WHO calls for cigarette-style cancer warnings on alcohol packaging : worldnews

[–] penquin@lemmy.kde.social 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Labels need to be on all food, too, in the US of A. All of our food is cancerous.

[–] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] iriyan@lemmy.ml -4 points 1 week ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

If you mean more traumatic images in people's faces, fuck off.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] coaxil@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Why are you against this? I thought it was shown the advertising is reasonably affective?

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago (5 children)

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.

[–] coaxil@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago

I mean, could have them out of sight, and have the images on them, like they do in Australia.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

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.

[–] Laser@feddit.org 5 points 1 week ago (5 children)

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.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[+] iriyan@lemmy.ml -6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

[–] CarbonBasedNPU@lemm.ee 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Did you just compare anti-depressants to sniffing coke? or are you referring to people doing anti-depressants recreationally?

[–] iriyan@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 week ago

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

[–] iriyan@lemmy.ml -4 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] Laser@feddit.org 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] iriyan@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Laser@feddit.org 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That sounds "far-fetched" to put it mildly.

[–] iriyan@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

[+] iriyan@lemmy.ml -8 points 1 week ago (7 children)

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.

load more comments (7 replies)

[+] Majestic@lemmy.ml -9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] sik0fewl@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 week ago

It's a label change... you can still use it in your cooking.

[+] iriyan@lemmy.ml -12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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!

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[+] ocean@lemmy.selfhostcat.com -28 points 1 week ago (12 children)

Please no. Some of the bottles are so good looking. The cigarette warning are disgusting.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[–] Hirom@beehaw.org 7 points 1 week ago

That's the whole point.

[–] Sarmyth@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ocean@lemmy.selfhostcat.com 1 points 1 week ago

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.

load more comments (9 replies)

World News

Rules: