to drink, and have no problems with it. It no longer ever bothers me if they drink around me, for the most part. I just realize there is something in my physiology that makes it impossible for me to drink responsibly.)
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
That's an interesting test, FG.
I don't drink often, but when I do drink I usually drink more than one drink.
I think I'll have only one drink every night I go out over the holidays, just to prove that I can.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
A point of clarification: "problem drinking" in the technical literature refers to both binge drinking and alcohol dependence (i.e., "alcohol abuse," "alcohol misuse," and "alcohol dependence"). It is not just binge drinking. For example, most college students with problem drinking are binge drinkers but are not dependent on the substance. Still, some of them who exhibit "problem drinking" are dependent.
Similarly, we may mean different things when we use the term dependent. I am using it in the strictly technical sense, as defined in the DSM-IV manual, and that is how it is used in the scientific literature. It's (of course) fine to use it otherwise, but it is useful to be aware of the difference.
[Edited to add: By the way, you do fit the technical criteria for "substance dependence" regardless, and BI isn't established for those who are dependent -- this may be why BI doesn't feel right for you. On the other hand, there are some non-abstinence/non-12-step programs which appear to be just as effective for most problem drinkers -- see next edit below and followup post afterward.]
quote:DSM-IV Criteria for the Substance Dependence
A maladaptive pattern of substance (alcohol) use, leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by three (or more) of the following, occurring at any time in the same 12 month period:
(1) tolerance, as defined by either of the following:
....(a) a need for markedly increased amounts of the substance to achieve intoxication or desired effect
....(b) markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of the substance
(2) withdrawal, as manifested by either of the following:
....(a) the characteristic withdrawal syndrome for the substance
........Criterion A. Cessation of (or reduction in) alcohol use that has been heavy and prolonged.
........Criterion B. Two or more of the following, developing within several hours to a few days after Criterion A:
............(1) autonomic hyperactivity (e.g., sweating or pulse rate greater than 100)
............((2) increased hand tremor
............((3) insomnia
............((4) nausea or vomiting
............((5) transient visual, tactile, or auditory hallucinations or illusions
............((6) psychomotor agitation
............((7) anxiety
............((8) grand mal seizures
....(b) the same (or closely related) substance is taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms
(3) the substance is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than was intended
(4) there is a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control substance use
(5) a great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain the substance (e.g. visiting multiple doctors or driving long distances), use the substance, or recover from its effects
(6) important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of substance use
(7) the substance use is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by the substance (e.g. continued drinking despite recognition that an ulcer was made worse by alcohol consumption).
[bolding added or emphasis]
---
I understand that you are describing your experience and what has been related to you for other individuals' experiences, and I am fully in support of the choices you have made. Obviously, what you have done works well for you. (Look at your beautiful family! And we have you as a strong and stable friend.)
When assessing what to do to benefit a large population, it is necessary to work not from anecdote, but from outcomes studies over large groups of people. Many people with problem drinking come to one or two AA meetings, but then don't come back.
If the people you talk with about drinking are mainly those who you met through and have stayed with AA, then it is entirely likely that everyone you talk with will have found AA to be the only successful program. If something worked before AA, they wouldn't have tried AA; if AA works, then they would have no reason to try anything else.
The problem for using anecdotal evidence is one of extreme selection bias. That doesn't mean it doesn't work for you, just that the odds of it working for a randomly selected problem drinker are less for this program than for others.
It doesn't matter how intense and heartfelt (and true and important) one or two (or ten, or twenty) individuals' personal experiences are, not at the level of broad policy *** -- what matters is that when given a large (hundreds to thousands or more) group of people randomly assigned to different treatments, after a good bit of time has passed, which treatment approach was more successful overall? Was the difference significant? If it was, then a more effective approach for standard protocols is to use the more effective treatment. Of course, there can be multiple things offered, but the goal is to be as efficient at the first step as possible and have backup plans in place. But it doesn't make sense to start with a program that is less successful overall for most people, even if that is the program some people will end up using.
[Also edited to add: In your case, at this point, a family physician shouldn't have considered you a candidate for BI, since you fit the criteria for dependence. Nonetheless, there is strong evidence that other, non-12-step programs may have worked -- see followup post below. 12-step programs, cognitive behavioral therapy, and motivational enhancement therapy (a longer-term version of BI) all seem to be equally effective.]
It may be that people who stick with AA longterm have a good outcome, but also that most people can't or don't stick with it, but may well stick with what they learn in BI. Assessing the effectiveness of a standard protocol has to take into account the dropout rate, too -- so even if very effective for a small number, if most drop out, then it isn't going to be effective overall. In this case, something else is.
And just as you cannot imagine anything else working for you but AA, there are many many people who have tried 12-step programs and cannot imagine how this would ever work for them. For many of these people, BI [or its longer-term cousin, Motivational Enhancement Therapy] does work -- and as hard as it may be for a given person to accept this, the longterm studies show that these people do exist. A lot of them. And their stories are just as heartfelt, poignant, relevant, and important.
Look, I would never criticize your decision to stop drinking, or argue with your decision to talk about AA and what it means to you. I also am still going to talk about other programs which have validation in the research, because the scientific evidence is that AA is not the only way to control drinking for most problem drinkers (maybe not you! maybe not the people you know at AA! but yes, a bigger percentage of people out at large with problem drinking; and even those who are dependent have other options than AA, with outcomes just as good), and people need to know that, too for all sorts of reasons. They need to know about other options for themselves and those they know, and they need to know about it for the purposes of forming public policy.
Hopefully we can continue to talk about the subject side by side, even if we are focused on different aspects of it.
---
Thanks for the interest and information, Rabbit! Dave is not only aware of this population and the studies, but has already made recommendations in that area. Given that this section of the population is a small percentage, it won't have much bearing on the thrust of the national effort, but it is included. Most family physicians won't have someone from this population in their practice, but they will have many problem drinkers -- and genetic testing is expensive -- so this issue is further down the list.
---
Edited to add: *** Of course, it goes without saying that in other contexts, such stories are deeply important and more relevant than national policy issues. Different contexts, different relevance. In this thread, I think both are relevant side-by-side.
[ December 19, 2007, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
As for treatment of people with alcohol dependence, the most cited study is Project MATCH (Matching Alcoholism Treatments to Client Heterogeneity) -- you can find more details here -- which compared the longterm outcomes in 1700+ people dependent on alcohol assigned to one of the following:
quote:1) a 12-step facilitation therapy (based on the principles of Alcoholics Anonymous but an independent treatment designed to familiarize patients with the AA philosophy and to encourage participation)
2) cognitive-behavioral therapy (based on social learning theory and designed to provide skills for avoiding relapse)
3) motivational enhancement therapy (based on motivational psychology and designed to help patients mobilize personal resources to effect change)
All three were equally effective.
---
Edited to add: By the way, CBT and MET don't rule out abstinence -- they just don't assume that abstinence is the only option on the table. Many people who go through CBT or MET come to accept that abstinence is right for them, after having worked through the various options with a trained person. A major difference from AA is that it isn't a necessicity to agree to abstinence as the only viable goal in order to continue to progress through the program.
That doesn't mean that abstinence doesn't end up being right for a given person -- and for some of these people, having to commit to abstinence early on may be why they did or would have dropped out of a 12-step program, even though a different approach may lead them in that direction anyway.]
[ December 19, 2007, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Oh, CT! Please never take what I said as a critcism of the other programs of which you speak. I was speaking on purely a personal level as to how I personally could not understand some of the other programs. I take that as a failure on my part in comprehension and understanding, not at all as a negating of the benefits of those programs. Whatever it takes to help the people.
Actually I had a very close friend of mine (also an M.D., by the way) who worked a few years back in a hospital that had an alcoholic treatment program/wing. He and I talked about how AA doesn't work for everyone, and he was exploring other possibilities at that time. He move away before I ever found out if they found something that worked better for some of their repeat clients - especially those who seem to dislike the AA approach. (the whole "higher power" thing). I certainly realize the AA approach does not work for everyone.
On the same note, however, those of us in AA (and I say this loosely, as I haven't attended meetings in a couple years now or more); talked often about how the whole composition and make-up of AA has changed from the way it was originally designed to be. When Bill W and others wrote the Big Book, they were reaching out to alcoholics who WANTED to quit, who were struggling to find a way.
Sometime a long the way, the U.S. Court system pounced on AA as being the "cure all" for those getting DUI's and started sending masses of people to AA meetings who had absolutely no desire to be there, no desire to stop their behaviors at all, and generally totally changed how the program operated at the local level. You lost a lot of the close-knit camaraderie because there were new random strangers every single meeting who just wanted you to "sign off on their paper" so they could leave and tell the judge they had done what they needed to.
Because of this, it has overall hurt the "validity" of the program, and has practically forced everyone involved with substance abuse to look a new ways of thinking and treating and dealing with alcoholism.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
CT, do you think future research will make selecting the proper therapy based on patient characteristics more accurate in the future?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: Sometime a long the way, the U.S. Court system pounced on AA as being the "cure all" for those getting DUI's and started sending masses of people to AA meetings who had absolutely no desire to be there, no desire to stop their behaviors at all, and generally totally changed how the program operated at the local level. You lost a lot of the close-knit camaraderie because there were new random strangers every single meeting who just wanted you to "sign off on their paper" so they could leave and tell the judge they had done what they needed to.
Because of this, it has overall hurt the "validity" of the program, and has practically forced everyone involved with substance abuse to look a new ways of thinking and treating and dealing with alcoholism.
That's it exactly!
((((Farmgirl)))) [edited for your privacy!]
I didn't want you to feel I had invalidated your experience, or that I didn't care about you. I'm just so frfustrated at seeing people automatically referred to AA by police, ER workers, the court system, family docs -- that isn't going to work most of the time. As you rightly said, it is for people who are in a particular state of readiness.
Actually, as I've hunched over the screen this morning, writing and rewriting these posts, I think I may have pinpointed the diconnect you feel (maybe, who knows) -- abstinence is often where people dependent on alcohol end up, if they are going to be successful in making their lives work for them. It's just that AA is founded on the readiness-for-change, and the other programs usually seem to work better for people not ready to change yet.
For some of them, getting through to the ready-to-change state is facillitated by the sessions, and then -- for many -- it becomes apparent that the best thing is to abstain from drinking. But abstinence isn't the only option on the table, and I think that may be one reason people find working through the other programs more useful, especially at first.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: CT, do you think future research will make selecting the proper therapy based on patient characteristics more accurate in the future?
Oh, sure. Project MATCH was set up particularly to find out what characteristics predicted the best outcomes in given forms of treatment (thus the MATCH acronynym, Matching Alcoholism Treatments to Client Heterogeneity). More is in the works.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Excellent.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Thanks for the info, CT.
I've heard of what Rabbit just wrote about, including the greater chance of alcoholism in such people.
But, I've also heard that an unnaturally high tolerance to alcohol (before one would normally develop a high tolerance through heavy drinking over time) can indicate a greater likelihood of alcoholism. Anecdotally I've found this to be true, although I obviously don't know a statistically relevant sample.
Any thoughts on why both extremely low and extremely high tolerances seem to indicate such a greater likelihood? The dichotomy never struck me until today.
The biochemistry of alcoholism is quite complex and not fully understood. There are at least two different types of genetic factors that can lead to alcoholism. The first one, which I talked about before, results from differences in the enzymes that break down alcohol (alcohol and aldehyde dehydrogenases). There is enormous genetic variability in these enzymes which can affect how long alcohol stays in your system as well as build up of intermediates in the break down process. If your body is bad at breaking down alcohol, it will take you less alcohol to achieve the same blood alcohol level and you will maintain that level longer. The theory is that since the alcohol stays in your system longer you are more likely to become addicted.
The second biochemical factor that predisposes people to alcohol results from a difference in the seretonin pathways in the brain. These are much more complicated than the breakdown of the alcohol and they aren't nearly as well understood. What is known is that changes in these pathways that are associate with a high tolerance for alcohol are also associated with a desire for alcohol. Exactly how this leads to alcohol addiction isn't exactly clear (although I'm not up to date on research in this area so I'm sure more is known by leaders in this field than by me).
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
)shouldn't be at the top of list of concerns. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)