29
submitted 3 months ago by Blaze@piefed.social to c/ask@piefed.social
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] BilboBargains@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

My source was David Nutt's research group, who were tasked with assessing the effects of alcohol in order to inform public policy in the UK. The toxic limit is not precise, it's variable depending on many factors but I would imagine it's lower than most people would guess, considering the legal status compared to substances that are non-toxic like LSD, heroin, cannabis, psilocybin, etc. Our laws and attitudes to substances often don't make sense, when considering the overall harm that they do.

[-] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Alcohol use, especially in large amounts and prolonged periods, increases the risks of a variety of diseases. Drinking large quantities of alcohol causes harm to the liver, stomach, heart, and other vital organs. It also increases the risk of a variety of cancers, like bowel cancer, mouth cancer, and breast cancer.

But I'm pretty sure a wine/water ratio greater than 150ml/1500L is not considered a large amount.

[-] BilboBargains@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

I don't think it's the ratio of dilution so much as the volume over time. Weaker beverages like 2% beer are less harmful than spirits because it's much harder to binge but they still do some damage. I don't think they are arguing for prohibition, their emphasise is on harm reduction. A world without alcohol might not be desirable and if we are informed about how to use alcohol in a sustainable way that is surely better than what we have now.

this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2025
29 points (100.0% liked)

Ask

1242 readers
1 users here now

Rules

  1. Be nice
  2. Posts must be legitimate questions (no rage bait or sea lioning)
  3. No spam
  4. NSFW allowed if tagged
  5. No politics
  6. For support questions, please go to !newcomers@piefed.zip

Icon by Hilmy Abiyyu A.

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS