8 ms·

The author suggests additional restrictions against alcohol in favor of increasing productivity, a common argument for the failed experiment of prohibition. Sin

• JimtheCoder 3y ago
  "Since when is my productivity his problem?" To be fair, unproductive citizens are society's problem in many ways, and he is part of society... Edit: Thanks for downvotes.
  • harvey9 3y ago
    You've framed this like having a party on the weekend equates to being universally unproductive.
    • JimtheCoder 3y ago
      I am not sure how you got that from my statement...
  • jdiff 3y ago
    The problem is caring about productivity too much.There's more to life than your work output. A minmaxed, micro-optimized life is a horribly miserable one.
  • throwanem 3y ago
    The downvotes encourage you to stop wasting society's time unproductively posting on Hacker News.
    • JimtheCoder 3y ago
      Since my productivity should not matter to others, why bother wasting the time?
      • throwanem 3y ago
        I should think you'd be pleased with a design in which correcting unsocial behavior requires so much less effort than perpetrating it.
  • engineer_22 3y ago
    I upvoted you, I think the dogpile is unfair, you have a valid point. My opinion is western society has the most productive economic apparatus in History, maybe alcohol isn't so corrosive after all
    • fuzztester 3y ago
      >My opinion is western society has the most productive economic apparatus in History Yes, in <pedantic>known history</pedantic>. And yes, if you ignore the negative externalities such as destruction of the environment, high obesity and other first-world killer diseases like heart attack, stroke, etc. Of course, other / developing countries are greedy and eager to emulate all that unsustainable shit, and are coming up fast on the radar screen often ignoring the remedial measures (for what they are worth) that the former countries are applying.
• CrampusDestrus 3y ago
  >I have yet to see a compelling argument for heavily restricting alcohol. provably better physical health provably (much) better mental health BONUS: more saved money than you'd think alcohol fucks up your sleep, your mood, your liver, your social interactions. it's straight up poison save for extremely moderate quantities that almost nobody settles for when having a drink. nothing better than waking up monday morning feeling like you got punched in the stomach all night and barely able to hold a straight thought with the impeding stress of having to go to work and perform. so you get painkillers, insane amounts of coffee and maybe some other drug your GP blindly prescribed you and you go on about your day barely holding together the mess that you are
  • gjsman-1000 3y ago
    > it's straight up poison save for extremely moderate quantities that almost nobody settles for when having a drink. Prove that. I would bet you $100 right now that there is a "silent majority" (even though I dislike the term) that has no problem whatsoever with keeping their drinking under control and to reasonable levels. I am among them - I keep it to a single drink and can go weeks with them in my fridge without taking a swig. You assume that alcohol is the problem; whereas often, even though I could be wrong; excess drinking is more often a symptom of other problems (stress, anxiety, depression, social pressure, etc.) Getting rid of symptoms does not heal the problem. Edit for @AtlasLion ("posting too fast - please slow down"): I'm at the point where, at my levels, I feel that it is alarmism. I get that drinking alcohol is never risk-free, but by the same logic, standing outside under a tree is never risk-free. A car ride is never risk-free. Using a cell phone in public is never risk-free. Meeting a stranger is not risk-free. Taking a vaccine is not risk-free. Getting married is certainly not risk-free. It's that kind of risk in my mind.
    • sixstringtheory 3y ago
      > I keep it to a single drink and can go weeks with them in my fridge without taking a swig. Are you me? But really, in my experience, (and I’m nearly double the legal drinking age) we are the minority. When I was college age (even though I didn’t do the standard US 4 year stint, but was adjacent to it and all the fraternity etc shenanigans that come with it) it was about rage bingeing. Now amongst my professional friends and colleagues, some of whom are parents, I am the _only_ one either not drinking or stopping after just one. I prefer driving myself everywhere because inevitably someone wants another round when I want to get back to my kids before bedtime, or we’re on the way home from a remote trip and I don’t want to ride with someone that’s already sloshed and wants to bring a “road soda” with them. I kind of dread work trips because while I do like many of my colleagues, there is way too much alcohol consumption, like, late nights every night for a week straight. People become skilled at hiding their inebriated state, and like pathological liars, believe themselves that they “aren’t that drunk”. I do hope it’s just the bubble I grew up in because I want to think there’s a pathway to teaching my kids there is a responsible way to enjoy it without making it a competition, identity or escape. But it’s hard for me to believe my experience is very far outside the norm. > excess drinking is more often a symptom of other problems (stress, anxiety, depression, social pressure, etc.) I believe it. > Getting rid of symptoms does not heal the problem. Looking the other way while people are actively hurting themselves with the wrong medication or dose doesn’t help either. I’m not saying we need a teetotaling prohibition. But I actually am grateful that there is a two drink limit at the breweries where I live (even if it was installed for the wrong reasons) because it cuts down on the bs I described above. Like many things I’m sure it comes down to education, not to mention other cultural things like religion and puritanism, paired with youthful rebellion breeding dysfunctional coming of age. And finally, like with anything else it’s the dose that makes the poison, and not a binary question of allowed or banned, but where a sensible limit can be found.
• FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  <sarcasm> I can spend my days doing opium if I want. You can't tell me not to live on the street. </sarcasm> All societies struggle with drugs that become a drag on the entire group. Opium in China, opium dens, crack, heroin, etc... I think there is a rate of decay. Alcohol kills you just slow enough for people not to care. Alcohol has just flown under the radar because it is bad, but not quite bad enough to kill people off early and reach the threshold where the majority of people realize it is bad. Alcohol drags on, and kills body just slowly enough that you can be productive and hit 50 before dying off. Then since you are 50+, everybody can chime in with explanatory excuses to cover their own drinking and say "he should have ran more", "should have eaten better". [Edit] Know we aren't supposed to talk about downvotes. But I am surprised that any post that is against alcohol, even on the basis of health, gets a negative reaction. When I post about alcohol being bad, I get a lot of responses from 'functional alcoholics' making pro-alcohol arguments.
  • FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    I'm not totally sure there isn't a lot of Alcohol Industry bots, or shills, that flood HN when these articles come out. It is a little too much push back. Like the pro-alcohol group aren't just chilling, it's like an overwhelming anger. Like "stop trying to take my alcohol away from me, I don't need it, it's just for fun, I'm ok, don't take it, I'm perfectly fine, I hate you"
• NotYourLawyer 3y ago
  Authoritarian paternalism at its best.
• lolinder 3y ago
  Productivity is just one of several things the article identifies as a problem. They don't even spend that much time on it relative to others like violence and healthcare costs, which are obviously all of our problem. Also, I don't see anywhere in the article where the author says "these restrictions should do the trick". They talk about a few attempts to restrict alcohol, but mostly their conclusion is "we don't know yet if this is working" or "we don't know this would work here." They're not shying away from the complexity. They end by just advocating that individuals stop contributing to alcohol's position as a "normal" thing.
• jackmott42 3y ago
  >Since when is my productivity his problem? We are all in this together, our behaviors are all shared problems. The more important lesson from prohibition is that prohibition just doesn't work. There may be other ways to disincentivize the behavior though. If there was a way to do it, we would all save tons of money on health care, have less drunk driving deaths, less deaths due to various violence, get more done, etc etc
  • erenyeager 3y ago
    Prohibition does work provided the culture around drinking changes. Look at countries where alcohol is prohibited much lower rates of cirrhosis and alcohol related diseases. US prohibition didn’t work because most of US culture was not ready to give up alcohol and it was only implemented for about less than a decade. But if alcohol was banned for a larger time period, more education and cultural shift efforts, and more uniform enforcement, we would see much better outcomes and cultural attitudes change.
    • tarboreus 3y ago
      Yes, we just need to try harder. Maybe institute a special anti-alcohol secret police, or put people in prison for 25-life if they drink. The Rockerfeller laws were super great, we need more of that. We could also provide incentives for people to stay inside and play around with their phones, that will encourage less drinking. Also, it seems like, when people get together, they often drink, so maybe we could make assembling in large groups illegal. Finally, I've read that breathing exercises like left nostril breathing can induce altered states similar to drunkenness, and also that taking OTC pills like sleeping pills can cause inebriation. We should ban all psychoactive OTC pills and keep a close eye on people doing yoga.
      • erenyeager 3y ago
        You make fun and light of efforts to limit the effects on toxins on society, but I’m sure if you saw people dying as a result of alcoholic cirrhosis or the many diseases and incidents occurring from alcohol abuse you would change your mind if you are a reasonable person, about the current drinking culture. But as people die these terrible deaths, you continue to make fun of the situation. Consider.
• atlasunshrugged 3y ago
  I'm inclined to agree, with the exception of wherever the total tax collections from alcohol sales and related industry is less than the medical and other associated cost borne by the state (and therefore taxpayers) for treatment of alcohol related disease or alcohol related issues (e.g., directly attributable crime). In essence, if it costs a country $100M to deal with all the negative externalities from alcohol, but they only receive $50M in tax revenue today, it's time to double the tax.
  • anthony_d 3y ago
    I’m inclined to agree with you, but I’m extremely suspicious of most cost analyses. It’s pretty rare to see one that isn’t written to support a preexisting ideology.
• pjlegato 3y ago
  Indeed, Germany, Ireland, and France (among others) exhibit both extremely high productivity[1] and extremely high per capita alcohol consumption[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_labour_productivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_labour_pr... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_consumption_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_c...
  • rascul 3y ago
    Maybe the Ballmer peak isn't just for programmers.
• npsimons 3y ago
  > He also simultaneously cites the Arab world as an example of an alcohol-free society, yet makes no mention of the relatively low productivity rates there. Even more ridiculous is that last I've heard, there is still alcohol being consumed in muslim countries. I am firmly opposed to prohibition. As many have pointed out, it just doesn't work. Regulation and taxation, sure. And definitely anyone who is considering quitting should be encouraged and supported. No matter what else, support systems for those addicted (and victims of abusers) should be in place. But prohibition did not, and will not, work.
  • erenyeager 3y ago
    Alcohol abuse is one of the causes of major health problems in countries where alcohol is widely consumed. Look at a map of cirrhosis rates, there’s a huge lack of cases in places where alcohol is prohibited. By supporting the current drinking culture in the US , you are indirectly supporting the terrible health results like cirrhosis. The best way to stop is to never start. Prohibition does work, the important part is effecting a cultural shift in attitude towards alcohol, similar to how smoking was marginalized. We don’t need to live with this crazy culture where drinking is glorified and a big social phenomenon.
    • npsimons 3y ago
      > Prohibition does work It didn't. We tried it. Look, I'm all for reducing consumption. I'm on board with trying to improve public health, or just health of everyone in general. But prohibition does not work. Didn't work for alcohol. Didn't work for marijuana. Didn't work for sex education. So the question to ask is, what does work? And realize that an all or nothing, black and white approach is counterproductive. Educate, inform, regulate. That's the best we can do, and there's a lot of room in the 'regulate' part to make inroads. Perhaps someday we'll get to synthehol, but we're a long way from that today.
      • erenyeager 3y ago
        I’ve already outlined why US prohibition didn’t work. Basically it was not long enough and a major cultural shift did not occur in US drinking culture. A concerted effort and taking advantage of the current rise in sober culture can really help lower rates of alcohol consumption. We saw this so the decline in tobacco usage. It’s not correct to say any prohibition does not work based on US prohibition in the 1920s. Prohibition for anything can reduce its access and use among people. It’s one of our best tools in preventing problems. This is a false belief in American culture that prohibition of substance does not work, it clearly does work in many countries worldwide in terms of lowering health problems due to alcohol abuses. In the case of things like marijuana, sex education, these are cultural failures. In both cases, the culture was trending towards engaging in these. Prohibition must also enter the cultural attitudes to be greatly effective, but even a general prohibition over a long scale has an effect.
• ren_engineer 3y ago
  >a common argument for the failed experiment of prohibition prohibition actually succeeded in most of its goals, which was about reducing domestic violence and deaths from liver disease. The alcohol industry's billions in lobbying and advertising has done it's job to make people think it was a failure https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibition-alcohol-public-health-crime-benefits https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibit... >contrary to popular perceptions about Prohibition and crime, that prohibitions were associated with lower murder rates — as much as 29 percent lower in some cases >Per capita consumption initially fell to 30 percent of pre-Prohibition levels, before gradually increasing to 60 or 70 percent by 1933.” That suggests a 30 percent reduction, at a minimum, in consumption >Prohibition reduced liver cirrhosis deaths — a commonly used proxy for all drinking at the time — by 10 to 20 percent.
  • efdee 3y ago
    A complete prohibition only reduced those by resp 30% and 10-20%? And you call that "not a failure" when speaking about such a hyperinvasive measure?
• JohnFen 3y ago
  I also greatly resent the implication that society has some sort of right to legally mandate productivity from me.
• za3faran 3y ago
  > mention of the relatively low productivity rates there Citation needed for that claim. It's also trivial to disprove just by looking at history.