What are the "growing harms" the article mentions them flippantly. "Nearly 2.8M" comes from an estimate of 2.75 million and a qualifier that the exact number is unknown.
1) Most young men with CHS just quit or switch to a different strain and symptoms leave. There is no evidence provided in the article that "many people end up worse off after taking marijuana".
2) Cars are the problem, not pedestrians and not drivers. It's Time for America to Admit That It Has a Car Problem. Poor, car-centric infrastructure and increasing vehicle size.
3) There are an estimated 117,000 alcohol deaths in the US each year. Nothing to do with cars, that's just the damage from putting it in your body. And no, unlike the article says, there is no safe limit for alcohol consumption
Then the article goes completely off the rails claiming that Oreos are "snacks for children". There is a clear difference between the way snacks where advertised to children 30 years ago and a company using that same advertising now. Cannabis use has remained stable among adolescence since the 2000s. Growth has been driven by college-age and older.
It also downplays the harm companies kraft, through Nabisco do to actual youngins.
Alcohol and sugar/cereals/sodas are leagues more socially harmful (obesity deaths 300,000 per year). But this article treats them like no big deal, or that they are properly regulated. None are, in America, for better or worse, it's up to you to learn the risks and free yourself from mis/disinformation. But Time publishing noise makes it difficult.
Whether you want to use alcohol, sugar or THC. It's not the Times nor governments business to decide if you are "worse off" for it. This is the kind of scope creep that kills most countries.
The average American drinks about 2.3 gallons of pure alcohol per year (in 2014), compared to 7.1 gallons per year in 1830, just as the temperance movement started to gain momentum.
America drank so much back then that the Federal Government was fully funded on liquor taxes, the first Federal income tax was not collected until prohibition took effect.
Not saying things are perfect now, but they used to be much, much worse. Highly recommend the Ken Burns Prohibition documentary for a deep dive.
US Prohibition was from 1920 to 1933.
The Revenue Act of 1913 already put income tax into effect before that. And early 1900s import tariffs added up to more than the alcohol tax. But yes, we collected a lot from whiskey in the 1800s.
What is "pure alcohol" (the linked source refers to "absolute alcohol")?
Because I have trouble imagining the average American (or whatever person) drinking 2.3 gallons of ethanol in a year. A 4% beer is 0.5 fl oz of ethanol, which is 0.004 gallons. 2.3 gallons of ethanol would be more than 575 4% beers per year.
I definitely don't believe the 50% of Americans consume that much alcohol in a year. Supposedly 40% of people don't even drink alcohol, at all. The 7.1 gallon figure seems nonsensical too.
This source says 27 gallons of beer (or 297 beers) per year per capita, but I bet alcohol consumption is distributed such that 90% of consumption is by 10% of people, or even less.
Anecdotally, I know people that have a couple drinks after work each day. Two 5% beers x 5 days x 52 weeks is already 2.4gal of ethanol a year and that's not counting what they drink on the weekends. A friend's mother drinks like half a bottle of wine a night, that's 2.6gal/ year. Granted, most people don't drink like that but that's the kind of habitual drinking that most people probably wouldn't consider a drinking problem.
People that only drink socially and not to excess won't get close to 2.3gal a year but habitual drinkers and alcoholics will easily surpass that. I'm sure the median is a lot lower. Even just a fifth of liquor a week puts you at 4.8gal/year and real alcoholics are drinking a lot more than that.
NYT Pitchbot: After his third lunch martini to take the edge of Adderal jitters, a New York Times columnist realizes America has a marijauna problem.
It's signed by the editorial board, made up of thirteen authors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Editorial_b...
Maybe they're all out having boozy lunches, who knows.
Interesting juxtaposition of rising stories on HN at the moment: America has both a tungsten problem and a marijuana problem.
https://archive.is/9pzhd
What are the "growing harms" the article mentions them flippantly. "Nearly 2.8M" comes from an estimate of 2.75 million and a qualifier that the exact number is unknown. 1) Most young men with CHS just quit or switch to a different strain and symptoms leave. There is no evidence provided in the article that "many people end up worse off after taking marijuana".
2) Cars are the problem, not pedestrians and not drivers. It's Time for America to Admit That It Has a Car Problem. Poor, car-centric infrastructure and increasing vehicle size.
3) There are an estimated 117,000 alcohol deaths in the US each year. Nothing to do with cars, that's just the damage from putting it in your body. And no, unlike the article says, there is no safe limit for alcohol consumption
Then the article goes completely off the rails claiming that Oreos are "snacks for children". There is a clear difference between the way snacks where advertised to children 30 years ago and a company using that same advertising now. Cannabis use has remained stable among adolescence since the 2000s. Growth has been driven by college-age and older. It also downplays the harm companies kraft, through Nabisco do to actual youngins.
Alcohol and sugar/cereals/sodas are leagues more socially harmful (obesity deaths 300,000 per year). But this article treats them like no big deal, or that they are properly regulated. None are, in America, for better or worse, it's up to you to learn the risks and free yourself from mis/disinformation. But Time publishing noise makes it difficult.
Whether you want to use alcohol, sugar or THC. It's not the Times nor governments business to decide if you are "worse off" for it. This is the kind of scope creep that kills most countries.
We have an alcohol problem, masquerading as normal
The average American drinks about 2.3 gallons of pure alcohol per year (in 2014), compared to 7.1 gallons per year in 1830, just as the temperance movement started to gain momentum.
America drank so much back then that the Federal Government was fully funded on liquor taxes, the first Federal income tax was not collected until prohibition took effect.
Not saying things are perfect now, but they used to be much, much worse. Highly recommend the Ken Burns Prohibition documentary for a deep dive.
[0]: https://www.archives.gov/files/publications/prologue/2014/wi...
US Prohibition was from 1920 to 1933. The Revenue Act of 1913 already put income tax into effect before that. And early 1900s import tariffs added up to more than the alcohol tax. But yes, we collected a lot from whiskey in the 1800s.
What is "pure alcohol" (the linked source refers to "absolute alcohol")?
Because I have trouble imagining the average American (or whatever person) drinking 2.3 gallons of ethanol in a year. A 4% beer is 0.5 fl oz of ethanol, which is 0.004 gallons. 2.3 gallons of ethanol would be more than 575 4% beers per year.
I definitely don't believe the 50% of Americans consume that much alcohol in a year. Supposedly 40% of people don't even drink alcohol, at all. The 7.1 gallon figure seems nonsensical too.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/01/03/10-facts-...
This source says 27 gallons of beer (or 297 beers) per year per capita, but I bet alcohol consumption is distributed such that 90% of consumption is by 10% of people, or even less.
For the top two deciles you have 15 and 74 drinks/week:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=http://w...
If we take oz of hard liquor, which is set at 40% alcohol, we get:
74 * 52 * .4 / 128 [oz/gallon] = 12.025 gallons of pure alcohol in a year
And:
15 * 52 * .4 / 128 = 2.44 gallons of pure alcohol
I think the folks who are really going hard pump the average (mean) up a lot.
Anecdotally, I know people that have a couple drinks after work each day. Two 5% beers x 5 days x 52 weeks is already 2.4gal of ethanol a year and that's not counting what they drink on the weekends. A friend's mother drinks like half a bottle of wine a night, that's 2.6gal/ year. Granted, most people don't drink like that but that's the kind of habitual drinking that most people probably wouldn't consider a drinking problem.
People that only drink socially and not to excess won't get close to 2.3gal a year but habitual drinkers and alcoholics will easily surpass that. I'm sure the median is a lot lower. Even just a fifth of liquor a week puts you at 4.8gal/year and real alcoholics are drinking a lot more than that.