Hacker News Reader

Comment by intertextuality | Hacker News Reader

Living in Korea, it's just baffling to see these ridiculous, archaic attitudes toward marijuana in Korea and Japan.

It's like stepping into a time machine. The internet and its resources are available, yet no amount of reasoning or information gets through to a lot of people. Marijuana is just "evil" or only "people who commit/will commit crimes" use it.

I don't necessarily think the attitude here should be just like in the US, but at least let people use it medically, and get rid of the disproportionate stigma.

As @laureig mentioned, one can’t even admit trying marijuana in polite/semi-polite company (of other Koreans). With foreigners it’s a little different. Generally it only gets discussed if you’re closer with them.

---

At the same time, alcohol [and alcoholism] is not only totally fine, it's encouraged! Sometimes it's even mandatory to go drinking with your coworkers after work, due to social pressure from peers and bosses. I have spoken with a few people like this.

But going to clubs in 홍대 Hongdae/강남 Gangnam and drinking until 9am or drinking at a dozen bars in Golden Gai until 6am is totally fine. Drinking until you puke on the street is totally fine. (Admittedly I did do this once in 세종시 Sejong-City, Korea)

View on HN

> The internet and its resources are available, yet no amount of reasoning or information gets through to a lot of people.

This is a "normal" thing, there was a HN article about it some weeks back: often if someone has their mind made up about something, often no amount of facts, figures, logic and proof will change their minds. They may even see these things as personal attacks. Facts are, sadly, not an effective way to convince people.

I'm currently reading the book "Never split the difference" by Chris Voss, a book on negotiation by a former FBI hostage negotiator. In it, he talks at length about why traditional negotiation techniques don't work: they assume that both sides are rational and can be persuaded through facts and value propositions. People aren't rational, they're emotional and to get through to someone, you need to get through to their emotional mind. The book then talks about different techniques he's used to do this, but the fundamental foundation seems to be to listen to what the other person is saying -- really, really listen -- and put yourself into their emotional shoes so you can understand not just what emotion they're feeling, but also why. He then uses rather simple techniques: he verbalises the emotions he thinks their feeling and the reasons. This forces the other person to acknowledge them (or correct him if he got it wrong), which has a calming effect, provides you with more information to work with and often makes the person realise if they're being unreasonable. That's only one technique used, of course, but you can see how he's not trying to engage their logical factual minds, but rather find a way to put out the emotional fires going on in the persons mind.

I think these same principles apply when trying to convince someone of anything. If they have an emotional stake in the debate, then facts and logic aren't going to cut it, but talking to their emotions hostage-negotiator-style just might.

I was just in a class on managing children's tantrums, and the advice is very, very similar. The mistake we make is assuming adults are fundamentally different feom children.

Absolutely! Chris even says in the book that while he perfected his art in hostage negotiations[1], they work just as well in business and in your personal life (and he even gave "negotiating your childs bedtime" as an example).

I'm really enjoying the book, both in terms of what I'm learning and entertainment. I highly recommend it!

[1] The unique thing about hostage negotiations is that you have to get what you want, or people may die, and you can't give anything meaningful in return. Most situations aren't quite that drastic, of course.

>This is a "normal" thing, there was a HN article about it some weeks back: often if someone has their mind made up about something, often no amount of facts, figures, logic and proof will change their minds. They may even see these things as personal attacks. Facts are, sadly, not an effective way to convince people.

Does anyone know which article this is referring to? I'd like to check it out.

Quick HN search later... it may have been this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18099488 but I haven't had a chance to read through it to confirm, so might not be. I may also be imperfectly remembering what it said... so I hope I wasn't too wrong in my previous comment! Although, scanning the comments, that doesn't sound like what I remember...

Not just that: in Korea, if you're drunk and punch/stab/rape someone, and you claim you were drunk, you may get a reduced sentence, because you were clearly too drunk to be responsible for your action. (Never mind nobody forced you to drink.)

At least more and more younger generation seem to be against the drinking culture. (Unfortunately, they still agree with older generation on marijuana...)

Well, if one prefers to be sober, it's natural to be not only against drinking, but weed too.

It's interesting and a little surprising to me that this is the case (the marijuana stigma in the younger generation). I stayed in a hostel in Seoul last year, and everyone was lighting up, including Koreans.

I'm not sure if it's still true, but North Korea used to be one of the few countries which had not outlawed cannabis.

Apparently it has a very strong root structure and they had a lot of problems with soil erosion, especially along railway lines.

It sure is amazing how different perspectives influence decision-making.

Incidentally, if anyone is interested in the country's history between WWII and Kim Jong-Un, check out Under the Care of the Fatherly Leader: North Korea and the Kim Dynasty by Bradley K. Martin if you want a dry but deep history, or Nothing to Envy: Oridinary Lives in North Korea by Barbara Demick for a more narrative account.

> Living in Korea, it's just baffling to see these ridiculous, archaic attitudes toward marijuana in Korea and Japan.

It's an East Asian cultural aversion to drug culture that has roots in how opium was used to dominate China.

OTOH Japanese love medicines; doctors give out pills that are strongly regulated overseas like rohypnol like candies. CBD oil is completely legal OTC

Had a major surgery in Japan that required general anesthesia. During recovery, the only pain killer they would provide was loxoprofen (ibuprofen). Naturally, this didn't do much, and I couldn't sleep through the pain. But thankfully, I was given a prescription for brotizolam quite readily - - a powerful and abusable hypnotic used for sedation...

Anyway, still gotta say thank you to the doctor that put my knee back together! Also, with insurance the total was less than $1,000 and my drugs were a few bucks -- don't even want to imagine the cost back in the US.

yes but the social insurance system is deep in the red so technically your surgery is paid with debt.

It's hard to display emotion through text, and I say the following without flippancy: I pay my taxes and pension.

So I'd like to think I'm doing my part. Also, I highly doubt I will retire here and begin drawing said pension.

Sure you are doing your part, but you should avoid glossing about the fact that it's cheap compared to the US when in fact the real cost is completely hidden to you and is reported to future generations.

It might not just be $1k, but the US is pretty obviously less economically efficient in how it deals with medical issues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea... shows the US spending much more per capita than other countries do, especially including Japan.

The real cost was not hidden. In fact, it was quite clear to me -- it was on my bill. Even still, the total was a tiny fraction of what a similar procedure would have cost in the US.

There is no objective cost for a service.

Just curious: why would you not want to retire there?

> CBD oil is completely legal OTC

CBD isn't psychoactive, so not surprising?

Maybe because it's close relation to weed. A lot of people (in the US) associate cbd with being the same thing as weed just as an oil. Given the topic of weed acceptance there I think that's what makes it surprising. People there are able to make the clear distinction.

As a European I think the Second Amendment in the US is archaic. People stopped walking around with weapons in public 150 years ago.

There are historical reasons for these harsh penalties. Japan saw what happened to China in the opium wars.

And do you often meet people with weapons in public in the US? I didn't. In fact, I met much more people with firearms in public in Israel. And guess what? It made me feel safer.

Though I know that both topics are highly discussable. I disagree with you on "archaic Second Amendment", but I like that you have your right to disagree with it.

The main problem mentioned in topic is not the weed consumption -- it's the taboo of even talking about it.

I generally expect people to be armed in a warzone, not so much in a mall.

If you have been in Israel you know that Tel Aviv is as much a warzone as NYC, and much less than Paris.

Though, something has to be added for context: 95% of people in Israel walking around with weapons are soldiers. So of course you feel safer than next to a random hillbilly. This is not relevant to discussion about the 2nd amendment.

>If you have been in Israel you know that Tel Aviv is as much a warzone as NYC, and much less than Paris

How so? Is the whole of Israel Tel Aviv? Is there not daily violence in Israel? Is there not a whole nation locked in a ghetto inside its borders? Is that not Israel? Only Tel Aviv is Israel?

Great that you feel so safe near Israeli soldiers, I myself will never set foot in the country.

> do you often meet people with weapons in public in the US?

In many US states you can assume that people you walk past may well have a handgun under his jacket or in her purse.

> In fact, I met much more people with firearms in public in Israel.

In Israel 1) conscripts don't keep their weapons loaded (you can often see the ammo kept hanging separately outside), and 2) anyone with a weapon has received strict training on weapon safety. Gun ownership in Israel is not really comparable to the USA.

> In many US states you can assume that people you walk past may well have a handgun under his jacket or in her purse.

I think that's kind of a stretch. Where I live I think most people have a gun or two at home, and I do too, but I've never personally met someone who carries them around on the street. (For one thing, I've tried those conceal carry holsters, and found them extremely uncomfortable.)

The only time my guns are out is for hunting, or going to the range with friends.

>I think that's kind of a stretch.

It really isn't. I know a lot of people that have a concealed carry permit, myself included, and regularly carry a firearm. You would never know it, because it is concealed and they won't go around talking about it, but its relatively common. Also, I'm in a pretty liberal state so I imagine its even more common in conservative areas

>And do you often meet people with weapons in public in the US?

In the South, you can see people walking around with handguns in Walmart. It's not uncommon at all. If you didn't see that when you were in the US, it's probably because you were in one of the "blue" states.

>do you often meet people with weapons in public in the US? I didn't

You probably did but weren't aware, as the vast majority of people carrying firearms carry concealed.

It was definitely surprising to me to see grown men in suits throwing up on the streets nearly every one of the seven nights I spent in Tokyo. I don’t recall seeing any of that in the three nights I spent in Kyoto but having said that I didn’t have many late nights there.

I’ll add that the attitude towards things like stimulants that help people with ADD/ADHD is also a bit bizarre to me.

I’m was just in Tokyo, Shinjuku area. Around 5-6am while walking back from Golden Gai I saw guys in suits stumbling back; one guy face planted pretty hard and there was some blood.

Overall it was fun as a foreigner but it’s weird to see this as acceptable but marijuana (even medically) as not acceptable.

Ironic when you think about islamic countries which ban alchohol but allow hashish to be smoked in public....

FWIW, many cities in Saudi Arabia including the capital Riyadh ban even tobacco in public: you need to drive 30km out of the town to the city limits to find a cluster of hookah bars.

a few random uninformed thoughts

1. drinking culture

AFAICT drinking culture is fairly different in Japan than in at least the USA. In the USA drinking leads to fights and violence. In Japan that seems far less so. Drinking and getting drunk in Japan doesn't have the stigma it has in the USA because it doesn't lead to the same issues? Include drunk driving in that since few people drive

2. attitudes toward drugs

SF is falling apart. I know you can argue the two are not related, SF falling apart and SF being one of the most drug friendly cities but I'm sure the Japanese don't find it quite so easy to separate those 2 things. I'm not 100% sure I can. Like many of the things that seems at least mildly related. The lower violent crime. The lower theft rates. The more respect for the commons (less trashing public things). For whatever wrong headed reason I find drug culture and trashing things related.

Your second point is pretty interesting. I wonder why it’s easier for people to blame drugs, rather than overarching social failures, such as the incredible lack of housing. Maybe those issues are more complex.

Consider that Paris is comparatively very trashy but also way more conservative than San Francisco.

Because the drug policy is one of San Francisco’s overarching social failures?

The city hands hundreds of millions of dollars to outreach organizations that operate with little oversight and offer no results. We hand out 400,000 needles a month to IV drug users, and the dirty needles end up in the streets and sidewalks, putting everyone at risk. There is human feces everywhere. We allow open use in broad daylight. In some neighborhoods, we allow open dealing in parks and street corners. Police don’t bother to make arrests because the DA wouldn’t prosecute anyway. More and more homeless drug addicts move here to take advantage of the de-facto deregularization. The city reacts by throwing more money at the problem, without oversight or results, and the cycle continues.

The large number of homeless who are mentally ill or addicted to opiates are unaffected by the housing costs, because they couldn’t afford a house at any price.

I think the message you are trying to impart is a bit lost in the vindictiveness you're implying. Imperfect rehabilitative justice might make society spiteful of inefficiency, but punitive justice doesn't have the best record there either.

Its relative. Punitive justice isnt perfect, but the track record for for more punitive cities seems to be much better than the cities who arent punitive.

I didn’t mention vindictiveness. I mentioned that dealers are allowed to break the law in the open without consequence. Vindictiveness is how you’ve chosen to interpret that.

I don't want to argue over the word choice, I said you implied it. Regardless, what I was trying to imply in response was that it would be unfortunate if despairing over deregulation's current state led to the belief that "tough on crime" approaches are a better alternative.

“Vindictive” means an strong or unreasonable desire for revenge. I didn’t imply that I want that.

You’re creating a false dichotomy between not enforcing laws on one hand, and being vindictive on the other. If those are the only alternatives you can see, that’s on you.

Why are you trying to argue over the word? Are you purposely trying to distract from your point and start an argument? If you don't accept how I tried to refine your point, then okay, but don't obfuscate it further.

     "Police don’t bother to make arrests because the DA wouldn’t prosecute anyway. More and more homeless drug addicts move here to take advantage of the de-facto deregularization."

This reads like bemoaning they aren't locking people up, and is the rhetoric of tough on crime libertarians in my area.

     "The city reacts by throwing more money at the problem, without oversight or results, and the cycle continues."

This reads like a justification for criminalization. If you don't think the criminal system is vindictive, I don't know what to tell you.

There are of course multiple options. That was what my initial post was trying to emphasize, not that you are some vengeful onlooker.

Edit: maybe I should emphasize this part of your sentence, "without oversight or results, and the cycle continues." because refining that rather than our dumb argument makes more sense.

Vindictive is your word. I didn't read vindictiveness in anything that the GP wrote here.

I mean, Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago, and most American cities have huge drug problems, and they're also incredibly trashy once you're out of the secure yuppie districts. And is the biggest city in France, a liberal country, really that conservative compared to SF?

Can it all be attributed to housing issues? Maybe. But Hong Kong has housing issues. I've never worried about my safety, saw needles on the street, or saw piles of shit everywhere (though I have in all the other cities mentioned).

I don't think it's any one issue. Drug abuse is only one aspect of the problem, but not the root cause. Although I think if cargo ships were loaded up with coke and heroin, Hong Kong's problems would end up quite a bit worse than they are.

>And is the biggest city in France, a liberal country, really that conservative compared to SF?

The GP brought up attitudes towards drugs, specifically. I'm not arguing other liberal points. Consider that Amsterdam has similar lax attitudes to drugs and isn't nearly as bad. Hong Kong, proper, is expensive, but Hong Kong also has a very rich public transportation system. My impression of Hong Kong is that you don't need to live in Hong Kong to work there.

Personally I think most US cities, and a lot of western cities in general suffer more profoundly from income inequality. I'd imagine it's very easy to feel trapped on the streets in SF if you can't afford housing or a car (Which are problems that can come to roost after several years of poverty, if you are poor, you can't build credit, so you can't get a car/home loan). If you have no life choices, its easy fall into drug use (see the rural america opioid crisis).

>Consider that Paris is comparatively very trashy but also way more conservative than San Francisco.

What are you talking about? Paris has the same sort of drug addiction issues. Lots of the people trashing the commons are nasty violent crack addicts

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thelocal.fr/20180117/junkie...

https://rmc.bfmtv.com/emission/ravages-de-la-drogue-dans-le-...

>"For example, last year, there were no fewer than 850 traffic interruptions and power cuts because drug addicts crossed the tracks, carried out their business on the tracks, or pulled the alarm to stop the trains to either sell or buy drugs," Chaplan, who is also a representative of the trade union SUD-RATP, said.

Junkies are a blight on civilization

> Junkies are a blight on civilization

Let me fix that for you: Junkies are human beings with serious medical conditions related to substance abuse and often mental illness.

As a "civilization" we are ultimately measured by how we treat our most vulnerable, because that tells you the value we place on human life.

Society needs to spend more time and effort helping people with drug addiction problems, and less time vilifying and dehumanizing them.

Ever consider how that might change if treated?

It was the introduction of the war on drugs that introduced the need to push drugs, to pay for the habit. When clean heroin and needles were available, along with treatment for those who wanted to quit, there was barely a problem at all.

Many nations had successful history of tolerance without problems of junkies. The the US was determined to export their war on drugs globally. The hysteria of Harry Anslinger who gave the world the Reefer Madness mentality, and faked acres of evidence, was the US representative for the newly formed UN committee on drugs. It was his swan song resulting from Nixon's public enemy number 1 initiative.

India, The Netherlands, Britain and others had almost no drug addicts prior to this. There were of course some - but they were still productive members of society - yet orders of magnitude fewer than in the USA under prohibition. No police connected drugs with crime or anti-social behaviours.

Now everywhere is in a similar boat to the US, drugs outlawed with enough organised crime that going back to the old ways is probably impossible.

The presence of junkies doesn't mean that city is open to drugs as San Francisco is. Cannabis is illegal in France, yet still suffers from the same problems. However, Cannabis is legal in the Netherlands and Amsterdam is far more hospitable.

What the GP was bringing up was the attitude towards drugs, not people using drugs in general. SF was a far more lax attitude to drugs than France, yet its afflicted by similar problems. Blaming drugs is just a convenient scapegoat so that harder problems aren't addressed.

> "Junkies are a blight on civilization"

Junkies are human beings with a problem. So are cancer patients. So are veterans with PTSD.

It's our job to remember they're people and need help, not cast them out further. We're rich enough as a species that we can save those in trouble; we shouldn't forget that.

Whether you blame drugs or see it as an effect, it still makes the situation worse and keeps whomever is trapped more trapped.

Hey blame tech for that not drugs.

You can blame the US occupation for these laws, they didn't exist prior to 1945 when Cannabis was a part of Korean and Japanese traditional culture.

This is mentioned in the article.

Such attitudes are still quite prevalent in most US states and at the federal level, especially with former attorney general sessions. Archaic indeed, but hardly unique or surprising.

That's true, but the for the majority, that attitude has changed now. Of course there are still staunch holdouts [like the state where I went to college, South Carolina...] but overall it's much better. Particularly for medical usage.

What's more baffling is that it's totally acceptable to be an alcoholic and in a lot of workplaces it can be seen as negative to not participate in heavy drinking events.

You dont have to drink alcohol when you go out drinking in Japan. you always have the option to go for soft drinks.

You still have to go out drinking with coworkers because it's one of those things viewed as a social responsibility. And said coworkers will pressure you to drink because you're expected to get drunk among them as well.

There is a lot of combined pressure to get people to drink.

I have been going for years drinking with colleagues in Japan and I have never had a problem to avoid getting drunk by switching very quickly to soft drinks, and this, even in several companies.

"I have never had a problem to avoid getting drunk by switching very quickly to soft drinks, and this, even in several companies."

If you're an alcoholic or binge drinker, then you're in trouble basically. Some people can't just say no once they get started.

Hence my point stands, alcoholism is a large and accepted part of current day culture. In other countries I've lived and worked in, people avoided having work functions solely at bars for this and cultural sensitivity reasons.

protip: it's hard to tell the difference between a gin and tonic and a club soda with lime. once people are drunk, they don't necessarily notice who's still sober.

of course this doesn't solve the problem that being sober around a bunch of drunk people isn't much fun.

Not only that but Japan encourages alcohol consumption while enjoying the highest rate of stomach cancer along with Korea in the whole world. You have to wonder what the government is thinking, or how much corrupt politicians are.

The government is democratic, so it has to respond to the wishes of the voters. That said, it does seem like the Japanese government has made top-down efforts to change various things about the culture in that country, such as pushing companies to not overwork their employees so much.

It’s the association of marijuana with laziness/lack of ambition, which is a cardinal sin in Asian culture.

I think a lot of the “hard working” stereotyoe of Asians in America (mostly Chinese and Koreans) come from the fact they are immigrants and start from the bottom once they get here.

What's interesting is that Hispanic immigrants start from the bottom, yet they usually don't go very high up the social ladder, don't get an education, etc., while Asian immigrants become doctors. I wonder if anyone's done any real research on this.

This is misleading. Hispanics as a whole haven't risen very much (but are rising) because there's a consistent inflow of new immigrants. Many also also return to their home countries after making a decent chunk of money. So this gives the appearance of not being successful.

Populations of Hispanics that do stay in the US for larger stretches of time have been successful. Cuban Americans, for example, have higher than average incomes and education rates: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Americans

>Cuban Americans, for example, have higher than average incomes and education rates

Compared to Asian-Americans though? Maybe I'm biased though, because I've never been to Florida which is where most of them seem to be located.

Sure, not compared to Asian American as a whole, but having incomes over the median is a significant sign of progress. After all by definition having everyone have an above average income is an impossible goal.

Hispanics mostly just have to cross the US-Mexico border. Asians have to get across the Pacific somehow, usually through legal means with high barriers to entry, which is a great filter for the type of people that make it through to the US.

Also because of the communist crackdown on the gentry, most of Chinese emigrants were the well-off people, whereas in most cases emigrants from other countries are usually the poorer or less-well off segment of their populations.

It’s extremely difficult for the “average” Asian to make their way over to the US. But trust me there are plenty of “average” Asians. They’re just stuck in Asia.

It’s not a stereotype. I’m Asian. “You’re being lazy” is literally the most deveststing thing my dad could’ve said to me growing up. Remember, we’re talking about a continent where a large fraction of people daily engage in back breaking subsistence farming.

Are you Asian American? My point was that making it to the USA requires hard work, privlige, or money. It selects for a certain type of Asians and developed the stereotype.

Comparing literally any index of social dysfunction; crime, divorce, homelessness, mental illness rates: no Westerner has any right to lecture Japan (or South Korea) on how they run their country no matter how many "muh weed" articles they can find on the internet.

Can you elaborate?

Japan has ridiculously low crime rates, yes, but they also have extremely high suicide rates, so your point about mental illness rates doesn't hold water.

Also, crime and murder rates in many western European countries are also quite low, though not as low as Japan of course. It's only America that has terrible murder rates (esp. by guns), but America is not like other Western nations in many ways, so you shouldn't lump them together, just as you shouldn't lump Japan and China together.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/medieval-diseases...

Japanese don't see suicide as something medicalized as in the West. It's also not much different in rates per 100k from suicide in the West, and the idea that they're exceptional here is ... well, kind of a dumb racial stereotype. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Japan

To each their own. I support that.

It's quite possibility that they too find it baffling to see the ridiculous attitude that and some western country have toward marijuana.

They have every right to decide for themselves to make marijuana "evil", whatever the reason is.

To each their own is a reasonable philosophy when you apply it to individuals. It's not quite so reasonable when you apply it to countries, as countries are anything but a 100% homogeneous set of individuals.

Perhaps some people in Korea don't think marijuana is evil. Maybe some people in Korea don't like being effectively forced to drink themselves senseless every day.

Heck, maybe some Saudi Arabian gays would prefer not to be executed - but to each [country] their own I guess, hmm?

Yes, but the parent post is specifically talking about countries so 'To each their own' I'm using is in the context of countries. A country in relation of other country.

Of course if you drill down within a country then the context of 'To each their own' is within its individual.

I don't see anyone advocating taking away their decision.

So just because alcohol is bad we should encourage other substances that also have an effect on people’s ability to think clearly and have additive properties? Instead of discouraging the culture of drinking? Regardless of what westerners think of as “ridiculous” drug laws, Japan, Korea and other Asian countries with “ridiculous” drug laws do have way lower rate of drug addiction and abuse. That is no coincident.

Shame there isn’t a metric for the amount of fun a society has from those same drugs.

Sure, China in the 1800s everybody had good amounts of fun from opium, widely accepted by society, pretty much everybody did it. Wonder how that worked out for them.

Britain got involved and fucked everything up?

It could have been any other country when your whole population is under the ongoing control of opoids.

So, large swaths of the United States in the year 2019.

In the Netherlands drugs are huge. Xtc, weed, cocaine. Its all good. The party never ends.

But the Netherlands has a social welfare system that by and large keeps people from crashing. There are no ghettos, no rust belt.

Ganja has, and is being used in a lot of meditation and yoga practices to help with focus, perception and attention. It’s use has in many ways helped develop many of these practices throughout countless generation.

Representing it as a substance which clouds the mind is only due to ignorance of its intentional use for the opposite.

That's an excellent point, any substance that alters your brain chemistry such as Marijuana, Alcohol, or Coffee can have a positive or negative impact. We are rich complex beings and everything we put in our body adds to that. I think many of the harmful substances can have a positive effect if used in a healthy way. We need to let go of either demonizing them for their negative effects or deifying them for their positive effects. Once we realize they're complex supplements that can be an enjoyable addition when used in certain circumstances while still respecting their potential for abuse we'll have made a big step forward.

Alcohol has virtually no positive health benefits. Ethanol is potently toxic and will cause DNA damage throughout your body and kill a number of other cells in the way.

But alcohol consumption is ridiculously evolutionarily beneficial. The ability to digest ethanol has evolved independently twice, and each time it swept to dominate ~95 percent of the population in less than 500 years.

It's interesting that you don't state HOW it is beneficial.

It is an energy income method, albeit not the best. In reasonable amounts it strengthens social bonds in group. And there might be few more. There ya go. Wanna grab a beer?

Nah, I'd prefer to avoid cancer thanks though.

From few beers per week? I don't think so. What about the happiness coming from evening spent in intense social bonding?

Downvote? Cute, does that equate to social pressure to consume ethanol? Any alcohol consumption increases the incidence of multiple types of cancers, the primary metabilite (ethanal/acetaldehyde) causes damage to DNA. I can bond with people over my passion for the sciences, I prefer to avoid increasing my risk of cancers. No NMDA antagonist needed.

"The evidence indicates that the more alcohol a person drinks—particularly the more alcohol a person drinks regularly over time—the higher his or her risk of developing an alcohol-associated cancer. Even light drinkers (those who have no more than one drink per day) and binge drinkers have a modestly increased risk of some cancers (3–7). Based on data from 2009, an estimated 3.5% of cancer deaths in the United States (about 19,500 deaths) were alcohol related (8)." https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/a...

Just for some added shits and giggles: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/dar.12596

It's not necessary to know /how/ to know that it /does/, but it's probably related to the sanitation of drinkable liquids.

So you think mechanisms aren't important? Forget about engineering then.

> evolutionarily beneficial

Hardly convinced by your arguments since among Asian populations there is large genetic propensity not to be able to break down ethanol properly.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1580147/

Those statistics are highly suspect, from the article:

"Every year, the government gathers these statistics by approaching 6000 households and asking them to fill in a questionnaire. They don’t have to write their names on it, but they do have to hand them over to a government official. In a country where – as I’ll discuss later – even doctors call the police to inform them if their patients are suspected of using drugs, it is very likely that this method leads to figures that hugely underestimate the proportion of Japanese people using drugs."

As well as:

"He concluded: “A very Japanese way of not dealing with the problem is – don’t take the data that would show that it exists.”"

We have no idea what the statistics might be as they don't want to measure them since then they would have to admit that they have a problem. If people are in pain they'll find a way to escape it, and it seems there's a lot of people in pain in Japan and Korea due to the focus on extreme amounts of work and strict social rules. How they are doing compared to the west is a matter of debate, I think roughly equal just with different areas being difficult, however we can't truly measure and compare as the numbers are being deliberately ignored.

We can admit that drug use is in essence a religion and perscribing acceptable modes of use is little more than a sectarian conflict that needlessly destroys human lives, like all other sectarian conflict

Reply on news.ycombinator.com