Deaths from Excessive Alcohol Use — United States, 2016–2021 from CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 73, No. 8, Feb 29, 2024

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/wr/pdfs/mm7308a1-H.pdf

I do want to give it a try some time though.

Raise prices? Limit access? Research shows that even a little bit can mutate DNA..?

Drinking 100 years ago was way worse and that's how we got prohibition. Hope we don't go back in that direction.

[1] https://blogs.cdc.gov/cancer/2018/04/02/3-weird-things-about...

Returning to 2019 regulatory framework is not prohibition nor blue laws. It would likely reduce alot of human suffering without impacting moderate drinkers.

The only thing I can recall was to-go liquor sales with takeout - which I strongly suspect is not a big mover of change here.

It facilitates alot of work day drinking and bad outcomes for people with problems.

I don't think anyone here seriously doubts whether alcohol consumption carries health risks or whether increasing excise tax decreases consumption (although they might quibble on the degree for each). the question is more around how much the government should intervene to limit poor personal choices. there aren't enough peer reviewed studies in the world to answer that.

Also, he's not your monkey.

https://www.history.com/topics/roaring-twenties/how-prohibit...

And another from the literal mafia museum:

https://prohibition.themobmuseum.org/the-history/the-rise-of...

Don't move the goalposts.

> the idea that it was some kind of obvious catastrophe is nothing short of ridiculous

It was literally an unmitigated catastrophe, which is why it was the only constitutional amendment to be overturned.

It also led to government agents spiking ethanol with methanol, leading to blindness. Pure evil.

Cheers to pandemic hobbies?

More unusual all the time, though.

I'm not talking about social anxiety hangups, either. I'm talking about hyper-specific weird interactions that I just can't do now.

- One third of these deaths (about 61,000 deaths) happen from drinking too much on one occasion, such as from motor vehicle crashes, poisonings involving substances in addition to alcohol, and suicides.

A recent case in point are the people in charge of the Harvard medical School cadavers who sold the organs on the sly, but you could probably find other examples of cases where monetary incentives distort what we were consider commonplace values

Ages the hell out of you.

I decided the easiest 3-400 Calories I could cut were those beers, and stopped right then.

I still drink on occasion, but it’s like twice a month. Sometimes more, sometimes less. Those were the easiest calories to cut.

It’s sometimes tough, socially. But I’ve never (well, rarely) felt pressured, just “left out” sort of. But most people in my family are non-drinkers, so there’s that.

I’ll probably die never having been drunk. No real desire, other than fitting in socially, but that’s not really enough of a motivation for me.

But I do feel like it’s overall better for my health and mortality. Not that something like cancer or dementia won’t still get me, though.

As for the dietary calories, well, you can hack that one. I don't recommend it for obvious reasons, but a diet of nothing but extremely lean protein, fiber (not strictly necessary, but it's nice to have some flavors other than meat, fish, or egg white), and ethanol (with virtually no dietary fat or carbohydrates) cannot, and I mean it is a proven metabolic impossibility, cause the gain of bodyfat. There is no storage form of ethanol, and the storage form of protein is various lean tissues.

Now you might ask, but what about glycogenesis? Won't the body metabolize that protein into glucose and then store that glucose as body fat? That's a perfectly reasonable thing to suppose, but it's proven, in strictly controlled metabolic ward studies, that it does not happen. Instead the kidneys just eliminate the excess protein. Glycogenesis is only used for immediate energy needs, and of course the body will preferentially use ethanol for immediate energy before protein.

When will HN automate the process to bypass paywalls since they require posted links to have a way for the paywall to be bypassed? You could phrase in an archival kind of way to avoid possible legal issues if that's the problem...

(Incidentally, someday a piracy site like that could serve up a browser zero-day, and pwn a large percentage of US tech companies. Without ever having needed to go to the trouble to develop their own content that would attract such a large audience of tech workers on work machines.)

These other archive.* services seem to be used mainly for piracy. I don't know whether that's the intent, but that's the only use of them I recall seeing.

I think conflating the two categories of services might put archive.org at risk.