I give up. Who?
the doctor.
Maybe work on making life less shitty so people don’t drink more?
Pretty sure the WHO is working on that.
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
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.
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? 🫨
It is hard to tell because your comment can’t hardly be related to anything or understood within the discussion … so don’t complain on top
😄nice
So we should be researching safer psychoactive drugs that don’t affect the body as much /s
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
Isn’t this already common knowledge? No one is drinking alcohol because they think it’s good for you.
People: drink alcohol to help them survive being exploited under capitalism
WHO: “best I can do is tell you that you’re going to die sooner”
Also, I don’t know if anyone’s researched this, but I’m 99% sure the stress chemicals your body generates from being a wage slave and living paycheck to paycheck your entire life are 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.
Alcohol did help people survive in the past.
Beer was a very common way to create a potable water source in the past and provided calories that could be preserved over time.
Nowadays, the use of alcohol as a preservative isn’t necessary. A reevaluation of alcohol in all its forms in the modern context shows that it causes a net harm to health, even at low volumes.
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.
Ban all advertising for alcohol, too, please
You can’t advertise alcohol on the TV in my country. Only exception is beer.
You! This woman! Sex! You in a tuxedo fucking this woman!
Drunk as fuck!
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.
" Isn’t there any basic train of thought anymore…"
No, ads, television, and social media destroyed our attention spans.
Now the only tv ads that play are Lawyer ads, Insurance ads, and Pharmaceutical Ads. By comparison, Alcohol ads coming back doesn’t seem half-bad.
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
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, …).
deleted by creator
I can never tell anymore if people actually believe it or just post it.
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.
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 seem to remember Captain Morgan commercials, Jameson, various Vodka commercials, is it a specific state that you are in maybe?
Those “Are you ready to Tanqueray” commercials were not “decades” ago.
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.
Yes please. Sick of the double standard. Can’t buy flavoured nicotine anymore but can still 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.
No argument there.
yes it will, it will criminalize the poor while there will be more profitable legal alternatives for the rich …
It makes money to a few while offloading the much higher cost to society.
We should be actively warning about and discouraging the consumption of demerit goods. Alcohol, cigarettes, vapes, SSBs, ultra processed food all completely destroy the health of communities all around the world. Not just in the States, but also in both developed and developing countries. We’ve seen study after study after study that these do nothing but make us addicted to slop that shortens our lifespan and makes us unhappy.
But the organization that is offering this advice cannot even act in the 3rd largest country in the world by population because of “”“misinformation”“” from covid.
WHO basically fully prevented the Ebola outbreak in Nigeria, and it did not affect my parents. If WHO didn’t act, I probably wouldn’t be alive right now. To think that people genuinely think that leaving it is good goes against every line of thinking I have used in my entire life.
I have no problem with that. We should be aware of the risks involved with our vices.
Can we do all petroleum products too?
this product is causing mass extinction of an estimated X thousand species
Yes please. It will kill a lot more people than cigarettes or alcohol.
You don’t have a choice on the matter, so why waste bandwidth with empty proposals? Consumer tendencies and ideology is an illusion to keep movements away from threatening economic interests of the industrial/banking world. Change can never come from consumer modification.
Of course we do. See Big Tobacco.
I see big tobacco just fine, and consumers didn’t hit big tobacco, the US government did by stepping on falsified findings of the ills of 2nd hand smoke. No move was made against tobacco till the US signed trade agreements with China to allow Big Tobacco to sell in the world’s #1 smoking market. Look back at that date, then follow stock market prices of BT after the date. PM and RJR diversified, even put a foot into Big Pharma taking up their market.
Still, when you sum up all control substances including psychotropic recipied substances, the grand total hasn’t changed a bit. The quality of the market changed, the quantity didn’t. The poor kept smoking the rich just got Prozac
I see big tobacco just fine, and consumers didn’t hit big tobacco, the US government did by stepping on falsified findings of the ills of 2nd hand smoke.
What do you mean “falsified findings?”
I see big tobacco just fine, and consumers didn’t hit big tobacco, the US government did by stepping on falsified findings of the ills of 2nd hand smoke.
What do you mean “falsified findings?”
There is no evidence today of the ills of 2nd hand smoke, so how did this support back then came about the 2nd hand smoke is just as dangerous?
There is so much false rhetoric and propaganda in addictive substances it is pathetic. Just search around on medical centers treating addictions, look for nicotine, being accused for cancer, heart disease … there has never been any evidence that other than a psychological addiction that nicotine alone causes any harm. If you suffer from hypertension and have weak vessels, yes you can die from it, but you can die from coffee or just getting scared.
How the fuck could second hand smoke be safe if first hand smoke isn’t? Isn’t smoke inherently unsafe to breathe? Even wood fire smoke can cause cancer, you aren’t supposed to breathe smoke!
you go learn science and research methodology then go make up your own stuff, till then just research sci.journals on what they deduced. Most urban street air is much more toxic and dangerous than inhaling 2nd hand smoke in a bar
Nicotine, a harmless substance, liquefies in such a high temperature that it can hardly make it through the filter and into your lips in gaseous form, so people saying you are spitting nicotine by breathing smoke are full of crap and illusions (I don’t see religion being banned for that).
Carbon monoxide? Carbon particles and biproducts of burning carbo-hydrates, as long as our lives are surrounded by vehicles the exhaling of smoke from a smoker’s mouth is negligible.
But it stinks! Aaa… but you smell like industrial aromatics, perfumes, deodorants, detergents … working on a Caterpillar bulldozer stinks but I don’t hear anyone banning them
The alcohol lobby is pretty strong in the US. Good thing we dropped out of WHO. Now we can poison ourselves in peace.
The father of history I believe 4th century BC writes about some Greek mercenaries returning from an expedition in Persia, where one brother wanted his brother killed so he can become the king of Persia, and while walking North they came up on an #Armenian town where they were given food and shelter. He describes the hosts having some large ceramic containers with wine and “straws”, where each drunk from the container.
Alcohol is pretty old, and so is its abuse. There is a difference though when a community collectively make wine for their own consumption and pleasure, and an industry mass producing something with toxic chemical additives to preserve and modify taste/flavor, and have an interest in “pushing” it to a larger and larger market. Same with drugs, and just about anything else. Just examine a woman’s shampoo commercial, the movement, the background, the joy, of using it and tell me they are not resembling the experience to an LSD trip. The woman sudenly is out of her ugly apartment in smokey Chicago in the middle of winter and is running in slow motion in a field full of flowers in the sun, with colors flashing everywhere, her smiling with no reason … purple haze …
Reforming capitalism to be humane and environmentally friendly is just as much an illusion as it is toxic as a political agenda. It is not possible. You can’t just slap warning label on grenades and then hand them off to kids to go play, then ask them to ship to Iraq to kill natives for the good of their “country”. It is too risky to sell anti-inflamatory medication without prescription but it is ok to be paid 1/3 of what a marketing associate makes to go and repare lines during a hurricane … because the elec.company needs to keep its record up of providing service 99.99% of the time. Or its stock price may drop!
WHO needs to go work on ebola epidemics and contain them, but also work on hunger, thirst, bacteria in wells and creeks, shelter, children vaccination, and stop teasing alcohol and tobacco companies for bribes and pocket support.
What I’ve learned over the past five years is that you have to be very careful with this kind of mandate, or it will make people despise and doubt your whole organization. I actually think that this kind of warning label will increase the amount of cancer people get, because they’ll start smoking cigarettes again, which are much worse.
Edit: To clarify, the reason people would start smoking cigarettes is not because it’s an alternative to alcohol; it’s because they would lose faith in health and safety warnings altogether. It’s stupid, but people are stupid.
You will not get very far with calling people stupid. It takes months sometimes for me to have a glass of beer or wine, and very rarely anything stronger, I don’t need it, never liked the feeling of having too much of it.
When I lose my concentration and trying hard to figure something out half a cigarette make my mind work again … I don’t think it is the nicotine though, because vaping with high content of nicotine did nothing other than keeping me from going outside to smoke. I wouldn’t generalize though because the effects can be different for different people, even with tea. I can drink 20 cups of coffee a day, and fall asleep with half a cup next to my pillow, I can drink chamomile and some other herbal teas they say they relax and calm you down, and I’ll be up all night. Black tea has a higher hit than caffeine for me, maybe my caffeine blood content never drops low enough to notice :)
You will not get very far with calling people stupid.
On the contrary. This is why most companies try to make their UXs foolproof. It’s the general wisdom of engineers to assume that the user is stupid. It is this sense in which I mean “people are stupid,” not something directed at anyone in particular.
Once in a while both bosses and obedient puppets branded engineers pay the price of their false assumptions. I suspect the reason users, not companies, are increasingly engaged in using and contributing to linux/unix/BSDs is because “corporate engineers” treated people as being stupid.
Oh I agree. I wish software was not so dumbed down these days. Still, you have to admit they’ve gotten pretty far, as it were.
Has smoking and drinking ever been an exclusive or decision for people? I never smoked and wouldn’t have traded drinking for it, as I consider smoking completely disgusting. The effects are also very different.
The bigger issue is that drug laws regarding legality of a substance are completely detached from scientific reality, leaving people with no alternatives but some of the more dangerous substances for recreative use.
Smoking became disgusting when the campain against smoking became effective. In previous decades when people smoked more nobody ever called smoking disgusting. We haven’t evolved that much since the 70s/80s. So what many people perceive as a disgusting habbit today is the effect of conditioning and propaganda. Smokers also had long lasting relations with non-smokers, now it is unthinkable a smoker and a non-smoker to even go out for a coffee together.
I am also surprised this discussion has gone so far so long and nobody has mentioned sugar and its bi-products (soft drinks, candy, sweets, …) Is there such an addiction recognized and known as dangerous? Type-B diabetes has become common even for kids, especially in the west. The sweetest thing you will find in China doesn’t even taste sweet, and if you offer a middle eastern pastry to a Chinese person they put half a spoon in their mouth and think they are about to die.
Super-Size it PLEASE!!!
Smoking became disgusting when the campain against smoking became effective.
Bullshit. My non-smoking parents called smoking disgusting in the 80s and probably before that. It became disgusting when addicts smoked everywhere without consideration for others, like in restaurants or on trains.
So what many people perceive as a disgusting habbit today is the effect of conditioning and propaganda. Smokers also had long lasting relations with non-smokers, now it is unthinkable a smoker and a non-smoker to even go out for a coffee together.
The fuck are you on about? I have no problem doing stuff with smokers and have had nobody ever claiming otherwise. Just don’t smoke in a way that affects me.
I am also surprised this discussion has gone so far so long and nobody has mentioned sugar and its bi-products (soft drinks, candy, sweets, …) Is there such an addiction recognized and known as dangerous?
Nice whataboutism. Btw, as far as I know, the same bodies pushing for regulating smoking and drinking more are also in favor of addressing this issue. And now matter how relevant it might be, your just detailing here.
Type-B diabetes has become common even for kids, especially in the west.
Sorry, I know types 1 and 2 only.
The sweetest thing you will find in China doesn’t even taste sweet, and if you offer a middle eastern pastry to a Chinese person they put half a spoon in their mouth and think they are about to die.
Which China?
There is only one, the Peoples’ Repuplic of China, the other is just a violent invasion and occupation by the US the Taiwanese people have endured.
I didn’t mean to imply that smoking and drinking were mutually exclusive, nor that one is an alternative to the other. I meant that people would be surprised by seeing these labels on alcohol, and then start to doubt all health-and-safety-related labels, then deduce that cigarettes must not be that bad.
Please note that I think this is poor logic, as I do think alcohol is unhealthy. I merely predict this response from people overall.
Scientifically we are not equal in this respect, most studies show during all ages and populations on earth there is a specific percent of the population that needs substances to control behavior. Whether it is smoking opium, sniffing coke, drinking wine, or injecting anti-depressants there are those born with a tendency to find such escape.
In the age where industry X can patent substance Y and sell it at 10000xcost … there will be a motive for making competitor substances look bad.
Did you just compare anti-depressants to sniffing coke? or are you referring to people doing anti-depressants recreationally?
The only coke that is legally imported to the US is a subsidiary front of Coca-Cola supervised by a USAF agency. After processing part of the product goes to the sole soft drink manufacturer the rest goes to big-Pharma
I am referring to people who can NOT do without behavior modification substances, legal, illegal, off the mini-market or the drug-store or the street, it makes no difference.
YES it is all over the literature, anti-depressants took up the slack of smoking and drinking quitting markets. From Big-Tobacco to Big-Pharma the goal is profit, and Prozac is one hell of alot more profitable than a good cigar. From Delaware to Georgia you have to use chemicals to stop tobacco from growing or use hybrids that are incapable of reproducing. Even if you can make Prozac in your kitchen you can’t sell someone’s patent.
You need to read this in the context of the post I replied to. I don’t doubt what you’re saying. But there was an implication that for some people, alcohol was the “healthier alternative” to smoking that they’re now not using but instead smoke (which is supposed to be even less healthy, personally I can’t rank their impact on health on a good foundation but this is what was implied).
I know people self-medicate and that others use recreationally. But I’m sure alcohol and tobacco industry don’t give a fuck about the legality of the other. If anything, there’s probably a synergy.
I am not a chemist but one high up in the chem-health research chain was telling me the basic ingredient on most popular “energy” drinks is a slightly modified chain of usual methamphetamines that is not banned by FDA or Euro-equivalent agencies, and in it reacts with alcohol to produce the effects now known to kids all around the world.
There is no dirtier pusher than Big-Pharma and Big-Tobacco… The crap is so evil it resembles 30-40s German “industries” like the Bayer-nazis now part of Monsanto.
That sounds “far-fetched” to put it mildly.
So you must be a biochemist, in which case you would have no problem explaining to us lesser mortals how different the formulas are and how unrelated they are.
You would also by the topic know exactly in which journals to search and find whether this is far-fetched or not, and you have access to them when the rest of us have to pay. If you are not even close to that field to tell how can you be so sure to put it mildly?Do you know how many scientific findings are right there, published, but millions are paid so media do not make “common sense” out of them?
What is wrong and so special about kids in the US that such a high percentage require ritalin? Why not the kids of the rest of the world? What are the side-effects of long term ritalin addiction?
At least tobacco takes decades to kill you but will keep your mind sharp if you need it.
There are just so many holes in that theory that I don’t believe it, biochemist or not.
First and unrelated to any biochemical processes being that you claim that “it reacts with alcohol to produce the effects now known to kids all around the world”. But kids for sure don’t mix these with alcohol, the discussion here was always about marketing the drinks to kids while they have caffeine and high sugar. Not that they mix it with alcohol.
Second, at least for other previously legal substances that evaded existing laws that I read into, molecules were attached to existing substances (e.g. 1p-LSD) which in the body lost the attached molecule. However, the companies producing these had to handle LSD, and for that had a license. If this approach was used here, the energy drink companies would need to have licenses to handle methamphetamine and its predecessors.
Third, most chemical reactions are a bit more complicated than “just add ethanol”.
Lastly, it was you who made an unsubstantiated claim and, citing Hitchen’s razor, “what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”.
At least tobacco takes decades to kill you but will keep your mind sharp if you need it.
Are you implying tobacco is less bad for your brain than amphetamines?
After his mother’s death in 1971 he started taking antidepressants and amphetamines, despite the concern of his friends, one of whom (Ron Graham) bet him $500 that he could not stop taking them for a month. Erdős won the bet but complained that it impacted his performance: “You’ve showed me I’m not an addict. But I didn’t get any work done. I’d get up in the morning and stare at a blank piece of paper. I’d have no ideas, just like an ordinary person. You’ve set mathematics back a month.” After he won the bet, he promptly resumed his use of Ritalin and Benzedrine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Erdős#Personality
Not that I’m recommending this.
Please no. Some of the bottles are so good looking. The cigarette warning are disgusting.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Ehhhhhh alcohol is nowhere near as dangerous as cigarettes. The point of labelling cigarettes is that they’re so exceptional dangerous.
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.
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.
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.
