5 ms·

But alcohol is, you know, grrrreeeat! /s

by leeoniya 11y ago

dllthomas 11y ago
You're confusing alcohol with, you know, Frosted Flakes.
- bitwize 11y ago
  Isn't sugar known to be just as addictive and almost as harmful as alcohol these days?
  - david-given 11y ago
    Ban oxygen. Approximately 93% of all people who have ever consumed it, even once, have died.
    - simplexion 11y ago
      Oxygen is necessary to you living... sugar not so much.
      - smsm42 11y ago
        Sugars are as necessary for your body to work as oxygen is [1]. Of course, you don't have to take them as refined sugar, there are much better ways. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucose#Energy_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucose#Energy_source
        simplexion 11y ago
        That's why I said "not so much" because this is referring to refined sugar.
        Goladus 11y ago
        Refined sugar is still nutritious. The human body even has an enzyme (called sucrase) specifically for breaking down sucrose into glucose and fructose. The glucose can go right into the bloodstream or be stored in the liver as glycogen. The fructose portion is processed by the liver, where it is eventually stored as fat. Given the near-universal appeal of the taste of fructose, as well as historical relevance of fruit to the human diet, makes it seem reasonable to believe that humans are well-evolved to tolerate reasonable levels of fructose without suffering any ill-effects. Even moderate amounts of stored body fat are fine. Alcohol, meanwhile, is not a nutrient. Most humans have a strong aversion to its taste and must train themselves to consume it and even then the flavor is often heavily disguised. Although the body can derive some energy from ethanol, this is only by way of a complex metabolic process that can cause serious acute and chronic liver problems[1][2]; not to mention the risks of alcohol poisoning. The pleasurable, euphoric effects of blood alcohol serve no physiological benefit and directly interfere with cognitive and motor functions. While there may be some potential ancillary benefits of moderate drinking on cardiovascular health [3], the mechanisms and parameters of this are still not well-known or well understood. [1] "Acute Alcohol-Induced Liver Injury" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3372892/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3372892/ [2] "Alcohol-Related Liver Disease" http://www.liverfoundation.org/abouttheliver/info/alcohol/ http://www.liverfoundation.org/abouttheliver/info/alcohol/ [3] "Alcohol and Heart Disease" http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/alcohol-and-heart-disease/ http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/alcohol-and-hear...
ocdtrekkie 11y ago
The fact that we have one terrible substance that is legal isn't a justification to legalize another.
- leeoniya 11y ago
  you're right. however, pot is less terrible than alcohol in basically every way. except that alcohol currently and historically has generated huge tax revenue. if i were the alcohol lobby, i would make damn sure than no other drugs become legal and taxed.
  - bitwize 11y ago
    That's why we should follow the Dana Carvey plan for marijuana: "Legalize it, tax the shit out of it." (I believe Carvey originally made this statement about prostitution, but I'm not sure.)
- pg_is_a_butt 11y ago
  the fact that you say something isn't a justification of it's correctness. a legal ruling creates PRECEDENT. you're an idiot.
- doyoulikeworms 11y ago
  Pot isn't a terrible substance. Especially not when compared to alcohol.
  - Gibbon1 11y ago
    Frosted Flakes though man, not even once
  - conceit 11y ago
    That's always a question of proportion. It's all in the mix. It's sure carcinogenic and surely beats the lung up in a lot of ways. It also does statistically, by my own observation, lead to a significant lack of all kinds of activities. For example, it frequently leads to a lack of believe in - or even just consideration for - how terrible substance consumption is, over all if not for the sake of nutrition.

But alcohol is, you know, grrrreeeat! /s

dllthomas 11y ago

You're confusing alcohol with, you know, Frosted Flakes.

bitwize 11y ago
Isn't sugar known to be just as addictive and almost as harmful as alcohol these days?
- david-given 11y ago
  Ban oxygen. Approximately 93% of all people who have ever consumed it, even once, have died.
  - simplexion 11y ago
    Oxygen is necessary to you living... sugar not so much.
    - smsm42 11y ago
      Sugars are as necessary for your body to work as oxygen is [1]. Of course, you don't have to take them as refined sugar, there are much better ways. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucose#Energy_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucose#Energy_source
      - simplexion 11y ago
        That's why I said "not so much" because this is referring to refined sugar.
        Goladus 11y ago
        Refined sugar is still nutritious. The human body even has an enzyme (called sucrase) specifically for breaking down sucrose into glucose and fructose. The glucose can go right into the bloodstream or be stored in the liver as glycogen. The fructose portion is processed by the liver, where it is eventually stored as fat. Given the near-universal appeal of the taste of fructose, as well as historical relevance of fruit to the human diet, makes it seem reasonable to believe that humans are well-evolved to tolerate reasonable levels of fructose without suffering any ill-effects. Even moderate amounts of stored body fat are fine. Alcohol, meanwhile, is not a nutrient. Most humans have a strong aversion to its taste and must train themselves to consume it and even then the flavor is often heavily disguised. Although the body can derive some energy from ethanol, this is only by way of a complex metabolic process that can cause serious acute and chronic liver problems[1][2]; not to mention the risks of alcohol poisoning. The pleasurable, euphoric effects of blood alcohol serve no physiological benefit and directly interfere with cognitive and motor functions. While there may be some potential ancillary benefits of moderate drinking on cardiovascular health [3], the mechanisms and parameters of this are still not well-known or well understood. [1] "Acute Alcohol-Induced Liver Injury" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3372892/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3372892/ [2] "Alcohol-Related Liver Disease" http://www.liverfoundation.org/abouttheliver/info/alcohol/ http://www.liverfoundation.org/abouttheliver/info/alcohol/ [3] "Alcohol and Heart Disease" http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/alcohol-and-heart-disease/ http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/alcohol-and-hear...

ocdtrekkie 11y ago

The fact that we have one terrible substance that is legal isn't a justification to legalize another.

leeoniya 11y ago
you're right. however, pot is less terrible than alcohol in basically every way. except that alcohol currently and historically has generated huge tax revenue. if i were the alcohol lobby, i would make damn sure than no other drugs become legal and taxed.
- bitwize 11y ago
  That's why we should follow the Dana Carvey plan for marijuana: "Legalize it, tax the shit out of it." (I believe Carvey originally made this statement about prostitution, but I'm not sure.)
pg_is_a_butt 11y ago
the fact that you say something isn't a justification of it's correctness. a legal ruling creates PRECEDENT. you're an idiot.
doyoulikeworms 11y ago
Pot isn't a terrible substance. Especially not when compared to alcohol.
- Gibbon1 11y ago
  Frosted Flakes though man, not even once
- conceit 11y ago
  That's always a question of proportion. It's all in the mix. It's sure carcinogenic and surely beats the lung up in a lot of ways. It also does statistically, by my own observation, lead to a significant lack of all kinds of activities. For example, it frequently leads to a lack of believe in - or even just consideration for - how terrible substance consumption is, over all if not for the sake of nutrition.