Don't blame the mirror, but it's not himself - General

Anatoli Kazharski 2015.04.21 18:21 #13991

Nestradamus:
I hate highbrow people. They pick up scraps from scraps and start bending their fingers... You're right in principle, though.

Don't blame the mirror. Although Ishim suits you better as an interlocutor. Enjoy. ))

//---

P.S. And as a point, since you are so lacking in arguments:

Myth 23: You have to drink 'culturally', or the nonsense of cultural drinking

Attempts to attribute the harmful effects of alcohol only to those found to be alcoholics are fundamentally wrong. Changes that occur in the brain under the influence of alcohol occur when alcohol is consumed in any dose. The extent of these changes depends on the quantity of alcoholic 'drinks' and the frequency of their intake, regardless of whether the person is a so-called 'drinker' or an alcoholic.

In addition, the terms themselves: 'alcoholic', 'drunkard', 'heavy drinker', 'moderate drinker', 'low drinker', etc., are quantitatively, not fundamentally, different. And the differences in their brain damage are quantitative rather than qualitative.

Some people try to classify as alcoholics only those who drink heavily, get wasted and so on. This is wrong. Binge drinking, delirium, alcoholic hallucinations, hallucinatory dementia of drunks, alcoholic jealousy delirium, Korsak psychosis, alcoholic pseudoparalysis, epilepsy and many others are all just consequences of the problem. The problem itself is the use of alcoholic 'drinks', which has a detrimental effect on health, work and the well-being of society.

The World Health Organisation defines alcoholism as a person's addiction to alcohol. This means that the person is in captivity to the drug. He looks for any opportunity, any excuse to drink, and if there is no reason, he drinks without any reason. And at the same time he assures that he "knows the measure".

The term 'abuse' must also be acknowledged as inappropriate. If there is abuse, it is implied that there is also consumption not for evil, but for good, i.e. useful. But there is no such abuse! Moreover, there is no harmless consumption. Every dose of alcohol causes harm to the body. The only difference is the degree of harm. The term 'abuse' is incorrect in principle and at the same time very insidious because it enables you to cover up your drinking with the excuse of not abusing alcohol. In reality, any use of alcoholic 'drinks' is always abuse.

Culture, intelligence, morality - all these are qualities of the brain. And to explain all absurdity of a word combination "to drink culturally", it is useful to be acquainted, at least briefly, with how alcohol operates on brain.

Since the end of 50's and beginning of 60's in our country a propaganda of "moderate" doses was developed; in speeches and articles it was said that alcohol consumption is a state policy and it cannot be changed. The problem, they argued, was the fight against excess, against abuse, i.e. against alcoholism.

N.A. Semashko wrote: "Drinking and culture are two mutually exclusive concepts, like ice and fire, light and darkness".

Let us try to consider this question from a scientific point of view. First of all none of the zealots of "cultural drinking" has told what it is. What is to be understood by this term? How to connect these two mutually exclusive notions: alcohol and culture?

Could it be that by 'cultural drinking' these people mean the environment in which wine is consumed? A beautifully laid table, a beautiful appetizer, finely dressed people, and they are drinking top-class cognac, liqueur, Burgundy or Kinsmaraouli? Is this "drinking culture"?

As the scientific data published by WHO show, such wine drinking does not prevent, but rather favours the development of drunkenness and alcoholism all over the world. According to its data, the so called "managerial alcoholism", i.e. alcoholism of business people, responsible employees is on the first place in the world lately. And if the notion of a 'drinking culture' is being put into the environment, as we can see, it does not stand up to criticism and leads us to an even greater development of drunkenness and alcoholism.

May be the zealots of 'culture of drinking' mean that after a certain dose of wine people become more cultured, intelligent, interesting and their speech more meaningful?

The school of I. It is proved by Pavlov that after the first, smallest dose of alcohol in cerebral cortex is paralysed those sections where elements of education, i.e. culture are located. So what kind of "culture of drinking" can we speak about if after the first drink the elements acquired by education disappear in the brain, that is the culture of human behaviour itself disappears? The higher functions of brain, i.e. associations are disturbed and replaced by the lower forms. The latter arise in the mind completely inappropriately and persistently. Such associations resemble in themselves a purely pathological phenomenon. A change in the quality of associations explains the banality of the thoughts of the tipsy person, the propensity to stereotyped and trivial expressions, to idle word-play.

This is scientific evidence about the state of nervous and mental sphere of a man who has taken a "moderate" dose of alcohol. Where does "culture" manifest itself here? From the presented analysis it is clear: there is nothing which resembles culture to any degree either in the thought or in the behaviour of the person who has taken any dose of alcohol, including a "small" one.

Considering that alcohol is a narcotic and protoplasmic poison and its consumption will inevitably lead to alcoholism, it is clear to every educated person that there is no sense in fighting alcoholism without fighting alcohol consumption.

Fighting alcoholism without banning it is like fighting murder in wartime. To say that we are not against wine, we are for wine, but we are against drunkenness and alcoholism is as sanctimonious as politicians saying that we are not against the war, we are against killing in war. Meanwhile it is quite clear that if there is a war, there will be both wounded and killed, that if there is consumption of alcoholic "drinks", there will be drunks and alcoholics. Only those who have had their minds completely poisoned by alcohol or those who are satisfied with the current state of affairs and would like to "stabilise the level of consumption achieved" can fail to understand this.

The theory of "cultural drinking" continues to do irreparable harm to our society every day. While in 1925, when absolute sobriety was still being promoted, there were 43% of teetotalers among various categories of male workers, today they constitute less than 1%! The habitual drunkards and alcoholics in 1925 were 9.6%, in 1973 they became 30% (discussion "Economics of Alcoholism", Novosibirsk, 1973). By the present time, given the increase in alcohol consumption, their number has, of course, also risen correspondingly.

The situation of female alcoholics is even more tragic. Whereas in the pre-war years, their number in relation to the number of male alcoholics was in the hundredths of a percent, female alcoholism now stands at 9 to 11 percent, i.e. has increased proportionally by a hundred times. According to WHO data, among young women, female alcoholism is now almost equal to male alcoholism. Young people are also unstable with regard to alcohol. In 1925, 16.6% of all under 18 year olds were drinking, while in 1975, according to numerous studies, the percentage was as high as 95%.

In modern conditions as never before it should be remembered that only those people who do not fall into the trap of "cultural" alcohol consumption maintain their lifelong health and attain a remarkable longevity.

vaz 2015.04.21 18:24 #13992

Lesorub:
Are we selling the pound?

Already sold, but there is little desire to refill for the time being.

[Deleted] 2015.04.21 18:34 #13993

Nestradamus:
I can't stand high-flyers. They pick up bits and pieces from scraps and start bending their fingers... You're basically right, though.

He got me banned once. Don't mind him...

Dmitry Chepik 2015.04.21 18:36 #13994

tol64:

Great articles and videos! makes you think.

Thank you.

Anatoli Kazharski 2015.04.21 18:39 #13995

_new-rena:
He got me banned once too. Ignore him...

Yes, there has to be someone to blame, but not yourself. ;)

It's not me you need to pay attention to, but at least Myth 22 and Myth 23. That was the goal. Everything else is fine. )))

P.S. By the way, after that ban, you started behaving a lot more decently. That's right. If you don't like something and have nothing but insults to write, it's better to ignore it. You've made the right conclusions and are quite in control of yourself. That's commendable. ))

From theory to practice EA with 28 indicators, How sad it is...