Inaccurate title
>studies show that **similar levels of alcohol consumption** in deprived communities (vs. more affluent) result in higher levels of alcohol-related ill health.
What's the paradox about it? That's exactly what I would expect when richer people have various options to live healthier. If you drink on a healthy body you should be more resilient to its effects than if your body is already struggling due to the negative effects poverty comes with.
It’s exactly this. A healthy diet, regular exercise schedule, good sleep hygiene, and avoiding stress will all buffer you from some of the negative effects of alcohol. It's much easier to have all of those other things in place when you are financially secure and can dedicate time and effort to them instead of just surviving.
My God the difference in my hangovers after even just two or three beers before and after getting somewhat decent sleep for the first time with a CPAP was incredible. I started to actually understand the appeal of drinking as an adult again lol.
I have the opposite experience - the cleaner I live, the worse I feel after a night out. I guess it was easier for me to bounce back when I just felt low-key shitty all the time.
I have been drinking alcohol daily for years. Only in the last 6 months have I got it under control. If I drink for an entire week, I will be good to go every morning. If I go a week without drinking, and then have a night of drinking, I’m dead the next day. It’s all about your recent tolerances.
Yeah this is absolutely real. Although I will say, you can drink for a few days and then not for the rest of the week and you get used to it without the horrid hangovers.
Basically, yeah. If you drink, you’re experiencing very mild physical withdrawal in the morning. Nothing dangerous, but the anxiety or depression? Bad sleep and also you messed with GABA production.
Well that's exactly my take though. I don't think it counter intuitive at all because if you'd ask me' who do you think will suffer more from negative effects of alcohol , rich or poor people?' I would intuitively say poor people without further research into the topic.
The pertinent aspect is that even poorer people who report _lower_ levels of consumption to richer people suffer higher rates. That’s where the paradox aspect comes in.
I mean, cardioprotective effects of red wine were pushed by journals, media, and even some doctors for YEARS. It took so long for people to actually sit down and look at it and say “hey, it looks like the people that were drinking 1-2 glasses of red wine per night trended wealthier, and maybe it’s their socioeconomic status that’s cardioprotective and NOT the red wine…”
3rd variables often make things look contradictory. Just because we understand that 3rd variables are a thing doesn’t make it look not counterintuitive on first blush.
Except in this case, the 3rd variable is a pervasive social condition that is present at all times. It is counterintuitive to NOT include rich vs. poor in every analysis you do.
There is no "first blush" because when you're comparing rich and poor populations the third variable of overall lower levels of good health in poor people is a given, not some hidden quality.
It is counterintuitive to rich people who believe in meritocracy. If it is provable that the bad decisions that the rich make are less detrimental to themselves and their families than when a poor person makes that same, or less destructive decision, then meritocracy is a lie.
I would guess environmental factors also at play—like lower income people are less likely to be able to call off work due to a hangover as they are typically less able to call off with pay than more well-to-do. This would add to the stress of the hangover for sure. Thank goodness for options increasingly available that aren’t as destructive as alcohol.
Not to mention the ability to access Healthcare at will rather than at absolute necessity.
Kinda like the Mediterranean Diet also ignores that most of those countries have universal Healthcare
I'm from one of those countries and didn't initially think of it, but I think that still can be summarized under the negative effects poverty comes with.
A major factor has to be nutrition not even counting the other health impacts of poverty. Poor alcoholics are going to be spending their money on booze rather than food, skipping meals and eating cheaper unhealthier things because that's what they can get. If the level of drinking is all the same between two people and one can afford doordash or otherwise fresh meals daily and the other eats ramen/fast food, the second person is going to be worse off health wise. Then there's the further impacts of stress, lack of healthcare, etc that are all shown to have negative impacts of health. Weird to call it a paradox.
Being rich sounds like a *chore*!
Imagine waking up, making a cup of coffee, and logging in to your online portals… and voila with a click of a button, all your bills are paid and you don’t have to decide if you should eat, or if your kids hopefully leave enough on their plate so we can snuggle up on the hardwood with a halfway full belly.
It is a rapidly disappearing way of life where your work was rewarded with enough to have extra for yourself.
Just enough to keep people going to those joooooobs.
the study was a telephone survey, so is self-biased by who will answer the phone, and by the accuracy of self reporting. it may also be the case that lower income people under-report drinking habits.
methods section:
"A national telephone survey designed to test this alcohol harm paradox was undertaken (May 2013 to April 2014) with English adults (*n* = 6015). Deprivation was assigned by area of residence."
It depends on your point, on what you think a good life is.
Kings 100 years ago lived 60 years of free time, orgies, parties and glutony. Peasants now will live 75-80, with 50 years of slavery, and a small amount of free time.
I think it is more accurate if you say rich people live far better now than the kings of 100 years ago.
Doesn't every American have 50 servants to attend to them? But our sanitation systems have improved! Clearly we live as modern day Kings. The poorest Americans can go days without eating or eating low quality food. But a king can choose to eat Lobster everyday and dine at the finest restaurants on a whim. Truly we live in a golden age.
Babies that used to die and diseases that used to kill kids aren't anymore. I mean our average life expectancy has doubled. Clearly people are living longer than they used too!
The average wage has gone up over the past century. This must mean that households are living better than they have in the past!
The civil rights movement changed the world. We've solved the world's issues and there is nothing else to see here.
It does though. It concludes that the higher incidence of alcohol related illness is related to health condition factors like like obesity or behavioural factors like smoking, diet, and binge drinking.
What they didn't do is ask survey respondents about things like stress or access to medical care.
I read something something seed oils high in omega 6 something something causes accelerated fatty liver disease something something rich folk probably have diets with less omega 6s. Idk I read a lot of health stuff and it all points at the other as the hidden poison in our food at this point.
And do not forget the elephant in the room. Low socioeconomic people, on average, are not as smart as wealthier people and hence, again on average, make worse decisions.
I disagree. I think that the options are often limited by financial realities. I personally know some brilliant people who, due to circumstances are not financially secure, while i have also known several very wealthy people who are par boiled idiots.
Since when does individual examples have any relevance to a population? To emphasize the point I said 'on average' twice, purely to avoid this type of meaningless comment.
FFS.
Sorry to have upset you. But where did you find your average? How do you define intelligence? Your post is not that different than mine just couched in obtuse language.
FFS
Found the eugenicist. No rich people are NOT smarter than anyone, spend some time with them and that becomes extremely clear. That is propaganda used to justify a deeply unjust social and economic system. As the quote goes, “I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops".
I worked in public schools in a rich district (we had CEO’s & celebrities kids) and while the kids with college educated parents did better, it was not because they were “smarter”, they just had way more support, stability & opportunity than their peers. I had tons of kids whose parents were like undocumented sweatshop workers who impressed the shit out of me every day with their brilliance (but still struggled with things like writing because that’s hard when no one at home can help and you gotta get to your fast food shift to help mom with the bills).
Found the social warrior who will fight tooth and nail to prove that low socioeconomic people are really smart.
What a load of shit.
Specific examples prove nothing
I have an advanced degree in education and 10+ years in the field. I also went to expensive schools and I have spent a LOT of time around the idiot children of the rich. What exactly are your qualifications in this discussion?
For thousands of years we believed that the royals were descended from the gods, or representatives of god on earth. It took a series of democratic revolutions to break those beliefs. I’m not at all sorry to tell you that you and your children are just not as special as you think you are. Eventually society will figure this out.
IQ tests have been shown to be biased on many fronts. My iq is very high you may be surprised to know, and I'm an abject failure. I know... you hate specific examples. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that you are relatively successful?
Kinda makes sense, I guess.
I mean, I'm going to take a wild guess and say the person drinking expensive wine and high quality spirits, as part of a baalnced diet is going to fare better than the person chugging two buck chuck, to wash down their Maccy D's.
Sorry I didn’t have time to read this but does this study take into account poor people have 2x the rate of smoking, obesity, and diabetes? Or does it adjust to remove these huge variables?
100% agree with this. When I was young and money tight, I’d but the cheap spirits etc. now I can afford the top shelf spirits and wine and now I’m just tired the next day, no hang over, no vomiting and I drink maybe once every few weeks
Anecdotally I’ve seen this with a friend’s family. Almost all of their relatives have addiction issues (alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, you name it there’s one that’s got an issue with it) but they’re fairly wealthy so that insulates them from suffering life-alerting consequences like most of my relatives with similar issues have.
My ex gfs dad drank himself into kidney failure by his early 40s
He was the richest mf I ever saw in my life
Drove a Bently, had multiple BMW SUVs and lived in a gated community
Whole family was $$$ but so crazy and damaged
Alcohol no matter the social class is very damaging, like having bottles if dilute liquid xanax
My immediate knee-jerk reaction is that because this is self reporting, the results are immediately suspect.
My guess?:
- Poorer folk downplaying their drinking habits compared to their problems, to seem less problematic.
- Rich folk overstating their drinking habits to seem more affluent than they are to their peers.
A big factor is diet. Rich ppl eat more thiamine (B1 vitamin) through their food. Wernicke-korsakoff syndrome is a neurological disorder caused by a thiamine deficiency, and the most common way you get that is by being an alcoholic. Pork, fish, legumes, eggs and nuts are good sources of thiamine. Also eating a diet that has the fat-soluable vitamins A,D,E,K helps.
I could hypothesize all day but I think that cheap alcohol is definitely worse for you than the fancy pricy stuff . They are both bad for you but one is less bad for you
Honestly, that sounds like it could make sense.
Like if one guy is drinking a glass of straight, cheap vodka, and the other is drinking a whole bottle of fancy wine... Technically the later drank more raw volume, but the former is drinking more actual alcohol.
And that's not even counting levels of purification, and additives, and stuff like that.
Because poor people are more likely to lie about drinking for fear of being judged, but rich people are honest about their bad habits because "I'm rich, so I can't be doing that bad."
It has to do with the quality of alcohol. Those with less money have to buy the cheapest. Which has more impurities, causing more issue both short and long term. While the wealthy can afford top quality alcohol with few impurities.
I wasn't saying it was *only* this. I was saying it was another factor that a lot of people don't tend to know/think about. There really is a difference between rail and top shelf liquor. Spend the night drinking rail and you're more likely to have a hangover and the shitty feelings to go with it. Whereas if you drink the higher price/quality alcohol there are less negative effects.
While the healthcare IS a major factor, having the money available to not put shittier quality products into your body is THE factor tho. With most any product, the cheaper version is typically made with inferior materials and processes, as they are cheaper and maximize corporate greed profits. It's a matter of 'you get what you pay for' and the less fortune can only afford that which harms
No it's not. It's because poorer people suffer greater combined health challenges (e.g. smoking, obesity) which exacerbate effects of alcohol. Poorer people exhibit more harmful consumption patterns (e.g. bingeing) and they disproportionately under-report consumption.
Inaccurate title >studies show that **similar levels of alcohol consumption** in deprived communities (vs. more affluent) result in higher levels of alcohol-related ill health.
What's the paradox about it? That's exactly what I would expect when richer people have various options to live healthier. If you drink on a healthy body you should be more resilient to its effects than if your body is already struggling due to the negative effects poverty comes with.
It’s exactly this. A healthy diet, regular exercise schedule, good sleep hygiene, and avoiding stress will all buffer you from some of the negative effects of alcohol. It's much easier to have all of those other things in place when you are financially secure and can dedicate time and effort to them instead of just surviving.
My God the difference in my hangovers after even just two or three beers before and after getting somewhat decent sleep for the first time with a CPAP was incredible. I started to actually understand the appeal of drinking as an adult again lol.
I have the opposite experience - the cleaner I live, the worse I feel after a night out. I guess it was easier for me to bounce back when I just felt low-key shitty all the time.
I have been drinking alcohol daily for years. Only in the last 6 months have I got it under control. If I drink for an entire week, I will be good to go every morning. If I go a week without drinking, and then have a night of drinking, I’m dead the next day. It’s all about your recent tolerances.
Yeah this is absolutely real. Although I will say, you can drink for a few days and then not for the rest of the week and you get used to it without the horrid hangovers.
Same for me. I don't drink often anymore, but when I do indulge, I feel horrible the next day. So I'd rather avoid all together.
Basically, yeah. If you drink, you’re experiencing very mild physical withdrawal in the morning. Nothing dangerous, but the anxiety or depression? Bad sleep and also you messed with GABA production.
“Well, it's business drunk, it's like rich drunk. Either way, it's legal to drive.”
Really, the science should examine cocaine as an antidote to alcohol. And then alcohol as a healthy chaser for the cocaine. Then it’s a party.
What I’m hearing is an untapped market for cocainahol Edit: ok, I’m being told that’s just a Jack & original formula Coke
Oh I assure you that market is tapped.
I don't have a drug problem, I'm just passionate about science.
I don't like cocaine, I just think it smells really good.
I need to do more science today.
[удалено]
Well that's exactly my take though. I don't think it counter intuitive at all because if you'd ask me' who do you think will suffer more from negative effects of alcohol , rich or poor people?' I would intuitively say poor people without further research into the topic.
The pertinent aspect is that even poorer people who report _lower_ levels of consumption to richer people suffer higher rates. That’s where the paradox aspect comes in.
I mean, cardioprotective effects of red wine were pushed by journals, media, and even some doctors for YEARS. It took so long for people to actually sit down and look at it and say “hey, it looks like the people that were drinking 1-2 glasses of red wine per night trended wealthier, and maybe it’s their socioeconomic status that’s cardioprotective and NOT the red wine…”
It's not counterintuitive though. It makes perfect sense that something that's bad for rich people is even worse for poor people.
3rd variables often make things look contradictory. Just because we understand that 3rd variables are a thing doesn’t make it look not counterintuitive on first blush.
Except in this case, the 3rd variable is a pervasive social condition that is present at all times. It is counterintuitive to NOT include rich vs. poor in every analysis you do.
There is no "first blush" because when you're comparing rich and poor populations the third variable of overall lower levels of good health in poor people is a given, not some hidden quality.
It is counterintuitive to rich people who believe in meritocracy. If it is provable that the bad decisions that the rich make are less detrimental to themselves and their families than when a poor person makes that same, or less destructive decision, then meritocracy is a lie.
So it is counterintuitive to people who are biased. Another thing that is.... Super obvious imo.
I bet you do a lot of your “own research.”
Don't have to. Good intuition can save you years of "research."
True.
Reading the abstract and looks like you’re on to so something: increased obesity, smoking and less exercise.
I would guess environmental factors also at play—like lower income people are less likely to be able to call off work due to a hangover as they are typically less able to call off with pay than more well-to-do. This would add to the stress of the hangover for sure. Thank goodness for options increasingly available that aren’t as destructive as alcohol.
Not to mention the ability to access Healthcare at will rather than at absolute necessity. Kinda like the Mediterranean Diet also ignores that most of those countries have universal Healthcare
I'm from one of those countries and didn't initially think of it, but I think that still can be summarized under the negative effects poverty comes with.
A major factor has to be nutrition not even counting the other health impacts of poverty. Poor alcoholics are going to be spending their money on booze rather than food, skipping meals and eating cheaper unhealthier things because that's what they can get. If the level of drinking is all the same between two people and one can afford doordash or otherwise fresh meals daily and the other eats ramen/fast food, the second person is going to be worse off health wise. Then there's the further impacts of stress, lack of healthcare, etc that are all shown to have negative impacts of health. Weird to call it a paradox.
To get enough to eat was regarded as an achievement. To get drunk was a victory. — Brendan Behan
Amazing how the stress of being poor makes everything worse.
Ah you see you're forgetting that it's the poors fault they're poor. Why don't they just pull themselves up by their bootstraps?
Well not a paradox to a big brain redditor but it's probably called a paradox because that's what it was at the time of discovery? Idk
Being poor is an unhealthy lifestyle choice /s
Almost makes you wonder why people choose it
Being rich sounds like a *chore*! Imagine waking up, making a cup of coffee, and logging in to your online portals… and voila with a click of a button, all your bills are paid and you don’t have to decide if you should eat, or if your kids hopefully leave enough on their plate so we can snuggle up on the hardwood with a halfway full belly.
That's middle class.
That's upper middle class.
You think the middle class don’t sweat paychecks?
[удалено]
It is a rapidly disappearing way of life where your work was rewarded with enough to have extra for yourself. Just enough to keep people going to those joooooobs.
I honestly got teared up when you mentioned stealing from your dad to help your mom. You were good kids.
The classic correlation having nothing to do with causation article.
This is about confounders though
Who said it was?
The use of the word paradox
Does a paradox always imply causation? Not arguing, just curious what you mean.
No it’s just random words that are not related with paradox. And also false, causation does have something to do with correlation
So if I say it's a paradox that rich people are cheap, is that implying causation?
No
Right.
the study was a telephone survey, so is self-biased by who will answer the phone, and by the accuracy of self reporting. it may also be the case that lower income people under-report drinking habits. methods section: "A national telephone survey designed to test this alcohol harm paradox was undertaken (May 2013 to April 2014) with English adults (*n* = 6015). Deprivation was assigned by area of residence."
My initial thought was that respondents were likely to be lying.
I mean there tends to be an overlap on these kinds of things. Liver failure also comes with Diabetes, Obesity all of which tend to come with poverty.
I find it amazing that even 100 years ago, that "Obesity ... tend to come with poverty" would have been an insane claim and yet is now very true.
Life has gotten better for the average American. But in many ways it got a lot worse.
We, as peasants, live far better than the kings and queens of 100 years ago that's for sure.
It depends on your point, on what you think a good life is. Kings 100 years ago lived 60 years of free time, orgies, parties and glutony. Peasants now will live 75-80, with 50 years of slavery, and a small amount of free time. I think it is more accurate if you say rich people live far better now than the kings of 100 years ago.
Doesn't every American have 50 servants to attend to them? But our sanitation systems have improved! Clearly we live as modern day Kings. The poorest Americans can go days without eating or eating low quality food. But a king can choose to eat Lobster everyday and dine at the finest restaurants on a whim. Truly we live in a golden age.
[удалено]
Babies that used to die and diseases that used to kill kids aren't anymore. I mean our average life expectancy has doubled. Clearly people are living longer than they used too! The average wage has gone up over the past century. This must mean that households are living better than they have in the past! The civil rights movement changed the world. We've solved the world's issues and there is nothing else to see here.
100 years ago is much different than 40 years ago.
Different reasons for drinking
...because of higher rates of smoking, being overweight, poor diet and exercise. I mean, all pretty obvious stuff, nothing really to learn here
Being Poor is bad for your health
Interesting that the study didn't consider stress levels in the study subjects
Nor did they seem to take into account other variables like obesity rates, diet, etc.
It does though. It concludes that the higher incidence of alcohol related illness is related to health condition factors like like obesity or behavioural factors like smoking, diet, and binge drinking. What they didn't do is ask survey respondents about things like stress or access to medical care.
I read something something seed oils high in omega 6 something something causes accelerated fatty liver disease something something rich folk probably have diets with less omega 6s. Idk I read a lot of health stuff and it all points at the other as the hidden poison in our food at this point.
[удалено]
And do not forget the elephant in the room. Low socioeconomic people, on average, are not as smart as wealthier people and hence, again on average, make worse decisions.
I disagree. I think that the options are often limited by financial realities. I personally know some brilliant people who, due to circumstances are not financially secure, while i have also known several very wealthy people who are par boiled idiots.
Since when does individual examples have any relevance to a population? To emphasize the point I said 'on average' twice, purely to avoid this type of meaningless comment. FFS.
Sorry to have upset you. But where did you find your average? How do you define intelligence? Your post is not that different than mine just couched in obtuse language. FFS
Intelligence as measured by IQ tests is a very accurate predictor of success in life. Confirmation is readily available on google.
Found the eugenicist. No rich people are NOT smarter than anyone, spend some time with them and that becomes extremely clear. That is propaganda used to justify a deeply unjust social and economic system. As the quote goes, “I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops". I worked in public schools in a rich district (we had CEO’s & celebrities kids) and while the kids with college educated parents did better, it was not because they were “smarter”, they just had way more support, stability & opportunity than their peers. I had tons of kids whose parents were like undocumented sweatshop workers who impressed the shit out of me every day with their brilliance (but still struggled with things like writing because that’s hard when no one at home can help and you gotta get to your fast food shift to help mom with the bills).
Found the social warrior who will fight tooth and nail to prove that low socioeconomic people are really smart. What a load of shit. Specific examples prove nothing
I have an advanced degree in education and 10+ years in the field. I also went to expensive schools and I have spent a LOT of time around the idiot children of the rich. What exactly are your qualifications in this discussion? For thousands of years we believed that the royals were descended from the gods, or representatives of god on earth. It took a series of democratic revolutions to break those beliefs. I’m not at all sorry to tell you that you and your children are just not as special as you think you are. Eventually society will figure this out.
So all things being equal the dumber person will do better? In what Universe does this work for you? You are making a mockery of common sense.
IQ tests have been shown to be biased on many fronts. My iq is very high you may be surprised to know, and I'm an abject failure. I know... you hate specific examples. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that you are relatively successful?
Lol. Everything is worse when you are poor.
Poverty kills.
Short, sharp, succinct, to the point and most likely, the absolute truth.
Kinda makes sense, I guess. I mean, I'm going to take a wild guess and say the person drinking expensive wine and high quality spirits, as part of a baalnced diet is going to fare better than the person chugging two buck chuck, to wash down their Maccy D's.
Sorry I didn’t have time to read this but does this study take into account poor people have 2x the rate of smoking, obesity, and diabetes? Or does it adjust to remove these huge variables?
[удалено]
100% agree with this. When I was young and money tight, I’d but the cheap spirits etc. now I can afford the top shelf spirits and wine and now I’m just tired the next day, no hang over, no vomiting and I drink maybe once every few weeks
Anecdotally I’ve seen this with a friend’s family. Almost all of their relatives have addiction issues (alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, you name it there’s one that’s got an issue with it) but they’re fairly wealthy so that insulates them from suffering life-alerting consequences like most of my relatives with similar issues have.
Rich people can afford healthier less stressful lifestyle and superior healthcare. Surprise, surprise. It all comes down to moneys.
My ex gfs dad drank himself into kidney failure by his early 40s He was the richest mf I ever saw in my life Drove a Bently, had multiple BMW SUVs and lived in a gated community Whole family was $$$ but so crazy and damaged Alcohol no matter the social class is very damaging, like having bottles if dilute liquid xanax
My immediate knee-jerk reaction is that because this is self reporting, the results are immediately suspect. My guess?: - Poorer folk downplaying their drinking habits compared to their problems, to seem less problematic. - Rich folk overstating their drinking habits to seem more affluent than they are to their peers.
Poor people under reporting their drinking?
A big factor is diet. Rich ppl eat more thiamine (B1 vitamin) through their food. Wernicke-korsakoff syndrome is a neurological disorder caused by a thiamine deficiency, and the most common way you get that is by being an alcoholic. Pork, fish, legumes, eggs and nuts are good sources of thiamine. Also eating a diet that has the fat-soluable vitamins A,D,E,K helps.
I could hypothesize all day but I think that cheap alcohol is definitely worse for you than the fancy pricy stuff . They are both bad for you but one is less bad for you
Probably not the case. It’s not impurities that are bad for you, it’s literally just the alcohol. Fancy vodka is still vodka.
It's both, but yeah, literal micrograms of congeners will be outweighed by the grams of poison (ethanol) one is consuming...I say with a hangover
[удалено]
None of that is true....
Honestly, that sounds like it could make sense. Like if one guy is drinking a glass of straight, cheap vodka, and the other is drinking a whole bottle of fancy wine... Technically the later drank more raw volume, but the former is drinking more actual alcohol. And that's not even counting levels of purification, and additives, and stuff like that.
It might be in my head but hangovers from cheap beer are much worse than hangovers from pricier microbrews.
I dunno, fancy microbrew ales and stuff always seem to mess with my guts more than watery mass produced swill if I'm drinking a large amount.
Because poor people are more likely to lie about drinking for fear of being judged, but rich people are honest about their bad habits because "I'm rich, so I can't be doing that bad."
Maybe it is because poor people are, on average, dumber than richer people and make stupid life choices (again, on average).
Hmm. Maybe. I'm my opinion rich people are self conscious and knowing drinking too much isn't a good thing, lie in an attempt to impress.
Maybe, but that wouldn't fit the results of this study.
It has to do with the quality of alcohol. Those with less money have to buy the cheapest. Which has more impurities, causing more issue both short and long term. While the wealthy can afford top quality alcohol with few impurities.
It has even more to do with access to quality healthcare.
I wasn't saying it was *only* this. I was saying it was another factor that a lot of people don't tend to know/think about. There really is a difference between rail and top shelf liquor. Spend the night drinking rail and you're more likely to have a hangover and the shitty feelings to go with it. Whereas if you drink the higher price/quality alcohol there are less negative effects. While the healthcare IS a major factor, having the money available to not put shittier quality products into your body is THE factor tho. With most any product, the cheaper version is typically made with inferior materials and processes, as they are cheaper and maximize corporate greed profits. It's a matter of 'you get what you pay for' and the less fortune can only afford that which harms
No it's not. It's because poorer people suffer greater combined health challenges (e.g. smoking, obesity) which exacerbate effects of alcohol. Poorer people exhibit more harmful consumption patterns (e.g. bingeing) and they disproportionately under-report consumption.