Islamic wisdom on Alcohol

[weary flake]

The Shariah

Only Allah knows what is right and beneficial for His creation, and
alternatively what is wrong and harmful. The Holy Quraan clearly
states the lawful and unlawful actions. All Humans must follow
this Law of Allah which is known as the 'Shariah' or Islamic Law.

Amongst the clear-cut prohibitions is the use of Alcohol in any
form whatsoever.

The Quraan Prohibits Alcohol

Regarding Alcohol - The Holy Quraan states: "They ask Thee concerning
Wine and Gambling, Say: In them is great sin, and some profit, for
men; but the sin is greater than the profit." (Surah Al-Baqarah:219)

The Arabic word used in this text is Khamr which is applied to all
intoxicating liquor or drug.

The Quraan further states in Surah Al-Maaidah verse 90: "O Ye who
believe! Intoxicants and Gambling, Sacrificing to Stones, and
(divination by) Arrows, are an abomination, of Satan's handiwork;
Keep away from such, that Ye may prosper."

Take Heed - Oh Muslims!

Quraanic evidence has been presented to you regarding the use of
Alcohol. Allah - The All Knowing and full of Wisdom knows what is
best for us - His creation. We must abstain fully from all forms
and uses of alcohol.

No - Drinking!

So, firstly, all Muslims must not consume Alcohol at all. It is
amongst the Major Sins and will have to be accounted for on the day
of Judgement. Besides the Islamic ruling, we all know too well the
harms of this evil. This is one of the main roots of corruption
in society. Violence, family tragedies, suicides are a few of the
fatal results of this disease. May Almighty Allah save us all.
Ameen.

No - Selling!

The selling of Alcohol is also forbidden. It is completely Haraam
for Muslims to be trading in this trade. It is also forbidden to
sell alcohol as part of your business. Grocers, Newsagents and
Mini-Market traders should keep this in mind. Therefore, no question
remains regarding trading in Off-Licences, Pubs or Public Houses.
In selling of these in Take-Aways and Restaurants also is completely
Haraam. Muslims should also not work or employ any of their family
members in such Haraam Environments.

May Allah give us the right understanding. Ameen.

Conclusion

The consumption of Alcohol can destroy families, communities and
in fact a whole locality. Man commits such autrocious crimes in
the state of being drunk which can only be described as babaric and
ruthless. A life of a drunkard becomes hell and of all those
connected with him. And remember, it's an addiction. A few drops
will lead to a glassful which in turn will lead to bottles. Then
there will be no stopping.

Selling these products makes ones livelihood Haraam. All his life
will pass through Haraam. His clothing, sustenance e.t.c. if bought
from this income will also be doubtful. So, Oh Muslims - Take heed
and abstain from the mother and roots of all vices and evils. May
Allah grant us the right understanding. Ameen-Ya-Rabbal-A'lameen.

[Bob Harper]

Post by weary flake
The Shariah
Only Allah knows what is right and beneficial for His creation, and
alternatively what is wrong and harmful.  The Holy Quraan clearly
states the lawful and unlawful actions.  All Humans must follow
this Law of Allah which is known as the 'Shariah' or Islamic Law.
Amongst the clear-cut prohibitions is the use of Alcohol in any
form whatsoever.
The Quraan Prohibits Alcohol
Regarding Alcohol - The Holy Quraan states: "They ask Thee concerning
Wine and Gambling, Say: In them is great sin, and some profit, for
men; but the sin is greater than the profit." (Surah Al-Baqarah:219)
The Arabic word used in this text is Khamr which is applied to all
intoxicating liquor or drug.
The Quraan further states in Surah Al-Maaidah verse 90: "O Ye who
believe! Intoxicants and Gambling, Sacrificing to Stones, and
(divination by) Arrows, are an abomination, of Satan's handiwork;
Keep away from such, that Ye may prosper."
Take Heed - Oh Muslims!
Quraanic evidence has been presented to you regarding the use of
Alcohol.  Allah - The All Knowing and full of Wisdom knows what is
best for us - His creation.  We must abstain fully from all forms
and uses of alcohol.
No - Drinking!
So, firstly, all Muslims must not consume Alcohol at all.  It is
amongst the Major Sins and will have to be accounted for on the day
of Judgement.  Besides the Islamic ruling, we all know too well the
harms of this evil.  This is one of the main roots of corruption
in society.  Violence, family tragedies, suicides are a few of the
fatal results of this disease.  May Almighty Allah save us all.
Ameen.
No - Selling!
The selling of Alcohol is also forbidden.  It is completely Haraam
for Muslims to be trading in this trade.  It is also forbidden to
sell alcohol as part of your business.  Grocers, Newsagents and
Mini-Market traders should keep this in mind. Therefore, no question
remains regarding trading in Off-Licences, Pubs or Public Houses.
In selling of these in Take-Aways and Restaurants also is completely
Haraam.  Muslims should also not work or employ any of their family
members in such Haraam Environments.
May Allah give us the right understanding.  Ameen.
Conclusion
The consumption of Alcohol can destroy families, communities and
in fact a whole locality.  Man commits such autrocious crimes in
the state of being drunk which can only be described as babaric and
ruthless.  A life of a drunkard becomes hell and of all those
connected with him.  And remember, it's an addiction.  A few drops
will lead to a glassful which in turn will lead to bottles.  Then
there will be no stopping.
Selling these products makes ones livelihood Haraam.  All his life
will pass through Haraam.  His clothing, sustenance e.t.c. if bought
from this income will also be doubtful.  So, Oh Muslims - Take heed
and abstain from the mother and roots of all vices and evils.  May
Allah grant us the right understanding.  Ameen-Ya-Rabbal-A'lameen.

One wonders what this post is doing here, but I would simply record that
Our Lord's first public sign was turning water into wine at the Wedding
at Cana. I'll stick with Him. As William F. Buckley, Jr. once observed:
Alcohol is the drug of Western Civilization.

Bob Harper

[Bozo]

Post by Bob Harper
One wonders what this post is doing here, but I would simply record that
Our Lord's first public sign was turning water into wine at the Wedding
at Cana. I'll stick with Him.

Probably was the good stuff, too.

" I never drink water. I'm afraid it will become habit-forming." W. C. Fields

[HT]

Post by Bozo
Probably was the good stuff, too.

Probably? You doubt the Holy Scripture? <g>

Henk

[p***@comcast.net]

"Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine
There's always laughter and good red wine.
At least I've always found it so.
Benedicamus Domino."
-- Hilaire Belloc

[Bozo]

Post by p***@comcast.net
"Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine
There's always laughter and good red wine.

"I cook with wine, sometimes I even add it to the food. " W. C. Fields

[Bob Harper]

Post by Bozo

Post by Bob Harper
One wonders what this post is doing here, but I would simply record that
Our Lord's first public sign was turning water into wine at the Wedding
at Cana. I'll stick with Him.

Probably was the good stuff, too.
" I never drink water. I'm afraid it will become habit-forming." W. C. Fields

So it would seem:
"When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and
did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the
water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom 10 and said
to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk
freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.”"
--John 2: 9-11

[weary flake]

Post by Bob Harper

Post by weary flake
The Shariah
Only Allah knows what is right and beneficial for His creation, and
alternatively what is wrong and harmful.  The Holy Quraan clearly
states the lawful and unlawful actions.  All Humans must follow
this Law of Allah which is known as the 'Shariah' or Islamic Law.
Amongst the clear-cut prohibitions is the use of Alcohol in any
form whatsoever.
The Quraan Prohibits Alcohol
Regarding Alcohol - The Holy Quraan states: "They ask Thee concerning
Wine and Gambling, Say: In them is great sin, and some profit, for
men; but the sin is greater than the profit." (Surah Al-Baqarah:219)
The Arabic word used in this text is Khamr which is applied to all
intoxicating liquor or drug.
The Quraan further states in Surah Al-Maaidah verse 90: "O Ye who
believe! Intoxicants and Gambling, Sacrificing to Stones, and
(divination by) Arrows, are an abomination, of Satan's handiwork;
Keep away from such, that Ye may prosper."
Take Heed - Oh Muslims!
Quraanic evidence has been presented to you regarding the use of
Alcohol.  Allah - The All Knowing and full of Wisdom knows what is
best for us - His creation.  We must abstain fully from all forms
and uses of alcohol.
No - Drinking!
So, firstly, all Muslims must not consume Alcohol at all.  It is
amongst the Major Sins and will have to be accounted for on the day
of Judgement.  Besides the Islamic ruling, we all know too well the
harms of this evil.  This is one of the main roots of corruption
in society.  Violence, family tragedies, suicides are a few of the
fatal results of this disease.  May Almighty Allah save us all.
Ameen.
No - Selling!
The selling of Alcohol is also forbidden.  It is completely Haraam
for Muslims to be trading in this trade.  It is also forbidden to
sell alcohol as part of your business.  Grocers, Newsagents and
Mini-Market traders should keep this in mind. Therefore, no question
remains regarding trading in Off-Licences, Pubs or Public Houses.
In selling of these in Take-Aways and Restaurants also is completely
Haraam.  Muslims should also not work or employ any of their family
members in such Haraam Environments.
May Allah give us the right understanding.  Ameen.
Conclusion
The consumption of Alcohol can destroy families, communities and
in fact a whole locality.  Man commits such autrocious crimes in
the state of being drunk which can only be described as babaric and
ruthless.  A life of a drunkard becomes hell and of all those
connected with him.  And remember, it's an addiction.  A few drops
will lead to a glassful which in turn will lead to bottles.  Then
there will be no stopping.
Selling these products makes ones livelihood Haraam.  All his life
will pass through Haraam.  His clothing, sustenance e.t.c. if bought
from this income will also be doubtful.  So, Oh Muslims - Take heed
and abstain from the mother and roots of all vices and evils.  May
Allah grant us the right understanding.  Ameen-Ya-Rabbal-A'lameen.

One wonders what this post is doing here, but I would simply record
that Our Lord's first public sign was turning water into wine at the
Wedding at Cana. I'll stick with Him. As William F. Buckley, Jr. once
observed: Alcohol is the drug of Western Civilization.

The anti-alcohol post fits here among all the references to shiraz as
well as when the subject of world music pops up.

About alcohol being somehow Western, alcohol may need to be prohibited
in order to save Western Civilization; radical Islam is an irresistable
attraction as long as the West is pushing alcohol and anti-alcohol
forces are restricted to the East. The civilized urge to ban things
shouldn't be misdirected, so Gun Control advocates why don't you take
heed of something worth banning: How can we call ourselves a civilized
society yet continue to allow the sale of liquid murder?

[Bozo]

... How can we call ourselves a civilized
society yet continue to allow the sale of liquid murder?

I always unload my shotgun before opening a shiraz.

[graham]

Post by weary flake

Post by Bob Harper

Post by weary flake
The Shariah
Only Allah knows what is right and beneficial for His creation, and
alternatively what is wrong and harmful.  The Holy Quraan clearly
states the lawful and unlawful actions.  All Humans must follow
this Law of Allah which is known as the 'Shariah' or Islamic Law.
Amongst the clear-cut prohibitions is the use of Alcohol in any
form whatsoever.
The Quraan Prohibits Alcohol
Regarding Alcohol - The Holy Quraan states: "They ask Thee concerning
Wine and Gambling, Say: In them is great sin, and some profit, for
men; but the sin is greater than the profit." (Surah Al-Baqarah:219)
The Arabic word used in this text is Khamr which is applied to all
intoxicating liquor or drug.
The Quraan further states in Surah Al-Maaidah verse 90: "O Ye who
believe! Intoxicants and Gambling, Sacrificing to Stones, and
(divination by) Arrows, are an abomination, of Satan's handiwork;
Keep away from such, that Ye may prosper."
Take Heed - Oh Muslims!
Quraanic evidence has been presented to you regarding the use of
Alcohol.  Allah - The All Knowing and full of Wisdom knows what is
best for us - His creation.  We must abstain fully from all forms
and uses of alcohol.
No - Drinking!
So, firstly, all Muslims must not consume Alcohol at all.  It is
amongst the Major Sins and will have to be accounted for on the day
of Judgement.  Besides the Islamic ruling, we all know too well the
harms of this evil.  This is one of the main roots of corruption
in society.  Violence, family tragedies, suicides are a few of the
fatal results of this disease.  May Almighty Allah save us all.
Ameen.
No - Selling!
The selling of Alcohol is also forbidden.  It is completely Haraam
for Muslims to be trading in this trade.  It is also forbidden to
sell alcohol as part of your business.  Grocers, Newsagents and
Mini-Market traders should keep this in mind. Therefore, no question
remains regarding trading in Off-Licences, Pubs or Public Houses.
In selling of these in Take-Aways and Restaurants also is completely
Haraam.  Muslims should also not work or employ any of their family
members in such Haraam Environments.
May Allah give us the right understanding.  Ameen.
Conclusion
The consumption of Alcohol can destroy families, communities and
in fact a whole locality.  Man commits such autrocious crimes in
the state of being drunk which can only be described as babaric and
ruthless.  A life of a drunkard becomes hell and of all those
connected with him.  And remember, it's an addiction.  A few drops
will lead to a glassful which in turn will lead to bottles.  Then
there will be no stopping.
Selling these products makes ones livelihood Haraam.  All his life
will pass through Haraam.  His clothing, sustenance e.t.c. if bought
from this income will also be doubtful.  So, Oh Muslims - Take heed
and abstain from the mother and roots of all vices and evils.  May
Allah grant us the right understanding.  Ameen-Ya-Rabbal-A'lameen.

One wonders what this post is doing here, but I would simply record
that Our Lord's first public sign was turning water into wine at the
Wedding at Cana. I'll stick with Him. As William F. Buckley, Jr. once
observed: Alcohol is the drug of Western Civilization.

The anti-alcohol post fits here among all the references to shiraz as
well as when the subject of world music pops up.
About alcohol being somehow Western, alcohol may need to be prohibited
in order to save Western Civilization; radical Islam is an irresistable
attraction as long as the West is pushing alcohol and anti-alcohol
forces are restricted to the East.  The civilized urge to ban things
shouldn't be misdirected, so Gun Control advocates why don't you take
heed of something worth banning: How can we call ourselves a civilized
society yet continue to allow the sale of liquid murder?

Civilised? Surely you jest!

[HT]

Post by weary flake
How can we call ourselves a civilized
society yet continue to allow the sale of liquid murder?

Perhaps we should stop eating meat first, if we want to call ourselves a civilized society. It would show that we respect life, it might help us to live a healthier life, and it would make the life of our grandchildren more bearable because it reduces the effects of climate change.

Henk (meat eater par excellence)

[Herman]

Post by weary flake
alcohol may need to be prohibited
in order to save Western Civilization; radical Islam is an irresistable
attraction as long as the West is pushing alcohol and anti-alcohol
forces are restricted to the East.

well, this is worth a giggle, the irresistable lure of non-alcoholic Islam

Herman (rarely ever drinks these days)

[Frank Berger]

Post by Herman

Post by weary flake
alcohol may need to be prohibited
in order to save Western Civilization; radical Islam is an irresistable
attraction as long as the West is pushing alcohol and anti-alcohol
forces are restricted to the East.

well, this is worth a giggle, the irresistable lure of non-alcoholic Islam
Herman (rarely ever drinks these days)

My head is spinning. I'm not sure who is joking and who is serious (if
anyone).

[JohnGavin]

Warnings about alcohol consumption, climate change exacerbated by methane gasses from animal slaughter can make the messenger seem puritanical - yet it is worth considering that grapes and berries of all kinds absorb insecticides at a dangerous level and should be consumed only when organically grown. Are the wines you drink organic? What has been added to the meat in order to keep it fresh, besides growth hormones etc.?

Just noting that cancer rates in the U.S.A. are somewhat alarming. We live in a more toxic world than our grandparents’.

[weary flake]

Post by JohnGavin
Warnings about alcohol consumption, climate change exacerbated by
methane gasses from animal slaughter can make the messenger seem
puritanical - yet it is worth considering that grapes and berries of
all kinds absorb insecticides at a dangerous level and should be
consumed only when organically grown. Are the wines you drink
organic? What has been added to the meat in order to keep it fresh,
besides growth hormones etc.?
Just noting that cancer rates in the U.S.A. are somewhat alarming.

Commercial alcohol is high quality in the USA, compared to the past. It is
the alcohol itself that is harmful, not so much the stuff added to it.
But it is still derelict of the gov't to not require complete ingrediant
lists on these sort of products, showing an unnecessary deference to harmful
industries.

Post by JohnGavin
We live in a more toxic world than our grandparents’.

Our grandparents' grandparents were considered cheated if the paint in
their homes didn't contain something like 90% lead. As for insecticides:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_green

"At the turn of the 20th century, Paris green, blended with lead arsenate,
was used in America and elsewhere as an insecticide on produce such as
apples. The toxic mixture is said 'to have burned the trees and the grass
around the trees'"

Lead, "sweet lead", was added to some wines at the time "to correct acidity".
There weren't any ingrediants lists on products.

[m***@cloud9.net]

Post by weary flake

Post by JohnGavin
Warnings about alcohol consumption, climate change exacerbated by
methane gasses from animal slaughter can make the messenger seem
puritanical - yet it is worth considering that grapes and berries of
all kinds absorb insecticides at a dangerous level and should be
consumed only when organically grown. Are the wines you drink
organic? What has been added to the meat in order to keep it fresh,
besides growth hormones etc.?
Just noting that cancer rates in the U.S.A. are somewhat alarming.

Commercial alcohol is high quality in the USA, compared to the past. It is
the alcohol itself that is harmful, not so much the stuff added to it.
But it is still derelict of the gov't to not require complete ingrediant
lists on these sort of products, showing an unnecessary deference to harmful
industries.

Post by JohnGavin
We live in a more toxic world than our grandparents’.

Our grandparents' grandparents were considered cheated if the paint in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_green
"At the turn of the 20th century, Paris green, blended with lead arsenate,
was used in America and elsewhere as an insecticide on produce such as
apples. The toxic mixture is said 'to have burned the trees and the grass
around the trees'"
Lead, "sweet lead", was added to some wines at the time "to correct acidity".
There weren't any ingredients lists on products.

Hi,

Lead water pipes contributed to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.Now, thousands of children are exposed to toxic lead levels in N.Y.C.- owned housing units,causing permanent brain damage!!! For shame.

Mort Linder

[Frank Berger]

Post by m***@cloud9.net

Post by weary flake

Post by JohnGavin
Warnings about alcohol consumption, climate change exacerbated by
methane gasses from animal slaughter can make the messenger seem
puritanical - yet it is worth considering that grapes and berries of
all kinds absorb insecticides at a dangerous level and should be
consumed only when organically grown. Are the wines you drink
organic? What has been added to the meat in order to keep it fresh,
besides growth hormones etc.?
Just noting that cancer rates in the U.S.A. are somewhat alarming.

Commercial alcohol is high quality in the USA, compared to the past. It is
the alcohol itself that is harmful, not so much the stuff added to it.
But it is still derelict of the gov't to not require complete ingrediant
lists on these sort of products, showing an unnecessary deference to harmful
industries.

Post by JohnGavin
We live in a more toxic world than our grandparents’.

Our grandparents' grandparents were considered cheated if the paint in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_green
"At the turn of the 20th century, Paris green, blended with lead arsenate,
was used in America and elsewhere as an insecticide on produce such as
apples. The toxic mixture is said 'to have burned the trees and the grass
around the trees'"
Lead, "sweet lead", was added to some wines at the time "to correct acidity".
There weren't any ingredients lists on products.

Hi,
Lead water pipes contributed to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.Now, thousands of children are exposed to toxic lead levels in N.Y.C.- owned housing units,causing permanent brain damage!!! For shame.
Mort Linder

What evidence is there if thousands of brain damaged children. I saw a
story about 820 children testing for elevated lead over a period of
several years and despite initial inaction on the part of city
officials, they are addressing it now. You make it sound as if there
are thousands of brain damaged children wandering around New York City.

[Frank Berger]

Post by m***@cloud9.net

Post by weary flake

Post by JohnGavin
Warnings about alcohol consumption, climate change exacerbated by
methane gasses from animal slaughter can make the messenger seem
puritanical - yet it is worth considering that grapes and berries of
all kinds absorb insecticides at a dangerous level and should be
consumed only when organically grown.   Are the wines you drink
organic?    What has been added to the meat in order to keep it fresh,
besides growth hormones etc.?
Just noting that cancer rates in the U.S.A. are somewhat alarming.

Commercial alcohol is high quality in the USA, compared to the past. It is
the alcohol itself that is harmful, not so much the stuff added to it.
But it is still derelict of the gov't to not require complete ingrediant
lists on these sort of products, showing an unnecessary deference to harmful
industries.

Post by JohnGavin
We live in a more toxic world than our grandparents’.

Our grandparents' grandparents were considered cheated if the paint in
their homes didn't contain something like 90% lead.  As for
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_green
"At the turn of the 20th century, Paris green, blended with lead arsenate,
was used in America and elsewhere as an insecticide on produce such as
apples.  The toxic mixture is said 'to have burned the trees and the
grass
around the trees'"
Lead, "sweet lead", was added to some wines at the time "to correct acidity".
There weren't any ingredients lists on products.

Hi,
Lead water pipes contributed to the decline and fall of the Roman
Empire.Now, thousands of children are exposed to toxic lead levels in
N.Y.C.- owned housing units,causing permanent brain damage!!! For shame.
Mort Linder

What evidence is there of thousands of brain damaged children.  I saw a
story about 820 children testing for elevated lead over a period of
several years and despite initial inaction on the part of city
officials, they are addressing it now.  You make it sound as if there
are thousands of brain damaged children wandering around New York City.

[Russ (not Martha)]

You make it sound as if there are thousands of brain damaged children wandering around New York City.

I worry more about the thousands of brain-damaged adults wandering around Washington D.C.

Russ (not Martha)

[Frank Berger]

Post by Russ (not Martha)

You make it sound as if there are thousands of brain damaged children wandering around New York City.

I worry more about the thousands of brain-damaged adults wandering around Washington D.C.
Russ (not Martha)

LOL!

[Steven Bornfeld]

Post by m***@cloud9.net

Post by weary flake

Post by JohnGavin
Warnings about alcohol consumption, climate change exacerbated by
methane gasses from animal slaughter can make the messenger seem
puritanical - yet it is worth considering that grapes and berries of
all kinds absorb insecticides at a dangerous level and should be
consumed only when organically grown. Are the wines you drink
organic? What has been added to the meat in order to keep it fresh,
besides growth hormones etc.?
Just noting that cancer rates in the U.S.A. are somewhat alarming.

Commercial alcohol is high quality in the USA, compared to the past. It is
the alcohol itself that is harmful, not so much the stuff added to it.
But it is still derelict of the gov't to not require complete ingrediant
lists on these sort of products, showing an unnecessary deference to harmful
industries.

Post by JohnGavin
We live in a more toxic world than our grandparents’.

Our grandparents' grandparents were considered cheated if the paint in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_green
"At the turn of the 20th century, Paris green, blended with lead arsenate,
was used in America and elsewhere as an insecticide on produce such as
apples. The toxic mixture is said 'to have burned the trees and the grass
around the trees'"
Lead, "sweet lead", was added to some wines at the time "to correct acidity".
There weren't any ingredients lists on products.

Hi,
Lead water pipes contributed to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.Now, thousands of children are exposed to toxic lead levels in N.Y.C.- owned housing units,causing permanent brain damage!!! For shame.
Mort Linder

I grew up in a NYCHA project, and...what were we talking about?

[Herman]

Post by weary flake
Commercial alcohol is high quality in the USA, compared to the past. It is
the alcohol itself that is harmful, not so much the stuff added to it.
But it is still derelict of the gov't to not require complete ingrediant
lists on these sort of products, showing an unnecessary deference to harmful
industries.

This is correct. According to the current research alcohol is carcinogenous and a cause of cardiovascular diseases. Even one glass a day is not good. At the same time the myth that red wine is good for one's cardiovascular health has been debunked. You need to drink a truck full of cheap cabernet to get a sufficient amount of those magic ingredients.

So, the only thing wine and whiskey are good for is that moment of relaxation and shared pleasure.

[JohnGavin]

Post by weary flake
Commercial alcohol is high quality in the USA, compared to the past. It is
the alcohol itself that is harmful, not so much the stuff added to it.
But it is still derelict of the gov't to not require complete ingrediant
lists on these sort of products, showing an unnecessary deference to harmful
industries.

This is correct. According to the current research alcohol is carcinogenous and a cause of cardiovascular diseases. Even one glass a day is not good. At the same time the myth that red wine is good for one's cardiovascular health has been debunked. You need to drink a truck full of cheap cabernet to get a sufficient amount of those magic ingredients.

So, the only thing wine and whiskey are good for is that moment of relaxation and shared pleasure.


I believe that this is exactly right. Periodically reports come out about how wine or coffee and the like prevent disease or are somehow beneficial to health-One highly suspects that these ads are paid for by these industries to help to boost sales. Honesty does not seem to be on the ascent in the USA at this time.

[Steven Bornfeld]

Post by Herman

Post by weary flake
Commercial alcohol is high quality in the USA, compared to the past. It is
the alcohol itself that is harmful, not so much the stuff added to it.
But it is still derelict of the gov't to not require complete ingrediant
lists on these sort of products, showing an unnecessary deference to harmful
industries.

This is correct. According to the current research alcohol is carcinogenous and a cause of cardiovascular diseases. Even one glass a day is not good. At the same time the myth that red wine is good for one's cardiovascular health has been debunked. You need to drink a truck full of cheap cabernet to get a sufficient amount of those magic ingredients.
So, the only thing wine and whiskey are good for is that moment of relaxation and shared pleasure.
I believe that this is exactly right. Periodically reports come out about how wine or coffee and the like prevent disease or are somehow beneficial to health-One highly suspects that these ads are paid for by these industries to help to boost sales. Honesty does not seem to be on the ascent in the USA at this time.

There are truckloads of literature out there to support whatever
position you choose with regard to alcohol. The only consensus I see is
that heavy drinking is bad.
When the literature is so divided as it is re: drinking, I make a note
and move on.
At the same time, trying to draw individual inferences from
population-based studies is often misleading.

Steve

[Bob Harper]

On 7/22/18 6:52 AM, Herman wrote:
(snip)

Post by Herman
So, the only thing wine and whiskey are good for is that moment of relaxation and shared pleasure.

Correct. And worth more than a truckload of 'health' benefits.

Bob Harper

[Herman]

I wonder why this topic is making Frank so anxious.

[Frank Berger]

Post by Herman
I wonder why this topic is making Frank so anxious.

Am I going to have to killfile you again Herman? Why on earth do you
think I am anxious? You confuse interest for anxiety. Hint: there is
no reason and you are trying to pick on me again.

[Herman]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Herman
I wonder why this topic is making Frank so anxious.

Am I going to have to killfile you again Herman? Why on earth do you
think I am anxious? You confuse interest for anxiety. Hint: there is
no reason and you are trying to pick on me again.

well, I am sorry if it looks like I'm "picking on you again".

what I see is you're trying to steer this discussion in one of your favorite directions, i.e. Big Government laying down the law in people's lives.
That is not what's happening. Big Government is making a lot of money from taxes on alcoholic beverages. They are not going to start a new Prohibition, also because it didn't work.
The medical and academic world is trying to foster a new awareness that alcohol is not helping one's health in any way, contrary to what Big Business is telling people all the time, through massive advertising that it's virtually impossible to have fun, socially, without a bottle or beer can close by, and through sneaky stories, largely disseminated through classy wine writers etc that wine, moderately consumed, is good for one's health. It's not.
Government is largely staying out of this.

[Frank Berger]

Post by Herman

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Herman
I wonder why this topic is making Frank so anxious.

Am I going to have to killfile you again Herman? Why on earth do you
think I am anxious? You confuse interest for anxiety. Hint: there is
no reason and you are trying to pick on me again.

well, I am sorry if it looks like I'm "picking on you again".
what I see is you're trying to steer this discussion in one of your favorite directions, i.e. Big Government laying down the law in people's lives.
That is not what's happening. Big Government is making a lot of money from taxes on alcoholic beverages. They are not going to start a new Prohibition, also because it didn't work.

Wrong. I was addressing certain people's apparent interest in GETTING
government to prohibit alcohol. Every one of my posts directly responded
to something someone else had said. Yet it was me you "picked on."
This reminds me of a situation I had had work years ago. There were a
few individuals in my department who were mildly antisemitic. They
didn't want to hear me talk about Judaism or Israel. One day at the
lunch table there was a conversation started that had to do with some
aspect of ethics or morality. One person gave a Christian view of it,
my boss chimed in about the Muslim slant, and when I started to offer my
understanding about what Judaism had to say on the subject, they looked
at each other and rolled their eyes, as if to say, "There goes Frank
talking about Judaism again." I stayed calm, stopped talking and just
left the table. There must have been some talk about it and later both
of them came to me and apologized. Think about whether this story has
relevance.

Post by Herman
The medical and academic world is trying to foster a new awareness that alcohol is not helping one's health in any way, contrary to what Big Business is telling people all the time, through massive advertising that it's virtually impossible to have fun, socially, without a bottle or beer can close by, and through sneaky stories, largely disseminated through classy wine writers etc that wine, moderately consumed, is good for one's health. It's not.
Government is largely staying out of this.

I don't disagree with this, and do not have problems with government
labeling requirements if it based on science. By the way, all alcoholic
beveredges sold in the U.S. carry a government-required warning about
the dangers of alcohol to pregnant women, drivers, and a general warning
about its effect on health. There is no mention of additives, either
because the general warning covers them, or there is insufficient
science to justify an explicit mention. I don't know if you see these
warnings in Europe or elsewhere.

[Herman]

Post by Frank Berger
Think about whether this story has
relevance.

well, that's easy. I did not say a word about Judaism.

[Frank Berger]

Post by Herman

Post by Frank Berger
Think about whether this story has
relevance.

well, that's easy. I did not say a word about Judaism.

Consider more broadly.

[Steven Bornfeld]

Post by Frank Berger
I don't disagree with this, and do not have problems with government
labeling requirements if it based on science. By the way, all alcoholic
beveredges sold in the U.S. carry a government-required warning about
the dangers of alcohol to pregnant women, drivers, and a general warning
about its effect on health. There is no mention of additives, either
because the general warning covers them, or there is insufficient
science to justify an explicit mention. I don't know if you see these
warnings in Europe or elsewhere.

I've seen the precaution "Contains sulfites" on just about any bottle of
wine I buy. Here the precaution is for those who may be allergic.

Steve

[Frank Berger]

Post by weary flake

Post by JohnGavin
Warnings about alcohol consumption, climate change exacerbated by
methane gasses from animal slaughter can make the messenger seem
puritanical - yet it is worth considering that grapes and berries of
all kinds absorb insecticides at a dangerous level and should be
consumed only when organically grown.   Are the wines you drink
organic?    What has been added to the meat in order to keep it fresh,
besides growth hormones etc.?
Just noting that cancer rates in the U.S.A. are somewhat alarming.

Commercial alcohol is high quality in the USA, compared to the past. It is
the alcohol itself that is harmful, not so much the stuff added to it.
But it is still derelict of the gov't to not require complete ingrediant
lists on these sort of products, showing an unnecessary deference to harmful
industries.

Does the possibility of developing a compulsion to collect more and more
music recordings suggest that the government should require a label on
CD cases that reads, "Warning: Consuming this products can result in an
unhealthy compulsion"?

[Bozo]

Post by Frank Berger
Does the possibility of developing a compulsion to collect more and more
music recordings suggest that the government should require a label on
CD cases that reads, "Warning: Consuming this products can result in an
unhealthy compulsion"?

Perhaps a similar warning re: cardiovascular risks of posting here at RMCR ? Especially for wine drinkers ?!

[Gerard]

Post by Bozo

Post by Frank Berger
Does the possibility of developing a compulsion to collect more and more
music recordings suggest that the government should require a label on
CD cases that reads, "Warning: Consuming this products can result in an
unhealthy compulsion"?

Perhaps a similar warning re: cardiovascular risks of posting here at RMCR ? Especially for wine drinkers ?!

For those it is a double addiction, specially when the cheapness of their wine is visible in their language.

[Bob Harper]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by weary flake

Post by JohnGavin
Warnings about alcohol consumption, climate change exacerbated by
methane gasses from animal slaughter can make the messenger seem
puritanical - yet it is worth considering that grapes and berries of
all kinds absorb insecticides at a dangerous level and should be
consumed only when organically grown.   Are the wines you drink
organic?    What has been added to the meat in order to keep it
fresh, besides growth hormones etc.?
Just noting that cancer rates in the U.S.A. are somewhat alarming.

Commercial alcohol is high quality in the USA, compared to the past. It is
the alcohol itself that is harmful, not so much the stuff added to it.
But it is still derelict of the gov't to not require complete ingrediant
lists on these sort of products, showing an unnecessary deference to harmful
industries.

Does the possibility of developing a compulsion to collect more and more
music recordings suggest that the government should require a label on
CD cases that reads, "Warning:  Consuming this products can result in an
unhealthy compulsion"?

Shhhh, Frank. Remember, there is a puritanical streak in most
bureaucracies, especially those which purport to 'protect' us.

Bob Harper

[weary flake]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by weary flake

Post by JohnGavin
Warnings about alcohol consumption, climate change exacerbated by
methane gasses from animal slaughter can make the messenger seem
puritanical - yet it is worth considering that grapes and berries of
all kinds absorb insecticides at a dangerous level and should be
consumed only when organically grown.   Are the wines you drink
organic?    What has been added to the meat in order to keep it fresh,
besides growth hormones etc.?
Just noting that cancer rates in the U.S.A. are somewhat alarming.

Commercial alcohol is high quality in the USA, compared to the past. It is
the alcohol itself that is harmful, not so much the stuff added to it.
But it is still derelict of the gov't to not require complete ingrediant
lists on these sort of products, showing an unnecessary deference to harmful
industries.

Does the possibility of developing a compulsion to collect more and
more music recordings suggest that the government should require a
label on CD cases that reads, "Warning: Consuming this products can
result in an unhealthy compulsion"?

No, but there should be consumer pressure to have better labeling
on CD cases, like recording dates and track lists, and whether
opera/song/choral releases come with a printed libretto. There
have been CD releases, many of them, without this information.

But this has nothing to do with alcoholic beverages. That they
are excluded from the labelling laws that food products have to
fulfill is rank favoritism to an unscruplous industry. So the
thousand dollar a bottle producers don't want ingrediant lists
on their bottles, why should their wishes that adulturants be kept
secret be obeyed? They can quit selling their trash if they don't
want to.

[Frank Berger]

Post by weary flake

Post by Frank Berger

Post by weary flake

Post by JohnGavin
Warnings about alcohol consumption, climate change exacerbated by
methane gasses from animal slaughter can make the messenger seem
puritanical - yet it is worth considering that grapes and berries of
all kinds absorb insecticides at a dangerous level and should be
consumed only when organically grown.   Are the wines you drink
organic?    What has been added to the meat in order to keep it
fresh, besides growth hormones etc.?
Just noting that cancer rates in the U.S.A. are somewhat alarming.

Commercial alcohol is high quality in the USA, compared to the past. It is
the alcohol itself that is harmful, not so much the stuff added to it.
But it is still derelict of the gov't to not require complete ingrediant
lists on these sort of products, showing an unnecessary deference to harmful
industries.

Does the possibility of developing a compulsion to collect more and
more music recordings suggest that the government should require a
label on CD cases that reads, "Warning:  Consuming this products can
result in an unhealthy compulsion"?

No, but there should be consumer pressure to have better labeling
on CD cases, like recording dates and track lists, and whether
opera/song/choral releases come with a printed libretto.  There
have been CD releases, many of them, without this information.

You want the government to require this?

Post by weary flake
But this has nothing to do with alcoholic beverages.  That they
are excluded from the labelling laws that food products have to
fulfill is rank favoritism to an unscruplous industry.

How can an industry be unscrupulous? All industries scrupulously lobby
for favored legislation. If there is blame to be placed it is with the
legislators.

Post by weary flake
So the
thousand dollar a bottle producers don't want ingrediant lists
on their bottles, why should their wishes that adulturants be kept
secret be obeyed?  They can quit selling their trash if they don't
want to.

I don't think anyone know what you are talking about. It was said
earlier that the alcohol itself was the health risk, not the additives
(whatever they are). It all sounds like conspiracy theory stuff to me.

[HT]

What struck me is the belief that alcohol is more dangerous than guns in the US.

In the US six people die from alcohol poisoning every day, according to Google:

https://talbottcampus.com/alcoholism-statistics/

In 2016 174 people died from drug overdosis (non-alcohol) every day in the US:

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2018/p0329-drug-overdose-deaths.html

In 2017 almost 43 were killed by guns ever day:

http://www.theweek.co.uk/91679/us-gun-violence-in-six-chilling-statistics.

Alcohol may be a noble cause but certainly not the most urgent one.

Henk

[Steven Bornfeld]

Post by HT
What struck me is the belief that alcohol is more dangerous than guns in the US.
https://talbottcampus.com/alcoholism-statistics/
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2018/p0329-drug-overdose-deaths.html
http://www.theweek.co.uk/91679/us-gun-violence-in-six-chilling-statistics.
Alcohol may be a noble cause but certainly not the most urgent one.
Henk

In fairness, if you read down on your alcohol reference, alcohol was
involved in over 30% of automotive fatalities. Accepting that, and that
in 2016 there were over 37,000 auto fatalities in the U.S., that gives a
conservative estimate of 30 alcohol-related auto deaths per day in the
U.S. The alcohol "poisoning" figure apparently does NOT include deaths
from cirrhosis, metabolic syndrome, and various cancers (particularly of
the gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary systems) for which alcohol is a
major driver.
You should in no way interpret the above to mean that I'm minimizing the
carnage caused by firearms in this country.

Steve

[graham]

Post by Steven Bornfeld

Post by HT
What struck me is the belief that alcohol is more dangerous than guns in the US.
https://talbottcampus.com/alcoholism-statistics/
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2018/p0329-drug-overdose-deaths.html
http://www.theweek.co.uk/91679/us-gun-violence-in-six-chilling-statistics.
Alcohol may be a noble cause but certainly not the most urgent one.
Henk

In fairness, if you read down on your alcohol reference, alcohol was
involved in over 30% of automotive fatalities.  Accepting that, and that
in 2016 there were over 37,000 auto fatalities in the U.S., that gives a
conservative estimate of 30 alcohol-related auto deaths per day in the
U.S.  The alcohol "poisoning" figure apparently does NOT include deaths
from cirrhosis, metabolic syndrome, and various cancers (particularly of
the gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary systems) for which alcohol is a
major driver.
You should in no way interpret the above to mean that I'm minimizing the
carnage caused by firearms in this country.
Steve

Apparently distracted driving deaths due to cell phone use are exceeding
drunk-driving deaths in some jurisdictions.
Graham

[Frank Berger]

Post by graham

Post by Steven Bornfeld

Post by HT
What struck me is the belief that alcohol is more dangerous than guns in the US.
https://talbottcampus.com/alcoholism-statistics/
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2018/p0329-drug-overdose-deaths.html
http://www.theweek.co.uk/91679/us-gun-violence-in-six-chilling-statistics.
Alcohol may be a noble cause but certainly not the most urgent one.
Henk

In fairness, if you read down on your alcohol reference, alcohol was
involved in over 30% of automotive fatalities.  Accepting that, and
that in 2016 there were over 37,000 auto fatalities in the U.S., that
gives a conservative estimate of 30 alcohol-related auto deaths per
day in the U.S.  The alcohol "poisoning" figure apparently does NOT
include deaths from cirrhosis, metabolic syndrome, and various cancers
(particularly of the gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary systems) for
which alcohol is a major driver.
You should in no way interpret the above to mean that I'm minimizing
the carnage caused by firearms in this country.
Steve

Apparently distracted driving deaths due to cell phone use are exceeding
drunk-driving deaths in some jurisdictions.
Graham

It's those drunk cell-phone users that I fear.

[Steven Bornfeld]

Post by graham

Post by Steven Bornfeld
In fairness, if you read down on your alcohol reference, alcohol was
involved in over 30% of automotive fatalities.  Accepting that, and
that in 2016 there were over 37,000 auto fatalities in the U.S., that
gives a conservative estimate of 30 alcohol-related auto deaths per
day in the U.S.  The alcohol "poisoning" figure apparently does NOT
include deaths from cirrhosis, metabolic syndrome, and various cancers
(particularly of the gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary systems) for
which alcohol is a major driver.
You should in no way interpret the above to mean that I'm minimizing
the carnage caused by firearms in this country.
Steve

Apparently distracted driving deaths due to cell phone use are exceeding
drunk-driving deaths in some jurisdictions.
Graham

That may very well be. My totally subjective sense of danger when I'm
out riding my bicycle has certainly increased. It's also possible my
reaction time has increased as I rapidly approach decrepitude.

Steve

[Bob Harper]

Post by graham

Post by Steven Bornfeld

Post by HT
What struck me is the belief that alcohol is more dangerous than guns in the US.
https://talbottcampus.com/alcoholism-statistics/
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2018/p0329-drug-overdose-deaths.html
http://www.theweek.co.uk/91679/us-gun-violence-in-six-chilling-statistics.
Alcohol may be a noble cause but certainly not the most urgent one.
Henk

In fairness, if you read down on your alcohol reference, alcohol was
involved in over 30% of automotive fatalities.  Accepting that, and
that in 2016 there were over 37,000 auto fatalities in the U.S., that
gives a conservative estimate of 30 alcohol-related auto deaths per
day in the U.S.  The alcohol "poisoning" figure apparently does NOT
include deaths from cirrhosis, metabolic syndrome, and various cancers
(particularly of the gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary systems) for
which alcohol is a major driver.
You should in no way interpret the above to mean that I'm minimizing
the carnage caused by firearms in this country.
Steve

Apparently distracted driving deaths due to cell phone use are exceeding
drunk-driving deaths in some jurisdictions.
Graham

Now THAT I find it easy to believe.

Bob Harper

[Frank Berger]

Post by Steven Bornfeld

Post by HT
What struck me is the belief that alcohol is more dangerous than guns in the US.
https://talbottcampus.com/alcoholism-statistics/
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2018/p0329-drug-overdose-deaths.html
http://www.theweek.co.uk/91679/us-gun-violence-in-six-chilling-statistics.
Alcohol may be a noble cause but certainly not the most urgent one.
Henk

In fairness, if you read down on your alcohol reference, alcohol was
involved in over 30% of automotive fatalities.  Accepting that, and that
in 2016 there were over 37,000 auto fatalities in the U.S., that gives a
conservative estimate of 30 alcohol-related auto deaths per day in the
U.S.  The alcohol "poisoning" figure apparently does NOT include deaths
from cirrhosis, metabolic syndrome, and various cancers (particularly of
the gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary systems) for which alcohol is a
major driver.
You should in no way interpret the above to mean that I'm minimizing the
carnage caused by firearms in this country.
Steve

Yes, it was obvious the stat on alcohol poisoning serious
under-represented societal damage from alcohol use. The legality of
alcohol is use often used to justify the legalization of marijuana, of
course.

[HT]

Post by Steven Bornfeld
In fairness, if you read down on your alcohol reference, alcohol was
involved in over 30% of automotive fatalities. Accepting that, and that
in 2016 there were over 37,000 auto fatalities in the U.S., that gives a
conservative estimate of 30 alcohol-related auto deaths per day in the
U.S. The alcohol "poisoning" figure apparently does NOT include deaths
from cirrhosis, metabolic syndrome, and various cancers (particularly of
the gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary systems) for which alcohol is a
major driver.

Correct. The use of alcohol and drugs may have other effects than poisoning the alcoholist. It's a change of perspective, if we want to move in that direction. With such a change comes a different methodology. We no longer ask if alcohol was the direct or main cause but ifr alcohol was involved. Widening the perspective even more we may ask if there is a correlation with the use of alcohol.

Henk

[Frank Berger]

Post by HT

Post by Steven Bornfeld
In fairness, if you read down on your alcohol reference, alcohol was
involved in over 30% of automotive fatalities. Accepting that, and that
in 2016 there were over 37,000 auto fatalities in the U.S., that gives a
conservative estimate of 30 alcohol-related auto deaths per day in the
U.S. The alcohol "poisoning" figure apparently does NOT include deaths
from cirrhosis, metabolic syndrome, and various cancers (particularly of
the gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary systems) for which alcohol is a
major driver.

Correct. The use of alcohol and drugs may have other effects than poisoning the alcoholist. It's a change of perspective, if we want to move in that direction. With such a change comes a different methodology. We no longer ask if alcohol was the direct or main cause but ifr alcohol was involved. Widening the perspective even more we may ask if there is a correlation with the use of alcohol.
Henk

Suppose, say, 30% of all traffic accidents were alcohol-related, but
only 1% of "drinking incidents" result in accidents. Do we ban alcohol?
(set aside for the moment that prohibition doesn't work). Wait, suppose
x% of violent crime involve guns, but only a tiny percentage of existing
guns are ever involved in a crime.

I'll tell you what we do. We heavily penalize people who cause
accidents that are alcohol-related and people who commit a crime using a
gun. It's not necessary nor useful to ban the tool.

[Frank Berger]

Post by HT
What struck me is the belief that alcohol is more dangerous than guns in the US.
https://talbottcampus.com/alcoholism-statistics/
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2018/p0329-drug-overdose-deaths.html
http://www.theweek.co.uk/91679/us-gun-violence-in-six-chilling-statistics.
Alcohol may be a noble cause but certainly not the most urgent one.
Henk

If you are a alcohol reseacher it is. OTOH if you are cancer researcher
THAT is the most urgent one.

[Frank Berger]

Post by JohnGavin
Warnings about alcohol consumption, climate change exacerbated by methane gasses from animal slaughter can make the messenger seem puritanical - yet it is worth considering that grapes and berries of all kinds absorb insecticides at a dangerous level and should be consumed only when organically grown. Are the wines you drink organic? What has been added to the meat in order to keep it fresh, besides growth hormones etc.?
Just noting that cancer rates in the U.S.A. are somewhat alarming. We live in a more toxic world than our grandparents’.

Please cite peer reviewed research that dangerous levels of pesticides
are absorbed by grapes, berries or other fruits or vegetables. Which
pesticides in particular? And what evidence is there that in the doses
likely to be consumed that there is significant danger?

I don't mean to be disbelieving so much as skeptical.

(Bear in mind that there is danger in leaving the house in the morning.)

[JohnGavin]

Here is the first article that came up with a simple google search:

This year strawberries are the most toxic.

The Environmental Working Group released its annual "Dirty Dozen" list
Spinach had the second highest concentration of pesticide residue, up from eighth
Pears and potatoes joined the list; cherry tomatoes and cucumbers are no longer on it
(CNN)An annual report by the Environmental Working Group found that nearly 70% of samples of 48 types of conventionally grown produce were contaminated with pesticide residues. That's down 6.6 percentage points from last year.

The EWG Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce, released Wednesday, ranks pesticide contamination of popular fruits and vegetables based on more than 36,000 samples of produce tested by the US Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration.
This year, strawberries remained at the top of the list of produce with the highest concentration of pesticides, while sweet corn and avocados were ranked as having the lowest concentration.
What are pesticides?
Pesticides are widely used in producing food to control pests such as insects, rodents, weeds, bacteria, mold and fungus. In addition to their uses in agriculture, pesticides are used to protect public health by controlling organisms that carry tropical diseases, such as mosquitoes.
Pesticides are potentially toxic to humans, according to the World Health Organization. They may have negative effects on reproduction, immune or nervous systems, cause cancer and lead to other problems.
Pesticide residue can remain on fruits and vegetables even after they are washed and, in some cases, peeled, according to the report.
However, a report by the USDA in 2014 found that "overall pesticide chemical residues on foods tested were at levels below the tolerances established by the Environmental Protection Agency" and were not a safety concern to consumers.
The Dirty Dozen
4 children die when pesticide, water mix creates toxic gas
4 children die when pesticide, water mix creates toxic gas
Produce that tested positive for various pesticides and contained higher concentrations of pesticides than other produce is featured on the list, known as the "Dirty Dozen."
Starting with the highest amounts of pesticide residue, the list features strawberries, spinach, nectarines, apples, peaches, celery, grapes, pears, cherries, tomatoes, sweet bell peppers and potatoes.
Strawberries remained at the top of the list with at least 20 pesticides, while spinach jumped into the second spot with twice as much pesticide residue by weight than any other crop.
Americans eat nearly 8 pounds of fresh strawberries per person each year, and even when they are rinsed in the field and washed before eating, they are still most likely to be contaminated with pesticide residue, according to the Environmental Working Group.
GMO apples that never brown could hit stores soon
GMO apples that never brown could hit stores soon
In 2016, spinach was ranked eighth, but the latest numbers from the USDA showed a sharp increase in pesticide residues on non-organic spinach since the crop was last tested eight years ago.
The pesticides responsible for the residues included three fungicides and one insecticide called permethrin, which has been linked to tremors and seizures in the nervous systems of animals and insects.
The newest additions to the list were pears and potatoes, which replaced cherry tomatoes and cucumbers from last year.
The Clean Fifteen
Produce that had relatively fewer pesticides and lower total concentrations of pesticide residues was placed on the group's "Clean Fifteen" list.
This list included, in order, sweet corn (including corn on the cob and frozen corn), avocados, pineapples, cabbage, onions, frozen sweet peas, papaya, asparagus, mangoes, eggplant, honeydew melon, kiwis, cantaloupe, cauliflower and grapefruit.
Only 1% of samples showed any detectable pesticides in avocados and sweet corn, which were deemed the cleanest produce.
More than 80% of pineapples, papaya, asparagus, onions and cabbage that were sampled showed no pesticide residue.

[Ricardo Jimenez]

On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 23:22:05 -0700 (PDT), JohnGavin

Post by JohnGavin
However, a report by the USDA in 2014 found that "overall pesticide chemical residues on foods tested were at levels below the tolerances established by the Environmental Protection Agency" and were not a safety concern to consumers.

The big question is where the threshold of danger is. Nobody knows.
As far as I am concerned, it might be a good idea to pay extra for the
organic version of certain items, like spinach and strawberries.

[Frank Berger]

Post by Ricardo Jimenez
On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 23:22:05 -0700 (PDT), JohnGavin

Post by JohnGavin
However, a report by the USDA in 2014 found that "overall pesticide chemical residues on foods tested were at levels below the tolerances established by the Environmental Protection Agency" and were not a safety concern to consumers.

The big question is where the threshold of danger is. Nobody knows.
As far as I am concerned, it might be a good idea to pay extra for the
organic version of certain items, like spinach and strawberries.

It's hard to know how much risk there is and how that risk compares to
other risks, such as leaving your house in the morning. Some people are
more risk averse than others. This is natural. But when people start
changing their behavior based on crackpot ideas, it's sad. When
government legislate based on unsupported evidence, it's worse. Probably
most people lock their cars all the time. I don't. I hate how hot it
gets. I'm insured for loss or theft whether I lock the car or not. I
prefer to take the risk of being inconvenienced by theft or vandalism
than roasting every time I come back to my car. Similarly, I prefer to
take what I consider to be a slight risk by simply rinsing fruits and
vegetables and eating all kinds and not paying extra for organic. If
good evidence surfaces I would be more than happy to change my behavior.

[Frank Berger]

Post by JohnGavin
This year strawberries are the most toxic.
The Environmental Working Group released its annual "Dirty Dozen" list
Spinach had the second highest concentration of pesticide residue, up from eighth
Pears and potatoes joined the list; cherry tomatoes and cucumbers are no longer on it
(CNN)An annual report by the Environmental Working Group found that nearly 70% of samples of 48 types of conventionally grown produce were contaminated with pesticide residues. That's down 6.6 percentage points from last year.
The EWG Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce, released Wednesday, ranks pesticide contamination of popular fruits and vegetables based on more than 36,000 samples of produce tested by the US Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration.
This year, strawberries remained at the top of the list of produce with the highest concentration of pesticides, while sweet corn and avocados were ranked as having the lowest concentration.
What are pesticides?
Pesticides are widely used in producing food to control pests such as insects, rodents, weeds, bacteria, mold and fungus. In addition to their uses in agriculture, pesticides are used to protect public health by controlling organisms that carry tropical diseases, such as mosquitoes.
Pesticides are potentially toxic to humans, according to the World Health Organization. They may have negative effects on reproduction, immune or nervous systems, cause cancer and lead to other problems.
Pesticide residue can remain on fruits and vegetables even after they are washed and, in some cases, peeled, according to the report.
However, a report by the USDA in 2014 found that "overall pesticide chemical residues on foods tested were at levels below the tolerances established by the Environmental Protection Agency" and were not a safety concern to consumers.
The Dirty Dozen
4 children die when pesticide, water mix creates toxic gas
4 children die when pesticide, water mix creates toxic gas
Produce that tested positive for various pesticides and contained higher concentrations of pesticides than other produce is featured on the list, known as the "Dirty Dozen."
Starting with the highest amounts of pesticide residue, the list features strawberries, spinach, nectarines, apples, peaches, celery, grapes, pears, cherries, tomatoes, sweet bell peppers and potatoes.
Strawberries remained at the top of the list with at least 20 pesticides, while spinach jumped into the second spot with twice as much pesticide residue by weight than any other crop.
Americans eat nearly 8 pounds of fresh strawberries per person each year, and even when they are rinsed in the field and washed before eating, they are still most likely to be contaminated with pesticide residue, according to the Environmental Working Group.
GMO apples that never brown could hit stores soon
GMO apples that never brown could hit stores soon
In 2016, spinach was ranked eighth, but the latest numbers from the USDA showed a sharp increase in pesticide residues on non-organic spinach since the crop was last tested eight years ago.
The pesticides responsible for the residues included three fungicides and one insecticide called permethrin, which has been linked to tremors and seizures in the nervous systems of animals and insects.
The newest additions to the list were pears and potatoes, which replaced cherry tomatoes and cucumbers from last year.
The Clean Fifteen
Produce that had relatively fewer pesticides and lower total concentrations of pesticide residues was placed on the group's "Clean Fifteen" list.
This list included, in order, sweet corn (including corn on the cob and frozen corn), avocados, pineapples, cabbage, onions, frozen sweet peas, papaya, asparagus, mangoes, eggplant, honeydew melon, kiwis, cantaloupe, cauliflower and grapefruit.
Only 1% of samples showed any detectable pesticides in avocados and sweet corn, which were deemed the cleanest produce.
More than 80% of pineapples, papaya, asparagus, onions and cabbage that were sampled showed no pesticide residue.

This is not what I asked for. It is not peer reviews research. It's
information from a special interest group. Most important is that there
is no evidence of the actual danger to people from the amount of
pesticides found. The fact that they mention (effectively warn) that
GMO apples would be "hitting the stores" soon tells me a lot as there is
zero evidence that GMO products are bad for you in any way. That much,
at least, is conspiracy theory.

[Steven Bornfeld]

Post by JohnGavin
This year strawberries are the most toxic.
The Environmental Working Group released its annual "Dirty Dozen" list
Spinach had the second highest concentration of pesticide residue, up from eighth
Pears and potatoes joined the list; cherry tomatoes and cucumbers are no longer on it
(CNN)An annual report by the Environmental Working Group found that nearly 70% of samples of 48 types of conventionally grown produce were contaminated with pesticide residues. That's down 6.6 percentage points from last year.
The EWG Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce, released Wednesday, ranks pesticide contamination of popular fruits and vegetables based on more than 36,000 samples of produce tested by the US Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration.
This year, strawberries remained at the top of the list of produce with the highest concentration of pesticides, while sweet corn and avocados were ranked as having the lowest concentration.
What are pesticides?
Pesticides are widely used in producing food to control pests such as insects, rodents, weeds, bacteria, mold and fungus. In addition to their uses in agriculture, pesticides are used to protect public health by controlling organisms that carry tropical diseases, such as mosquitoes.
Pesticides are potentially toxic to humans, according to the World Health Organization. They may have negative effects on reproduction, immune or nervous systems, cause cancer and lead to other problems.
Pesticide residue can remain on fruits and vegetables even after they are washed and, in some cases, peeled, according to the report.
However, a report by the USDA in 2014 found that "overall pesticide chemical residues on foods tested were at levels below the tolerances established by the Environmental Protection Agency" and were not a safety concern to consumers.
The Dirty Dozen
4 children die when pesticide, water mix creates toxic gas
4 children die when pesticide, water mix creates toxic gas
Produce that tested positive for various pesticides and contained higher concentrations of pesticides than other produce is featured on the list, known as the "Dirty Dozen."
Starting with the highest amounts of pesticide residue, the list features strawberries, spinach, nectarines, apples, peaches, celery, grapes, pears, cherries, tomatoes, sweet bell peppers and potatoes.
Strawberries remained at the top of the list with at least 20 pesticides, while spinach jumped into the second spot with twice as much pesticide residue by weight than any other crop.
Americans eat nearly 8 pounds of fresh strawberries per person each year, and even when they are rinsed in the field and washed before eating, they are still most likely to be contaminated with pesticide residue, according to the Environmental Working Group.
GMO apples that never brown could hit stores soon
GMO apples that never brown could hit stores soon
In 2016, spinach was ranked eighth, but the latest numbers from the USDA showed a sharp increase in pesticide residues on non-organic spinach since the crop was last tested eight years ago.
The pesticides responsible for the residues included three fungicides and one insecticide called permethrin, which has been linked to tremors and seizures in the nervous systems of animals and insects.
The newest additions to the list were pears and potatoes, which replaced cherry tomatoes and cucumbers from last year.
The Clean Fifteen
Produce that had relatively fewer pesticides and lower total concentrations of pesticide residues was placed on the group's "Clean Fifteen" list.
This list included, in order, sweet corn (including corn on the cob and frozen corn), avocados, pineapples, cabbage, onions, frozen sweet peas, papaya, asparagus, mangoes, eggplant, honeydew melon, kiwis, cantaloupe, cauliflower and grapefruit.
Only 1% of samples showed any detectable pesticides in avocados and sweet corn, which were deemed the cleanest produce.
More than 80% of pineapples, papaya, asparagus, onions and cabbage that were sampled showed no pesticide residue.

It's a bit unnerving how much the EWG's "dirty dozen" and "clean 15"
change from year to year. The items that always seem to be in the dirty
dozen are berries, peaches, plums, nectarines, and bell peppers

Steve

[Bob Harper]

Post by JohnGavin
Warnings about alcohol consumption, climate change exacerbated by methane gasses from animal slaughter can make the messenger seem puritanical - yet it is worth considering that grapes and berries of all kinds absorb insecticides at a dangerous level and should be consumed only when organically grown. Are the wines you drink organic? What has been added to the meat in order to keep it fresh, besides growth hormones etc.?
Just noting that cancer rates in the U.S.A. are somewhat alarming. We live in a more toxic world than our grandparents’.

Do we? The principal reasons cancer rates are higher than in the past
(assuming you're correct) is that in the past most people died younger
of diseases that have now been reduced in frequency or virtually
eliminated. Remember, we will all die of something.

Bob Harper

[Steven Bornfeld]

Post by Bob Harper

Post by JohnGavin
Warnings about alcohol consumption, climate change exacerbated by
methane gasses from animal slaughter can make the messenger seem
puritanical - yet it is worth considering that grapes and berries of
all kinds absorb insecticides at a dangerous level and should be
consumed only when organically grown.   Are the wines you drink
organic?    What has been added to the meat in order to keep it fresh,
besides growth hormones etc.?
Just noting that cancer rates in the U.S.A. are somewhat alarming.  We
live in a more toxic world than our grandparents’.

Do we? The principal reasons cancer rates are higher than in the past
(assuming you're correct) is that in the past most people died younger
of diseases that have now been reduced in frequency or virtually
eliminated. Remember, we will all die of something.
Bob Harper

That is true, of course. But it does little to explain the continued
rise in the rate of childhood cancers:

https://www.webmd.com/news/breaking-news/cancer-strikes-a-small-town/20161020/childhood-cancer-rates-rising

Steve

[Frank Berger]

Post by Bob Harper

Post by JohnGavin
Warnings about alcohol consumption, climate change exacerbated by
methane gasses from animal slaughter can make the messenger seem
puritanical - yet it is worth considering that grapes and berries of
all kinds absorb insecticides at a dangerous level and should be
consumed only when organically grown.   Are the wines you drink
organic?    What has been added to the meat in order to keep it
fresh, besides growth hormones etc.?
Just noting that cancer rates in the U.S.A. are somewhat alarming.
We live in a more toxic world than our grandparents’.

Do we? The principal reasons cancer rates are higher than in the past
(assuming you're correct) is that in the past most people died younger
of diseases that have now been reduced in frequency or virtually
eliminated. Remember, we will all die of something.
Bob Harper

That is true, of course.  But it does little to explain the continued
https://www.webmd.com/news/breaking-news/cancer-strikes-a-small-town/20161020/childhood-cancer-rates-rising
Steve

I guess children are drinking more.

[Frank Berger]

Post by Bob Harper

Post by JohnGavin
Warnings about alcohol consumption, climate change exacerbated by
methane gasses from animal slaughter can make the messenger seem
puritanical - yet it is worth considering that grapes and berries of
all kinds absorb insecticides at a dangerous level and should be
consumed only when organically grown.   Are the wines you drink
organic?    What has been added to the meat in order to keep it
fresh, besides growth hormones etc.?
Just noting that cancer rates in the U.S.A. are somewhat alarming.
We live in a more toxic world than our grandparents’.

Do we? The principal reasons cancer rates are higher than in the past
(assuming you're correct) is that in the past most people died younger
of diseases that have now been reduced in frequency or virtually
eliminated. Remember, we will all die of something.
Bob Harper

That is true, of course.  But it does little to explain the continued
https://www.webmd.com/news/breaking-news/cancer-strikes-a-small-town/20161020/childhood-cancer-rates-rising
Steve

The article itself is way less scary than your introduction to it. The
rate of childhood cancer remains low, though it has increased. Little
seems to be known about why. To assume it is environmental factors
would be wrong. I wonder what the world would be like if humans didn't
have the ability to assume anything.

[Steven Bornfeld]

Post by Bob Harper

Post by JohnGavin
Warnings about alcohol consumption, climate change exacerbated by
methane gasses from animal slaughter can make the messenger seem
puritanical - yet it is worth considering that grapes and berries of
all kinds absorb insecticides at a dangerous level and should be
consumed only when organically grown.   Are the wines you drink
organic?    What has been added to the meat in order to keep it
fresh, besides growth hormones etc.?
Just noting that cancer rates in the U.S.A. are somewhat alarming.
We live in a more toxic world than our grandparents’.

Do we? The principal reasons cancer rates are higher than in the past
(assuming you're correct) is that in the past most people died
younger of diseases that have now been reduced in frequency or
virtually eliminated. Remember, we will all die of something.
Bob Harper

That is true, of course.  But it does little to explain the continued
https://www.webmd.com/news/breaking-news/cancer-strikes-a-small-town/20161020/childhood-cancer-rates-rising
Steve

The article itself is way less scary than your introduction to it.  The
rate of childhood cancer remains low, though it has increased.  Little
seems to be known about why.  To assume it is environmental factors
would be wrong.  I wonder what the world would be like if humans didn't
have the ability to assume anything.

Well, if you're omitting nurture, seems you're blaming nature. These
are population studies and not randomized controlled trials. But a 20%
rise in a large population is definitely highly significant statistically.
If you have a working hypothesis other than environment I'd like to hear it.
It is well recognized that distribution of cancer incidence is not
random, and clusters exist in areas of known carcinogenic contamination.
What particularly did you find "scary" in my introduction?

Steve

[Frank Berger]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Bob Harper

Post by JohnGavin
Warnings about alcohol consumption, climate change exacerbated by
methane gasses from animal slaughter can make the messenger seem
puritanical - yet it is worth considering that grapes and berries
of all kinds absorb insecticides at a dangerous level and should be
consumed only when organically grown.   Are the wines you drink
organic?    What has been added to the meat in order to keep it
fresh, besides growth hormones etc.?
Just noting that cancer rates in the U.S.A. are somewhat alarming.
We live in a more toxic world than our grandparents’.

Do we? The principal reasons cancer rates are higher than in the
past (assuming you're correct) is that in the past most people died
younger of diseases that have now been reduced in frequency or
virtually eliminated. Remember, we will all die of something.
Bob Harper

That is true, of course.  But it does little to explain the continued
https://www.webmd.com/news/breaking-news/cancer-strikes-a-small-town/20161020/childhood-cancer-rates-rising
Steve

The article itself is way less scary than your introduction to it.
The rate of childhood cancer remains low, though it has increased.
Little seems to be known about why.  To assume it is environmental
factors would be wrong.  I wonder what the world would be like if
humans didn't have the ability to assume anything.

Well, if you're omitting nurture, seems you're blaming nature.  These
are population studies and not randomized controlled trials.  But a 20%
rise in a large population is definitely highly significant statistically.
If you have a working hypothesis other than environment I'd like to hear it.
It is well recognized that distribution of cancer incidence is not
random, and clusters exist in areas of known carcinogenic contamination.
What particularly did you find "scary" in my introduction?
Steve

I didn't mean to omit anything as the cause, including bad data. I
meant to say it would be wrong to assume anything in particular as the
cause. The fact that the incidence of childhood cancers remains low
despite the increase is comforting, is it not?

[Oscar]

"First of all, let's get one thing straight. Crack is cheap. I make too much money to ever smoke crack. Let's get that straight. OK? We don't do crack. We don't do that. Crack is wack." -Whitney Houston, interview with Diane Sawyer, December 2002.

[Bozo]

Damn,I assume my California shiraz and Australian shiraz is also at risk from the Japanese accident, the Rhone still at risk from the Russian :

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611654/fukushimas-nuclear-signature-found-in-california-wine/

[weary flake]

Post by Oscar
"First of all, let's get one thing straight. Crack is cheap. I make too
much money to ever smoke crack. Let's get that straight. OK? We don't
do crack. We don't do that. Crack is wack." -Whitney Houston, interview
with Diane Sawyer, December 2002.

People change their minds. "Crack is cheap. I make too much money to
ever smoke crack",
I never heard that before. Anyway, crack, meth, heroin, pot and
alcohol are synergistic,
in contrast to what the liquor lobby and pot legaliziers have been
saying for decades.
For instance, pot activists for fifty years have violently mocked the
notion that "it
leads to harder stuff", and claim that pot is some sort of magic
intoxicant that should
be worshipped as an antidote to alcohol and heroin and cocaine and
alcohol promoters say
that drug use is prevented by drinking; actually the truth is that
"like causes like" and
each intoxicant makes it more likely to use the other. With pot
legalization, we've
already had a tripling of deaths from heroin overdoses and an increase
in alcohol
consumed. Use of narcotics causes more use of narcotics, and alcohol
and pot are
narcotics. With the ocean of pro-narcotic messages we're surrounded
with it's nice to
have some anti-drug messages slip through the cracks.

[Steven Bornfeld]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Bob Harper

Post by JohnGavin
Warnings about alcohol consumption, climate change exacerbated by
methane gasses from animal slaughter can make the messenger seem
puritanical - yet it is worth considering that grapes and berries
of all kinds absorb insecticides at a dangerous level and should
be consumed only when organically grown.   Are the wines you drink
organic?    What has been added to the meat in order to keep it
fresh, besides growth hormones etc.?
Just noting that cancer rates in the U.S.A. are somewhat alarming.
We live in a more toxic world than our grandparents’.

Do we? The principal reasons cancer rates are higher than in the
past (assuming you're correct) is that in the past most people died
younger of diseases that have now been reduced in frequency or
virtually eliminated. Remember, we will all die of something.
Bob Harper

That is true, of course.  But it does little to explain the
https://www.webmd.com/news/breaking-news/cancer-strikes-a-small-town/20161020/childhood-cancer-rates-rising
Steve

The article itself is way less scary than your introduction to it.
The rate of childhood cancer remains low, though it has increased.
Little seems to be known about why.  To assume it is environmental
factors would be wrong.  I wonder what the world would be like if
humans didn't have the ability to assume anything.

Well, if you're omitting nurture, seems you're blaming nature.  These
are population studies and not randomized controlled trials.  But a
20% rise in a large population is definitely highly significant
statistically.
If you have a working hypothesis other than environment I'd like to hear it.
It is well recognized that distribution of cancer incidence is not
random, and clusters exist in areas of known carcinogenic contamination.
What particularly did you find "scary" in my introduction?
Steve

I didn't mean to omit anything as the cause, including bad data.  I
meant to say it would be wrong to assume anything in particular as the
cause.  The fact that the incidence of childhood cancers remains low
despite the increase is comforting, is it not?

Well, yes--but that may be because my daughter is grown and has not
developed cancer--yet. However (and this may be more information than
you need to know), in my family no one is complacent about cancer.
What IS encouraging is that there have been big strides in treatment of
many common childhood cancers, so death rates are way down.

Steve

[Frank Berger]

Post by Steven Bornfeld

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Bob Harper

Post by JohnGavin
Warnings about alcohol consumption, climate change exacerbated by
methane gasses from animal slaughter can make the messenger seem
puritanical - yet it is worth considering that grapes and berries
of all kinds absorb insecticides at a dangerous level and should
be consumed only when organically grown.   Are the wines you
drink organic?    What has been added to the meat in order to
keep it fresh, besides growth hormones etc.?
Just noting that cancer rates in the U.S.A. are somewhat
alarming. We live in a more toxic world than our grandparents’.

Do we? The principal reasons cancer rates are higher than in the
past (assuming you're correct) is that in the past most people
died younger of diseases that have now been reduced in frequency
or virtually eliminated. Remember, we will all die of something.
Bob Harper

That is true, of course.  But it does little to explain the
https://www.webmd.com/news/breaking-news/cancer-strikes-a-small-town/20161020/childhood-cancer-rates-rising
Steve

The article itself is way less scary than your introduction to it.
The rate of childhood cancer remains low, though it has increased.
Little seems to be known about why.  To assume it is environmental
factors would be wrong.  I wonder what the world would be like if
humans didn't have the ability to assume anything.

Well, if you're omitting nurture, seems you're blaming nature.  These
are population studies and not randomized controlled trials.  But a
20% rise in a large population is definitely highly significant
statistically.
If you have a working hypothesis other than environment I'd like to hear it.
It is well recognized that distribution of cancer incidence is not
random, and clusters exist in areas of known carcinogenic contamination.
What particularly did you find "scary" in my introduction?
Steve

I didn't mean to omit anything as the cause, including bad data.  I
meant to say it would be wrong to assume anything in particular as the
cause.  The fact that the incidence of childhood cancers remains low
despite the increase is comforting, is it not?

Well, yes--but that may be because my daughter is grown and has not
developed cancer--yet.  However (and this may be more information than
you need to know), in my family no one is complacent about cancer.
What IS encouraging is that there have been big strides in treatment of
many common childhood cancers, so death rates are way down.
Steve

My wife is a survivor or breast and thyroid cancer. I have a tendency to
be coldly analytical about things until I or someone close to me is
personally affected. Obviously a single cancer death is tragic. We had
very good friends when we lived in LA, whose oldest daughter was best
friends with our oldest and whose younger was best friends with our
middle daughter when they were little. Both died from cancer in their
30s, breast and ovarian. Does it make it more tragic that both were
gifted, mothers and beautiful? One wrote her Ph.D. dissertation in math
at Yale while undergoing radiation and chemotherapy. She seemed cured or
in remission and was in her first hear of teaching at Cal Berkeley when
a recurrence killed her very quickly. In addition to her math
accomplishments she was a Judaica scholar and taught Talmud at the
Drisha Institute in N.Y. and gave classes wherever she lived. Her
sister had a Ph.D in environmental science and lived in Israel when she
was stricken.

[Steven Bornfeld]

Post by Frank Berger
My wife is a survivor or breast and thyroid cancer. I have a tendency to
be coldly analytical about things until I or someone close to me is
personally affected.  Obviously a single cancer death is tragic. We had
very good friends when we lived in LA, whose oldest daughter was best
friends with our oldest and whose younger was best friends with our
middle daughter when they were little.  Both died from cancer in their
30s, breast and ovarian.  Does it make it more tragic that both were
gifted, mothers and beautiful?  One wrote her Ph.D. dissertation in math
at Yale while undergoing radiation and chemotherapy. She seemed cured or
in remission and was in her first hear of teaching at Cal Berkeley when
a recurrence killed her very quickly.  In addition to her math
accomplishments she was a Judaica scholar and taught Talmud at the
Drisha Institute in N.Y. and gave classes wherever she lived.  Her
sister had a Ph.D in environmental science and lived in Israel when she
was stricken.

Tragic any way you slice it. My sympathies.

Steve

[Frank Berger]

Post by Bob Harper

Post by JohnGavin
Warnings about alcohol consumption, climate change exacerbated by
methane gasses from animal slaughter can make the messenger seem
puritanical - yet it is worth considering that grapes and berries of
all kinds absorb insecticides at a dangerous level and should be
consumed only when organically grown.   Are the wines you drink
organic?    What has been added to the meat in order to keep it fresh,
besides growth hormones etc.?
Just noting that cancer rates in the U.S.A. are somewhat alarming.  We
live in a more toxic world than our grandparents’.

Do we? The principal reasons cancer rates are higher than in the past
(assuming you're correct) is that in the past most people died younger
of diseases that have now been reduced in frequency or virtually
eliminated. Remember, we will all die of something.
Bob Harper

Reminds me of something I read once: That the decline in bicyclist head
injuries following the introduction of mandatory helmet laws was due
(largely? partly?) to the fact that kids stopped riding bikes because
they hated wearing helmets.

[Steven Bornfeld]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Bob Harper

Post by JohnGavin
Warnings about alcohol consumption, climate change exacerbated by
methane gasses from animal slaughter can make the messenger seem
puritanical - yet it is worth considering that grapes and berries of
all kinds absorb insecticides at a dangerous level and should be
consumed only when organically grown.   Are the wines you drink
organic?    What has been added to the meat in order to keep it
fresh, besides growth hormones etc.?
Just noting that cancer rates in the U.S.A. are somewhat alarming.
We live in a more toxic world than our grandparents’.

Do we? The principal reasons cancer rates are higher than in the past
(assuming you're correct) is that in the past most people died younger
of diseases that have now been reduced in frequency or virtually
eliminated. Remember, we will all die of something.
Bob Harper

Reminds me of something I read once: That the decline in bicyclist head
injuries following the introduction of mandatory helmet laws was due
(largely? partly?) to the fact that kids stopped riding bikes because
they hated wearing helmets.

"something I read once"? Sounds positively Trumpian.
Don't know where you are, Frank, but in NYC cycling deaths have declined
about 20% as number of cycling trips taken has more than tripled between
1996 and 2015.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bike-safety-study-fullreport2017.pdf

Certainly this had to do with factors other than helmet laws, but at
least here the laws have not decreased ridership.

Steve

[Frank Berger]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Bob Harper

Post by JohnGavin
Warnings about alcohol consumption, climate change exacerbated by
methane gasses from animal slaughter can make the messenger seem
puritanical - yet it is worth considering that grapes and berries of
all kinds absorb insecticides at a dangerous level and should be
consumed only when organically grown.   Are the wines you drink
organic?    What has been added to the meat in order to keep it
fresh, besides growth hormones etc.?
Just noting that cancer rates in the U.S.A. are somewhat alarming.
We live in a more toxic world than our grandparents’.

Do we? The principal reasons cancer rates are higher than in the past
(assuming you're correct) is that in the past most people died
younger of diseases that have now been reduced in frequency or
virtually eliminated. Remember, we will all die of something.
Bob Harper

Reminds me of something I read once: That the decline in bicyclist
head injuries following the introduction of mandatory helmet laws was
due (largely? partly?) to the fact that kids stopped riding bikes
because they hated wearing helmets.

"something I read once"?  Sounds positively Trumpian.
Don't know where you are, Frank, but in NYC cycling deaths have declined
about 20% as number of cycling trips taken has more than tripled between
1996 and 2015.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bike-safety-study-fullreport2017.pdf
Certainly this had to do with factors other than helmet laws, but at
least here the laws have not decreased ridership.
Steve

When I was a suburban kid, just about every kid rode bikes all the time.
My casual observation today suggests otherwise. I realize this is not
scientific. Not was my reference to something I read once. I wonder if
the use of bike lanes and special bike baths has affected bike injuries
and deaths independently of helmets

[Steven Bornfeld]

Post by Frank Berger
When I was a suburban kid, just about every kid rode bikes all the time.
 My casual observation today suggests otherwise.  I realize this is not
scientific.  Not was my reference to something I read once.  I wonder if
the use of bike lanes and special bike baths has affected bike injuries
and deaths independently of helmets

Most of what I've read is that bicycle infrastructure has had a greater
effect on cycling injuries than helmets.
Long ago I had a relatively civil argument with an Englishman about
helmets. His main argument was that helmet wearing led to "risk
compensation", ie: you feel more protected wearing a helmet, so you're
likelier to ride like an asshole. (He likewise viewed seatbelt and
airbags as provoking riskier driving behaviors).
There actually is some literature regarding risk compensation, but
overall death rates on the road have decreased, so it seems that cars
actually have gotten safer more rapidly than drivers have been able to
increase their risky behavior.

Steve

[Frank Berger]

Post by Steven Bornfeld

Post by Frank Berger
When I was a suburban kid, just about every kid rode bikes all the
time.   My casual observation today suggests otherwise.  I realize
this is not scientific.  Not was my reference to something I read
once.  I wonder if the use of bike lanes and special bike baths has
affected bike injuries and deaths independently of helmets

Most of what I've read is that bicycle infrastructure has had a greater
effect on cycling injuries than helmets.
Long ago I had a relatively civil argument with an Englishman about
helmets.  His main argument was that helmet wearing led to "risk
compensation", ie: you feel more protected wearing a helmet, so you're
likelier to ride like an asshole.  (He likewise viewed seatbelt and
airbags as provoking riskier driving behaviors).
There actually is some literature regarding risk compensation, but
overall death rates on the road have decreased, so it seems that cars
actually have gotten safer more rapidly than drivers have been able to
increase their risky behavior.
Steve

A Nobel winning economist (James Buchanan, IIRC) said something like you
shouldn't force drivers to wear seat belts. In fact, you should place a
sharp spike in the middle of the steering wheel pointing at his heart.
This "reasoning" wouldn't apply to passengers, of course.

Risk compensation is real, but it doesn't say the result of requiring
helmets will result in more injuries. It simply says that you won't get
as much benefit as you would if riders continued to take the same risk,
since they won't. But you could argue that the simple presence of the
damn helmet on your head is a constant reminder of risk and leads you
ride more responsibly. Sort of iike why Orthodox Jewish men wear tsitsis
(fringes you may see hanging out of their clothes). Well not sort of.
That is the precise purpose: to remind him to not sin.

[weary flake]

Post by Steven Bornfeld

Post by Frank Berger
When I was a suburban kid, just about every kid rode bikes all the
time.  My casual observation today suggests otherwise.  I realize this
is not scientific.  Not was my reference to something I read once.  I
wonder if the use of bike lanes and special bike baths has affected
bike injuries and deaths independently of helmets

Most of what I've read is that bicycle infrastructure has had a greater
effect on cycling injuries than helmets.
Long ago I had a relatively civil argument with an Englishman about
helmets. His main argument was that helmet wearing led to "risk
compensation", ie: you feel more protected wearing a helmet, so you're
likelier to ride like an asshole. (He likewise viewed seatbelt and
airbags as provoking riskier driving behaviors).

I'm a great fan of anti-lock brakes and don't think there's any law
requiring it. I wanted it from the first I heard about it, but car
makers were not making it too available at first, so was over a decade
before I finally got a car with it. It should directly lead to Risk
Compensation but I think I drive safer with it, I can slam the brakes
if I need unlike before with fear of skidding leading to skidding
and/or crashing from bad braking.

Post by Steven Bornfeld
There actually is some literature regarding risk compensation, but
overall death rates on the road have decreased, so it seems that cars
actually have gotten safer more rapidly than drivers have been able to
increase their risky behavior.
Steve

[Frank Berger]

Post by weary flake

Post by Steven Bornfeld

Post by Frank Berger
When I was a suburban kid, just about every kid rode bikes all the
time.  My casual observation today suggests otherwise.  I realize
this is not scientific.  Not was my reference to something I read
once.  I wonder if the use of bike lanes and special bike baths has
affected bike injuries and deaths independently of helmets

Most of what I've read is that bicycle infrastructure has had a
greater effect on cycling injuries than helmets.
Long ago I had a relatively civil argument with an Englishman about
helmets.  His main argument was that helmet wearing led to "risk
compensation", ie: you feel more protected wearing a helmet, so you're
likelier to ride like an asshole.  (He likewise viewed seatbelt and
airbags as provoking riskier driving behaviors).

I'm a great fan of anti-lock brakes and don't think there's any law
requiring it.  I wanted it from the first I heard about it, but car
makers were not making it too available at first, so was over a decade
before I finally got a car with it.  It should directly lead to Risk
Compensation but I think I drive safer with it, I can slam the brakes
if I need unlike before with fear of skidding leading to skidding
and/or crashing from bad braking.

I think I have to take back what I said about risk compensation before.
What I think it has to do with is that a driver will drive in a way that
he perceives as as certain amount of risk to HIM, ignoring the danger he
imposes on others. So given antilock brakes, his driving will become
more "aggressive" to the point that he perceives himself to be at the
same level of risk he was at before. Of course in the case of antilock
brakes they extra safety they provide applies to other drivers and
stationary objects as well. Not so in the helmet case. In fact the
helmet is probably more likely to do damage to property than a bare
skull. :-O

Post by weary flake

Post by Steven Bornfeld
There actually is some literature regarding risk compensation, but
overall death rates on the road have decreased, so it seems that cars
actually have gotten safer more rapidly than drivers have been able to
increase their risky behavior.
Steve

[Steven Bornfeld]

Post by Frank Berger
I think I have to take back what I said about risk compensation before.
What I think it has to do with is that a driver will drive in a way that
he perceives as as certain amount of risk to HIM, ignoring the danger he
imposes on others.  So given antilock brakes, his driving will become
more "aggressive" to the point that he perceives himself to be at the
same level of risk he was at before. Of course in the case of antilock
brakes they extra safety they provide applies to other drivers and
stationary objects as well. Not so in the helmet case.  In fact the
helmet is probably more likely to do damage to property than a bare
skull.  :-O

Helmet technology has come a long way, and I'm hardly an expert. The
latest buzzword is "MIPS" for "multi-directional impact protection system".
There was some evidence that brain damage sometimes was not due only to
direct contact, but also to torsional forces exerted on the brain. MIPS
claims to minimize these shear forces by allowing the lining of the
helmet to slide inside the shell. Obviously with traumatic brain
injuries so much in the news, this is a popular topic.

Steve

[Frank Berger]

Post by Frank Berger
I think I have to take back what I said about risk compensation
before. What I think it has to do with is that a driver will drive in
a way that he perceives as as certain amount of risk to HIM, ignoring
the danger he imposes on others.  So given antilock brakes, his
driving will become more "aggressive" to the point that he perceives
himself to be at the same level of risk he was at before. Of course in
the case of antilock brakes they extra safety they provide applies to
other drivers and stationary objects as well. Not so in the helmet
case.  In fact the helmet is probably more likely to do damage to
property than a bare skull.  :-O

    Helmet technology has come a long way, and I'm hardly an expert.
The latest buzzword is "MIPS" for "multi-directional impact protection
system".
    There was some evidence that brain damage sometimes was not due
only to direct contact, but also to torsional forces exerted on the
brain.  MIPS claims to minimize these shear forces by allowing the
lining of the helmet to slide inside the shell.  Obviously with
traumatic brain injuries so much in the news, this is a popular topic.
Steve

I suspect if a motorcyclist, traveling at high speed, hits his head on
the pavement it will not matter much if he is wearing a helmet.

[Steven Bornfeld]

Post by Frank Berger
I suspect if a motorcyclist, traveling at high speed, hits his head on
the pavement it will not matter much if he is wearing a helmet.

Certainly it's possible to suffer an impact for which no precaution will
provide adequate protection. The trick is getting the greatest degree of
protection that can be made affordable and easy and comfortable enough
to wear. That's more important than any legal mandate. There are a
large number of instances in which a good helmet will make the difference.
At the same time, you have to realize that life involves risk, and the
risk is more real when it happens to you.
I raced bicycles for only 1 season, and my racing career ended in late
July 1986 on the neurosurgical service of Methodist hospital here in
Brooklyn. It's not as if I didn't know it could happen.

Steve

[Frank Berger]

Post by Steven Bornfeld

Post by Frank Berger
I suspect if a motorcyclist, traveling at high speed, hits his head on
the pavement it will not matter much if he is wearing a helmet.

Certainly it's possible to suffer an impact for which no precaution will
provide adequate protection. The trick is getting the greatest degree of
protection that can be made affordable and easy and comfortable enough
to wear.  That's more important than any legal mandate.  There are a
large number of instances in which a good helmet will make the difference.
At the same time, you have to realize that life involves risk, and the
risk is more real when it happens to you.
I raced bicycles for only 1 season, and my racing career ended in late
July 1986 on the neurosurgical service of Methodist hospital here in
Brooklyn.  It's not as if I didn't know it could happen.
Steve

Oy.

[Bob Harper]

Post by Steven Bornfeld
you have to realize that life involves risk

Indeed it does. And it is ultimately invariably fatal. So love God, your
family, and your neighbor. And have a good time doing so, including,
say, drinking a glass of wine or three if it gives you pleasure. If not,
then don't, but don't be a pain about it.

Bob Harper

[Frank Berger]

Post by Bob Harper

Post by Steven Bornfeld
you have to realize that life involves risk

Indeed it does. And it is ultimately invariably fatal.

That's certainty, not risk.

So love God, your

Post by Bob Harper
family, and your neighbor. And have a good time doing so, including,
say, drinking a glass of wine or three if it gives you pleasure. If not,
then don't, but don't be a pain about it.
Bob Harper

Unless your religion says you can't. We have to respect that, don't we?

[Bob Harper]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Bob Harper

Post by Steven Bornfeld
you have to realize that life involves risk

Indeed it does. And it is ultimately invariably fatal.

That's certainty, not risk.
 So love God, your

Post by Bob Harper
family, and your neighbor. And have a good time doing so, including,
say, drinking a glass of wine or three if it gives you pleasure. If
not, then don't, but don't be a pain about it.
Bob Harper

Unless your religion says you can't.  We have to respect that, don't we?

Of course. I respect the decision of anyone who chooses to be teetotal
for any reason. And I would expect anyone who is teetotal to respect my
right not to be, and not to be a pain about it.

Bob Harper

[Frank Berger]

Post by Bob Harper

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Bob Harper

Post by Steven Bornfeld
you have to realize that life involves risk

Indeed it does. And it is ultimately invariably fatal.

That's certainty, not risk.
  So love God, your

Post by Bob Harper
family, and your neighbor. And have a good time doing so, including,
say, drinking a glass of wine or three if it gives you pleasure. If
not, then don't, but don't be a pain about it.
Bob Harper

Unless your religion says you can't.  We have to respect that, don't we?

Of course. I respect the decision of anyone who chooses to be teetotal
for any reason. And I would expect anyone who is teetotal to respect my
right not to be, and not to be a pain about it.
Bob Harper

When I was in graduate school at UCLA there was a very nice French
restaurant in the neighborhood whose owner was a teetotaler and didn't
sell alcohol nor did he permit it to brought into the restaurant.

[weary flake]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Bob Harper

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Bob Harper

Post by Steven Bornfeld
you have to realize that life involves risk

Indeed it does. And it is ultimately invariably fatal.

That's certainty, not risk.
  So love God, your

Post by Bob Harper
family, and your neighbor. And have a good time doing so, including,
say, drinking a glass of wine or three if it gives you pleasure. If
not, then don't, but don't be a pain about it.
Bob Harper

Unless your religion says you can't.  We have to respect that, don't we?

Of course. I respect the decision of anyone who chooses to be teetotal
for any reason. And I would expect anyone who is teetotal to respect my
right not to be, and not to be a pain about it.
Bob Harper

When I was in graduate school at UCLA there was a very nice French
restaurant in the neighborhood whose owner was a teetotaler and didn't
sell alcohol nor did he permit it to brought into the restaurant.

That sounds wonderful; it's hard to find restaurants that don't push
booze.

[Oscar]

It’s hard to find restaurants (not fine dining) that don’t push music.

[weary flake]

Post by Oscar
It’s hard to find restaurants (not fine dining) that don’t push music.

I don't do fine dining; are those types of places free
of music? Most stores and restaurants pummel the consumer
with unwanted music.

[Herman]

Post by Bob Harper

Post by Steven Bornfeld
you have to realize that life involves risk

Indeed it does. And it is ultimately invariably fatal. So love God, your
family, and your neighbor. And have a good time doing so, including,
say, drinking a glass of wine or three if it gives you pleasure. If not,
then don't, but don't be a pain about it.
Bob Harper

just as long as you don't kid yourself thinking a glass or three of wine is good for your health. It's not.

[Bozo]

Post by Herman
just as long as you don't kid yourself thinking a glass or three of wine is good for your health. It's not.

" I never drink water; that is the stuff that rusts pipes. " W. C. Fields

[Steven Bornfeld]

Post by Bozo

Post by Herman
just as long as you don't kid yourself thinking a glass or three of wine is good for your health. It's not.

" I never drink water; that is the stuff that rusts pipes. " W. C. Fields

How many of these did he have? The one I heard was "I never drink water
because fish fuck in it."

[s***@hotmail.com]

“If you had to choose between drinking wine every day or being thin - would you choose red, white or rose?”

Soeren

[JohnGavin]

If you had to choose between drinking wine every day or being thin - would you choose red, white or rose?”

Soeren

Here’s another gem from the same philosopher:

“The more overweight you are, the harder it is to kidnap you-eat a quart of ice cream every day, and stay safe”.

[Bozo]

“If you had to choose between drinking wine every day or being thin - would you choose red, white or >rose?”

2 marks !!

[Bob Harper]

Post by Herman

Post by Bob Harper

Post by Steven Bornfeld
you have to realize that life involves risk

Indeed it does. And it is ultimately invariably fatal. So love God, your
family, and your neighbor. And have a good time doing so, including,
say, drinking a glass of wine or three if it gives you pleasure. If not,
then don't, but don't be a pain about it.
Bob Harper

just as long as you don't kid yourself thinking a glass or three of wine is good for your health. It's not.

Such absolutism is rarely justified, and I doubt this is one of the
exceptions.

Bob Harper

[Herman]

Post by Bob Harper

Post by Herman

Post by Bob Harper

Post by Steven Bornfeld
you have to realize that life involves risk

Indeed it does. And it is ultimately invariably fatal. So love God, your
family, and your neighbor. And have a good time doing so, including,
say, drinking a glass of wine or three if it gives you pleasure. If not,
then don't, but don't be a pain about it.
Bob Harper

just as long as you don't kid yourself thinking a glass or three of wine is good for your health. It's not.

Such absolutism is rarely justified, and I doubt this is one of the
exceptions.
Bob Harper

Do you smoke? Do you consider people who don't as "absolutists"?

[Frank Berger]

Post by Herman

Post by Bob Harper

Post by Herman

Post by Bob Harper

Post by Steven Bornfeld
you have to realize that life involves risk

Indeed it does. And it is ultimately invariably fatal. So love God, your
family, and your neighbor. And have a good time doing so, including,
say, drinking a glass of wine or three if it gives you pleasure. If not,
then don't, but don't be a pain about it.
Bob Harper

just as long as you don't kid yourself thinking a glass or three of wine is good for your health. It's not.

Such absolutism is rarely justified, and I doubt this is one of the
exceptions.
Bob Harper

Do you smoke? Do you consider people who don't as "absolutists"?

Is there evidence that an occasional "social" cigarette is harmful to
one's health?

[Oscar]

herman, I do not drink sniff smoke toke or trip. And I’m absolutely fine with it.

[weary flake]

Post by Herman

Post by Bob Harper

Post by Herman

Post by Bob Harper

Post by Steven Bornfeld
you have to realize that life involves risk

Indeed it does. And it is ultimately invariably fatal. So love God, your
family, and your neighbor. And have a good time doing so, including,
say, drinking a glass of wine or three if it gives you pleasure. If not,
then don't, but don't be a pain about it.
Bob Harper

just as long as you don't kid yourself thinking a glass or three of
wine is good for your health. It's not.

Such absolutism is rarely justified, and I doubt this is one of the
exceptions.
Bob Harper

Do you smoke? Do you consider people who don't as "absolutists"?

Maybe children should be taught to smoke a cigarette at every meal;
maybe moderate smoking can prevent harm from tobacco like "moderate
drinking prevents harm from alcohol".

[Bozo]

Post by Frank Berger
Not so in the helmet case. In fact the
helmet is probably more likely to do damage to property than a bare
skull. :-O

Skulduggery by the helmet manufacturers ?

[Bob Harper]

Post by weary flake

Post by Bob Harper

Post by weary flake
The Shariah
Only Allah knows what is right and beneficial for His creation, and
alternatively what is wrong and harmful.  The Holy Quraan clearly
states the lawful and unlawful actions.  All Humans must follow
this Law of Allah which is known as the 'Shariah' or Islamic Law.
Amongst the clear-cut prohibitions is the use of Alcohol in any
form whatsoever.
The Quraan Prohibits Alcohol
Regarding Alcohol - The Holy Quraan states: "They ask Thee concerning
Wine and Gambling, Say: In them is great sin, and some profit, for
men; but the sin is greater than the profit." (Surah Al-Baqarah:219)
The Arabic word used in this text is Khamr which is applied to all
intoxicating liquor or drug.
The Quraan further states in Surah Al-Maaidah verse 90: "O Ye who
believe! Intoxicants and Gambling, Sacrificing to Stones, and
(divination by) Arrows, are an abomination, of Satan's handiwork;
Keep away from such, that Ye may prosper."
Take Heed - Oh Muslims!
Quraanic evidence has been presented to you regarding the use of
Alcohol.  Allah - The All Knowing and full of Wisdom knows what is
best for us - His creation.  We must abstain fully from all forms
and uses of alcohol.
No - Drinking!
So, firstly, all Muslims must not consume Alcohol at all.  It is
amongst the Major Sins and will have to be accounted for on the day
of Judgement.  Besides the Islamic ruling, we all know too well the
harms of this evil.  This is one of the main roots of corruption
in society.  Violence, family tragedies, suicides are a few of the
fatal results of this disease.  May Almighty Allah save us all.
Ameen.
No - Selling!
The selling of Alcohol is also forbidden.  It is completely Haraam
for Muslims to be trading in this trade.  It is also forbidden to
sell alcohol as part of your business.  Grocers, Newsagents and
Mini-Market traders should keep this in mind. Therefore, no question
remains regarding trading in Off-Licences, Pubs or Public Houses.
In selling of these in Take-Aways and Restaurants also is completely
Haraam.  Muslims should also not work or employ any of their family
members in such Haraam Environments.
May Allah give us the right understanding.  Ameen.
Conclusion
The consumption of Alcohol can destroy families, communities and
in fact a whole locality.  Man commits such autrocious crimes in
the state of being drunk which can only be described as babaric and
ruthless.  A life of a drunkard becomes hell and of all those
connected with him.  And remember, it's an addiction.  A few drops
will lead to a glassful which in turn will lead to bottles.  Then
there will be no stopping.
Selling these products makes ones livelihood Haraam.  All his life
will pass through Haraam.  His clothing, sustenance e.t.c. if bought
from this income will also be doubtful.  So, Oh Muslims - Take heed
and abstain from the mother and roots of all vices and evils.  May
Allah grant us the right understanding.  Ameen-Ya-Rabbal-A'lameen.

One wonders what this post is doing here, but I would simply record
that Our Lord's first public sign was turning water into wine at the
Wedding at Cana. I'll stick with Him. As William F. Buckley, Jr. once
observed: Alcohol is the drug of Western Civilization.

The anti-alcohol post fits here among all the references to shiraz as
well as when the subject of world music pops up.
About alcohol being somehow Western, alcohol may need to be prohibited
in order to save Western Civilization; radical Islam is an irresistable
attraction as long as the West is pushing alcohol and anti-alcohol
forces are restricted to the East.  The civilized urge to ban things
shouldn't be misdirected, so Gun Control advocates why don't you take
heed of something worth banning: How can we call ourselves a civilized
society yet continue to allow the sale of liquid murder?

Yeah, Prohibition worked so well in the period from 1920 to 1933. Or not.

Bob Harper

[weary flake]

Post by Bob Harper

Post by weary flake

Post by Bob Harper

Post by weary flake
The Shariah
Only Allah knows what is right and beneficial for His creation, and
alternatively what is wrong and harmful.  The Holy Quraan clearly
states the lawful and unlawful actions.  All Humans must follow
this Law of Allah which is known as the 'Shariah' or Islamic Law.
Amongst the clear-cut prohibitions is the use of Alcohol in any
form whatsoever.
The Quraan Prohibits Alcohol
Regarding Alcohol - The Holy Quraan states: "They ask Thee concerning
Wine and Gambling, Say: In them is great sin, and some profit, for
men; but the sin is greater than the profit." (Surah Al-Baqarah:219)
The Arabic word used in this text is Khamr which is applied to all
intoxicating liquor or drug.
The Quraan further states in Surah Al-Maaidah verse 90: "O Ye who
believe! Intoxicants and Gambling, Sacrificing to Stones, and
(divination by) Arrows, are an abomination, of Satan's handiwork;
Keep away from such, that Ye may prosper."
Take Heed - Oh Muslims!
Quraanic evidence has been presented to you regarding the use of
Alcohol.  Allah - The All Knowing and full of Wisdom knows what is
best for us - His creation.  We must abstain fully from all forms
and uses of alcohol.
No - Drinking!
So, firstly, all Muslims must not consume Alcohol at all.  It is
amongst the Major Sins and will have to be accounted for on the day
of Judgement.  Besides the Islamic ruling, we all know too well the
harms of this evil.  This is one of the main roots of corruption
in society.  Violence, family tragedies, suicides are a few of the
fatal results of this disease.  May Almighty Allah save us all.
Ameen.
No - Selling!
The selling of Alcohol is also forbidden.  It is completely Haraam
for Muslims to be trading in this trade.  It is also forbidden to
sell alcohol as part of your business.  Grocers, Newsagents and
Mini-Market traders should keep this in mind. Therefore, no question
remains regarding trading in Off-Licences, Pubs or Public Houses.
In selling of these in Take-Aways and Restaurants also is completely
Haraam.  Muslims should also not work or employ any of their family
members in such Haraam Environments.
May Allah give us the right understanding.  Ameen.
Conclusion
The consumption of Alcohol can destroy families, communities and
in fact a whole locality.  Man commits such autrocious crimes in
the state of being drunk which can only be described as babaric and
ruthless.  A life of a drunkard becomes hell and of all those
connected with him.  And remember, it's an addiction.  A few drops
will lead to a glassful which in turn will lead to bottles.  Then
there will be no stopping.
Selling these products makes ones livelihood Haraam.  All his life
will pass through Haraam.  His clothing, sustenance e.t.c. if bought
from this income will also be doubtful.  So, Oh Muslims - Take heed
and abstain from the mother and roots of all vices and evils.  May
Allah grant us the right understanding.  Ameen-Ya-Rabbal-A'lameen.

One wonders what this post is doing here, but I would simply record
that Our Lord's first public sign was turning water into wine at the
Wedding at Cana. I'll stick with Him. As William F. Buckley, Jr. once
observed: Alcohol is the drug of Western Civilization.

The anti-alcohol post fits here among all the references to shiraz as
well as when the subject of world music pops up.
About alcohol being somehow Western, alcohol may need to be prohibited
in order to save Western Civilization; radical Islam is an irresistable
attraction as long as the West is pushing alcohol and anti-alcohol
forces are restricted to the East.  The civilized urge to ban things
shouldn't be misdirected, so Gun Control advocates why don't you take
heed of something worth banning: How can we call ourselves a civilized
society yet continue to allow the sale of liquid murder?

Yeah, Prohibition worked so well in the period from 1920 to 1933. Or not.

Repeal from 1933 to 2018 has been a failure so we need to reject Repeal.
Islam will take over if we don't, so Prohibition is coming either way. Gun
Control advocates and the like are trying to divert the energy from the
anti-alcohol movement, because thay want Islam to implement prohibition but
prohibitionary activity doesn't really have to restricted to the Islamics.

[Frank Berger]

Post by weary flake

Post by Bob Harper

Post by weary flake

Post by Bob Harper

Post by weary flake
The Shariah
Only Allah knows what is right and beneficial for His creation, and
alternatively what is wrong and harmful.  The Holy Quraan clearly
states the lawful and unlawful actions.  All Humans must follow
this Law of Allah which is known as the 'Shariah' or Islamic Law.
Amongst the clear-cut prohibitions is the use of Alcohol in any
form whatsoever.
The Quraan Prohibits Alcohol
Regarding Alcohol - The Holy Quraan states: "They ask Thee concerning
Wine and Gambling, Say: In them is great sin, and some profit, for
men; but the sin is greater than the profit." (Surah Al-Baqarah:219)
The Arabic word used in this text is Khamr which is applied to all
intoxicating liquor or drug.
The Quraan further states in Surah Al-Maaidah verse 90: "O Ye who
believe! Intoxicants and Gambling, Sacrificing to Stones, and
(divination by) Arrows, are an abomination, of Satan's handiwork;
Keep away from such, that Ye may prosper."
Take Heed - Oh Muslims!
Quraanic evidence has been presented to you regarding the use of
Alcohol.  Allah - The All Knowing and full of Wisdom knows what is
best for us - His creation.  We must abstain fully from all forms
and uses of alcohol.
No - Drinking!
So, firstly, all Muslims must not consume Alcohol at all.  It is
amongst the Major Sins and will have to be accounted for on the day
of Judgement.  Besides the Islamic ruling, we all know too well the
harms of this evil.  This is one of the main roots of corruption
in society.  Violence, family tragedies, suicides are a few of the
fatal results of this disease.  May Almighty Allah save us all.
Ameen.
No - Selling!
The selling of Alcohol is also forbidden.  It is completely Haraam
for Muslims to be trading in this trade.  It is also forbidden to
sell alcohol as part of your business.  Grocers, Newsagents and
Mini-Market traders should keep this in mind. Therefore, no question
remains regarding trading in Off-Licences, Pubs or Public Houses.
In selling of these in Take-Aways and Restaurants also is completely
Haraam.  Muslims should also not work or employ any of their family
members in such Haraam Environments.
May Allah give us the right understanding.  Ameen.
Conclusion
The consumption of Alcohol can destroy families, communities and
in fact a whole locality.  Man commits such autrocious crimes in
the state of being drunk which can only be described as babaric and
ruthless.  A life of a drunkard becomes hell and of all those
connected with him.  And remember, it's an addiction.  A few drops
will lead to a glassful which in turn will lead to bottles.  Then
there will be no stopping.
Selling these products makes ones livelihood Haraam.  All his life
will pass through Haraam.  His clothing, sustenance e.t.c. if bought
from this income will also be doubtful.  So, Oh Muslims - Take heed
and abstain from the mother and roots of all vices and evils.  May
Allah grant us the right understanding.  Ameen-Ya-Rabbal-A'lameen.

One wonders what this post is doing here, but I would simply record
that Our Lord's first public sign was turning water into wine at the
Wedding at Cana. I'll stick with Him. As William F. Buckley, Jr.
once observed: Alcohol is the drug of Western Civilization.

The anti-alcohol post fits here among all the references to shiraz as
well as when the subject of world music pops up.
About alcohol being somehow Western, alcohol may need to be prohibited
in order to save Western Civilization; radical Islam is an irresistable
attraction as long as the West is pushing alcohol and anti-alcohol
forces are restricted to the East.  The civilized urge to ban things
shouldn't be misdirected, so Gun Control advocates why don't you take
heed of something worth banning: How can we call ourselves a civilized
society yet continue to allow the sale of liquid murder?

Yeah, Prohibition worked so well in the period from 1920 to 1933. Or not.

Repeal from 1933 to 2018 has been a failure so we need to reject Repeal.
Islam will take over if we don't, so Prohibition is coming either way.  Gun
Control advocates and the like are trying to divert the energy from the
anti-alcohol movement, because thay want Islam to implement prohibition but
prohibitionary activity doesn't really have to restricted to the Islamics.

I still can't tell if you are joking. Nah, you must be. Nobody could
believe that.

[graham]

Post by weary flake

Post by Bob Harper

Post by weary flake

Post by Bob Harper

Post by weary flake
The Shariah
Only Allah knows what is right and beneficial for His creation, and
alternatively what is wrong and harmful.  The Holy Quraan clearly
states the lawful and unlawful actions.  All Humans must follow
this Law of Allah which is known as the 'Shariah' or Islamic Law.
Amongst the clear-cut prohibitions is the use of Alcohol in any
form whatsoever.
The Quraan Prohibits Alcohol
Regarding Alcohol - The Holy Quraan states: "They ask Thee concerning
Wine and Gambling, Say: In them is great sin, and some profit, for
men; but the sin is greater than the profit." (Surah Al-Baqarah:219)
The Arabic word used in this text is Khamr which is applied to all
intoxicating liquor or drug.
The Quraan further states in Surah Al-Maaidah verse 90: "O Ye who
believe! Intoxicants and Gambling, Sacrificing to Stones, and
(divination by) Arrows, are an abomination, of Satan's handiwork;
Keep away from such, that Ye may prosper."
Take Heed - Oh Muslims!
Quraanic evidence has been presented to you regarding the use of
Alcohol.  Allah - The All Knowing and full of Wisdom knows what is
best for us - His creation.  We must abstain fully from all forms
and uses of alcohol.
No - Drinking!
So, firstly, all Muslims must not consume Alcohol at all.  It is
amongst the Major Sins and will have to be accounted for on the day
of Judgement.  Besides the Islamic ruling, we all know too well the
harms of this evil.  This is one of the main roots of corruption
in society.  Violence, family tragedies, suicides are a few of the
fatal results of this disease.  May Almighty Allah save us all.
Ameen.
No - Selling!
The selling of Alcohol is also forbidden.  It is completely Haraam
for Muslims to be trading in this trade.  It is also forbidden to
sell alcohol as part of your business.  Grocers, Newsagents and
Mini-Market traders should keep this in mind. Therefore, no question
remains regarding trading in Off-Licences, Pubs or Public Houses.
In selling of these in Take-Aways and Restaurants also is completely
Haraam.  Muslims should also not work or employ any of their family
members in such Haraam Environments.
May Allah give us the right understanding.  Ameen.
Conclusion
The consumption of Alcohol can destroy families, communities and
in fact a whole locality.  Man commits such autrocious crimes in
the state of being drunk which can only be described as babaric and
ruthless.  A life of a drunkard becomes hell and of all those
connected with him.  And remember, it's an addiction.  A few drops
will lead to a glassful which in turn will lead to bottles.  Then
there will be no stopping.
Selling these products makes ones livelihood Haraam.  All his life
will pass through Haraam.  His clothing, sustenance e.t.c. if bought
from this income will also be doubtful.  So, Oh Muslims - Take heed
and abstain from the mother and roots of all vices and evils.  May
Allah grant us the right understanding.  Ameen-Ya-Rabbal-A'lameen.

One wonders what this post is doing here, but I would simply record
that Our Lord's first public sign was turning water into wine at
the Wedding at Cana. I'll stick with Him. As William F. Buckley,
Jr. once observed: Alcohol is the drug of Western Civilization.

The anti-alcohol post fits here among all the references to shiraz as
well as when the subject of world music pops up.
About alcohol being somehow Western, alcohol may need to be prohibited
in order to save Western Civilization; radical Islam is an irresistable
attraction as long as the West is pushing alcohol and anti-alcohol
forces are restricted to the East.  The civilized urge to ban things
shouldn't be misdirected, so Gun Control advocates why don't you take
heed of something worth banning: How can we call ourselves a civilized
society yet continue to allow the sale of liquid murder?

Yeah, Prohibition worked so well in the period from 1920 to 1933. Or not.

Repeal from 1933 to 2018 has been a failure so we need to reject Repeal.
Islam will take over if we don't, so Prohibition is coming either way.  Gun
Control advocates and the like are trying to divert the energy from the
anti-alcohol movement, because thay want Islam to implement
prohibition but
prohibitionary activity doesn't really have to restricted to the Islamics.

I still can't tell if you are joking.  Nah, you must be.  Nobody could
believe that.

I dunno! Look at his nom de newsgroup!