The safe amount of alcohol science recommend for an adult is zero.
Alcohol is one of the few substances for which these is proven evidence that any quantity is bad and will cause progressive and irreversible damage to you.
I do drink albeit not much, like a few times a year, so I am not against alcohol at all, it’s your body your choice.
But given the above, I am only happy if the tolerance on driving under any alcohol influence at all is punished
Alcohol is one of the few substances for which these is proven evidence that any quantity is bad
I’ve seen some researches pushing this agenda. They mostly focused on one thing, like cancer, or cut out the “zero consumption” cohort. More comprehensive research shows that while any amount of alcohol increases cancer risks, good done to dexterity of vascular systems overweights it in terms of life expectancy overall at around 7 drinks a week.
There are zero health benefits from alcohol that outweigh the drawbacks. As someone in medical, your comment is outdated misinformation people use to rationalize their drinking.
I like whiskey but I am not under the guise that it is anyway helpful to my body.
Don’t take this the wrong way, but this is an answer to a question OP didn’t ask. They were asking for a descriptive answer to the driving limit, not a normative opinion of what you think the limit should be.
Also your conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise. (I could be wrong; but it really doesn’t matter anyway considering the first paragraph of my response)
Yes you are right, but I think a good answer to op question had to consider that zero tolerance at the driving seat is the correct answer, and my take is not on saving the children, as other stated, but that on a dangerous substance there cannot be a itching other than zero tolerance on drunk driving.
The safe amount of alcohol science recommend for an adult is zero.
Alcohol is one of the few substances for which these is proven evidence that any quantity is bad and will cause progressive and irreversible damage to you.
I do drink albeit not much, like a few times a year, so I am not against alcohol at all, it’s your body your choice.
But given the above, I am only happy if the tolerance on driving under any alcohol influence at all is punished
I’ve seen some researches pushing this agenda. They mostly focused on one thing, like cancer, or cut out the “zero consumption” cohort. More comprehensive research shows that while any amount of alcohol increases cancer risks, good done to dexterity of vascular systems overweights it in terms of life expectancy overall at around 7 drinks a week.
There are zero health benefits from alcohol that outweigh the drawbacks. As someone in medical, your comment is outdated misinformation people use to rationalize their drinking.
I like whiskey but I am not under the guise that it is anyway helpful to my body.
Nope, your data is outdated. The explanation for that invalid argument is quite interesting actually.
The sober (sicker) quitters phenomenon that messed up this data for so long is fascinating!
Link to that study. Bullshit.
Aside from cancer and liver disease, ethanol is a neurotoxin. It immediately toxifies the cerebellum giving the drinker ataxia.
Don’t take this the wrong way, but this is an answer to a question OP didn’t ask. They were asking for a descriptive answer to the driving limit, not a normative opinion of what you think the limit should be.
Also your conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise. (I could be wrong; but it really doesn’t matter anyway considering the first paragraph of my response)
Yes you are right, but I think a good answer to op question had to consider that zero tolerance at the driving seat is the correct answer, and my take is not on saving the children, as other stated, but that on a dangerous substance there cannot be a itching other than zero tolerance on drunk driving.
Let’s say a different take.