Drinking - Mustachian or not?

[Dr. Doom]

Everybody dumps on smoking.  It's been labeled the most anti-mustachian habit/addiction in existence and has several entire threads devoted to the hate.

Example: https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/throw-down-the-gauntlet/punching-smoking-in-the-face!/

You'll get no arguments from me here.  But it does make me wonder why alcohol consumption isn't just as despised.  In some cases it's exactly the opposite -- people build in money for booze in their monthlies as though it's a vitamin and these expenses rarely get face-punched.  (Instead the most common advice is how to buy the same amount of booze cheaper, like box-wine etc.  This would be the equivalent of telling people to buy cartons from Atlanta instead of by the pack at their convenience store... almost nobody does this.  The advice is always QUIT.).

This confuses me because alcohol shares so much in common with smoking, e.g. it's a drug/poison, it's addictive, people think it makes them feel better when actually doesn't,  it costs a lot of money, it adds to health care costs by making people overweight, diabetic, and sick, and folks become a slave to it.

Would love to hear comments. 

This isn't a moral question btw -- I don't think that smoking or drinking makes people any better or worse than each other.  Although it frequently does make them miserable!

[jhartt3]

If you read later on MMM challenges himself to cut back to 2 drinks a week and only drank 10 before that.  I think its something that people know costs money but you can find creative ways to cut back or eliminate.  b/c as you said its not a necessity.

[MustachianAccountant]

Agreed. I think this is the post in question:
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/05/20/its-beer-o-clock/

[stevesteve]

I think from the mustachian perspective smoking and drinking are very different.  Smoking is a luxury good that always has a direct negative impact on your health and is quite addictive.  Alcohol is a luxury good that in moderation has minimal impact on your health and is less addictive.  I think since mustachianism has a pretty positive view of staying healthy that can work with moderate alcohol use but not really with smoking.

[griffin]

I think from the mustachian perspective smoking and drinking are very different.  Smoking is a luxury good that always has a direct negative impact on your health and is quite addictive.  Alcohol is a luxury good that in moderation has minimal impact on your health and is less addictive.  I think since mustachianism has a pretty positive view of staying healthy that can work with moderate alcohol use but not really with smoking.

+1. I believe there are some studies showing that a glass of red wine a day has some positive health effects, etc etc. I don't think you will find that to be the case for cigarettes (http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/13/1518.full). I think another issue is perhaps consumption. Most people will usually limit themselves to one or two drinks most nights, but most "smokers" are defined at a pack a day; even that study linked above classifies light smokes as >7 cigarettes a day (that seems like a lot to me!). 7 packs of cigarettes a week is probably going to run you $35 dollars a week, if you're buying in bulk. This seems higher than most people's alcohol budget. I imagine there would be less face punching if you budgeted in 7 dollars a month for cigarettes. So yeah, it seems to me like it boils down to the terribly negative health effects of smoking vs the dubious health effects of drinking, the general lack of moderation in most smokers resulting in higher costs? Just my $.02 !

[dragoncar]

Agree with above - the level at which alcohol is arguably beneficial (at least benign) is around 0-2 drinks per day, which is high enough to warrant a budget line item (although I personally would lump it with entertainment if I budgeted).

On the other hand, as soon as you go from "I bum a cigarette maybe once a month when I'm out with friends" to actually purchasing your own cigarettes, you are in Heath danger territory.

[Cromacster]

In a post, MMM said that 9$ a week is his ideal.  Ultimately 0 would be badass, 9$ mustachian, and more would be worse.

So you can use that to guage your level.  Although even $9 a week for two people ends up being $78/month, which is pretty significant.

[Cheddar Stacker]

This is all my opinion, but I'm trying to answer your question the best way I know how and this is how I see it.

Drinking or smoking excessively is very harmful to your health and your wallet. I agree with all of OP's points about drinking being the same as smoking if done excessively.

Drinking moderately can be fun, not too harmful to your health, and can provide a nice social platform/outlet.

Smoking moderately is harder due to tougher addictive habits, very harmful to your health, and can be detrimental socially.

I'm sure some smokers will say it can be socially beneficial, and I'm sure there are some cases where that is true. However, the general attitude towards smokers has been steadily declining in my view, and I think there are very few circumstances where it can be helpful in any way.

[Dr. Doom]

Thanks for all of the thoughtful posts, folks.

So it seems to come down to the idea that smoking is worse for your health than alcohol.  And that it's much more difficult to smoke casually than drink casually.  I agree with these two points overall, but something still doesn't add up for me.

>>I believe there are some studies showing that a glass of red wine a day has some positive health effects, etc etc.

I don't personally buy this.  I know the hype about antioxidants and reservatrol but I would think that the poison of alcohol plus simple sugars would more than negate any beneficial effects.

Put another way, if alcohol didn't make you inebrieated (but still gave you a fuzzy, grainy feel the next morning) would you buy and drink it purely for the taste and supposed health benefits?  Is this a good value for the money?  If you're drinking 1-2 glasses of wine almost every day, are you addicted?  Is it controlling you?

I do agree that there's absolutely zero case to be made for cigarettes being good for you -- there isn't even an argument on the floor to debunk here.  The reports are bad, bad, bad.

But there are also studies that show even modest quantities of alcohol affect overall health and well being negatively.  A minute and a half of searching turned up more than I can list.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/a-few-drinks-a-week-raises-breast-cancer-risk/
http://www.helpguide.org/harvard/women_alcohol.htm
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/354437/Beware-a-daily-glass-or-two-of-wine-can-cause-brain-damage

Agreed. I think this is the post in question:
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/05/20/its-beer-o-clock/

I suppose that considering it's a regular part of MMM's life drinking literally meets definition of Mustachianism but it still seems to go against most of the principles which are espoused by members of this board -- frugality, health, freedom.

Anyways, I think I've gotten what I was looking for in this thread.  Thanks everyone.

[warfreak2]

If you grew your own tobacco (without needing high-watt lamps), then smoking could be mustachian. However, the health effects are a big deal, and MMM uses health effects in his calculations. The other thing is, drinking doesn't require spewing beer into the faces of the people you're with, but smoking in company is just really gross.

[dragoncar]

It's not the antioxidants in alcohol that are good (well, they may be, but there isn't much in there).  It's that moderate alcohol consumption is good for your HDL.  This applies to all forms of ethanol (wine beer and shots shots shots)

It can also be good for your mood!

[GuitarStv]

I'd argue that drinking is unmustachian.  It's not necessary to a full or happy life, and can be a big waste of money.  The health benefits aren't really clear cut enough to recommend that everyone do it regularly.  That said, it's clearly less addictive/damaging to your health than cigarettes.  There's also the social part - like the fact that smoking forces those around you to inhale toxins, while with drinking you're really only poisoning yourself.

In conclusion, unmustachian but fun for some.  Probably better overall for you than smoking if you're comparing vices.

[Cheddar Stacker]

Put another way, if alcohol didn't make you inebrieated (but still gave you a fuzzy, grainy feel the next morning) would you buy and drink it purely for the taste and supposed health benefits? 

If that's your sticking point, then I guess it's no different than sugar or caffeine. Why does anyone ever eat a donut? They're clearly not a good health-to-dollar purchase. Eating a donut, cookie, candy bar, cup of coffee does not provide you with any useful caloric intake.

Obviously many of us avoid this crap as well, but I don't see it being much different. Caffeine helps me start up each day, and alcohol helps we unwind at the end of each week.

[the fixer]

I don't see much difference. IMO alcohol, sugar, caffeine, or tobacco are all anti-Mustachian if used regularly on an ongoing basis. There may be special circumstances that warrant each--I turn to sugar or caffeine on long climbing days to keep going--but making any of them a central part of your life is bad for health and finances.

[m8547]

Grape juice has the similar antioxidant benefits to wine. The alcohol may have have some other benefits. But I wonder if there are downsides to alcohol consumption that we aren't reading about?

http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20120119/do-grapes-or-alcohol-make-red-wine-good-for-heart

[the fixer]

To be more precise, the study did not test grape juice; it tested "red wine, but with the alcohol removed." That's not the same thing. Still interesting that alcohol itself had some effect.

[dragoncar]

Grape juice has the similar antioxidant benefits to wine. The alcohol may have have some other benefits. But I wonder if there are downsides to alcohol consumption that we aren't reading about?

http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20120119/do-grapes-or-alcohol-make-red-wine-good-for-heart

The American Heart Association says people who don’t have health conditions that can be aggravated by drinking alcohol -- like liver disease, pancreatitis, or heart failure -- may enjoy alcohol in moderation.

I agree in this case, but I dislike the AHA.  I mean, shouldn't we be asking the American Liver Association instead?

[LibraTraci]

The supposed health benefits of wine are kinda bogus, as I understand it.  For starters, the anti-oxidants in wine aren't anything to write home about -- in fact, they have nothing to do with the alcohol at all, but are completely incidental.  You could get greater health benefits by eating a vegetable or a piece of fruit. 

In addition, you've got to question who benefits from the blood-thinning aspect of wine.  I mean, people who have moderate to severe artery blockages may be well-served by a blood-thinner (alcohol or otherwise), but someone with excellent cardiovascular health would *not* obtain any health benefits from consuming alcohol, as their blood does not need thinning. 

There's an overall category of "news" reporting called "People love hearing good news about their bad habits".  So, any crap story you may see about eating chocolate being associated with weight loss, or moderate consumption of bacon being associated with higher well-being, it is worth doing a little critical thinking, and possibly trying to discover what data was used, and whether the conclusions drawn from the data are valid or not. 

I am reminded of how it was reported (a couple decades ago) that cigarette smoking appears to prevent alzheimers.  Many news outlets picked up this story because it was interesting, and because it was reported in a fairly well-respected medical journal.  Well, upon further analysis, it was widely agreed that a better explanation (of the same data) was that cigarette smokers commonly dropped dead of other causes before alzheimers ever had a chance to set in.  Paints a very different picture!

Anyways, back to the specific issue of alcohol: the US Dept of Health and Human Services classifies alcohol as a known human carcinogen.  Also, the World Health Organization lists alcoholic beverages as a Group 1 carcinogen (the highest group) -- along with substances like tobacco, formaldehyde, and asbestos, etc. 

 

 

[dragoncar]

The supposed health benefits of wine are kinda bogus, as I understand it.  For starters, the anti-oxidants in wine aren't anything to write home about -- in fact, they have nothing to do with the alcohol at all, but are completely incidental.  You could get greater health benefits by eating a vegetable or a piece of fruit. 

In addition, you've got to question who benefits from the blood-thinning aspect of wine.  I mean, people who have moderate to severe artery blockages may be well-served by a blood-thinner (alcohol or otherwise), but someone with excellent cardiovascular health would *not* obtain any health benefits from consuming alcohol, as their blood does not need thinning. 

There's an overall category of "news" reporting called "People love hearing good news about their bad habits".  So, any crap story you may see about eating chocolate being associated with weight loss, or moderate consumption of bacon being associated with higher well-being, it is worth doing a little critical thinking, and possibly trying to discover what data was used, and whether the conclusions drawn from the data are valid or not. 

I am reminded of how it was reported (a couple decades ago) that cigarette smoking appears to prevent alzheimers.  Many news outlets picked up this story because it was interesting, and because it was reported in a fairly well-respected medical journal.  Well, upon further analysis, it was widely agreed that a better explanation (of the same data) was that cigarette smokers commonly dropped dead of other causes before alzheimers ever had a chance to set in.  Paints a very different picture!

Anyways, back to the specific issue of alcohol: the US Dept of Health and Human Services classifies alcohol as a known human carcinogen.  Also, the World Health Organization lists alcoholic beverages as a Group 1 carcinogen (the highest group) -- along with substances like tobacco, formaldehyde, and asbestos, etc. 

 

 

What about cholesterol profile?  I don't think the benefits are bogus.  If you want to argue that the negative effects outweigh the benefits, that's valid.

[limeandpepper]

Put another way, if alcohol didn't make you inebrieated (but still gave you a fuzzy, grainy feel the next morning) would you buy and drink it purely for the taste and supposed health benefits?  Is this a good value for the money?  If you're drinking 1-2 glasses of wine almost every day, are you addicted?  Is it controlling you?

I don't tend to drink enough alcohol to get inebriated in any significant sense (often just enough to get a warm sensation), nor get a fuzzy, grainy feel the next morning. And yes, that's because I actually drink for the taste. Not so much for the health benefits, there may be some, but I'm not counting on it. I can easily go for several months without drinking, and other times might just happen to have a glass for several nights in a row. I think if you're generally eating and exercising well, then the occasional drink won't make much difference to your health, in either a positive or negative way. I've been reading about people who lead extremely long, healthy, active lives in places like Campodimele and Ikaria. Yes, they do drink wine. Now, whether the wine was a beneficial factor to their longevity is not something we can extrapolate. However, at the very least, it seems that it certainly did not hurt them.

That said, if someone wants to save more money, cutting out alcohol is certainly one avenue they can look at. But I'm not fussed on what other people choose to spend their money on, if they do so within reason, and it makes them happy, and it's not destructive. If they are addicted, it's detrimental. If they binge, it's detrimental. If they get drunk and do stupid things that may hurt others, it's detrimental. However, if they're just enjoying a glass of wine with a cheese platter at home in the evening, or having a beer with friends, with no excessive drinking nor irresponsible behaviour? I think it would be overreaction to say those scenarios are bad.

[wtjbatman]

If I've learned anything from this thread, it's that I need to reduce my daily intake to a big frosty glass of Soylent.

[Undecided]

I'd argue that drinking is unmustachian.  It's not necessary to a full or happy life, and can be a big waste of money.

Emphasis added. Please make a list of things that are universally necessary for a full or happy life and which cannot be a big waste of money.

[GuitarStv]

I'd argue that drinking is unmustachian.  It's not necessary to a full or happy life, and can be a big waste of money.

Emphasis added. Please make a list of things that are universally necessary for a full or happy life and which cannot be a big waste of money.

Sure . . . off the top of my head:
satisfaction
friendship
confidence
sense of humour
love

If you're wasting money on any of the above, you're doing it wrong.  If you're missing any of the above, I'm going to argue that you're not living a full and happy life.  :P

[lackofstache]

I'd argue that drinking is unmustachian.  It's not necessary to a full or happy life, and can be a big waste of money.

Emphasis added. Please make a list of things that are universally necessary for a full or happy life and which cannot be a big waste of money.

Sure . . . off the top of my head:
satisfaction
friendship
confidence
sense of humour
love

If you're wasting money on any of the above, you're doing it wrong.  If you're missing any of the above, I'm going to argue that you're not living a full and happy life.  :P

I guess you're right, anything material is inherently unmustachian, it's just to what degree?

[GuitarStv]

I'd argue that drinking is unmustachian.  It's not necessary to a full or happy life, and can be a big waste of money.

Emphasis added. Please make a list of things that are universally necessary for a full or happy life and which cannot be a big waste of money.

Sure . . . off the top of my head:
satisfaction
friendship
confidence
sense of humour
love

If you're wasting money on any of the above, you're doing it wrong.  If you're missing any of the above, I'm going to argue that you're not living a full and happy life.  :P

I guess you're right, anything material is inherently unmustachian, it's just to what degree?

No, that's not what I said either.

I don't think it's mustachian to die of starvation . . . so people need food.  That doesn't mean you need to regularly dine on lobster . . . and it doesn't mean that you need to subsist on oatmeal alone.  There's a happy medium.

Alchohol is a purely entertainment related expense.  It doesn't improve your health, it doesn't keep you from dying, it's purely frivolous.  That doesn't mean you can't enjoy it.  Just that enjoying it regularly is a waste that should be consciously mulled over . . .

[dragoncar]

I'd argue that drinking is unmustachian.  It's not necessary to a full or happy life, and can be a big waste of money.

Emphasis added. Please make a list of things that are universally necessary for a full or happy life and which cannot be a big waste of money.

Sure . . . off the top of my head:
satisfaction
friendship
confidence
sense of humour
love

If you're wasting money on any of the above, you're doing it wrong.  If you're missing any of the above, I'm going to argue that you're not living a full and happy life.  :P

I guess you're right, anything material is inherently unmustachian, it's just to what degree?

No, that's not what I said either.

I don't think it's mustachian to die of starvation . . . so people need food.  That doesn't mean you need to regularly dine on lobster . . . and it doesn't mean that you need to subsist on oatmeal alone.  There's a happy medium.

Alchohol is a purely entertainment related expense.  It doesn't improve your health, it doesn't keep you from dying, it's purely frivolous.  That doesn't mean you can't enjoy it.  Just that enjoying it regularly is a waste that should be consciously mulled over . . .

Alcohol provides calories and in fact can prevent you from dying (you are stranded in the dessert - would you like a beer?)  So it's absolutely a matter of degree.

*and by prevent of course I mean delay, but that's all any food can do anyways

[lackofstache]

So it's absolutely a matter of degree.

Yep.

[GuitarStv]

Alcohol provides calories and in fact can prevent you from dying (you are stranded in the dessert - would you like a beer?)  So it's absolutely a matter of degree.

*and by prevent of course I mean delay, but that's all any food can do anyways

Sure there are calories in alcohol.  But calories from alcohol are shitty calories.  No nutrients, no amino acids . . . just means that there are better calorie choices that are cheaper.

If I find myself stranded in dessert I'd be more likely to eat some of the dessert than drink alcohol.

If dying of thirst in the desert it's probably not a good idea to chug that beer down . . . alcohol acts as a diuretic and will actually set your body into 'super waste water' mode.

[dragoncar]

Alcohol provides calories and in fact can prevent you from dying (you are stranded in the dessert - would you like a beer?)  So it's absolutely a matter of degree.

*and by prevent of course I mean delay, but that's all any food can do anyways

Sure there are calories in alcohol.  But calories from alcohol are shitty calories.  No nutrients, no amino acids . . . just means that there are better calorie choices that are cheaper.

If I find myself stranded in dessert I'd be more likely to eat some of the dessert than drink alcohol.

If dying of thirst in the desert it's probably not a good idea to chug that beer down . . . alcohol acts as a diuretic and will actually set your body into 'super waste water' mode.

Ok cool, more life sustaining beer for me:

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/questions/question/3496/

Wrt "quality" of calories, there are much higher quality calories available cheaper than lobster, which is not particularly good for you, so why does occasional lobster get a pass?

[lackofstache]

No, that's not what I said either.

I don't think it's mustachian to die of starvation . . . so people need food.  That doesn't mean you need to regularly dine on lobster . . . and it doesn't mean that you need to subsist on oatmeal alone.  There's a happy medium.

I added the emphasis, but you just outlined a degree; i.e. MEDIUM, which is all I was pointing out, so I do think that's what you said.

[GuitarStv]

Alcohol provides calories and in fact can prevent you from dying (you are stranded in the dessert - would you like a beer?)  So it's absolutely a matter of degree.

*and by prevent of course I mean delay, but that's all any food can do anyways

Sure there are calories in alcohol.  But calories from alcohol are shitty calories.  No nutrients, no amino acids . . . just means that there are better calorie choices that are cheaper.

If I find myself stranded in dessert I'd be more likely to eat some of the dessert than drink alcohol.

If dying of thirst in the desert it's probably not a good idea to chug that beer down . . . alcohol acts as a diuretic and will actually set your body into 'super waste water' mode.

Ok cool, more life sustaining beer for me:

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/questions/question/3496/

Wrt "quality" of calories, there are much higher quality calories available cheaper than lobster, which is not particularly good for you, so why does occasional lobster get a pass?

It doesn't.  It was an extreme food expense to counter the extreme food cheapness of oats in the post I made.  There's a happy medium between bland and cheap and tasty and expensive.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a beer now and again.  But it's a luxury item and is treated as such . . . not a daily necessity.

[GuitarStv]

No, that's not what I said either.

I don't think it's mustachian to die of starvation . . . so people need food.  That doesn't mean you need to regularly dine on lobster . . . and it doesn't mean that you need to subsist on oatmeal alone.  There's a happy medium.

I added the emphasis, but you just outlined a degree; i.e. MEDIUM, which is all I was pointing out, so I do think that's what you said.

I see things like tobacco, caffeine, alcohol (purely entertainment value) as somewhat different than things like food/shelter (needed for survival).

[dragoncar]

No, that's not what I said either.

I don't think it's mustachian to die of starvation . . . so people need food.  That doesn't mean you need to regularly dine on lobster . . . and it doesn't mean that you need to subsist on oatmeal alone.  There's a happy medium.

I added the emphasis, but you just outlined a degree; i.e. MEDIUM, which is all I was pointing out, so I do think that's what you said.

I see things like tobacco, caffeine, alcohol (purely entertainment value) as somewhat different than things like food/shelter (needed for survival).

One of these things is not like the other, and it's alcohol (which technically and socially classified as a food)

[lackofstache]

No, that's not what I said either.

I don't think it's mustachian to die of starvation . . . so people need food.  That doesn't mean you need to regularly dine on lobster . . . and it doesn't mean that you need to subsist on oatmeal alone.  There's a happy medium.

I added the emphasis, but you just outlined a degree; i.e. MEDIUM, which is all I was pointing out, so I do think that's what you said.

I see things like tobacco, caffeine, alcohol (purely entertainment value) as somewhat different than things like food/shelter (needed for survival).

Even so, it's still a matter of degrees. I could probably live on free food & shelter. Dandelion greens, fruit trees & squirrels are abundant. Bridges & trees are everywhere. If it's a matter of mustachianism, it's based on degrees. That's all I was pointing out & I was actually agreeing w/ you on it.

[GuitarStv]

I see things like tobacco, caffeine, alcohol (purely entertainment value) as somewhat different than things like food/shelter (needed for survival).

One of these things is not like the other, and it's alcohol (which technically and socially classified as a food)

Lotta high functioning alcoholics in this thread.  :D

[the fixer]

Sure there are calories in alcohol.  But calories from alcohol are shitty calories.  No nutrients, no amino acids . . . just means that there are better calorie choices that are cheaper.

That is only true of modern, European-style commercial beers. Traditional beers in Africa and Latin America made from corn, sorghum or millet (opaque beers) have a lot more grain nutrients still in them. Modern beers filter all that stuff out, leaving alcohol and some flavored water.

[dragoncar]

I see things like tobacco, caffeine, alcohol (purely entertainment value) as somewhat different than things like food/shelter (needed for survival).

One of these things is not like the other, and it's alcohol (which technically and socially classified as a food)

Lotta high functioning alcoholics in this thread.  :D

It's not just food either.  Whiskey makes a great toothpaste!  Vodka is a good all purpose household cleaner.  Wine makes lovely tie-dyed shirts.

[foobar]

Thats 936/year. Over a 50 year span that adds up to 1 million dollars (standard 10% with drinking cost increasing by inflation).  Those are some expensive drinks:):)

On the other hand: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2017200,00.html suggests that it is better to binge drink than abstain:)

Drinking is acceptable in most american social circles. Being a nicotine addict isn't.

In a post, MMM said that 9$ a week is his ideal.  Ultimately 0 would be badass, 9$ mustachian, and more would be worse.

So you can use that to guage your level.  Although even $9 a week for two people ends up being $78/month, which is pretty significant.

[senecando]

I see things like tobacco, caffeine, alcohol (purely entertainment value) as somewhat different than things like food/shelter (needed for survival).

One of these things is not like the other, and it's alcohol (which technically and socially classified as a food)

Lotta high functioning alcoholics in this thread.  :D

It's not just food either.  Whiskey makes a great toothpaste!  Vodka is a good all purpose household cleaner.  Wine makes lovely tie-dyed shirts.

In the Tudor times, Beer was safer to drink than water!