Depends reallyMay 18, 2016 Tim WorstallBooze15 CommentsMarriage IS good for you: Tying the knot ‘LOWERS your risk of becoming an alcoholic’ Upon who you marry. previousClassic bureaucratic move from the BBC herenextThis is just great from Ritchie 15 thoughts on “Depends really” The Meissen Bison May 18, 2016 at 9:52 am whom bloke in spain May 18, 2016 at 9:55 am Dunno ’bout that. Bearing in mind some of the women are around, I’d be reckoning closer to evens. AndrewWS May 18, 2016 at 10:12 am Alcoholics do not become; they just are. Some spouses enable the drinking spouse to carry on drinking and try to push them back on the booze when they’d put the drink down – they want them to be dependent. Some single people, having nobody to enable them or rescue them, hit rock bottom sooner and seek help sooner. Life is funny like that. Mr Ecks May 18, 2016 at 10:23 am Its only because you can’t afford the booze by the time she’s finished with you. Ljh May 18, 2016 at 12:08 pm Do they account for drunkards being more likely to be divorced? Gamecock May 18, 2016 at 12:14 pm Just when I thought there was no reason to get married . . . . Jim May 18, 2016 at 12:16 pm From the article: “Scientists have found getting hitched actually protects people from alcoholism. However, that conclusion does come with a caveat or two – for if one partner is already an alcoholic, or cheats, marriage can encourage alcohol abuse” Does this not just mean that people who aren’t alcoholics won’t become them if they get married, but if you marry an alcoholic you’re more likely to become one yourself? And that marriage as no positive effects, just negative ones? It would seem to me that they are dividing the people who get married into two categories (those who are alcoholics already, and those who aren’t) and comparing them with all single people, without dividing single people into two alcoholic/non-alcoholic categories. Thus the percentage of non-alcoholic married couples who become alcoholics is bound to be less than the % of all singles who are alcoholics. And they admit marriage per se has no particular protective effect, because if you are an alcoholic and you get hitched then you AND your partner are at increased risk of alcoholism. Seems like garbage to me. So Much For Subtlety May 18, 2016 at 1:04 pm As someone else has suggested, which is the chicken and which is the egg? If you take up drinking is your wife more likely to divorce you? Don’t really need to answer that question. But I would assume having someone depend on you does encourage you to come home, work hard and drink less. The question is should it? Presumably if single men drink more, it is because they find more pleasure in drinking than in not drinking. Married men cannot because their wives do not let them. But should they maximise their pleasure by buying a fast car, drinking more, taking drugs etc etc? john77 May 18, 2016 at 2:20 pm If you are a single alcoholic you are less likely to get married as not many people want to marry an alcoholic. How does the study take this into account? dearieme May 18, 2016 at 2:40 pm “Scientists have found”: oh balls. People purporting to be scientists have done a silly observational study and blah, blah, blah. As Jim says, it’s garbage. P.S. I rather approve of marriage. Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells May 18, 2016 at 3:41 pm Alternative headline: husbands get nagged about drinking by their wives more than single men do. Bloke in Costa Rica May 18, 2016 at 4:49 pm dearieme has it. I’m increasingly coming to the conclusion that if it doesn’t involve some really difficult chemistry or pretty hard-core mathematics (and not statistics, which any group of gender studies mongs can be made to understand if you beat them mercilessly enough) then it ain’t science. The Meissen Bison May 18, 2016 at 5:55 pm BiCR: If you beat mongs mercilessly, is that a standard deviation? Surreptitious Evil May 18, 2016 at 6:48 pm Only if you enjoy it. So Much For Subtlety May 18, 2016 at 9:56 pm Bloke in Costa Rica – 2I’m increasingly coming to the conclusion that if it doesn’t involve some really difficult chemistry or pretty hard-core mathematics (and not statistics, which any group of gender studies mongs can be made to understand if you beat them mercilessly enough) then it ain’t science.” I flatly refuse to believe any group of gender studies students can understand statistics no matter how much you beat them. However it looks like you are supporting Lord Rutherford who once said that science was either mathematics or stamp collecting. I expect he included chemistry in the stamp collecting. Surreptitious Evil – “Only if you enjoy it.” Well the French have a view on Le Vice Anglais. From which we can conclude this must be an Imperial Standard deviation and not a metric measure. Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.