In what way? What is the connection you believe exists that would skew the results? How many studies on any medication or treatment take this into consideration?
If they're looking at mortality rates without controlling for presence of depression, for example, and they conclude drinkers live longer, they may have found abstainers who have suffered or are suffering from emotional disturbance. Perhaps it's the depression that's affecting the mortality rates and not alcohol.
The link I posted earlier shows that 67% of Americans drink, so problems should be pretty evident among my family, friends, and colleagues. I don't see them.
anecdotal evidence
The
CDC says that 50% of the population regularly drinks (12 or more per year). That's 100,000,000 people. They report the annual number of alcohol induced deaths (excluding accidents and homicide) at 23,000.
If alcohol acts as a catalyst for the onset of heart disease, brain disease, cancer, or some other disease or illness, and that person dies, is their death considered to be induced by alcohol?
I'm not speaking only to deaths from alcohol. Along with 23,000 deaths, alcohol can affect our well-being and ability to enjoy a fulfilled life. There are a number of illnesses and diseases induced by alcohol that do not necessarily cause death. I'm ignorant in this area, so I can't be specific; I'm assuming that there are diseases and illnesses brought on by alcohol use that are not necessarily fatal.
Therefore, I think your statistic should include deaths and negatively affected well-being that is induced by alcohol. I understand that these studies typically look at mortality rates only. However, a diminished well-being may lead to a shorter lifespan (brain damage, depression, etc).
They also report (ibid) that 14% of the population drinks fewer than 12 drinks per year. Of the remaining 36% I'm sure we have "dry" alcoholics in some number, but just about everyone in that group has access to alcohol. Only about 10% were lifetime abstainers (see link below). To me this indicates that most people don't find it all that difficult not to drink.
I think we can agree that the infrequent drinkers probably only do so for special occasions and do not consider it to be a regular activity. Therefore, I would argue that these people never put themselves in a position to abuse or become dependent on alcohol. Typically, alcoholism occurs in people who regularly consume it.
The
tables here (page 71) have a bunch of stats showing drinking prevalence. The age categories show some interesting if incomplete information. The percentage of "regular" drinkers in each age bracket declines with age, which would seem to indicate that people are able to decrease their drinking levels. Of course, other factors could be at work.
The percentage for 65+ years of age could drop off because regular drinkers could be dying off, leaving a higher percentage of abstainers and light drinkers.
I should note that this source is further evidence that your theory about education and/or income level and drinking is 100% wrong. As income and education increase, so does alcohol consumption even though consumption seems to decrease with age (which is usually the opposite of education and income until you retire). I would expect "emotional stability" to track with income and education, but I can't be sure.
First, let me restate my theory about education / income and drinking. I said that people who are moderate drinkers may be wise people. They may generally take care of themselves more, and they may have achieved higher levels of income and education, which would give them access to more and better health care. I didn't intend to suggest that the richer or more educated you are, the less you drink. I meant that the wiser you are, the less you drink.
Getting into the emotional stability issue, is it your argument that if you have these issues, you don't take care of yourself as you would otherwise? Therefore, this explains the difference in mortality rates? In what way? You drink more? You don't have insurance? Do you think that regular drinkers are less likely to have health insurance than abstainers?
I think emotional stability correlates with desire and ability to take care of one's self. If someone has a low self esteem, they may eat poorly, not caring about their long term health. They may claim to exercise regularly, but maybe they're lying because they're afraid of telling researchers the truth? They may also not have the ability to take care of themselves because they didn't have the emotional stability to maintain a well paying job; or maybe they quenched their depression by impulsively spending their money. There are many possibilities where emotional disturbance can curtail one's life span.
You haven't defined your hypothesis yet.
Lifestyle, emotional stability, and other aspects of one's character (perhaps attitude, values, and beliefs?) need to be controlled for in studies looking at the benefits of moderate drinking.
It's not my definition. It's how people use the word. For example, I teach my kids to brush their teeth and wash their privates every day so it becomes a habit. The first dictionary definition is, "an acquired behavior pattern regularly followed until it has become almost involuntary." This is an important distinction.
The first definition does not mean the subsequent ones are not valid. To say someone should take up the habit of x is to say they should start making it a regular part of their life. Taking up the habit of running doesn't mean that someone involuntarily or unknowingly runs every day. It simply means they run on a fairly regular interval. However, even doing something once a month could be a habit. Running a marathon once a month could be considered a habit.
When a doctor prescribes a drug, you are told to take it on some regular interval. If there is potential for addiction, you are warned that it may become habit forming. Some drugs are touted as not being habit forming.
Therefore, in this context we need to use the right terms.
When a doctor says that, they are saying the drug has addictive properties. Alcohol is addictive and can become a habit. Running is not necessarily addictive, and it can also become a habit.
The CDC notes in the aforementioned link:
‘‘In ANY ONE YEAR, have you had at least 12 drinks of any type of alcoholic beverage?’’; ‘‘In your ENTIRE LIFE, have you had at least 12 drinks of any type of alcoholic beverage?’’; and ‘‘In the PAST YEAR, how often did you drink any type of alcoholic beverage?’’
It all depends on what questions they ask.
And I'm saying that it appears that this study did not ask participants about their emotional stability and lifestyle.
No, the same could not be said for smoking. We have clear and convincing evidence of increased mortality rates due to smoking.
Ah, but you didn't originally say mortality rates. You said,
"One could argue that the risk of alcohol problems is very low and the potential benefits are very high."
I used the smoking analogy to show that "problems" and "benefits" are up to interpretation. Alcohol problems do not necessarily lead to death, as is the case with smoking. The potential benefits of alcohol and smoking are also debatable. I could say that smoking is good for me because it improves my singing voice, and because I otherwise take care of myself, I might not die early. I could very well live to 100 as a smoker.
The same can be said for alcohol. Even though the correlation between smoking and lung cancer and emphysema is very high, that doesn't mean it guarantees death and that the problems outweigh the benefits.
