Yeah, that's one of the reasons why laypersons shouldnt really read studies in isolation. A single study isnt the whole picture, and isnt meant to be. It is meant to ask and answer a specific question that can fit into the whole picture of our understanding.

I think there is something of a secular neo-temperance movement going on right now, where people talk about how alcohol is soooo bad for you. And to be sure, alcohol is bad for you - anyone who's had a hangover can tell you that. But life doesn't have to be about being "optimally healthy", and sacrificing a bit of health for a bit of fun is totally reasonable - you could say all the same things about, say, chocolate cake.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

sacrificing a bit of health for a bit of fun is totally reasonable

So it's not possible to have fun and be sociable without alcohol or other intoxicant? What does that say about society?

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

Aaaaand the secular neo-temperance crowd has arrived.

Of course it is possible to have fun without alcohol. I might get some friends together to go for a nice hike on a sunday, where we can exercise and talk and goof around and have a good time in nature, and that is fun. And then afterwards, maybe we finish the day by going to a brewery and having a couple beers and eating some french fries, and that is also fun. But there is no pressure to join for the second part, or to drink or eat the french fries if you do join. You can just be sober and have a good time too. I just personally enjoy drinking, so I do it on occasion, and my life is better for it.