Drinking over 1 pint "raises cancer risk"

Huh, I'd look up statistics or something to answer that. However, it really depends on each person, some don't get addicted to stuff as eaasy as others.
I know that they're not the same, but they should both be considered bad and have better restrictions.
I forgot to say my main point with addictions, as far as I know it's HARD to have cigarrette overdose while it's not that hard with alcohol.

You are comparing them on extreme cases while I'm comparing them at moderate/average use.

You are comparing them on extreme cases while I'm comparing them at moderate/average use.

I failed to make myself clear then, cigarrette and alcohol are both bad in extreme cases and in moderate/average use.
Last time I drinked a beer was uhhh 1 year and 4-5months ago. In the process of quitting cigarrette, and I expect to never do any of those again in my life. They're bad in almost any quantity, they won't harm me.
As far as I know moderate/average use is also bad. Maybe not as bad as cigarrette but still bad.
Besides who drinks moderately? lol No, but really, I bet a majority doesn't. <- classes in 1hour, can't really look it up.

I failed to make myself clear then, cigarrette and alcohol are both bad in extreme cases and in moderate/average use.
Last time I drinked a beer was uhhh 1 year and 4-5months ago. In the process of quitting cigarrette, and I expect to never do any of those again in my life. They're bad in almost any quantity, they won't harm me.
As far as I know moderate/average use is also bad. Maybe not as bad as cigarrette but still bad.
Besides who drinks moderately? lol No, but really, I bet a majority doesn't. <- classes in 1hour, can't really look it up.

Are you serious?
Everyone and their mother knows that smoking is way worse than alcohol. Alcohol can be broken down by the liver, while tar and stuff in your lungs cannot. Alcohol is broken down by oxidation with the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase. An average human being eliminates 5% of alcohol with urine, exhales 5% and then the rest is from oxidation. So if your kidney is healthy, it would take about an hour or so to break down the alcohol in a 355 ml can. Your body can't do anything to break down the tar and sh`it that gets into your lungs from smoking, so drinking in moderation is far better than smoking cigarettes or tobacco in general.

Also, to the people on smoking VS drinking.

Drinking moderately (keyword. This is the side where the problems may start) lets you filter stuff better, but throwing some smoke inside your lungs or people near you is always 100% negative. The lungs can't filter all that black filth in them, and become stagnant, slowly degenerating.

HFCS causes cancer, smoking causes cancer, GMO products might potentially be cancerous, canned food(with preservatives) can cause cancer, mobile phones can cause cancer, alcohol can cause cancer, food colourings can cause cancer.

everything nowadays CAN cause cancer but its whether if its going to happen or not.

HFCS causes cancer, smoking causes cancer, GMO products might potentially be cancerous, canned food(with preservatives) can cause cancer, mobile phones can cause cancer, alcohol can cause cancer, food colourings can cause cancer.

everything nowadays CAN cause cancer but its whether if its going to happen or not.

It's actually whether the research on them was done correctly, whether they are really the cause and by how much they increase cancer chance.

Standing by the side of chernobyl after the explosion CAN cause cancer with a much higher probability than smoking.

Most of the chemicals inside cigarette do leave human body. You know, when they say that most of the stuff leaves the body pretty quickly after a person has quitted smoking.

And in all example-stories about how some smoker had died cause of a lung cancer, the person had been smoking about 2 packs a day or the amount is left unmentioned. I haven't heard about a case where some1 has got cancer after smoking 1-2 cigarettes a day, not to mention the people who smoke once every week or month. If you can find article like that, please enlighten me.

Yes, moderate smoking is bad too, but I don't think the risk to die is as high as a heavy smoker.

Most of the chemicals inside cigarette do leave human body. You know, when they say that most of the stuff leaves the body pretty quickly after a person has quitted smoking.

And in all example stories about how some smoker had died cause of lung cancer, the person had been smoking about 2 packs a day or the amount is left unmentioned. I have yet to heard about a case where some1 has got cancer after smoking 1-2 cigarettes a day, not to mention the people who smoke once every week or month. If you can find article like that, please enlighten me.

Yes, moderate smoking is bad too, but I don't think the risk to die is as high as a heavy smoker.

Cancer is not the only consequence of smoking. Bad breath, yellow teeth, loss of breathing capacity all come WAY before you even consider cancer (non-exhaustive list).
Intake of alcohol has pretty much no bad effects save for people who drink a lot and frequently.

Cancer is not the only consequence of smoking. Bad breath, yellow teeth, loss of breathing capacity all come WAY before you even consider cancer (non-exhaustive list).
Intake of alcohol has pretty much no bad effects save for people who drink a lot and frequently.

How many of the alcohol consumers drink less than the amount mentioned in article? Not very many.

If people don't aim for being more or less drunk, why do they drink alcohol then? Why don't they just drink other drinks then? Heck, there's even nonalcoholic beer, wine etc. available nowadays.

How many of the alcohol consumers drink less than the amount mentioned in article? Not very many.

If people don't aim for being more or less drunk, why do they drink alcohol then? Why don't they just drink other drinks then? Heck, there's even nonalcoholic beer, wine etc. available nowadays.

The article's results are very bad and have no value on this discussion. I know many people who drink alcohol moderately (either very little every day or not very often).
There's more to alcohol than getting drunk, you can't say that those non-alcoholic beers and wine have the same taste and quality of the real thing. Also, getting slightly drunk once a week is quite fine and goes way below the average stated on the article considering an average over the week.

How many of the alcohol consumers drink less than the amount mentioned in article? Not very many.

If people don't aim for being more or less drunk, why do they drink alcohol then? Why don't they just drink other drinks then? Heck, there's even nonalcoholic beer, wine etc. available nowadays.

Do you enjoy making yourself look more naive? Okay, alcohol has been a basis on culture for two main reasons:
Too feel good, and a conversation lubricate. People can drink casually too make them less tense, more fluid. People don't drink to simply get wasted, and frankly not a lot of adult's do. My mom used to drink 2 ying lings on long days while makin dinner, that isn't bad. And wine is enouraged to be drank because it's good for your heart, but only like 1 glass.

So basically your counter argument is trying too justify why people drink, which in your perspective is too get wasted. There's a reason why you can moderately drink, but you can't moderately smoke. Smoking is an addiction, drinking is really defined by the settings. At a casual new years, you aren't drinking so you can't speak, but if you're between 17-24 that's a possibilty that is your goal, or don't know your limit.

Do you enjoy making yourself look more naive? Okay, alcohol has been a basis on culture for two main reasons:
Too feel good, and a conversation lubricate. People can drink casually too make them less tense, more fluid. People don't drink to simply get wasted, and frankly not a lot of adult's do. My mom used to drink 2 ying lings on long days while makin dinner, that isn't bad. And wine is enouraged to be drank because it's good for your heart, but only like 1 glass.

So basically your counter argument is trying too justify why people drink, which in your perspective is too get wasted. There's a reason why you can moderately drink, but you can't moderately smoke. Smoking is an addiction, drinking is really defined by the settings. At a casual new years, you aren't drinking so you can't speak, but if you're between 17-24 that's a possibilty that is your goal, or don't know your limit.

Saying that people who live healthy are naive? Fine.

That's like saying that people who don't smoke or do drugs are childish. Besides, I'm 1 year away from legal age anyways. And btw, the age limit is there for a reason. People who start drinking as a teen have way higher chance to turn alcoholic in future.

Drinking can be addiction too and it is for many people. Even people that aren't alcoholic often are mentally addicted to drinking.

The article's results are very bad and have no value on this discussion. I know many people who drink alcohol moderately (either very little every day or not very often).
There's more to alcohol than getting drunk, you can't say that those non-alcoholic beers and wine have the same taste and quality of the real thing. Also, getting slightly drunk once a week is quite fine and goes way below the average stated on the article considering an average over the week.

You are saying that nonalcoholic stuff doesn't have the "same taste or quality"?

 Spoiler

Honestly, how can this society be so two-faced? People attack on smokers, but defend their just as bad, unhealthy habit with ridiculous claims like that and even say that drinking makes someone mature.

You are saying that nonalcoholic stuff doesn't have the "same taste or quality"?

Tell me, how many brands of non-alcoholic beer or wine there are?
Wine and beer vary so much from one to the other, each region/country has many different types and they all taste different. It's varied because it's a huge market, it's good quality because lots of people buy it. Non-alcoholic has none of that.

Saying that people who live healthy are naive? Fine.

That's like saying that people who don't smoke or do drugs are childish. Besides, I'm 1 year away from legal age anyways. And btw, the age limit is there for a reason. People who start drinking as a teen have way higher chance to turn alcoholic in future.

Drinking can be addiction too and it is for many people. Even people that aren't alcoholic often are mentally addicted to drinking.

Here's my point
--
Heres you. Swoosh.

I am the age of drinking and smoking, both my parents do it, and sometimes my 16 year old sister. Not proud of the fact but just to show I have plenty of influences, which I, do proudly admit, do neither. I find alcohols taste to be bland, bitter and frankly nothing short of something I desire. None the less, my naive adjective was used on the fact you are trying to show that two seperate substances are as equally as dangerous.

You're essentially trying to compare car crashes with air plane crashes. They are both crashes but both have two entirely different extremes. You reflect your limited knowledge on the subject by attempting to back it up. Sorry but it seems as though it's not a choice to do them or not, you're just afraid too.

i recall seeing a study a couple years ago that claimed moderate red wine drinking lowered cancer risk...

people are just gonna hear what they wanna hear.

i recall seeing a study a couple years ago that claimed moderate red wine drinking lowered cancer risk...

people are just gonna hear what they wanna hear.

It helps the heart. And it's one glass a night, anymore than that is over indulging.

I find it a bit hard to believe that until I have seen some statistics.

Huh, I'd look up statistics or something to answer that.

I'll knock some up for you probably with more perspective than the article.

Fact one: The discovery of late Stone Age beer jugs has established the fact that purposely fermented beverages existed at least as early as c. 10,000 BC.

That gives alcohol an existence of ~12,000 years.

The cigarette came into widespread use around the mid 1800s (some time after 1852, due to the invention of the match) tobacco came into wide-spread use about 300 years before that. This gives tobacco a casual 3-400 years of any sort of prominence among the worlds population.

Which do you seriously think has killed more people? even though alcohol has been around you know, a massive 30+ times longer, it wasn't something people were dying from explicitly until the last several centuries. To put things in a current perspective here are some statistics (which i know you love) from the CDC circa 2006.

Cigarette smoking causes about 1 of every 5 deaths in the United States each year.1,6 Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause the following:1

443,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke)
49,400 deaths per year from secondhand smoke exposure
269,655 deaths annually among men
173,940 deaths annually among women

Cigarette use causes premature death:

On average, adults who smoke cigarettes die 14 years earlier than nonsmokers.7
Based on current cigarette smoking patterns, an estimated 25 million Americans who are alive today will die prematurely from smoking-related illnesses, including 5 million people younger than 18 years of age.

Too put some of that in perspective, the death American military ww2 death toll was 416,800. That is over around 4 years of military involvement.

Since you like statistics so much, here is one from 2002 on the just financial harms of cigarettes, courtesy the CDC. CDC estimates smoking health and productivity costs reach $150 billion a year, according to a new study published in this week's WMMR. CDC estimated the total cost of smoking at $3,391 a year for every smoker, and even itemized the per-pack health/productivity costs at $7.18/pack. Further, it estimated the smoking-related medical costs at $3.45 per pack, and job productivity lost because of premature death from smoking at $3.73 per pack.

Now it's time for some alcohol stats. I couldn't find them for 2006 but for 2007 this is what i got, also from the CDC.

Number of alcoholic liver disease deaths: 14,406
Number of alcohol-induced deaths, excluding accidents and homicides: 23,199

Now since you obviously know little about alcohol i'll just tell you those aren't from normal regulated alcohol consumption.

There you have statistics, the harms aren't even and you are still talking out your ass.

I'll knock some up for you probably with more perspective than the article.

Fact one: The discovery of late Stone Age beer jugs has established the fact that purposely fermented beverages existed at least as early as c. 10,000 BC.

That gives alcohol an existence of ~12,000 years.

The cigarette came into widespread use around the mid 1800s (some time after 1852, due to the invention of the match) tobacco came into wide-spread use about 300 years before that. This gives tobacco a casual 3-400 years of any sort of prominence among the worlds population.

Which do you seriously think has killed more people? even though alcohol has been around you know, a massive 30+ times longer, it wasn't something people were dying from explicitly until the last several centuries. To put things in a current perspective here are some statistics (which i know you love) from the CDC circa 2006.



Too put some of that in perspective, the death American military ww2 death toll was 416,800. That is over around 4 years of military involvement.

Since you like statistics so much, here is one from 2002 on the just financial harms of cigarettes, courtesy the CDC. CDC estimates smoking health and productivity costs reach $150 billion a year, according to a new study published in this week's WMMR. CDC estimated the total cost of smoking at $3,391 a year for every smoker, and even itemized the per-pack health/productivity costs at $7.18/pack. Further, it estimated the smoking-related medical costs at $3.45 per pack, and job productivity lost because of premature death from smoking at $3.73 per pack.

Now it's time for some alcohol stats. I couldn't find them for 2006 but for 2007 this is what i got, also from the CDC.

Number of alcoholic liver disease deaths: 14,406
Number of alcohol-induced deaths, excluding accidents and homicides: 23,199

Now since you obviously know little about alcohol i'll just tell you those aren't from normal regulated alcohol consumption.

There you have statistics, the harms aren't even and you are still talking out your ass.

http://www.thejournal.ie/alcohol-kills-a...t-2011-02/

If we count in deaths indirectly caused by alcohol, the number should be even higher. And again, different sources give different numbers... And I was talking about moderate smoking in my previous post.

http://www.thejournal.ie/alcohol-kills-a...t-2011-02/

If we count in deaths indirectly caused by alcohol, the number should be even higher. And again, different sources give different numbers... And I was talking about moderate smoking in my previous post.

lol why do you keep posting?

A moderate smoker is going to have more effects than a moderate drinker. Also indirect? Such as car accidents? Well do you need a study to show that drinking effects your motor skills, or can we safely assume that it's a secondary effect. Sorry but stupidity seems to rule in that case.

Those who don't drink tend to die sooner than those who do.

Moderate/Heavy drinkers might be more likely to get cancer, but our average lifespan is longer than that of nondrinkers.

Those who don't drink tend to die sooner than those who do.

Moderate/Heavy drinkers might be more likely to get cancer, but our average lifespan is longer than that of nondrinkers.

from that link:

Anthony G. Stowe

I think one factor that wasn't mentioned is how many people who drink also smoke cigarettes. Go to any drinking establishment and you find almost everyone who drinks, smokes. (I don't know the actual percentage). How does this affect drinkers vs non-drinkers? Well, non-drinkers tend to be more obese and so do non-smokers. Obesity is a leading indicator of high-risk diseases such as stroke and heart attack. Both my parents were alcoholics and they did out live their life expectancy; however, they suffered greatly from major health issues, etc. Living longer doesn't always mean have a good "quality of life". I know that drinking wine in moderation is healthy for the body; however, anything greater than that is a real threat to health, no matter how LONG one lives. Also, my parents weren't hungry due to loss of appetite from alcohol. Alcohol has contributed to many ruined marriages in my experience and is a danger to individuals, families, and the public at large.

Word.