8 ms·

Maximum two drinks a week, Canada advises

23 points by sjcsjc 4y ago

WastingMyTime89 4y ago
What’s the point of having national recommendation with a set amount when it comes to alcohol consumption? It’s now a fact that alcohol has negative effect at any dose. The whole two drinks per week is once again a purely arbitrary number. At least, the Netherland got it right. Just say it’s unhealthy, recommend people don’t drink regularly and let them do what they want from there.
- fasteo 4y ago
  >>> It’s now a fact that alcohol has negative effect at any dose Any reference for this ?
  - rowanG077 4y ago
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.10.21256931v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.10.21256931v...
  - twelve40 4y ago
    > according to new national recommendations that say zero alcohol is the only risk-free approach TFA says this right at the top. Not that i'm too happy about it.
- sannee 4y ago
  > At least, the Netherland got it right. Just say it’s unhealthy, recommend people don’t drink regularly and let them do what they want from there. Did this actually decrease alcohol consumption though?
  - dabbledash 4y ago
    And what if it didn't?
    - sannee 4y ago
      Then it would not be "done right". Performing an action that has no effect is pointless.
      - dabbledash 4y ago
        Informing people so they can make their own choice is "having an effect."
vintermann 4y ago
> It may be a rude awakening for the roughly 80% of Canadian adults who drink. Probably not, because after the 20% who never drink, there's another 20% who practically never drink. E.g, who never order alcohol on their own but drink to be polite if it's offered to them. I bet the next 20% are also below the new guideline already. Alcohol consumption is extremely top heavy: a small share of the population drinks a very large share of everything that's produced. It's why, even if you don't worry about a 15% increase in neck cancer risk (I wouldn't), it's such a huge moral hazard for society. The money that's to be made from alcohol - and it's a lot of money, and deeply entangled with industries such as live music and hospitality - comes overwhelmingly from use that's harmful by any sane standard. I welcome the advice, and I welcome warning labels even more. But we're still tipitoeing around the elephant in the room, which is the economic incentives: how it's a legal way to make lots of money on people wrecking their health and lives.
- sw104 4y ago
  The thing is, once you take away all the industries thriving on selling products that damage/ruin lives, there's not really much left is there? It's legal to sell fast food and junk food (crisps, fizzy drinks, chocolate, even juice) which in large contributes to the obesity epidemic. It's legal to sell alcohol, cigarettes and other addiction forming substances. It's legal to sell media like video games and TV shows which waste people's time and potential. I live a 5 minute walk from a city centre with all sorts of shops. I walk past and think most of them offer little to negative benefit to people's lives.
  - vintermann 4y ago
    That's a bit like what they call, arson, murder and jaywalking. When you mix together things that we need in moderation to live (food), things whose harmfulness is questionable (entertainment) with two of the biggest causes of ill health and misery - well, that makes alcohol and tobacco look far better than they are. Not to let the fast food industry entirely off the hook, but alcohol, tobacco and gambling really are in a league of their own when it comes to profits being tied to harmful use.
fidgewidge 4y ago
These limits come from epidemiologists, so are they scientific? https://www.theregister.com/2007/10/22/drinking_made_it_all_up/ https://www.theregister.com/2007/10/22/drinking_made_it_all_... > The UK government's guidelines on how much it is safe to drink are based on numbers "plucked out of the air" by a committee that met in 1987. According to The Times newspaper, the limits are not based on any science whatsoever, rather "a feeling that you had to say something" about what would be a safe drinking level. This is all according to Richard Smith, a member of the Royal College of Physicians working party who produced the guidelines. > He told the newspaper that doctors were concerned about mounting evidence that heavy long term drinking does cause serious health problems. But that the committee's epidemiologist had acknowledged at the time that there was "no data", and that "it's impossible to say what's safe and what isn't". UK limits were later lowered, lowered again and then (of course) equalized between men and women even though it was previously recognized that men are physically bigger.
T3RMINATED 4y ago
[dead]
profstasiak 4y ago
Why they decided that can be read here: [0] I advise all hackers to follow Voluntary Prohibition as suggested by Tyler Cowen. We need to make alcohol uncool. Your health including important for hackers mental health and brain health will improve. By showing others that not drinking is cool, we help people increase that but also help them not get ruined by alcohol addiction. In the second order thinking, if enough of us do this, and governments become less alcohol happy, we can decrease violence a lot, when we change societies habits. Read Tyler Cowen for studies about alcohol and violence, it is also mentioned in the report. [0] https://ccsa.ca/sites/default/files/2023-01/Canada%27s%20Guidance%20on%20Alcohol%20and%20Health%20Final%20Report_l.pdf https://ccsa.ca/sites/default/files/2023-01/Canada%27s%20Gui...
Proven 4y ago
[dead]
Eavolution 4y ago
Is this like 2 drinks a week average, or no more than 2 drinks in any given week? Because I'd say a lot of people are less than 2 average, but more than 2 in a given week
simonmesmith 4y ago
As a Canadian, I think it’s important to provide some additional context. In Ontario, the province where I live, the provincial government has a near monopoly on alcohol sales through its LCBO stores. These stores bring in well over $2 billion of revenue each year (https://www.lcbo.com/content/dam/lcbo/PDFs/AnnualReport/LCBO%20FY2021%20ANNUAL%20REPORT%20-%20FINAL%20ENGLISH%20-%20AODA%20COMPLIANT.pdf https://www.lcbo.com/content/dam/lcbo/PDFs/AnnualReport/LCBO...). While I know there are arguments for this like “if people are going to drink anyway, the government should control and benefit from it,” it certainly sends mixed messages. The LCBO even advertises to promote alcohol consumption. Even worse, the sale of alcohol doesn’t offset the costs of alcohol to governments, according to this study on a government website: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/reports-publications/health-promotion-chronic-disease-prevention-canada-research-policy-practice/vol-40-no-5-6-2020/alcohol-deficit-canadian-government-revenue-societal-costs.html https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/reports-publ...
readonthegoapp 4y ago
i appreciate what appears to be the truthiness of all the new alcohol advice, but i am curious what the actual repercussions are supposed to be other than 'bad'. reminds me of the 'drugs are bad' southpark lecturing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeprIqxrDQo&t=14s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeprIqxrDQo&t=14s smaller brain? ok, sounds bad. if that's even worth 1% of our global toxic masculinity problem, we need to go to zero alcohol stat. but there seems to be very little in the way of specific conclusions about just how detrimental alcohol is. e.g. 2 drinks per week leads to a 5% brain shrinkage per year until your brain is the size of a pea at which point you die - that's 15 years for the average human, so if you started drinking around 18, you'll be dead by 40. that's something that people can relate to maybe. global alcohol market is about $1.5T today, growing at 10% a year. sounds like a lot. but not wearing a bike helmet is supposedly bad, too, but all the safest countries to ride in the world use helmets the least.

23 points by sjcsjc 4y ago

What’s the point of having national recommendation with a set amount when it comes to alcohol consumption? It’s now a fact that alcohol has negative effect at any dose. The whole two drinks per week is once again a purely arbitrary number. At least, the Netherland got it right. Just say it’s unhealthy, recommend people don’t drink regularly and let them do what they want from there.

fasteo 4y ago
>>> It’s now a fact that alcohol has negative effect at any dose Any reference for this ?
- rowanG077 4y ago
  https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.10.21256931v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.10.21256931v...
- twelve40 4y ago
  > according to new national recommendations that say zero alcohol is the only risk-free approach TFA says this right at the top. Not that i'm too happy about it.
sannee 4y ago
> At least, the Netherland got it right. Just say it’s unhealthy, recommend people don’t drink regularly and let them do what they want from there. Did this actually decrease alcohol consumption though?
- dabbledash 4y ago
  And what if it didn't?
  - sannee 4y ago
    Then it would not be "done right". Performing an action that has no effect is pointless.
    - dabbledash 4y ago
      Informing people so they can make their own choice is "having an effect."

vintermann 4y ago

> It may be a rude awakening for the roughly 80% of Canadian adults who drink. Probably not, because after the 20% who never drink, there's another 20% who practically never drink. E.g, who never order alcohol on their own but drink to be polite if it's offered to them. I bet the next 20% are also below the new guideline already. Alcohol consumption is extremely top heavy: a small share of the population drinks a very large share of everything that's produced. It's why, even if you don't worry about a 15% increase in neck cancer risk (I wouldn't), it's such a huge moral hazard for society. The money that's to be made from alcohol - and it's a lot of money, and deeply entangled with industries such as live music and hospitality - comes overwhelmingly from use that's harmful by any sane standard. I welcome the advice, and I welcome warning labels even more. But we're still tipitoeing around the elephant in the room, which is the economic incentives: how it's a legal way to make lots of money on people wrecking their health and lives.

sw104 4y ago
The thing is, once you take away all the industries thriving on selling products that damage/ruin lives, there's not really much left is there? It's legal to sell fast food and junk food (crisps, fizzy drinks, chocolate, even juice) which in large contributes to the obesity epidemic. It's legal to sell alcohol, cigarettes and other addiction forming substances. It's legal to sell media like video games and TV shows which waste people's time and potential. I live a 5 minute walk from a city centre with all sorts of shops. I walk past and think most of them offer little to negative benefit to people's lives.
- vintermann 4y ago
  That's a bit like what they call, arson, murder and jaywalking. When you mix together things that we need in moderation to live (food), things whose harmfulness is questionable (entertainment) with two of the biggest causes of ill health and misery - well, that makes alcohol and tobacco look far better than they are. Not to let the fast food industry entirely off the hook, but alcohol, tobacco and gambling really are in a league of their own when it comes to profits being tied to harmful use.

fidgewidge 4y ago

These limits come from epidemiologists, so are they scientific? https://www.theregister.com/2007/10/22/drinking_made_it_all_up/ https://www.theregister.com/2007/10/22/drinking_made_it_all_... > The UK government's guidelines on how much it is safe to drink are based on numbers "plucked out of the air" by a committee that met in 1987. According to The Times newspaper, the limits are not based on any science whatsoever, rather "a feeling that you had to say something" about what would be a safe drinking level. This is all according to Richard Smith, a member of the Royal College of Physicians working party who produced the guidelines. > He told the newspaper that doctors were concerned about mounting evidence that heavy long term drinking does cause serious health problems. But that the committee's epidemiologist had acknowledged at the time that there was "no data", and that "it's impossible to say what's safe and what isn't". UK limits were later lowered, lowered again and then (of course) equalized between men and women even though it was previously recognized that men are physically bigger.

T3RMINATED 4y ago

[dead]

profstasiak 4y ago

Why they decided that can be read here: [0] I advise all hackers to follow Voluntary Prohibition as suggested by Tyler Cowen. We need to make alcohol uncool. Your health including important for hackers mental health and brain health will improve. By showing others that not drinking is cool, we help people increase that but also help them not get ruined by alcohol addiction. In the second order thinking, if enough of us do this, and governments become less alcohol happy, we can decrease violence a lot, when we change societies habits. Read Tyler Cowen for studies about alcohol and violence, it is also mentioned in the report. [0] https://ccsa.ca/sites/default/files/2023-01/Canada%27s%20Guidance%20on%20Alcohol%20and%20Health%20Final%20Report_l.pdf https://ccsa.ca/sites/default/files/2023-01/Canada%27s%20Gui...

Proven 4y ago

[dead]

Eavolution 4y ago

Is this like 2 drinks a week average, or no more than 2 drinks in any given week? Because I'd say a lot of people are less than 2 average, but more than 2 in a given week

simonmesmith 4y ago

As a Canadian, I think it’s important to provide some additional context. In Ontario, the province where I live, the provincial government has a near monopoly on alcohol sales through its LCBO stores. These stores bring in well over $2 billion of revenue each year (https://www.lcbo.com/content/dam/lcbo/PDFs/AnnualReport/LCBO%20FY2021%20ANNUAL%20REPORT%20-%20FINAL%20ENGLISH%20-%20AODA%20COMPLIANT.pdf https://www.lcbo.com/content/dam/lcbo/PDFs/AnnualReport/LCBO...). While I know there are arguments for this like “if people are going to drink anyway, the government should control and benefit from it,” it certainly sends mixed messages. The LCBO even advertises to promote alcohol consumption. Even worse, the sale of alcohol doesn’t offset the costs of alcohol to governments, according to this study on a government website: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/reports-publications/health-promotion-chronic-disease-prevention-canada-research-policy-practice/vol-40-no-5-6-2020/alcohol-deficit-canadian-government-revenue-societal-costs.html https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/reports-publ...

readonthegoapp 4y ago

i appreciate what appears to be the truthiness of all the new alcohol advice, but i am curious what the actual repercussions are supposed to be other than 'bad'. reminds me of the 'drugs are bad' southpark lecturing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeprIqxrDQo&t=14s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeprIqxrDQo&t=14s smaller brain? ok, sounds bad. if that's even worth 1% of our global toxic masculinity problem, we need to go to zero alcohol stat. but there seems to be very little in the way of specific conclusions about just how detrimental alcohol is. e.g. 2 drinks per week leads to a 5% brain shrinkage per year until your brain is the size of a pea at which point you die - that's 15 years for the average human, so if you started drinking around 18, you'll be dead by 40. that's something that people can relate to maybe. global alcohol market is about $1.5T today, growing at 10% a year. sounds like a lot. but not wearing a bike helmet is supposedly bad, too, but all the safest countries to ride in the world use helmets the least.