The dilemma of alcohol abuse in free modern era societies

David777

David777

Well-known Member
Location
Silicon Valley
Unfortunately in many human societies, excessive alcohol use has developed through positive reinforcement for cultural group social reasons. In first large civilization city states of ancient Mesopotamia 8k years ago, daily social beer drinking after working days became significant. It was a key reason roaming nomadic bands chose to live in larger populations. Later, whole European regions developed wine grape industry societies. In the USA during our lifetimes, alcohol use along with nicotine and caffeine consumption, was already thoroughly integrated at all levels of societies.

It isn't that such can often be inconsequential and have positive value if occasionally used, especially for special occasions, but rather, there is a tendency for many humans to prefer the altered visceral experience to their otherwise in their own mind unsatisfying normal experience that leads to over use. For similar reasons in this modern era, others may use a long growing list of other substances that given much greater easier access, has become epidemic.

Free societies will never be able to prevent use of mind and mood altering substances because many humans that don't develop significant negative behaviors enjoy use. That often requires greater levels of personal self control than many others are able to resist. For the same reason, free societies will never be able to prevent over consumption of enjoyable sugary, meaty, and greasy enjoyable tasting foods just because that leads to obesity in those lacking enough self control. A matter of common sense fairness and freedom. In other words, the negative flawed behaviors of those without adequate self control ought not given reasonable common sense bear on those that don't have issues that say enjoy eating an occasional donut, pizza, potato chip, or hamburger.

The human value of such substances is not black and white but rather is a spectrum with factors. For most, caffeinated drinks like coffee, tea, sodas, have actual positive value in most lives. But even tea if consumed too often say all day, day after day, month after month, may eventually result for most some in negative mental and physical body effects.

One can predict that if all humans had easy immediate access to a complete range of such substances at a button push, many would develop addictions to the strongest substances like cocaine and opioids leading to severe societal issues. Thus we humans need to solve variable ways depending on specifics to restrict levels and frequency of access with negative consequences. In some cases, total bans are obvious but as long as a buck may be made, there are those that will find ways of feeding addictions of the weak. For other substances like cannabis the threshold of what might be allowed is gray and dependent on specifics. Not an easy goal in free societies.
 

Last edited:
David777 said:
Unfortunately in many human societies, excessive alcohol use has developed through positive reinforcement for cultural group social reasons. In first large civilization city states of ancient Mesopotamia 8k years ago, daily social beer drinking after working days became significant. It was a key reason roaming nomadic bands chose to live in larger populations. Later, whole European regions developed wine grape industry societies. In the USA during our lifetimes, alcohol use along with nicotine and caffeine consumption, was already thoroughly integrated at all levels of societies.

It isn't that such can often be inconsequential and have positive value if occasionally used, especially for special occasions, but rather, there is a tendency for many humans to prefer the altered visceral experience to their otherwise in their own mind unsatisfying normal experience that leads to over use. For similar reasons in this modern era, others may use a long growing list of other substances that given much greater easier access, has become epidemic.

Free societies will never be able to prevent use of mind and mood altering substances because many humans that don't develop significant negative behaviors enjoy use. That often requires greater levels of personal self control than many others are able to resist. For the same reason, free societies will never be able to prevent over consumption of enjoyable sugary, meaty, and greasy enjoyable tasting foods just because that leads to obesity in those lacking enough self control. A matter of common sense fairness and freedom. In other words, the negative flawed behaviors of those without adequate self control ought not given reasonable common sense bear on those that don't have issues that say enjoy eating an occasional donut, pizza, potato chip, or hamburger.

The human value of such substances is not black and white but rather is a spectrum with factors. For most, caffeinated drinks like coffee, tea, sodas, have actual positive value in most lives. But even tea if consumed too often say all day, day after day, month after month, may eventually result for most in negative mental and physical body effects.

One can predict that if all humans had easy immediate access to a complete range of such substances at a button push, many would develop addictions to the strongest substances like cocaine and opioids leading to severe societal issues. Thus we humans need to solve variable ways depending on specifics to restrict levels and frequency of access with negative consequences. In some cases, total bans are obvious but as long as a buck may be made, there are those that will find ways of feeding addictions of the weak. For other substances like cannabis the threshold of what might be allowed is gray and dependent on specifics. Not an easy goal in free societies.
Click to expand...
'' But even tea if consumed too often say all day, day after day, month after month, may eventually result for most in negative mental and physical body effects.''

I actually thought tea had healthy properties .
 
As you know countless types of tea and most have cancer fighting properties , if not that tomorrow going to lab between 10 am and 3 pm so they take blood sample would have tea now as have 5 diff types .
 
Last edited:
You two are generally correct. I should not have used "most" without specifying the high amounts I was considering. So have changed that to "some'. Medical websites use the 400mg maximum daily safe threshold consumption of caffeine for most people that is maybe 10 cups of tea and 5 cups of coffee. The result of even drinking twice that amount probably won't bother many people and the negative symptoms are much less than those of other popular drugs. My point was meant to be, even the drug caffeine can cause issues if excessive in some people that has been addressed in online articles. I should have not pointed to tea drinkers but rather high level energy drinks. Thus just condemning any and all drug use as some do is too broadly stated.
 
I just read, "Leave Out the Tragic Parts." A true story written by the grandfather of a young man who died of alcoholism at the age of 25.

Jared, had begun drinking at 13 by sneaking the occasional beer from his father, by 18 he was fully addicted and spent the next six years of his life hopping freight trains around the states with a group of other young hobo/alcoholics, begging for money. Each young addict drank a half gallon jug of vodka per day.

No amount of willpower was helpful because his brain had reached the point where if he stopped drinking he had seizures which could be deadly in themselves.
 
"As long as a buck may be made"...... There's one problem. As long as there's a demand there will be a supply and the problem will never be solved. It's been so hard to reach children and stop addiction before it ever gets started. So many outside influences making self medication a way to cope with life. How do we stop the demand?

I'm seeing few signs in a good direction. In the health space more coaches are recommending no alcohol where before, red wine was encouraged. A pill that is being advertised to help curb or stop drinking.

It's the demand that's the problem. Cure that and there will be no need for a supply.
 
Although removing alcohol abuse fully is impossible, society could do much much more to make it more difficult for abusers to obtain alcohol. Our supermarkets have huge isles full of alcohol products. Adult entertainment venues serve massive quantities of alcoholic drinks with very little effort of availability of non-alcoholic drinks. And when they do, are usually unnecessarily priced as high even if something as basic as clean water. Of course our media and advertising strongly push alcohol use.
 
I do not know…but I believe that all addictions have a genetic factor. Opiods attach to opiod receptors. I wish that there was more research that was related to why some bodies develop cravings…and some do not. I have always been exposed and had access to everything you can imagine from drugs to alcohol, cigarettes to calories. I simply do not get the same cravings.
 
Muskrat said:
I do not know…but I believe that all addictions have a genetic factor. Opiods attach to opiod receptors. I wish that there was more research that was related to why some bodies develop cravings…and some do not. I have always been exposed and had access to everything you can imagine from drugs to alcohol, cigarettes to calories. I simply do not get the same cravings.
Click to expand...
That’s interesting.

How does your idea hold up when you look at the experience of other family members.

In my family it could quite possibly explain a great deal of poor choices, bad behavior, addiction, etc… 🤔
 
My expectation is classical conditioning like with Pavlov's dog salivating upon hearing the bell affect addictive behavior far more. In other words, people over time train themselves by positive reinforcement that science now understands involves neural plasticity, to become so by their own choices. That also means, once established it is not easy to reprogram neural connections and will require time.

So if alcoholics received say a minor shock every time they grabbed a beer can or beer was always suddenly bitter, they might reverse such more rapidly. Instead individuals are allowed to change by higher mental area choices that does not involve actual physical unpleasantness and thus is not very effective removing well established positive neural connections.

By the same logic, that is why I would like to see general punishments for many lower level societal crimes involve actual physical unpleasantness to reverse their behaviors. However the psychology profession guiding modern Western societies due to historic abuses, has long been invested in condemning any sense of physical corporal punishment as inhuman (ironically).
 
Last edited:
David777 said:
Although removing alcohol abuse fully is impossible, society could do much much more to make it more difficult for abusers to obtain alcohol. Our supermarkets have huge isles full of alcohol products. Adult entertainment venues serve massive quantities of alcoholic drinks with very little effort of availability of non-alcoholic drinks. And when they do, are usually unnecessarily priced as high even if something as basic as clean water. Of course our media and advertising strongly push alcohol use.
Click to expand...
I remember Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign. IMO it was actually a sensible campaign teaching kids how to refuse drugs and alcohol in various situations. All.my kids participated in the program at school and still have the t shirt.
If it could have been backed up by more than just police, teachers, and parents. If Hollywood would stop glamorizing sex, drugs, and alcohol, (keep the rock and roll 😉). They seem to be bringing smoking back too.

The main prevention is individuals deciding they're not going to participate any more, they are going to encourage others not to participate, and they are not going to put up with the people who continue to participate, shun the ones that influence others to participate, especially children. "Deliver us from evil........."
I'm not talking about all drinkers, tokers, etc. You know who I'm talking about. The abusers.
 
David777 said:
By the same logic, that is why I would like to see general punishments for many lower level societal crimes involve actual physical unpleasantness to reverse their behaviors. However the psychology profession guiding modern Western societies due to historic abuses, has long been invested in condemning any sense of physical corporal punishment as inhuman (ironically).
Click to expand...
A Clockwork Orange was Stanley Kubrick's satire on behavior modification. Not knocking behavior modification, however. But forced modification does bring up some moral questions.

With alcoholism, there are drugs that will make you sick of you consume alcohol. Some alcoholics have found them useful. Others just stop taking them so they can drink without the side effect. It is generally understood by recovering alcoholics that an alcoholic will only stop when he wants to be sober more than he wants to get drunk. I believe this to be true, but it's only my belief.
 
It’s true that alcohol and other stuff are everywhere because people enjoy the buzz and society kind of backs it up. I think it really comes down to finding a balance and having rules that help those who struggle, without punishing everyone else.
 
David777 said:
Unfortunately in many human societies, excessive alcohol use has developed through positive reinforcement for cultural group social reasons.
Click to expand...
a side thought, some animals eat fermented fruit. Having had it before, they partake again. Do you think they like the drunk sensation, or are they simply willing to deal with it to eat a food they like?
David777 said:
In first large civilization city states of ancient Mesopotamia 8k years ago, daily social beer drinking after working days became significant. It was a key reason roaming nomadic bands chose to live in larger populations. Later, whole European regions developed wine grape industry societies. In the USA during our lifetimes, alcohol use along with nicotine and caffeine consumption, was already thoroughly integrated at all levels of societies.

It isn't that such can often be inconsequential and have positive value if occasionally used, especially for special occasions, but rather, there is a tendency for many humans to prefer the altered visceral experience to their otherwise in their own mind unsatisfying normal experience
Click to expand...
That pretty well sums it up. People are unhappy and they drink (or drug) to change their perception of reality.
David777 said:
that leads to over use. For similar reasons in this modern era, others may use a long growing list of other substances that given much greater easier access, has become epidemic.

Free societies will never be able to prevent use of mind and mood altering substances because many humans that don't develop significant negative behaviors enjoy use. That often requires greater levels of personal self control than many others are able to resist. For the same reason, free societies will never be able to prevent over consumption of enjoyable sugary, meaty, and greasy enjoyable tasting foods just because that leads to obesity in those lacking enough self control. A matter of common sense fairness and freedom. In other words, the negative flawed behaviors of those without adequate self control ought not given reasonable common sense bear on those that don't have issues that say enjoy eating an occasional donut, pizza, potato chip, or hamburger.
Click to expand...
does this apply across the board? With other matters?
David777 said:
The human value of such substances is not black and white but rather is a spectrum with factors. For most, caffeinated drinks like coffee, tea, sodas, have actual positive value in most lives. But even tea if consumed too often say all day, day after day, month after month, may eventually result for most some in negative mental and physical body effects.
Click to expand...
All of which negatively effect our health, but 'human value' is due to enjoying the unhealthy product.
David777 said:
One can predict that if all humans had easy immediate access to a complete range of such substances at a button push, many would develop addictions to the strongest substances like cocaine and opioids leading to severe societal issues. Thus we humans need to solve variable ways depending on specifics to restrict levels and frequency of access with negative consequences. In some cases, total bans are obvious but as long as a buck may be made, there are those that will find ways of feeding addictions of the weak. For other substances like cannabis the threshold of what might be allowed is gray and dependent on specifics. Not an easy goal in free societies.
Click to expand...
Something needs to be done, but what?
 
Prohibition failed because Canada chose to partner with gangsters like Al Capone, “Lucky” Luciano, and Arnold Rothstein to supply booze and assist in transporting it across the border. This became a major revenue source of crime gangs at the time, and led a to many social problems that continue to this day. For example cross-border "white slavery."
 
You can not regulate this away. Quitting requires the participant to desire to quit. There are many addictive things out there…from sugar to pain medications, sleep aids to wine. The issue to society is usually when the usage affects us personally. People clogging the emergency rooms or streets . Whenever possible it seems that the solution turns into incarceration or another pill. There is money for those things…money to be made so the incentive exists to treat those conditions in those manners. I assure you as a former nurse…you can not assume you know what addiction looks like or who is the addict…it is individual.
 
As many have said regulating even taxing would not stop many.... if tomorrow 50% decided no more ........ the government would want more to stay drinking BIG money in taxes on several levels.
I think it is a mental attitude as in families some have only one and others have everyone.... if you believe you cannot do without you can convince yourself. I have 3 siblings all chain smokers and addicts to something ... i have none so hard to say genetics. hard to research as no one will be truthful that it started at least as a choice made over and over again.

I do not drink anymore because spouse is/ was an alcoholic he managed to always keep his job and function but the long term damage of his cognitive decline i would not wish on anyone. Not looking forward to being a caregiver full time.
I am on a support forum and i tell them right out the ugly truth of long term issues even after you have stopped.
 
dilettante said:
Prohibition failed because Canada chose to partner with gangsters like Al Capone, “Lucky” Luciano, and Arnold Rothstein to supply booze and assist in transporting it across the border. This became a major revenue source of crime gangs at the time, and led a to many social problems that continue to this day. For example cross-border "white slavery."
Click to expand...
1746627396956.png
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top