The US had a very particular set of economic conditions in respect of infrastructure quality, volume of arable land for corn production, and corn vs corn mash distillate transport costs.
The result? "[In the 1790s], the settlement of the so-called “corn belt” in the Midwest created large new supplies of corn, which was cheaper and more profitable to convert into whiskey than it was to transport great distances without spoiling. Thus, as Rorabaugh notes: “Western farmers could make no profit shipping corn overland to eastern markets, so they distilled corn into ‘liquid assets.’ By the 1820s, whiskey sold for twenty-five cents a gallon, making it cheaper than beer, wine, coffee, tea, or milk.”
https://www.pastemagazine.com/drink/alcohol-history/the-1800...
Given the price, Americans drank an absurdly, mind-bendingly large amount of booze. While not uniform, the US has a consistently different relationship with alcohol than most other countries as a result of the impact of these events and responses to them upon it's food culture.
I once skimmed Prohibition-era academic text that described US drinking culture of the pre-Prohibition period in detail. It was fairly disturbing, as you suggest—whiskey in serving sizes that would work better with beer, and things like that.
But even though Prohibition failed to stop people from drinking, it apparently _did_ disrupt the earlier drinking culture in many ways. So I would be careful about using pre-Prohibition behavior to make inferences about post-Prohibition behavior.
(I'd love to find that book again, but sadly the library which had it got rid of a substantial number of rarely-used older books at some point.)
It's that there's a shared history regarding alcohol consumption which is uniquely American in nature.
Prohibition is part of that unique experience, and very much a part of the explanation for the compression of the consumption distribution.
Apparently it was absolutely normal for everyone who could afford it to be drunk all of the time, from seamstresses to soldiers. I don't think our modern efficiency-conscious society can really understand what it was like back then.
Safe drinking water was a pain in the ass. So mild alcoholic drinks was the norm. That that'd give you a little buzz at best.
Very few people could have afforded to be truly shitfaced 24/7.
The article says something else:
>> the median consumption among those who do drink is just three beverages per week.
You might get less than 1 / week by including non-drinkers, who are (according to the article) at least 30% of American adults. But they're 0% of American alcohol drinkers.
Anyone from Northern/Eastern Europe or UK will be shocked by US drinking culture in the opposite direction. My experience of Germany was also certainly not “wine for dinner” type of behavior
Do you really suggest they drink hard liquor with dinner itself?
I grew up in northern Italy and spent years in Vienna for study, and did also a fair amount of travel around in Europe, what you seem to suggest just does not rings true for me.
For dinner and lunch it's normally one or a combination of:
* water, with or without CO2
* juice from self-made or store bought syrups (think from local berries or things like elder)
* soft drinks
* beer
* wine
Beer and wine are really not common on workday-lunch (at least if you don't work construction, or have a business dinner), but fairly normal on weekends or holidays, at least in my experience.
And only after dinner, and not always, a single Grappa/Schnaps/Shot is consumed, and that normally only if either people are over, or one dines at a restaurant (especially if it's a more folksy place).
If I go out with my SO to dine it's almost always a combination of water and wine if it's in a restaurant, and soda or beer if it's more street-food like, but never ever did we, or any other people we saw, drank harder liquor to their meal...
Party, yes. Forget their troubles? Not in the context I’ve seen it happen in.
Drinking was always a strictly enjoyable activity in itself, not something you did to forget your troubles.
Only Northern Europe with its dreary weather is the outlier, somewhat.
My point being that raw alcohol consumption is going down across Europe.
source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/575106/beer-consumption-...
Using some proxies for level of extreme drinking: The US isn't in the top 15 for binge drinking and is below the OECD average[1], and is ranked 50th globally for alcohol deaths (with far fewer than all 3 of OP's mentioned countries). This is despite a healthcare system with more gaps _and_ much higher risks from drunk driving due to being sparse and more car-oriented.
[1] www.statista.com/chart/amp/5357/the-worlds-worst-countries-for-binge-drinking/
[0] https://www.addictionresource.net/blog/california-sober/
Neither are 'healthy' in any sense of the word.
Brain damage from pot is mostly reversible, though. Damage from alcohol less so.
In either case, Dosis sola facit venenum (only the dose makes the poison).
So a person who used to be a heavy drinker before, would be better off, with a occasional smoke. A heavy pot smoker, with the occasional beer. And the wors of both worlds, is to combine both in excess.
In contrast, every regular marijuana user I've known long enough to form a judgement about their habit is very inoffensive to the people around them. It doesn't seem to bleed out into their work and emotional lives as much.
The evidence doesn't support marijuana being more dangerous than alcohol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_harmfulness#/media/File:D... Alcohol is moderately more habit forming, and several orders of magnitude more dangerous.
But in general if I would have to chooss between a heavy pot smoker and a heavy drinker as roommate, I probably would "prefer" the average marijuanna user
> Prof Nutt told the BBC: "Overall, alcohol is the most harmful drug because it's so widely used.
Another way to measure is the therapuetic index. It's the ratio of the lethal dose divided by the effective dose. It's about 10 for ethanol and 30,000 for cannabis. Larger is safer.
This means drinking ~10 times as much as your usual amount of alcohol has a 50% chance of killing you. For cannabis you would need to consume ~30,000 times as much (which is probably not even physically possible).
That’s a pretty pointless indicator. By that measure marijuana is better for you than water.
I have read of people dying from consuming too much water.
I have not read that of cannabis.
I've seen more lives around me hampered by marijuana than by alcohol, despite having a very large amount of heavy drinkers in my circles.
However as far as actual physical health (rather then mental or social) I believe cannabis to be far less detrimental.
It might demotivate a person but it doesn't flat out kill them.
Apart from the effects on the brain, there is also the weight issue when drinking both beer and wine.
It's amazing to me how much difference just 6-7 kg less weight makes.
Still, good point I'll keep that in mind.
[1]https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/what-you-should-kno...
I'll say this for cannabis: it can slow my mind down a bit when I otherwise am thinking about the 500 things that are worrying me in my life, and it allows me to sit down and watch a movie when I sometimes find it very hard to get the focus to do so. Self-medicating? Sure. Will I overdose on it or suddenly act with appalling bravado, risk-taking and sometimes anger? No. It makes me want to eat junk food.
Alcohol, I believe, is much more dangerous (when used to get to the point of drunken-ness on a regular basis) for your body and behavior.
I don't like the appeal of "stoner" culture either, and I think that like any vice or substance, it can have a negative effect on abusers. Our experiences must be different.
I’m curious what it looks by age, geography, and household income.
In the past week I've had about three bottles of gin in various cocktails, assorted craft beers of the IPA or imperial stout variety, a couple of whiskeys, and an aperitif most days. I've been drinking mostly while sitting in front of my TV with my iPad out, doing some light programming, working on photo editing, or playing games. Normally I'd spend more time at bars with friends, but it's not exactly a great time for that.
I don't drink before or during work hours, but most hours after work I've either got a drink or I'm making one.
I'm 30ish, I make decent money doing devops, and I like to think the quality of my work exceeds that of most of my peers -- I've certainly gotten feedback saying as much from line managers.
I don't want to be too specific about anything, but I am happy to answer questions, if anyone has any.
As I’ve gotten older (I’m 40ish) hangovers have gotten worse and worse. It’s now to the point if I have 4-5 medium beers on Friday night I can write off Saturday. Has your subjective experience of hangovers gotten easier over time?
I tend to drink more on Friday and Saturday nights, and I will wake up the next morning feeling seedy and in need of a big greasy breakfast.
Weekday mornings, if I have had more than usual (by my own standards) to drink the previous night, I will wake up feeling like I slept poorly, but no more than that. It'll take me an hour to get up to speed, and then I'm likely to go to bed earlier than usual that night.
None of this has changed noticeably over the past decade.
It may or may not make a difference that I am meticulous about getting 8.5 hours in bed each night, I don't know, and it may make a difference that I've always had a fairly high tolerance for alcohol's effects.
Now, a cocktail (lockdown has turned my wife in to master bartender). Glass of wine with dinner. Maybe a whiskey after. All good.
Have friends over, turns into a bit to much and write off next morning.
Important disclosure: I'm an investor in ZB. I use the product at least every other day and have done so for a few years.
It's a key ingredient in a lot of those commercial pre-drinking drinks. Cycteine itself is used as a combatant against Tylenol poisoning and it accelerates metabolism of acetaldehyde (at least in rats).
The majority drink hardest when they're in their 20s, start slowing down in their 30s, and all but teetotal as they progress through their 40s. Hangovers are all just a product of your tolerance.
I eat less than the average bear, I am overweight (although not absurdly so), and don't snack while drinking. I will occasionally go a week or two in which I only have one or two beers, total, and I have noticed that my appetite is significantly larger on latter half of those weeks.
Weight is one of the primary reasons I am considering drinking less, although there would have to be quite the associated and significant lifestyle change for it to stick.
I was a rather hesitant drinker, having two to three glasses of wine a week. When I stopped drinking even that (on Apr 30), I lost several pounds over just five weeks. And they went off my midsection, the belt does not lie and neither does the mirror.
Even this relatively small amount of alcohol did something.
https://www.livestrong.com/article/138115-beer-vs-wine-calor...
And even then the wine comes in pretty much in the middle of the beer range, you've just unilaterally decided that the less calorific beers are more common and drawn your conclusion on that basis..
Maybe that is true in the US, certainly causes a problem with ordering an IPA in the UK - I don't like the light fruity style of the American version, which is typically what you get from anything that would self-describe as 'craft', so it's a bit of a game of judging the branding for modern start-uppy craftiness vs.. imperialness (!) if not already familiar. (I digress..)
Makes you realize the hypocrisy of "drink responsibly".
This is also true of Europe. What the parent said about France/Croatia/Germany does not reflect the drinking culture in other places.
Also the German standard drink size for beer is less than 12 fluid ounces. Similar differences exist for other beverage types.
These comparisons are not only difficult, but the survey takers vastly underreport their actual consumption (probably unknowingly).
In most restaurants and bars, 300ml is the standard size, sometimes even 250ml. 500ml is considered a big beer. 300ml is also the standard size at festivities, concerts and sports games.
In Colone, the standard size of the local beer (Kölsch) is 200ml, but 300ml is also common.
In the south of Germany, especially bavaria, 500ml is the standard size in restaurants, and 1L at festivities and in bars run by breweries. 500ml is also the standard size of wheat beers nearly everywhere.
In shops, you can get beers in bottles of 330ml and 500ml.
I've never lived in the north, just visited very often, and there it could be different depending on the region, setting. Some also say they feel 500ml is the default, others are more in the 330ml range.
Seems that most beers in Bavaria probably approximately equate to 2 standard drinks, meanwhile a small Pilsener commonly found in the North is about 1 standard drink.
Cans and bottles have/had "preferred sizes" (hence 330mL, 250mL, 500mL being common), but there's no European standard for how much you get in a bar or restaurant.
When going to a bar there are several types of glasses available for a beer from the tap ranging from 200ml to 570ml (English pint size). When you order a beer, by default you get a 250ml glass.
Rest of Europe (and Québec) uses 500ml or a litre metric in my experience, yes.
In the Northwest you won't find beers larger than 500ml (< 1 pint)
It's not at all what I've experienced as a US born after living on both coasts, a few different states, and a range of small rural and large urban cities.
Food sure, if you only consider culture as the corporate branded chains. That's missing out on a lot though.
Language, accents, nomenclatures, sayings, mannerisms, all widely varied.
Religions, there are dozens of Christian based sects all with widely varying spectrums of beliefs.
Work culture, still many good-ole boys clubs in certain geographies, pick yourself up by the bootstraps types in others, and anything you can imagine in between.
The variations across Europe (I can't speak for India) are on a completely different level. If you put a random person into two different states in the US and two different countries in Europe for an hour and ask them after which differ more, I would bet serious money they will always pick the two European countries.
Only because of superficial things like language. When it comes to politics and the role of government, Europe is pretty consistent. Barring language and architecture, this makes cities all effectively the same pattern (high density, trains, buses, expensive per sq foot).
The gulf between life in the sprawl of Dallas and the density of NYC is far greater than the difference between Paris and Rome.
My point is that the presence or absence of cultural variation in one place does not equate to a lack thereof in another. Just because someone hasn't seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Culture isn't based on comparison, it's something in its own right
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/americans-are-dri...
Isn't that up to those who hold the stigma?
I'd have a stigma against dog walkers who left their dog crap at the park, even if I found it was most dog walkers. (I don't think it is)
Something can be a problem in America without being a problem in every single instance. The point is not every single American culture is full of drunks, the point is that this is a problem that America is having.
Most people I associate with don’t drink anything on an average week.
It’s likely that you’re in a bit of a bubble if you can’t think of anyone who doesn’t drink in an average week.
I wouldn't necessarily assume that I'm in the majority, but it's not as though my behavior in this area is particularly abnormal.
That being said, of people I'm close to, my parents are a good counter-example. They split one beer every month or so.
PS. It's not uncommon for me to drink 3 glasses of wine a year. Although recently I've been more social, so it's been 1-2 glasses of wine every 1-2 weeks. I don't go out of my way to drink alcohol, but I also don't avoid it.
Often quoted as "How could Nixon have won? Nobody I know voted for him"; referring to George McGovern's loss to Richard Nixon in in the 1972 presidential election.
Edit: Assuming the standard definition of drink that's roughly equivalent to one light beer or one shot
Then there is the cramping. Replenishing electrolytes when you leak as much of them as I do is hard. There is a really good chance I will get a moderate to severe cramp if I drank the night before. I think you are underestimating how significant a drink can be to someone training hard. Especially someone older, such as myself. You have to make a very large number of assumptions to arrive at your conclusion that is obviously incorrect for many athletes hobbyist or otherwise. Some guys can pull it off, and there are a few in my gym who can drink hard, come in hungover and survive a hard training session. That isn’t me or most people I know (anecdotally).
Just a thought if you're noticing a single drink that much.
That substance is not exactly harmless.
Even so, in the past few years, I typically consume less than one drink per week. I used to have a nightcap or a beer with dinner pretty frequently. The dinner beer tapered off because I found it made me too sleepy to be on the ball with the evening routine with the kids. The nightcaps started to feel like pointless calories.
So these days, I might have a beer or whiskey on the weekend when I watch a movie with my wife. But I rarely drink during the week, and often don't on the weekend.
Granted, part of that is from having no ability to socialize the past year. I imagine my consumption will tick up soon. But I still don't expect it to get to more than one or two drinks per week.
My neighbors and I have been doing Friday night happy hours for almost a year, always outside. Many with a fire going and outside movies shown on the side of my RV. The 6 of us look forward to these.
Personally, I couldn't care less what others think of this or how "sustainable" this is.
I have member of my family that despise the taste of alcohol.
Then, we have people like myself, and my father, whom self medicate.
(I hate the taste of all alcohol. I only drink it for the effect. To the problem drinkers out there, don't even think about going to hard alcohol. Stick to low alcohol beer, and wine. Box wine can have as little as 9% alcohol. Naltrexone seems to help with the cravings if you need to stop.)
I once used to visit my friend in a rehab (he pulled it off and now is sober). There were no people over 55 actually, though some 40-somethings looked seventy on the outside. "Oh, either you get sober or you die way, way earlier than the general population," said the nurse when I asked her where the old-timers are.
To fit the pattern, my grandpa, a functional alcoholic, died at 57. His brother, who was much more careful with his drink, lived to 87.
I'm not morally opposed to it and I'm certainly not an alcoholic, I just don't care much for or about it. It's kind of a low level toxin and it feels like it.
Is this really that strange? I know a lot of people that very rarely drink and certainly don't habitually, but will have a drink on occasion.
I grew up in what's called the "Bible Belt", so that may have something to do with my not drinking. I had what might be a common experience--as a child expressing curiosity about a beer a relative was drinking, being offered a sip, and spitting it out in disgust, with no interest in a second taste.
Much later, a friend invited me and other friends over to a very nice dinner with appropriate wine served with each course. It was good, and all seemed well... until I noticed that I was singing Tom Lehrer's "Masochism Tango" at high volume. The next day what freaked me out was that at every stage I thought myself under control, but clearly I had lost it. I did not want a repetition.
Since then I found that there is good tasting beer; I tried a little at a restaurant where they brewed it themselves--but I only tried it the once and didn't finish it. Later I heard that occasional red wine was supposedly good for one's health, and for a while ordered a glass periodically, but I couldn't make myself finish it. Haven't had any for a long time, and now the prescriptions I take preclude further drinking. (Maybe aging baby boomers on prescription drugs bend the curve?)
I've noticed that heavy drinkers tend to cluster with other heavy drinkers. The more you see your friends and coworkers binge drinking regularly, the more you feel it's an acceptable and even common behavior. Likewise, non-drinkers tend to cluster with each other because it gets tiresome to have friends who want every event to revolve around alcohol.
Statistically, the median drinker in the US doesn't drink much alcohol at all. The vast majority of alcohol is consumed by the top 10% of drinkers. You may have simply ended up with a cluster of heavy drinkers that aren't representative of the median US alcohol consumer.
Statistic here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/25/think... Note that the median US alcohol drinker consumes less than 1 drink per week.