I don’t. I associate “putting more effort into having fun” with “not worrying about things that aren’t a problem”, of which the precise number of drinks I have had compared to my tolerance and bodyweight is but one of many.</p>
<p>
Actually, thanks to the chocolate fountain, I HAVE been at parties with free-flowing chocolate, and I promise you that my chocolate consumption those evenings was substantially higher than when I am sitting at home. Because I was at a party. Having fun.</p>
<p>Why are some of you getting so judgy? People overindulge in all kinds of ways. I don’t think anyone here would like it if I questioned why they stuff themselves at thanksgiving or put so much mayonnaise on their sandwiches or have to have ice cream every night at 9 pm. And it’s not just food and drink, of course. Binge-watching reality shows or going on shopping sprees is “fun” for some people too. </p>
<p>I’ve always wondered this! My parents and other members of their church feel strongly that drinking is wrong, period, but quite a few of them are VERY heavy. I don’t get it.</p>
<p>Yes, some are too judgy(not necessarily those here). I had an acquaintance once in state government, wanted to outlaw legal gambling because some peopl had addictive personalities. Yet, he was 6’ tall and weighed 300 lbs. He didn’t try to outlaw restaurants or grocery stores.</p>
<p>Sally305 has hit on a muddy definition, post 127. Is her Dad, that drinks alone a problem drinker since he isn’t drinking socially? As Hunt and I said many pages ago, there are other better descriptions. Social drinker or problem drinker are not the only 2 options. A person that drinks only a bit, and privately at home, imo would be better described as a light drinker. </p>
<p>The Oxford Dictionary defines it as : “A person who drinks alcohol chiefly on social occasions and only in moderate quantities.” This definition would not include those that have a drink at home every night after work or those that drink at home with a meal. HOWEVER, as discussed many pages ago, that does not mean those that do drink at home are problem drinkers, it just means they aren’t SOCIAL drinkers as defined by Oxford.</p>
<p>It’s simply not true that “everyone” lies about their drinking. I deal with the alcohol question every day, and while I’m sure there is a whole lot of fudging, quite a few people ARE very forthcoming. It’s not my job to shame, judge, or lecture someone about alcohol use. We are asking because they are about to have anesthesia, and I think a good number of them realize it’s not asked in order to give them “the lecture,” therefore many of them admit to heavy drinking. They aren’t likely to say “I’m an alcoholic,” but that’s really not what we ask them. We ask them how many drinks a week they have. The guy who told me he drinks 18 beers a day probably drinks 18 beers a day. My response to that answer wasn’t “OMG, why can’t you have fun without getting drunk?” It was “okay, do you smoke and if so, how many cigarettes per day?”</p>
<p>I agree, younghoss. And here’s another thing–with people being “social” remotely nowadays, how is it any less “social drinking” if I am sipping a glass of wine while Facebook chatting or talking on the phone with an old friend or family member? </p>
<p>Maybe a better definitely of “social drinking” should be–are you able to behave like a normal, social person while you are doing it, or are you slurring your words and hurling insults at people around you?</p>
<p>“If they had free-flowing chocolate would you stuff yourself with that?”</p>
<p>Well, of course! But chocolate simply doesn’t compare with alcohol. Alcohol is a mind-altering substance. I can hurt other people if I drink too much alcohol and go out and drive a car or whatever. </p>
<p>lol…chocolate (or oysters) probably wasn’t the best analogy. My point should have been that just because something is there and flowing, and it is dangerous (alcohol), it doesn’t mean that to have fun a person has to over-indulge.</p>
No, it doesn’t, but here is the trick - the health risk of occasional “over-indulgence” is pretty minimal in most cases, the physical and legal risks can be managed pretty easily, and if I have do have too many (in your opinion) then why should it matter if I am not hurting anyone? Why can’t you just say “you know, that’s not my thing, but you go have fun!”? Because I guarantee you, whatever you do, so long as you are not hurting anyone else, that will be about the worst I will ever say.</p>
Heart risks appear to be based on total consumption rather than steady vs binge. Liver damage can be amplified by the combination of bingeing with chronic moderate-to-heavy drinking, but I have not seen anything to indicate that occasional binge drinking with lower levels of habitual consumption has any amplified effects.</p>
<p>Did anyone catch the Fed (NIAAA) recommendation that seven drinks per week is above the recommended amount for women? I am guilty of self-medicating after seeing my elderly mom and similar stressful occasions. My body mass is fairly low, and wine and other alcohol is empty calories which I would prefer to spend on chocolate! OTOH, it is far easier for me to stop drinking than to stop eating chocolate once I have started.</p>
<p>Wow, for someone who lives in one of the best restaurant cities in North America, this attitude is really surprising. I cannot imagine a great meal out without a lovely glass of wine to go with it. That doesn’t make me like Wayne or Garth or a beer-bonging lax bro. It makes me someone who appreciates wine.</p>
My body mass is fairly low, and wine and other alcohol is empty calories which I would prefer to spend on chocolate! OTOH, it is far easier for me to stop drinking than to stop eating chocolate once I have started.</p>