<p>Correlation does not equal causation. The association between alcohol consumption of “any quantity” and breast cancer has absolutely not been proven to be a causal association.</p>
<p>More studies need to be done on this before one can conclude that the relationship is strong enough to warrant abstention from alcohol for women without a genetic predisposition to cancer.</p>
<p>Am currently watching a friend of a friend’s marriage dissolve due to H’s alcholism and have seen the problems of a loved one due to the mother’s alcoholism, which affected the entire family. Have seen countless lives wrecked by tobacco as well with all the conditions that can be caused and worsened by tobacco exposure. </p>
<p>Don’t think this choice makes sense. Have shared small amounts of fine wines and beer with a celebratory meal with our of-age kids. Have never shared tobacco with them, as none of us can stand the stuff or being around anyone who is partaking. None of us drink alcohol with any regularity–perhaps a few times/year.</p>
<p>Cigarettes are worse. They kill far more people, and as someone else pointed out, they are unique in being deadly when used as intended.</p>
<p>I say this even though my mother was an alcoholic, and I saw how much damage alcohol can do to the lives of a problem drinker and those around her.</p>
<p>As for alcohol and breast cancer, its effect is more than offset by the protective effect of small amounts of alcohol against heart disease, simply because more women die of heart disease than breast cancer.</p>
<p>I’d refuse to answer the question with a simple one or the other. There’s needs to be context around why the question even came up. Can you provide some insight there?</p>
<p>Obviously tobacco is always bad for the user as well as those around them and alcohol, depending on how it’s used, is bad for the user as well as those around them yet alcohol used in a limited fashion, according to most of the studies that are published, might actually be benficial but there can be a fine line between the beneficial point and the detrimental point and there are other factors involved like individual disposition to alcoholism and other individual factors.</p>
<p>As far as legality goes - laws are often a compromise and can be somewhat arbitrary and can change (drinking age, age to purchase cigarettes, etc.) so hopefully one can use their own intellect to avoid unhealthy practices even if it happens to be legal at the time and place.</p>
<p>Tobacco can set you up for a fatal heart attack in your early 50s, or COPD (new name for emphysema) later than that. You have to lug around a can of oxygen. </p>
<p>Alcohol will get you subtlely. You start to enjoy it regularly, and it makes you tired, takes the edge off your energy, and changes your personality. If you enjoy it enough and consistently, you’ll have liver issues just as your golden years are beginning. I think alcohol has a very subtle perniciousness in that it causes tremendous problems because of its ability to cause you to say things that you would never say if you hadn’t had a drink (and I do mean just one drink). </p>
<p>In the end, its impossible to answer the question as phrased. Both have their serious risks, and the consequences from both tend to be delayed.</p>
<p>Point of clarification–emphysema + chronic bronchitis are two lung conditions which are know as Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Either condition or the combo are referred to as COPD. Some lump chronic asthma in as well. COPD is now the 3rd leading cause of death–85-90% of those with COPD are current or former smokers.</p>
<p>Folks can get COPD much younger than age 50 (some in their 40s & even 30s) and yes, having to lug around supplemental O2 and have systemic fragile health and never really feel you catch your breath is not fun or pretty. It also can cut short your productive working years, which tends to leave a lot of its victims very impoverished while disabled and unable to work or do many things for themselves.</p>
<p>This relative may not have had a problem with drinking- - it would have interfered with her chain smoking.
So don’t you think that some who * drank * as much as she smoked would have had much more * severe* problems?</p>
<p>She compromised her health & that affects you because you care about her- but someone who drank liquor to the same extent would have compromised the health & well being of others as well.</p>
<p>Being intoxicated 24/7 would have caused put herself at physical risk, let alone others from behavior that was not health related.
Her judgment would have been impaired , & that would have affected her work & her daily life long before she felt the results from the health risks.</p>
<p>( at the risk of involving mini in this discussion )
do students have smoking games? How many college age young people die every year in connection with tobacco? ( for that matter how many deaths of children? How much abuse & violence can be directly related to alcohol intoxication as opposed to tobacco use?)</p>
<p>What is the risk to a fetus if the mother smokes every day to one that drinks alcohol every day?
In what way does a cigarette affect your decision making, as compared to an alcoholic drink?</p>
<p>It is being argued that lb for lb, tobacco is more addictive to more people than alcohol is.
Especially since cigarettes/tobacco are “doctored” to produce more of the drug to a casual user, I would agree with that.</p>
<p>But…if you looked at comparable use- someone who was addicted to tobacco & someone who was addicted to alcohol, in terms of negative impact to themselves & others, I would argue that alcohol is more destructive.</p>
<p>"I would argue that alcohol is more destructive. "</p>
<p>Alcohol kills faster, and it is more likely to impair judgment, meaning it can cause you to hurt and even kill others (usually vehicular manslaughter ).</p>
<p>That is why to me, it is more destructive. However, I also have a glass of wine several nights a week, so who am I to talk? I have only been drunk twice and I’m quite careful as it runs in my family.</p>
<p>Having re-read the OP, I would say to her daughter better ONE serving of wine or beer than ONE cigarette.</p>
<p>The benefits of wine are also found in dark grape juice and other dark fruit juices and fruits.</p>
<p>Exactly where did you get the idea that being addicted to alcohol (being an alcoholic) is necessarily defined by being drunk “24/7?” Alcoholics don’t even necessarily drink every day.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Chain smoking absolutely does not preclude being an alcoholic. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Have you never heard of a functional alcoholic?</p>
<p>Again, please refer to article above on functional alcoholics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At the risk of being repetitive, please refer to the article on functional alcoholics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is your right to argue that…but this is an opinion question, and in MY experience, and in my opinion, my relative’s addiction to alcohol (yes, she absolutely was an alcoholic) was far less devastating than her addiction to cigarettes.</p>
<p>In small or moderate quantities, alcohol wins: some studies suggest alcohol use in moderation, or drinking red wine, has health benefits; no such studies have found smoking of any kind has health benefits. Smoking seems to be the one most significant behavior that has the most drastic impact on all measures of health. It might be why plenty of top athletes and very healthy people drink alcohol, but you never see them smoke. </p>
<p>In more significant ways, alcohol wins. Sure opponents to alcohol point to related deaths per year, but it’s only about 25% of the deaths per year for smoking! See below: </p>
<p>I think it’s all dependent upon the amounts. One cigarette per month is better than a bottle of vodka per day!</p>
<p>However, if both are in moderation, then I can’t imagine anything worse than sucking known carcinogens into the body.</p>
<p>A little alcohol will likely not an alcoholic create. However, a few cigarettes will more likely give birth to a life-long smoker and keep oncologists in demand for years to come.</p>
<p>Which is worse? Maybe we should define the time frame. The detrimental effects of nicotine versus alcohol can be viewed as long-term versus immediate.</p>
<p>Smoking probably won’t kill you or even harm you today. But if you continue to smoke over decades, it’s guaranteed to harm you and very likely kill you.</p>
<p>OTOH, alcohol can kill you today, or cause near-term harm to your relationships, schoolwork, or job. Abusing alcohol over decades can also hurt or kill you, but moderate use likely will not.</p>
<p>From the perspective of SS and Medicare, tobacco is better - most users are productive during their wage-earning years and don’t stick around very long afterwards.</p>
<p>I am still here. I don’t really have anything to add–it was just an out of curiosity question for you all. The question came up because my D and I were talking about the risks of alcohol and she remarked that she thought smoking was worse but yet she could smoke legally . . .</p>
<p>Mathmom, that’s waht she said, and, of course, she and her friends were laughing at it. Apparently, there is a huge disconnect between the official definition and the public opinion, and not just in the US She lived in France for 7 years, PhD an postdoc…</p>
<p>“…One cigarette per month is better …” I’d love to meet this fiction character who stops at smoking one cigarette per month :D</p>
)
).</p>
She lived in France for 7 years, PhD an postdoc…</p>