Alcoholism comes with great burdens on society and is definetely an issue. But in the communication we need to talk about how “risk” is used as a term in the scientific discourse and public discourse. Both scientifically and by common sense it is obvious, that there is a huge gap in the health effects of alcohol between someone who drinks a beer or two on the weekend and someone who drinks 10 bottles a day accompanied with a bottle of vodka.
In the same wake, someone who smokes at a party every few weeks has an entirely different risk than someone who smokes two packs a day.
I’m a bit worried, that by creating a misunderstood communication about the dangers of alcohol, we end up in a 1990/2000s style anti Drug propaganda, where risks were broadly exaggerated and people ended up taking the entire program for the joke it was.
Hard disagree on your take on cigarettes. Someone who smoke at a party every few weeks will get to smoke two packs a day in a few years. The addiction on cigarettes is extreme. I’ve never seen anyone smoking a little and staying that way.
Well i did. I know both people that stayed light smokers throughout their life or managed to go from heavy smoking to light smoking.
That is not to say that it isn’t difficult. It certainly is and smoking is highly addictive. There is a wide range of smoking habits and that needs to be considered too. In a transparent communication about risk the point you made, that most people become heavy smokers eventually, is equally important.
Problem is that you smoke more than you think, and you’re not as much in controle as you think, and it does yourself more harm, both physically and mentally, than you think.
Western society is in no way closer to that point. What you’re reading is the counterpoint to “a glass of wine a day is good for your health” when in fact it’s not. People ask “how much can I drink without it affecting my health” and the honest answer is nothing. You’re obviously right that any substance is more dangerous the higher the amount. You also can’t tell beforehand what the exact risk is because this is a statistical question. But just because the outcome is not perfectly predictable doesn’t mean there’s no risk.
Alcoholism comes with great burdens on society and is definetely an issue. But in the communication we need to talk about how “risk” is used as a term in the scientific discourse and public discourse. Both scientifically and by common sense it is obvious, that there is a huge gap in the health effects of alcohol between someone who drinks a beer or two on the weekend and someone who drinks 10 bottles a day accompanied with a bottle of vodka.
In the same wake, someone who smokes at a party every few weeks has an entirely different risk than someone who smokes two packs a day.
I’m a bit worried, that by creating a misunderstood communication about the dangers of alcohol, we end up in a 1990/2000s style anti Drug propaganda, where risks were broadly exaggerated and people ended up taking the entire program for the joke it was.
Hard disagree on your take on cigarettes. Someone who smoke at a party every few weeks will get to smoke two packs a day in a few years. The addiction on cigarettes is extreme. I’ve never seen anyone smoking a little and staying that way.
Well i did. I know both people that stayed light smokers throughout their life or managed to go from heavy smoking to light smoking.
That is not to say that it isn’t difficult. It certainly is and smoking is highly addictive. There is a wide range of smoking habits and that needs to be considered too. In a transparent communication about risk the point you made, that most people become heavy smokers eventually, is equally important.
I was certain you would answer this.
Problem is that you smoke more than you think, and you’re not as much in controle as you think, and it does yourself more harm, both physically and mentally, than you think.
I don’t smoke tobacco. And in my life i’ve smoked maybe ten cigarettes in total.
Western society is in no way closer to that point. What you’re reading is the counterpoint to “a glass of wine a day is good for your health” when in fact it’s not. People ask “how much can I drink without it affecting my health” and the honest answer is nothing. You’re obviously right that any substance is more dangerous the higher the amount. You also can’t tell beforehand what the exact risk is because this is a statistical question. But just because the outcome is not perfectly predictable doesn’t mean there’s no risk.