RE: The stupidity of society - The normalcy of alcohol
When you talk about "alcohol", you must specify how much alcohol. This is always a "must" when there is chemistry involved. Sugar, by example, is deadly over certain amounts, produces addiction too, and kills as well.
Just cheating on quantities, we can proof almost everything (stones, water, oxygen, pizza, milk) is dangerous and addictive.
The traditional use of wine , in countries where wine is a long tradition, is more or less one glass each big meal. This is not hurting at all.
I think being pro, or against anything is a little weak position: pro/against is just a bit of information. When the matter is more complex than this, it's not enough.
There is no "stance on alcool". Just drink 5 liters of water in a row (means: never stop drinking until you reach 5 liters) , and you will see how bad water is. If you survive, which is not likely.
Chemistry is about quantities. And when you talk about substances, you are talking about chemistry. How complex is not an argument: still chemistry.
I definitely agree with you that the amount is important in this. As I've stated in the article, I am not against anyone drinking a glass or two (Wine in a wine glass, beer in a beer glass, etc.). I think many people do this sometimes, during dinner or a gettogether.
As you stated, the problem arises when people take too much. This, ofcourse goes for any kind of substance, though the effects differ a lot. For alcohol, I mean when people get drunk, lose their inhibitions and cause trouble for themselves or others.
I do think people have different views on how much is acceptable, though. Some people don't mind anyone getting crazy drunk. On the other side of this are people who have been too close to alcohol abuse and they might not approve of even one glass.
Then your question is "what do you think about abusing any substance"?
Well, seems easy. Abuse is bad.
It is indeed! Though I'm sticking to my original question, because as I've said, some people might not approve of even one glass. That's not really abuse, but a possible reaction to past pains.
Thank you for your comments, by the way!
Due of my technical bias, I am not that comfortable when mixing problems, like any people into human sciences seems easy to do.
When it comes to "the reasons" a person is abusing substances, is not about "past pains", the very point is the "reward system", a specific area of the brain involved in what we call "satisfaction" and "dissatisfaction".
If you focus into "it is good to abuse" , the obvious answer is "no". When you add this "reward system" issue, then we are discussing about something else.
In short, the reward system is a part of the brain which generates the "anticipated pleasure" , which is the sense of excitement/need you feel before of pleasure (due mostly to dopamine) , then you have a release of substances which are generating some pleasure too, telling your brain this happens, then you have serotonin, the star of pleasure, which is going to make you feel satisfied.
Almost whatever thing or action can be linked with the anticipation mechanism, the raise of stress because of dopamine: there is almost nothing you cannot be addicted to. Until your brain generates dopamine while thinking to it, you may be addicted to poker, alcohol, food, sugar, water, beach volley, sport, whatever.
It happens when you think to it dopamine and stress are increasing, so you need relief. This has not the past pain as a cause, even if thinking to a past pain could trigger the stress, so the need of some exit action, like drinking.
But, if you are in such a situation, alcohol is just one of possible action you can use to have relief. You may use facebook, sex, sport, anything.
This is more about stress management. Alcohol is just a little detail of this issue, IMHO. Most of people now are using sugar and fat (=food) to get relief from stress, by example. This is why obesity has grown more than alcohol in the last years.
With the 'past pain' I was talking about, I actually meant that of a person who could have had a family member or friend in trouble due to substance abuse. Maybe a mean drunken dad, husband or boyfriend. Something like that.
What a great response, though. I don't have that much knowledge of the inner workings of our reward system, so your text is very informative to me.
I do indeed see that addiction is a very difficult thing. I also wonder how fine the line is between just having pleasure and being addicted. Like people who play online games all evening (which I have been guilty of, years ago). Many would say these people are addicted. But what about the people who watch tv or sports all evening? How many people would say these are addicted? Do you think there is a part to play in this for social acceptance?
I hate this limit of nested comments steemit has. Hope this comment will show.
About the reward system, this is a pretty good explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reward_system
The point of social acceptance or personal acceptance is more about semantics than reality. I mean: at a certain point, the stress level increases and dopamine is released.
Now you need relief. You could use alcohol, running, food, sex, hugs, facebook, whatever. Once your stress is gone with the "escape" you choose , then you associate this to relief. From now on, just thinking to it will make your stress level to increase , and you will "need" this.
Of course, is very easy to say you are addicted to alcohol, than to extreme sports. Or to running. Or to reading. This is because you measure a visible damage: alcohol and drugs are damaging your body in a visible way. Running will not damage your body, until you don't abuse it, especially when you are a woman. Eating will make you obese, which may or may not be as socially accepted as alcohol.
So your issue seems to be "how visible addiction is?", then "if visible, how socially accepted is?".
This is one reason cocaine is that popular: addiction is not that visible, damages are hidden until they explode in the late phase, so it's easy to be socially accepted in the early phase.
So alcohol will be socially accepted until it looks cool. When it starts to damage the person in a visible way, then it will not. Most of addictions are working like this: they are socially accepted as they start, but not where they end .
Is not only the case of alcohol, I think.