Ehhhhhh alcohol is nowhere near as dangerous as cigarettes. The point of labelling cigarettes is that they’re so exceptional dangerous.
Cigarette danger isn’t the benchmark for labelling cancer risk. The health risks from cigarettes have justified a lot more government intervention than just a label.
Sorry you can’t handle facts you don’t like I guess?
I just assume anyone with that take is an alcoholic. I’ve never seen anyone go to rehab for cigarettes or in the hospital for over dosing on nicotine. They both have terrible long term effects mostly related to heart health. However alcohol has more immediate negative consequences.
I give up. Who?
the doctor.
World health organisation
RIP bash.org.
Wow! Finally! 🎉🎉 It’s astonishing that it took so many decades. We knew, we always knew that alcohol causes cancer. Now we also know that the risk is significant from any amount. And of course, it’s not just cancer.
Those labels, they really work. Like, the society to big extend quit smoking thanks to those labels.
Policies curbing smoking weren’t popular at the time, people criticized them for being too much of an inconvenience and ineffective at the same time. But they really worked and our society became better and healthier because of them. Funny, how watching the debate about alcohol now, reading people’s comment here, you can actually relive this experience now just years later. When people say “they should focus on X instead”, and things like that, that’s a form of denialism
Those labels, they really work.
So would images of dog extrement.
Turns out, slapping /b/-grade traumatic imagery onto consumer goods has an impact on the human brain. Whoda thunkit?
People: drink alcohol to help them survive being exploited under capitalism
WHO: “your vice is bad and you should feel bad! Now get back to work!”
Also, I don’t know if anyone’s researched this, but I’m 99% sure the stress of being a wage slave and living paycheck to paycheck your entire life is far more carcinogenic than alcohol. Maybe that should come with a label too.
The facts are alcohol doesn’t help anyone to survive shit. We know that it’s the opposite, it makes life of people that consume it more miserable.
It instead accumulates together with the stress you experience within your life. It adds more stress, not removes it. Cancer is just one thing, but alcohol is very disrupting to your endocrine (hormones) system, mental health.
What you’re doing is a form of denialism. That denialism comes precisely from what those labels are addressing. You’re being constantly exposed to the image of alcohol as something to enjoy, a pleasure, relief. It’s constantly reinforced by movies, TV shows, media, advertisements.
It’s not about knowledge. It’s about exposure. If you’re constantly exposed to an image of alcohol as a positive thing in your life then you will deny it’s impact despite the facts, science, and knowledge
The facts are alcohol doesn’t help anyone to survive shit
Hard disagree… I did it just last night.
Not everyone who drinks is an alcoholic.
Not all problems from alcohol come from alcoholism.
There was a thought process that alcohol could apply some health benefits below a certain consumption level.
It has been now accepted that there is no “safe” amount of alcohol.
That’s not the same thing as saying it doesn’t help you survive shit.
deleted by creator
There were a bunch of lies published by alcohol industry-backed groups about how a glass of red wine is good for your heart and shit. It probably would be helpful to bust those shitty myths.
Maybe work on making life less shitty so people don’t drink more?
Anthopology has provided clear evidence, in all times, in all tribes and continents, the percentage of people that will abuse substances that affect the mind has been steady, and there is nothing anyone can do about it, they will find the substance in the wilderness if it is not in the market.
Alternatively both politically and economically certain entities will use this weakness to control and manipulate people, either by promoting one, or by criminalizing another. Miami became big and important during prohibition because politicians would travel down there to drink and … whatever else they needed. Bootlegging lasted twice or more after prohibition was reverted, mostly because industrial production wasn’t there to cover the need/market.
Opium smoking was common in Europe among the elites all the way to early 20th century. The poor just smoked cheaper stuff.
The WHO are hypocrites than need to hang high and dry
So we should be researching safer psychoactive drugs that don’t affect the body as much /s
We should all just take some acid…
You don’t need an ad, or a warning of the risks, you know it is there for the past 50+ years and the right guy that sells it. Just like prozac or ritalin, if you can afford the prescription
Has this comment any relevance to mine, or is that the joke because mine didn’t? 🫨
nothing anyone can do about it
Hmm, thought folks had rougher times getting sober when e.g. living in a tent on the street surrounded by addicts vs. when safely and happily housed
The vast majority of homeless in the US historically has been women with children (not and but with) who were not substance abusers. The image of being homeless because of substance abuse was right-wing/neo-liberal propaganda to shift blame to the victims. And just like their spiritual father Goebels said, throw mud and some of it will stick (for generations I might add). The way the image was reinforced was because sub.abusers were more visible, declining shelters when available, or safer out of site places. So people actually saw what they were told. When you see a woman with a cart full of stuff and a kid or two following her on the street you don’t identify her as homeless, the sub.abuser laying down in a carton box you do.
Pretty sure the WHO is working on that.
Got nuts, but if you’re worried about people drinking to much work on making it easier to get by as working class. The shorter lifespan is just less getting crushed by the weight of my living expenses.
Surely shaming people and making them feel bad for their choices will work this time, not just cause more animosity in the world. People with drinking problems usually do so to escape something, to bad we can fix those underlying issues.
We are daily bombarded with news on what the ruling elites have decided to enforce and that it affects our living, yet instead of concentrating on the mechanism we split hair between us on whether we are for or against their decisions. Nobody is left being concerned on what it would be like for us to announce our decisions that would affect their lives.
There is no talk here whether we should act to prevent this or not, just whether we approve or disapprove their actions. The motive? Our disapproval has little if any effect on them, they will keep deciding, they will enforce, and we will comply, because we know no other way.
I say we change the agenda, stop making their news headlines our center for discussion, let’s keep focusing on our headlines, till they start addressing our agenda.
Is there a way to trace big-pharma money to WHO decision makers? Have there been any reports on discovering such “flow”?
Isn’t it obvious that all “medical advise” on addictive legal substances is pressure on a huge market to shift to psychotropic medication for which profitability is 100s of times more controllable?
The more they squeeze the population (nearly 30%) away from cigs, alcohol, and street drugs, the more they gain in anti-depressants. And there seems no effort what so ever to squeeze the street drug addict population away from anything, seriously!
The WHO just wants a piece of the pie, and the more they act like this the more likely you will see the US becoming best friends with WHO elite again. So the blackmail worked!
If you learn more about the effects of alcohol, it is arguably as bad as, if not worse than, cigarettes or marijuana. Ethanol is literally poison that damages liver, and it impedes with the electrical signals between brain cells. The Temperance movement had a point to ban alcohol.
The only reason we are not going to ban alcohol again, is because banning it had proven to have more dire consequences. Gangsters took monopoly of the black market. And tainting black market alcohol to deter people from drinking alcohol is dangerous, just as bootleggers also made their own alcohol but the process is unregulated.
Gangsters took monopoly of the black market
There seems to be some percent of the population in every geography of the planet living, working, survivng as part of this army, contra-band. They are the most vicious supporters of capitalism because they can’t survive outside of capitalism. They are as right wing as it gets, and due to their activity they are constantly in contact and exchange relationships with state armed forces.
Capitalism can not survive without this reactionary army, terrorizing people in worker/poor neighborhoods to not organize and compete with their power, and will act as supporters of police/army in case there was an uprising.
Capitalism can not survive without this para-military force of gangsters, thugs, traffickers, smugglers, mafia, neo-nazis, islamists, … you change geography and they have a different name, but the role is the same. In the 1960s in the US they became so actively brutal it was almost revealed that there was no clear border between state agencies and mafia … who was doing the killing, the infiltrating, the subversions, … they got sloppy! Too much evidence behind.
I have no problem with that. We should be aware of the risks involved with our vices.
Please no. Some of the bottles are so good looking. The cigarette warning are disgusting.
you want to see disgusting, go see babies being born crack addicted and if they survive day two moms fight doctors to take them out because they need their fix, and the baby is going through withdrawal … it is like watching the scariest movie.
Not the same.
That’s the whole point. That’s a good thing.
No thanks. I don’t want the back wall of my bar to look like a snuff film. I’m all for making it clear to consumers that alcohol is a major carcinogen but maybe start with alcohol advertising and education?
Ohh… you have a bar, well there is an unbiased position, a person making profit selling toxic substances to addicts
Smoke film on the walls bother him. Move the bar to a dead end alley so exhaust fumes don’t affect your cleaning
I think a good compromise would be a simple overwrap or removable label that can be removed after purchase.
You mean buy black label but you will not know the color till you unwrap the bottle
Jack daniels in a white with black print milk container
Oof that’s a terrible idea
That’s a great idea. Give me a nasty label I can remove. Makes its point but I can still have my pretty bar. I agree it should be made clear but those who can luckily control themselves don’t deserve to be punished.
It won’t help beers but I wouldn’t mind the wide scale reintroduction of decanters to the modern age. I have accumulated a few since I’ve been of drinking age and they all feel fancier than pouring from the bottle.
I think it depends. At least in my area decanters went from classy to tacky for some reason in popular culture. Can you share photos of yours? I’ve never used them. I think it might make sense to use them if you keep one good bourbon, gin, vodka, etc. But if you’re like me and mostly drink bourbon/whisk(ey) then that would just be difficult.
I agree that those are way over the top but attractive packaging for selling drugs is just not ok. And i say this as an enjoyer. Responsible use is common and normal human behavior.
Completely neutral package with a clear label of for informed, responsible, adult use is just sensible.
But i want to stretch that the image it is sold as does not mean that should be the final look. There is a lot of potential creativity left to make something safe to put on a shelf or site but is in hand still classy for the user to enjoy. After all, the good vibes of aesthetics on the table are not nearly as bad as those from the drug itself, while taking that away actually puts more emphasis in that purely chemical high.
If we go to far we with with neutralizing we could end deciding that flavors make drugs appealing (flavored cigarettes are actually band in places) but for liquor that can backfire to reducing everything to wodka.
That’s the whole point.
Yes please. Sick of the double standard. Can’t buy flavoured nicotine anymore but can stop buy sickeningly flavoured liquor.
It’s called flavored moonshine, and it’s art
It’s poison, quite literally. State sponsored leathal posion. But it makes money and it’s legal, so it’s very cool.
Making it illegal won’t solve any problems.
I didn’t say they should make it illegal. But stip being hypocrits about it. They still need studies to legalize marijuana, because there isn’t enough data for it to be save and jada jada. Okay, but we have more than enough data that shows just how bad and dangerous both alcohol and cigarettes are.
It makes money to a few while offloading the much higher cost to society.
Labels need to be on all food, too, in the US of A. All of our food is cancerous.
California tried that with their prop 65 warnings on everything and it just made people ignore all the label warnings instead.
So no, we should only target the worst offenders.
Please correct this, not all of your food, all of the food sold by industrial outfits, even as bio-organic industrial products. If there is one place in the planet you can live without this it is the US, plenty of land, few people, plenty of resources to afford healthy nutrition. Compare it with hell holes like the Netherlands that have higher population density than Queens NY and there is not a square inch left to grow anything to eat, let alone in an artificial dried up swamp toxins have no means of draining off.
If you mean more traumatic images in people’s faces, fuck off.
Do people want me to post 4chan gore here? Maybe some goatse and blue waffle and tubgirl? No? Then maybe you understand.
Forcing people to see that shit if they even stand near a legal-but-icky product is not worth these excuses. Tax it more to reduce consumption. Don’t deliberately traumatize people, for any reason.
Why are you against this? I thought it was shown the advertising is reasonably affective?
If tobacco and alcohol are so toxic and dangerous why are they legal? If banning and restricting substances was so effective why is there such a large percentage of youth hooked and nearly incapable of anything than petty crimes?
I’ll tell you why, because the system to balance itself and justify all the fascism and violence it holds a monopoly on it needs to criminalize a portion of the population to justify general repression. This is how you can maintain the absolute extreme in inequality, violence and legitimizing violence for the benefit of the majority.
I grew up in a society nobody tried to prevent kids from drinking, and I had not seen a kid drunk. Then in the US I was shocked that the first party I attended half the people were tripping falling down and passing out, and that was called fun!
There is a deeper reason of repression, and it is not to protect the public’s health. If they gave a shit about health they would have made health care free and accessible to all as a public service it should have been, together with education, shelter, and nutrition.
Because it’s traumatic imagery being shoved in people’s faces. I don’t give a shit whether it works.
I already don’t smoke and never will - but I have to be exposed to that shit, just looking at the wrong part of a shelf. You could probably put pictures of exploded rat carcasses and starving children on there, apropos of nothing, and yeah no kidding it’ll impact sales!
No practical goal justifies putting this Rotten.com gore and shock content on commodity consumer goods. You wanna reduce sales? Tax it more. Don’t commit psychological warfare against anyone who glances upward at a gas station.
The reason you are calling it shit is because you were brainwashed that it is. Up until the 80s you could hardly walk into an office public or private and there weren’t public ashtrays around. Have cancer, lung, and heart disease decreased? They have INCREASED!!
Have work accidents lethal and disabling injuries decreased? No, they have increased because of unions being faught against like enemies of the state (which they are to any capitalist state).
I don’t care if you’re being stupid deliberately.
Shut the fuck up.
Listen Fascist! We are not playing in your back yard, so when in public leave your swastikas home.
I mean, could have them out of sight, and have the images on them, like they do in Australia.
Ban all advertising for alcohol, too, please
You can’t advertise alcohol on the TV in my country. Only exception is beer.
There hasn’t been an ad for alcohol on US TV for decades and this had no effect, other than saving alcohol industries for wasting money competing with each other in that area.
“I love football on tv, shots of Gina Lee, hangin’ with my friends, and twins.” …something-something “and I love you too. It’s the love song!”
-Alcohol ads used to have the best jingles.
Because you see ads today that means they were always there? Isn’t there any basic train of thought anymore, is everyone now living in still pictures? Why are so many people here denying the article I provided earlier where it was saying that NBC after “50” years it begun having liquor ads again.
Australian sports fields are covered in alcohol logos So the entire time you are watching football with your children, they are exposed
What is the legal drinking age in Aus? When the Kuwait war started there were kids sent to fight in an unheard land before, and they did and some came back and still couldn’t drink legally in the US. You can drive at 16, on a mandatory draft you could be drafted as young as 16, but you have to be 21 to drink and 18 to buy cigarettes. You can sell crack and crystal-meth on the streets, illegal weapons, flesh, easy when you are 15, but you have to pay a homeless drunk to buy you wine or a pack of Camels.
That is your free market hypocrisy at work.
How else can I explain it, there are millions of children dying because of food and water shortages, but WHO thinks alcohol labels will benefit peoples’ health …
Somebody get us some rope …I agree that there are much bigger problems, but those bigger problems have solutions that are not allowed under capitalism and USA imperialism, so labels is all we’re allowed to fix 🤷
The legal drinking age in Australia is 18 years old, and it has always struck me as odd that it’s so high in the USA
Kids in the US not only abuse alcohol more than any other place in the channel they are used as traffickers for illegal substances due to their less severe criminal treatment. Of course this weight is carried by the lower economic class. In anonymous interviews there was consensus though, it was easier for them to get drugs and guns than alcohol and cigarettes. That’s because they had to pay an adult to get it for them, because they are selling everything else.
All this is a structural part of stability of capitalism as you very well state. Unfortunately the formula of that stability is imposed on all other “dependent” states, and in some cases in extremes (Brazil, Phillipines, …).
No, you see they think that they are going to solve those other problems but only after they solve the problems of substance use, first.
I don’t usually watch live television, but I definitely saw a few beer ads during the Super Bowl.
US beer can hardly qualify as control substance, it is what alcoholics drink to reduce the alcohol on their blood. The rest of alcohol has been banned for decades. Imagine that when Amstel first seriously started selling in the US standard Amstel couldn’t classify as beer but only liquor, amstel light did meet the criteria. Now this is tv and radio, other media did have ads.
Tobacco bans mostly hurt motorsports but soon they found alternatives to cover the market.
Holy. I’ve never seen such a perfect example of moving goalposts before.
I’m impressed.If you don’t understand something in specific ask me to explain it. Summary: The WHO are a bunch of hypocrites serving big-pharma interests and feeding propaganda We have more important things to discuss than what WHO does or doesn’t when we will never be asked by WHO on our opinion or whether we choose to support those nobodies. For decades US-TV wasn’t showing alcohol ads, no effect. Since I watch no tv or US sports, I wouldn’t know they begun showing them again. During the decades I watched tv (star-trek NG, taxi, cheers, mork&mindy,SNL) there were never alcohol commercials.
Cigarette labeled packs with horror pics and messages in EU had no effect, but socially pressuring people to quit smoking had a dramatic increase in anti-depressant medication. CIgarettes in the EU all look alike now, less than 10% of the box is left for brand/color/label etc. Nobody pays attention to what the box says.
Italian hospitals first, then French, came out saying they had deaths with symptoms and went back to stored blood samples and were positive for SARS-cov2 … 2months before the first case in China. The Who was still saying that the evidence on where in China the virus originated were inconclusive. They are still publishing reports on covid based on data that only a handful of countries are still providing. They are the joke of the health sector. Big-Pharma must have cut their bribes down and they are seeking bribes from Alcohol companies.You need something better to do with your time than type out a bunch of nonsense no one is going to read.
Everyone has told you multiple times you are flat out wrong about tv ads. Suck it up and move on.
Am I making this up?
What media can safely say 71% of the audience is over 21? A scary movie? Something with explicit sex, what, because that is what teens will run and watch.
Federal and local courts went head to head about alcohol advertising in the 90s and targeting teens (or under aged drinkers 21 in the US since early 1980s). Remember Coors nearly going bankrupt, or Camel being attacked because of their camel cartoon character ads? Superficial hypocritical measures that only lawyers and insurance companies can appreciate.
The division between beer and malt-liquor/liquor in the US is very specific to US regulation that separates beer from liquor. From state to state to sell liquor beer and wine may be separate licenses.
Did any of this have an impact in reducing under 21 addiction, mortality, DUI rates? NO!!
Factcheck: Everyone hasn’t told @iriyan@lemmy.ml that they’re flat out wrong about TV ads. I haven’t had my turn yet.
@iriyan@lemmy.ml, you are flat out wrong about TV ads for alcoholic beverages in the USA. I’m cheerfully hoisting an adult beverage soon as I’ve posted this, “as seen on TV.”
I seem to remember Captain Morgan commercials, Jameson, various Vodka commercials, is it a specific state that you are in maybe?
Per your original comment:
There hasn’t been an ad for alcohol on US TV for decades
Beer is alcohol. Beer is still advertised on US TV. Everything you’ve said just comes across as a bad faith attempt to redirect the argument.
What I am saying is that all the ad restrictions hadn’t had an effect to really decrease alcohol consumption.
Redirect what argument, that WHO decided to waste more billions of financing to pretend they are doing something beyond stating the obvious? Why don’t we go back a few years and see what WHO did to assist and hash propaganda about covid originating in China and other myths without ever going back and dismissing the myths when clear evidence came out that it was all political propaganda fabrications.
The WHO is just like the UN, it sells the middle class of the western world some assurance that funding is going to organizations looking up for humanities best interests.
And who are we to discuss whether this dumb unscientific proposal has any value? Nobody asked us, it is just tax money being funneled somewhere for industry to draw legitimacy for their causes when it needs it.
Drinking is not bad alone, abusing alcohol is, being an alcoholic is bad. What would tags do to alocoholics? You can put a live screen showing them their own liver turning to plaster and they will still empty the bottle.
Meanwhile there are hundreds of thousands of people dying from simple curable diseases, kids dying, some dying simply from thirst for clean water or basic nutrient deficiencies. WHO is proposing to put warning on 50yo Cognac bottles.
I can never tell anymore if people actually believe it or just post it.
What? They can’t drink in ads they absolutely still advertise alcohol on television. Its also on a ton of billboards.
Are we speaking of the US, can you show us a clip from US tv advertising whiskey gin even wine? What I am saying is that it had 0 effect on alcoholism
You know we’ve been talking about the US the entire time. You earlier in this same thread:
There hasn’t been an ad for alcohol on US TV for decades
Idk what future you’re from, but these have all been within very recent decades:
https://m.youtube.com/results?sp=mAEA&search_query=alcohol+advertisements+on+tv+2024Kid, NBC had banned alcohol ads from their network for 50y that is half the 20th century I had no idea I am speaking to minors here
There are literal tv ads for alcohol in that link. You’re as dumb as you think you are smart.
Those who live in a historical vacuum and think the world is summerized in a still picture … For decades there were no tv ads in America’s public tv … are we living in parallel universe … The first hit I get on search engines is NBC admitting to voluntarily end a 50y long policy of not airing liquor ads.
You! This woman! Sex! You in a tuxedo fucking this woman!
Drunk as fuck!
The thing is. Alcohol can be used in for example cooking. Cigarettes have no good purpose, nothing you can really do with them that has utility outside of direct consumption that exposes you to the full health risks.
And at that point I fear you’re also diminishing the unique harm and danger of cigarettes which produce second hand smoke which exposes others, including kids to health dangers without their consent.
How about we slay the first demon here before starting to equate another lesser one with it? Most people do not have a risk of getting addicted to alcohol, nearly everyone has a risk with a few tries of getting addicted to nicotine and it’s spreading like a plague among children with candy and sweets flavored cartridges for the poison that is e-cigs. This undoing a generation of progress.
It really does risk making more people dismissing the unique dangers and threat of nicotine and smoke products by equating the two and risks creating a DARE moment where the whole thing is just mocked by rising anti-science, anti-expert sentiment spurred on by capitalists eager to undo regulations. I mean things like this are catnip to people like RFK who want to torpedo evidence based science in favor of vibes and snake oil because it presents an in with your average person to criticize the health establishment over at least misplaced priorities.
Drinking on its own is a danger to the drinker. Only when done to excess does it endanger others. Smoking at all produces second-hand smoke and can encourage others to join an addictive behavior that is very, very hard to quit and will be a monkey on their back for years, decades after they stop whereas MOST humans can stop drinking alcohol with less ill effects than stopping daily consumption of caffeine.
Any amount of alcohol is a carcinogen and unhealthy, but at the same time we have to ask what level of risk is okay. Any amount of charred food cooked on charcoal is also a health risk for instance and can lead to exposure to carcinogens. The unique problems of cigarettes and nicotine were always impacts to others who didn’t make that choice including children trapped with smoker parents as well as the addictive properties which left most users trapped or facing a hard fight to stop as well as bad behaviors by industry to hook people while they were young and down. Yes the alcohol industry also tries to get teens and young people to drink but nearly all of them can just stop after they leave college and go on to have a healthy life with zero or limited interactions with alcohol, you cannot say the same for someone who starts using nicotine and uses it heavily for even 6 months.
It’s a label change… you can still use it in your cooking.
