No Healthy Level of Alcohol Consumption, Says Major Study (theguardian.com) 590
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Even the occasional drink is harmful to health, according to the largest and most detailed research carried out on the effects of alcohol, which suggests governments should think of advising people to abstain completely. The uncompromising message comes from the authors of the Global Burden of Diseases study, a rolling project based at the University of Washington, in Seattle, which produces the most comprehensive data on the causes of illness and death in the world. Alcohol, says their report published in the Lancet medical journal, led to 2.8 million deaths in 2016. It was the leading risk factor for premature mortality and disability in the 15 to 49 age group, accounting for 20% of deaths. The study was carried out by researchers at the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), who investigated levels of alcohol consumption and health effects in 195 countries between 1990 to 2016. They used data from 694 studies to work out how common drinking was and from 592 studies including 28 million people worldwide to work out the health risks. According to the report, "27.1% of cancer deaths in women and 18.9% in men over 50 were linked to their drinking habits." The biggest causes of death linked to alcohol in younger people were tuberculosis (1.4% of deaths), road injuries (1.2%), and self-harm (1.1%).
"Worldwide we need to revisit alcohol control policies and health programs, and to consider recommendations for abstaining from alcohol," said the report's senior author, Professor Emmanuela Gakidou. "These include excise taxes on alcohol, controlling the physical availability of alcohol and the hours of sale, and controlling alcohol advertising. Any of these policy actions would contribute to reductions in population-level consumption, a vital step toward decreasing the health loss associated with alcohol use."
"Worldwide we need to revisit alcohol control policies and health programs, and to consider recommendations for abstaining from alcohol," said the report's senior author, Professor Emmanuela Gakidou. "These include excise taxes on alcohol, controlling the physical availability of alcohol and the hours of sale, and controlling alcohol advertising. Any of these policy actions would contribute to reductions in population-level consumption, a vital step toward decreasing the health loss associated with alcohol use."
Well Fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean... I'm here for a good time, not for a long time.
Re:Well Fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to love the quote at the end of the Guardian article, though it really should have been put at the beginning:
But David Spiegelhalter, Winton professor for the public understanding of risk at the University of Cambridge, said the data showed only a very low level of harm in moderate drinkers and suggested UK guidelines were very low risk.
“Given the pleasure presumably associated with moderate drinking, claiming there is no ‘safe’ level does not seem an argument for abstention,” he said. “There is no safe level of driving, but government do not recommend that people avoid driving. Come to think of it, there is no safe level of living, but nobody would recommend abstention.”
Re: (Score:3)
You have to love the quote at the end of the Guardian article, though it really should have been put at the beginning:
But David Spiegelhalter, Winton professor for the public understanding of risk at the University of Cambridge, said the data showed only a very low level of harm in moderate drinkers and suggested UK guidelines were very low risk.
“Given the pleasure presumably associated with moderate drinking, claiming there is no ‘safe’ level does not seem an argument for abstention,” he said. “There is no safe level of driving, but government do not recommend that people avoid driving. Come to think of it, there is no safe level of living, but nobody would recommend abstention.”
Also, a meta-data study that once again doesn't indicate how it normalized all the input data, is somewhat useless for drawing conclusions.
People that drink more may also on average have less healthier habits. Even where individual studies have different methods to account for different correlations, meta studies rarely adequately account for these differences.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Without alcohol, how will ugly people ever get laid???
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Well Fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
maybe so, but your quality of life will suffer much earlier then somebody who lives healthy.
you won't be able to do some things anymore when you're 40, while the 'healthy' person probably still can.
will you have done all the items on your bucket list when you're 50 or 60?
i agree that there is a limit, i don't see the point in reaching 100 years of age, it will be miserable, so far nobody that age is still well enough to actually have a quality life. but i want to enjoy doing everything i love for as long as i can. (those things don't include consuming alcohol, for me)
Re:Well Fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
maybe so, but your quality of life will suffer much earlier then somebody who lives healthy. you won't be able to do some things anymore when you're 40, while the 'healthy' person probably still can. will you have done all the items on your bucket list when you're 50 or 60?
Let me tell you about my mother in law. Non smoker, non drinker. Plenty of exercise.
This woman was the very archetype of the modern healthy adult livin the dream well into old age.
She caught dementia at 68, and it took her 10 years to die. The thing with dementia is that it doesn't just affect your mind. Her bones kind ot rotted, her bodily functions slowed down gradually, and she wasn't a happy demented person, but one of the ones who cry constantly.
I would take death right now to avoid that.
If you really want to live to an ancient age, by all means do. But I'll take quality over longevity every time. The only people that make out in the life extension game are the ones running nursing homes.
Re: (Score:3)
Living as a fat person is not a quality life...
Especially when one has not learned to ignore the sanctimonious assholes that try to shame them. But some folks simply need a target to hate. Smokers, Drinkers, Chocolate people, anyone not Scotch Irish, you know the drill. that fat person who is going to die? Did you know slender people live forever?
Live as long as you can - like my father said - "Who wants to be the healthiest person in the graveyard?"
All those mindless demented people shitting in depends and drooling into their neck napkins and havin
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
Plus about 2/3's of the deaths in young people from alcohol stem from poor and avoidable choices that I do not think should be considered in their recommendations. You have a choice to drink and drive, or to hurt/kill yourself. Alcohol does not trigger some invisible demon to strike you down (such as tuberculosis, which is hidden in the text affecting primarily only poorly developed countries, probably not anyone reading this). So basically alcohol in young people being a relevant cause of death is bullshit
Re: (Score:3)
That's part of the problem. (Score:3)
That many people don't know how to have a good time without alcohol is part of the problem.
Re:That's part of the problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
My dad made homemade wine for decades. Never over-consumed. Profited no one. His consumption was as close to balanced as it gets. But the thing is, his wine tasted awful...because alcohol tastes awful. In every single form. Not to see this is to lie to yourself.
No, it tastes awful to you...
I enjoy many types of alcoholic beverages just fine, as do the vast majority or people. If it were truly that bad, and people had to lie to themselves to 'enjoy' it, alcohol consumption would be a fringe affectation.
Stop projecting your experiences on others; It's annoying and smacks of virtue signaling.
m
Don't worry (Score:3)
This study's tendentious conclusions aren't the only ones you could come to
https://cei.org/blog/science-reporters-get-it-wrong-moderate-alcohol-consumption-isnt-dangerous
You can count on the socialist puritans at the guardian to spoil any party
Re: (Score:3)
Alcohol may be bad for you and doctors will probably advise against any consumption, but freedom for adults to make their own choices is still the bigger policy conce
Re: Well Fuck (Score:5, Informative)
Smoking ANYTHING is bad news. Vaporizing or atomizing is better but certainly not good for anything but your 'head' and attitude. Just like grilling meat is not 'good' for you, but is damn tasty. Just do things in moderation, even moderation :)
Re: (Score:2)
You do not need to vaporize or atomize pot to consume it. It's easy to cook with. Colorado has a major edibles market with well controlled dosing. The carbs are more of a problem than the various cannabinoids.
Re: (Score:3)
An atomizer is not aromatic but is the equivalent of a vaporizer using THC oil instead of vegetative matter or hash. A vaporizer is for Hash, either waxy H2O or butane processed, or ground vegetative matter. Both methods produce large deeply satisfying clouds of THC laden goodness. I do still occasionally use my bong or smoke a joint in a social situation, but rarely.
I am from Nor-Cal and have been in a coop situation for 20 years now. As advanced as Colorado is becoming the Trinity in far Northern Californ
Re: Well Fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
This is true - smoking pot can lead to emphysema. It's still less likely than inhaling smoke from wood or coal burning, but yeah, some potheads will smoke in such excess that they may suffer from emphysema at some point.
But that's why I exclusively consume edibles! All the benefits, including health benefits, of cannabis, and none of the downsides.
Edibles, gentlemen, it's the right thing to do.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
This is true - smoking pot can lead to emphysema.
That's not what the research [nih.gov] indicates [webmd.com].
Re: Well Fuck (Score:4, Informative)
Smoking pot is not as safe as you think [lung.org].
Depends on how "safe you think" it is doesn't it? Notice there are no numbers in the item, indications of prevalence, to allow one to assess the putative risks. Although the American Lung Association is a fine organization genuinely devoted to public health, and focused on one subject, minimizing the prevalence of lung injury, they are - by the same token - not interested in giving a balanced presentation of what is known about risks.
Here is the abstract from the current gold-standard study of this subject [nih.gov]:
Regular smoking of marijuana by itself causes visible and microscopic injury to the large airways that is consistently associated with an increased likelihood of symptoms of chronic bronchitis that subside after cessation of use. On the other hand, habitual use of marijuana alone does not appear to lead to significant abnormalities in lung function when assessed either cross-sectionally or longitudinally, except for possible increases in lung volumes and modest increases in airway resistance of unclear clinical significance. Therefore, no clear link to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has been established. Although marijuana smoke contains a number of carcinogens and cocarcinogens, findings from a limited number of well-designed epidemiological studies do not suggest an increased risk for the development of either lung or upper airway cancer from light or moderate use, although evidence is mixed concerning possible carcinogenic risks of heavy, long-term use. Although regular marijuana smoking leads to bronchial epithelial ciliary loss and impairs the microbicidal function of alveolar macrophages, evidence is inconclusive regarding possible associated risks for lower respiratory tract infection. Several case reports have implicated marijuana smoking as an etiologic factor in pneumothorax/pneumomediastinum and bullous lung disease, although evidence of a possible causal link from epidemiologic studies is lacking. In summary, the accumulated weight of evidence implies far lower risks for pulmonary complications of even regular heavy use of marijuana compared with the grave pulmonary consequences of tobacco.
This is a balanced assessment. Yes, you will see the same concerns mentioned by the ALA -- but not the counterbalancing factor (for example) that there are no significant abnormalities in lung function which is kind of an important fact here.
Of course vaping cannabis is very popular now, so actual smoking of the material is surely on a steep decline.
One factor that explains why the numerous studies that have been done have failed to find any increase in lung cancer with cannabis use (aside from the fact that cannabis smokers consume far less material than tobacco smokers) is that nicotine is a cancer promoter, while THC suppresses cancer [nih.gov]! You won't ever find that mentioned on an ALA page.
Re: Well Fuck (Score:4, Informative)
Did they study... (Score:5, Interesting)
...how many ugly people got laid because of alcohol?
And how many babies got made because of alcohol?
I wonder if the number of lives created by alcohol's ability to facilitate sex is greater than the number of deaths it causes.
Re:Did they study... (Score:5, Funny)
...how many ugly people got laid because of alcohol?
According to my sample size of 1, about 12. Not counting myself.
And how many babies got made because of alcohol?
According to my sample size of 1, about 0. That I know of. And I'd know, else I'd have changed states sometime in the past 55 years.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, were they good babies that turned into good citizens or were they produced by the genes of the lazy incompetent losers, born with alchohol damage to boot and raised quite 'er' indifferently and went on to become very unproductive custodial existences after leaving a trail of victims. Just saying, alchohol probably not the best thing for effective family planning. Taking those actual lives into account, probably killed more people again on top as a result of the extremely poor breeding outcomes. I would
Your quest for a "left." (Score:2, Funny)
This other AC nailed it [slashdot.org]. The left's quest for a "New Man" will only ever end in Tyranny, just like it always has throughout history.
The other AC missed it. [slashdot.org] Your quest for a "left" will only ever end in a circle around the globe, just like it always has throughout history.
When you complete the circle, you're a new man.
Re:Did they study... (Score:5, Informative)
Are we merely plants? (Score:2, Interesting)
Plants grow better in hydroponic conditions with carefully calibrated nutrient solution and perfect amounts of light and carbon dioxide. They thrive, but their roots are weak.
We can min-max humans the same way, prioritizing lifespan above all else. Remove all risk and danger, anything harmful to the body. Clearly it's irrational to hurt yourself in any way, so why allow it?
I'm not saying there aren't issues with excessive alcohol consumption, but fearmongering and efforts to create government policy rest
This is stupid. (Score:2)
The spread of the tech to make alcohol in various forms predates christianity, and roughly follows the spread of civilization.
Alcohol has obviously never caused problems before; somewhat like Opium, Cocaine, Maruhuana, or Barbituates.
If it's all new, everyday, we learn nothing as a society.
Re: (Score:2)
Now this has me wondering something.
Did Mel Brooks fuck up on an important fact with the Mighty Joint scene in History of the World?
I honestly can't remember if the plants Josephus was handling were in vegetative phase or if they were budding? If the former, then the smoke should not have caused the Romans to go biblical and get stoned. Or was the joint big enough that the traces of THC that may have been in the leaves made enough whee for a good hit?
Re: (Score:3)
It's use isn't even limited to humans.
Fruit will sometimes occasionally ferment, due to random yeast spores and animals will eat the fruit and with it the alcohol.
Ever seen a bunch of drunk animals in your back yard? I have.
Re: This is stupid. (Score:2)
A drunk squirrel try to climb a tree is one of the funniest damn things I've ever seen.
Re: (Score:3)
Alcohol correlates with the spread of civilization because water in skins, pots, or barrels goes bad after a few days. But people figured out that adding alcohol to the water kept it good for months (we now know that it's because alcohol inhibits the growth of bacteria).
Long-term water storage thanks to alcohol is what enabled long-distance travel and exploration. Without it, y
Highest ristk (Score:2)
So... the highest alcohol-related death risk is a bacterial infection? Wat?
Re: (Score:2)
Alcohol isn't as dangerous on its own. They included the results of risky behavior and impaired operation of machines. That is like saying getting a blowjob is dangerous, because they included accidents caused while getting a blowjob while driving.
While I am sure that certain activities while impaired are more dangerous (driving), I would suggest that being stupid is dangerous, and alcohol makes one dumber than before. They don't call it "Beer goggles" for no reason.
That does not mesh with message (Score:2)
They included the results of risky behavior and impaired operation of machines.
And yet they claim no level of alcohol consumption is safe. That is obviously bullshit as a single drink every now and then will have zero effect on being more risky or impaired.
I say this as someone who basically does not drink at all, except for a sip of something to be polite under some conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
That is obviously bullshit as a single drink every now and then will have zero effect on being more risky or impaired.
Your data is eagerly awaited. Obviously it involves testing millions of diverse humans over a long term ?
Re: (Score:3)
Alcohol isn't as dangerous on its own. They included the results of risky behavior and impaired operation of machines. That is like saying getting a blowjob is dangerous, because they included accidents caused while getting a blowjob while driving.
While I am sure that certain activities while impaired are more dangerous (driving), I would suggest that being stupid is dangerous, and alcohol makes one dumber than before. They don't call it "Beer goggles" for no reason.
A lot of well researched studies have indications that some alcohol is actually good for you (i.e. a glass of wine with dinner) which seems to directly contradict the final conclusions of this study. There is clear evidence that over-drinking results in higher health risks, both personally (liver disease, etc.) and for others (driving drunk). However, they also seem to have included any other bad correlations, no matter how weak, from other studies (i.e. cancer). It's like saying that living can cause ca
Anyone else notice (Score:4, Funny)
The rise of anti alcohol studies and the rise of both feminists and jihadists.
I am not saying they are the same. But they both hate alcohol and white men.
Sounds like a terrible study. (Score:5, Interesting)
The summary is this:
Which just sounds like a lot of malarkey.
So they combined a bunch of data sources together (likely of very different quality, measures, etc), massaged it together to "estimate population level consumption by tourists", the massaged it a bit more, made some more estimates here and there... and BOOM alcohol is resposible for x% of cancer!
This is the kind of stuff that gives science a bad name. Where's the control? There isn't any. This barely qualifies as science.
People aren't going to stop drinking. We tried that already, and it didn't work out so well. It just feels too damn good to have a drink now and a again after the day is over. It's worth it! Frankly even if have a 10% increase in cancer from 1 drink a day, I'll take it. Do I really care if I have a 11% chance of cancer with an occasional drink vs an 10% chance of cancer with zero?
Realistically it just can't be THAT bad for you since we'd see large effects between drinkers and non-drinkers. Smoking, for instance increases your chance of lung cancer (over your lifetime) by a factor of 17. That is, smokers have about a 17% lifetime chance of getting lung cancer, and non-smokers have a 1% chance. That's HUGE, and the kind of thing we should be concerned about. But alcohol? Nonsense, the effect just can't be very big, or else we'd see it more obviously in the existing data.
If they really wanted to study this, take some similar populations. Study Mormons vs Ex-Mormons, or practicing vs non-practicing Muslims. But don't take data from 694 different studies and then do some weird data manipulation on it. Quite honestly, how do they know if they're right, or they just managed to tweak the data in the right way?
Denmark vs. Pakistan (Score:4, Interesting)
Countries with the lowest rates of drinking: Pakistan and Bangladesh.
I'm betting people are happier in Denmark and Norway vs. Pakistan and Bangladesh. They certainly are wealthier, healthier, and live longer.
Maybe drinking is good?
Re:Denmark vs. Pakistan (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmmm..... (Score:2, Insightful)
Nope. It's the beer.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. It's definitely alcohol. Alcohol kills germs and is generally a preservative. Thus people last longer before perishing.
Ain't science great?
Re: (Score:2)
Left out the key statement (Score:5, Interesting)
The slashdot title stated the most sensational part of the study, but the summary left out the single-most important statement in the entire study:
"The level of alcohol consumption that minimised harm across health outcomes was zero (95% UI 00–08) standard drinks per week."
This statement is at odds with some studies and the hopes of many recreational drinkers. However, there have been other meta-studies that have found that studies that find a health benefit from moderate drinking often aggregate teetotalers due to religion/philosophy with teetotalers due to illness.
Re: (Score:2)
There's many studies that have separated those and still find a positive "effect" (really a correlation of course).
The thing is, if you choose to be a teetotaller, you sadly isolate yourself from a lot of social activity, since alcohol use is so central to our culture. This has enough negative effects on average that it makes up for the health effects of very low consumption.
Although, since how much people drink is heavily mediated by how much people they know drink, teetotallers still contribute greatly to
Re:Left out the key statement (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Left out the key statement (Score:4, Interesting)
Leading to the 'sick quitter' hypothesis. And has been factored into more recent studies, and found to be not the issue it's presented to be...
https://health.spectator.co.uk... [spectator.co.uk]
Poor abstraction of results (Score:3)
Off course, consuming alcohol has poor effects on people that are depressed or go driving after drinking. Same with potheads and opioid addicts that go driving or using heavy machinery.
This is a meta-study too and they are expressly comparing Muslim countries with decidedly non-Muslim countries. I'm sure the statistics for those are very honest at less than 2% of the population drinking. I've worked with immigrant Muslims they all drink homemade hooch, statistics in Iran shows at least 10% of the population drinking.
I for one (Score:2)
Oh no the sky is falling EVERYBODY PANIC!!!11!!! (Score:3)
WTF is this shit? Is Puritanism making a comeback? Is this more Dominionist bullshit? Or are they selling something?
Guess what: everything is going to kill you. Just scroll through the internet, you'll find somebody presenting all sorts of evidence that anything you care to name that you eat, drink, or breathe, is going to take DECADES off your life. Don't fall for it, folks.
Prohibition (Score:3)
Whew! I'm safe! (Score:3)
The study covered the 15-49 age group, and I'm over 50. Where's that bottle of whisky?
This is only half of the story (Score:5, Insightful)
"Alcohol, says their report published in the Lancet medical journal, led to 2.8 million deaths in 2016."
These idiots clearly failed to grasp the other half of the equation. Alcohol probably prevented just as many deaths. Let's face it, if you couldn't decompress with a couple of beers after work, sooner or later you'd wind up skinning your boss with a letter opener and skull-fucking the company president and his snotty secretary to death with the rolled up hide.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's face it, if you couldn't decompress with a couple of beers after work
Wow. Alcoholic much? Why do you need beers to decompress? There are far more effective methods. Go to the gym, take up combat sport, turn on the lobotomization box and set to binge.
Seriously, if your brain is actually dependent on alcohol to tolerate others then get some professional help quickly!
What is the politically correct way to die? (Score:5, Interesting)
If that ceases to be a major cause of death, what is next? Obesity? We get told off for that, too.
So what will people die from in the future? Too much exercising? terminal anxiety? boredom?
How should we go about preventing those deaths and then, ultimately, at what point will all these studies, research groups and advice-givers give up and admit that everybody is going to die from something. What causes of death will be deemed "natural"?
Re:What is the politically correct way to die? (Score:5, Funny)
Many people used to die from malaria
To be fair, there's no healthy level for drinking malaria either.
Study Doesn't Make Sense (Score:4, Interesting)
The same logic means that there is no safe level of cycling If we stop drinking becasue there is no safe level of alcohol, will we also stop cycling, swimming and all the other activities that have some risk of of injury but are nonetheless fun?
So, I take it... (Score:3)
Drink as much as you want, it doesn't matter.
Problems. (Score:3)
First, the study is incapable of distinguishing drinking from other risky behaviour drinkers may indulge in. It assumes behaviours are independent, when in fact they are not.
Second, of the five Blue Zones, four involve drinking. The French Paradox also does. France's contribution to the debate shows that the change in drink of choice altered outcomes, showing isolating the variable of alcohol may not be sensible to begin with.
Abstinence-only education (Score:3)
Hence the Ban on Pot (Score:5, Insightful)
So you know exactly why the alchohol companies spent so much to keep pot banned. Also the amount of profit generated by the alchohol industries is greater than the cost of the damage caused by alchohol, privative the profit, socialise the loss.
Re:Hence the Ban on Pot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hence the Ban on Pot (Score:4, Informative)
Well, parts of the profit are socialised as well. No government will advise citizens not to drink at all because they all get a juicy "sin tax" on the sale of alcohol.
Uh, prohibition? "Dry" counties? Many muslims countries outlaw alcohol too. For many the juicy sin taxes are a compromise because they don't want to go back to the speakeasies and Al Capone, but they'd kill it if they could. They'd always find something else to tax.
Re: (Score:3)
Lot more than zero (Score:5, Informative)
the number of Marijuana deaths is zero.
Was this study done by the same researchers that did this one because it sounds about as accurate? For a start the alcohol numbers above include drink-driving deaths and this also applies to marijuana and the rate is increasing [dailyhive.com].
Re:And still (Score:5, Insightful)
>"the number of Marijuana deaths is zero."
That is just nonsense (and, actually, irresponsible). For one, ANYTHING you are doing that requires your peak senses and/or rationality will be negatively impacted by using Marijuana. For things like driving, surgery, operating dangerous power tools, whatever, it is not a good idea to be "altered". And claiming that throughout all history, being high on pot has not directly caused or contributed to death, is just *ridiculous*.
And if the choice of consumption of Marijuana involves SMOKING it (instead of eating it, ingesting a pill, or vaporizing it, or whatnot), well, let's just say that breathing in any type of smoke into the lungs is very unhealthy, no matter what type it is.
Now, if you were to say something more reasonable like "Marijuana is the safest illicit drug" most would readily agree with you. If you were to say it was safer than alcohol, again, most people would probably agree.
No this is not nonsense (Score:2)
As such the LD50 of pot is about so high you would have to inject pure THC to reach it. Smoker/ingester cannot be affec
Re:No this is not nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet, this article about alcohol does, in fact, include "secondary death (accident, inattention)" as part and parcel of the alcohol deaths....
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You smoke, drink, AND JACK OFF WHILE DRIVING? Man, pgmrdlm you are one degenerate son of an ugly bitch!
Re: And still (Score:2)
Re: And still (Score:5, Funny)
Only when he's been drinking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, just another blowhard /.-er, who knows he is safe in challenging someone to a fight.
Re:And still (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but only for those who pay for Slashdot Premium, and only on the mobile app.
I can give you a promotional code for a 60-day trial if you send me your info.
Re: (Score:3)
I have a 4chan Gold account to offer back in trade.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not cannabis killing you, that's irresponsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Correlation != causation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Citation required.
But seriously, any correlation there is likely due to irresponsible people being more likely flaunt the law and smoke weed more than responsible people.
Re:And still (Score:4, Interesting)
https://www.etymonline.com/wor... [etymonline.com]
assassin (n.)
1530s (in Anglo-Latin from mid-13c.), via French and Italian, from Arabic hashishiyyin "hashish-users," plural of hashishiyy, from the source of hashish (q.v.).
A fanatical Ismaili Muslim sect of the mountains of Lebanon in the time of the Crusades, under leadership of the "Old Man of the Mountains" (translates Arabic shaik-al-jibal, name applied to Hasan ibu-al-Sabbah), they had a reputation for murdering opposing leaders after intoxicating themselves by eating hashish. The plural suffix -in was mistaken in Europe for part of the word (compare Bedouin). Middle English had the word as hassais (mid-14c.), from Old French hassasis, assasis, which is from the Arabic word.
You are confusing etymology with historical accuracy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
literally no one in the world except you knows it has racist origins. even less people care. and even less intentionally use it in any part as some kind of racial slur. this kind of overly p.c. shit is why we have trump; knock it the fuck off. you're not helping anyone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh fuck off with this tripe.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh fuck off with this tripe.
Now now, the kooks have to make their virtue signaling where they can ya know.
Calling Marijuana marijuana racism is almost as much fun to listen to as the cultural appropriation assholes - Guessing from your post you are British, no doubt you know about overly white chef Jamie Oliver's apparent cultural appropriation crime with his "Punchy Jerk Rice" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/fo... [telegraph.co.uk]
Quickly citizens, get rid of all of the spices in your cupboards, the cultural appropriation police are coming!
Re: (Score:3)
That bullshit made me more irate than anything out of the SJW crowd. I first heard about it when I watched Neil Degrasse Tyson's conversation with Katy Perry and she commented that she didn't know that cultural appropriation was a thing. She was very sad about it. Unfortunately Dr. Tyson didn't know enough to tell her it's NOT.
To me it is beyond belief that people would think that, but make no mistake - it is truly mental illness. Most people find it charming that other people are interested in their culture. to wit:
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/... [huffingtonpost.ca]
A mother threw a party for her little girl, and the little girl dressed as a Geisha. Mom posted a picture of it. A cultural appropriation kook took her to task for her "racism". Finally a Japanese citizen verbally curb stomped "ginzers" for being the real racist, explaining that Ja
Re: And still (Score:5, Funny)
So cannabis smoke is, then, a carcinogen. Got it, thanks.
Re:And still (Score:5, Funny)
We'd account for even more driving deaths if we could only find our car keys.
Re: (Score:3)
And don't even think about the amount of deaths that could happen if you could be motivated to search for the keys, go to the door, open the door, go outside, go to your car, get into your car ...
Screw this, pass the blunt.
Re: And still (Score:5, Funny)
Absolutely. I used the same defense at my drunk driving trial. "Just because I was drunk doesn't mean alcohol had anything to do with me rear-ending a cop car!"
Judge didn't buy it. Fucking asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
He did buy it. He just drew the logical conclusion that according to your own confession you're a shit driver even when sober since alcohol has nothing to do with you being a shit driver.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Excuse me, could I have that again? Taxes fuck the poor? Oh that's gonna be great, explain please!
Re: (Score:3)
> It sure as fuck isn't because it tastes good.
You DO realize that there is good tasting alcohol, right?
Why would drink the stuff that tastes like crap??
Re: (Score:2)
Probably most Airman fresh out of USAF boot camp and far enough into their tech school that they are allowed to drink. (Unless Air Training Command had since banned all alcohol for non prior service at tech schools since I retired.)
Then again, I discovered the secret to alcohol fixes in boot camp... Go to the Lutheran chapel service on Sunday. When I was in, they used real wine, and we couldn't get busted for that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Those so-called 'researchers' could be from some anti-alcohol cult
You mean fundamental / evangelical Christianity?
Re: (Score:2)
But then, without alcohol, our gene pool would be far less ... diverse. Think of what that means for our evolution. #NotMeToo