What are the benefits to drinking alcohol/beer?

[-p.tiddy-]

I know it's not simple, it's not even completely understood yet, I was never trying to make it into a simple thing

IMO seems like you're the one trying to simplify it into something that is just ones choice without any genetic factors


"Ah rubbish, its just an excuse..."...okay doc

[-p.tiddy-]

You can drink quite heavily and not do any of those things.

Cigs cause no tangible damage in moderation. You've gotta have a 20-year habit at least before the chickens come home to roost. Obviously many people who don't smoke like cigs because otherwise they wouldn't go around smoking areas begging people for ****.

I was asking how they are 'good'

I am not aware of any benefits to smoking cigarettes, even in moderation

[-p.tiddy-]

Also Dresta, many people die of cig smoke that don't even smoke

We've been through this lol


Defending tobacco is just a bad look...

[GOBB]

Damn, how big were those glasses? My wife can pound a bottle with little effect the next day

They weren't small. I'd probably have to search for a photo. They werent the typical wine glass. Kinda looked like a cup but glass. Hard to explain but I'm sure you've seen them. At least half that cup/glass was full. 3-4 of those. I drank beer prior but beer doesnt bother me at all.

I can tear thru a case of beer like nothing. Drink Jamaican rum like water. No effects next day. Wine? I dont know what it is. I can never drink that without the next day needed aspirin and water. I dont have wine much. Maybe a couple times a year.

[DukeDelonte13]

Also Dresta, many people die of cig smoke that don't even smoke

We've been through this lol


Defending tobacco is just a bad look...

i don't think there is has ever been a confirmed death attributed to second hand smoke.

[-p.tiddy-]

i don't think there is has ever been a confirmed death attributed to second hand smoke.

http://www.livescience.com/23562-sec...nsmokders.html

[SixShooter]

It's the only way for losers to get laid.

[Dresta]

I know it's not simple, it's not even completely understood yet, I was never trying to make it into a simple thing

IMO seems like you're the one trying to simplify it into something that is just ones choice without any genetic factors


"Ah rubbish, its just an excuse..."...okay doc

Have you actually read anything i've written? I never said that. I did say that what you said was rubbish, because it was. I said the excuse is not even an excuse. And i also said that my definition provides a better excuse for addicts than yours does. So saying i said 'ah rubbish, its just an excuse...' is to completely misconstrued my argument, which is also what you do with all these studies you apparently read. It is painful to discuss something with someone who only builds straw men out of everything you write, who simplifies and reduces everything into simplistic bullshit which seems to be all he is capable of understanding. Learn to read ffs.

What you said was this:

Psychological problems can fuel alcoholism but the majority of alcoholics were just born that way, it runs in families, it's in their DNA

NA is different though, the majority of drug addicts maybe were molested or something as a child...idk

i.e. born alcoholics. In other words: complete and unsubstantiated nonsense.

I replied with this:

You may have a genetic predisposition to the mental state that can lead to addiction, but no more than that. People aren't born alcoholics; what an absurd thing to say. To espouse that there is some kind of alcoholic gene is to spout pseudo-scientific sophistry. In general, addicts who never recover uniformly have had no stable relationships throughout their early life. People with predispositions are by no means condemned to alcoholism, and nor is their predisposition specifically geared towards alcohol (why would it be?).

Now go and read bolded parts of a review of a collection of studies i posted, and then shut the hell up.

[DukeDelonte13]

http://www.livescience.com/23562-sec...nsmokders.html

The article doesn't even include this new study they talk about, and the study seems inherently flawed. The article says they are measuring cotinine levels and claim that african americans are disproportionately affected by second hand smoke based on their research. The article claims 49k people died, but not solely as a result of second hand smoke.

african americans naturally have higher levels of cotinine in their blood.

from the article:
[QUOTE]The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has estimated that secondhand smoke causes about 49,000 deaths annually. The data supporting this, however, rely primarily on self-reporting to gauge secondhand smoke exposure, which many researchers consider unreliable.

Furthermore, given the poor air quality in most large American cities, calculating the number of deaths among nonsmokers due to secondhand smoke

[Dresta]

http://www.livescience.com/23562-sec...nsmokders.html

That isn't a confirmed death, it is a statistical estimate summoned out of thin air. Measurements in the blood show at best that shs may have been a contributing factor, but certainly not a primary cause. It says lung cancer incidence is higher than originally thought when it comes to shs. Which is funny, because this far bigger study found not even a correlation between shs and lung cancer (in fact, none of the raw data is even provided in your bs article):

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/conte...djt365.extract

Can't view the whole thing because you need a subscription, but it is commented in more detail here:

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot....k-between.html

Also this study showing 20-year smokers lungs are ok for transplants:

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/lungs-...lug=healthmain

'In the end, after all other variables were accounted for, people who got lungs from heavy smokers lived as long and as well as those who got lungs from the tobacco-free, Taghavi found. There was no significant difference in cancers, though the study didn’t specifically look at lung cancer.'

So people can smoke a pack a day for 20 years and their lungs be ok, but if someone gets a bit of shs in their system it's an instant health risk? Keep piling up the bullshit. You still haven't PROVEN anything - not even close. Stop with your selective posting of extrapolated statistics.

[highwhey]

wanna be friends?

[Doctor K]

You guys are a bunch of p*ussies if you drink wine or beer. I mean I drink them as an occasional chaser for a shot, but thats about it.


shots or nothing, everything else is toooo weak for me

[Doctor K]

You guys are a bunch of p*ussies if you drink wine or beer. I mean I drink them as an occasional chaser for a shot, but thats about it.


Shots or nothing, everything else is toooo weak for me

[ace23]

You guys are a bunch of p*ussies if you drink wine or beer. I mean I drink them as an occasional chaser for a shot, but thats about it.


Shots or nothing, everything else is toooo weak for me

this tbh

[Balla_Status]

You guys are a bunch of p*ussies if you drink wine or beer. I mean I drink them as an occasional chaser for a shot, but thats about it.


Shots or nothing, everything else is toooo weak for me

Different situations call for different alcohol bro.

I used to be like that in the states but that was only because the bars closed at 2 AM. Where I currently live, bars close at 6 AM so I'm more likely to pace myself, drink beer or drink mixed drinks (trying to keep it to whiskey/vodka waters or else I get sick from all the fizzy soda.)

And you're gay glove.