9 ms·

How our society treats alcohol and tobacco is fascinating to me. Alcohol is known to cause all sorts of terrible health outcomes, yet our society glorifies it's

How our society treats alcohol and tobacco is fascinating to me. Alcohol is known to cause all sorts of terrible health outcomes, yet our society glorifies it's consumption. Getting hammered in college / university is seen as a right of passage. Ads for alcohol are filled with sexy cool people drinking and partying. Our media portrays drinking as cool. Many people could not fathom having a celebratory moment without alcohol. This was exactly where we were with tobacco in the 1950s. Ask a random person today if they think that efforts done to curb tobacco usage we're "good" they would probably say yes. We agree that glorifying tobacco consumption was bad. Attempts to brand tobacco as cool through figures as Joe Camel are viewed as stupid, we are much smarter and more enlightened now. Yet we don't apply the same critical lens to a Budweiser commerical where a guy pops open a bottle and is immediately surrounded by cool friends and beautiful women.

tptacek 4y ago
It probably has something to do with the near-universal consumption of alcohol stretching back to (check notes) the dawn of human history.
- SonicScrub 4y ago
  Doing something since the dawn of human history is a poor metric of whether something should be in a glorified position in our modern society.
  - VoodooJuJu 4y ago
    It's a great metric in determining whether something is Good, per the Lindy effect.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - endisneigh 4y ago
      violence also is as old as humanity, so…
      - whythre 4y ago
        It also seems fairly popular, solves the pesky problem of presides/rivals horning in on your resources. It is a good option if your metric is ‘helps you survive’ for most of our history.
- testbjjl 4y ago
  Same with hallucinogenics. Sexy media didn’t create demand for these products/resources.
  - pgwhalen 4y ago
    I’m no drug historian, but isn’t it safe to say that alcohol consumption is far more universal than hallucinogenic consumption, across time and space?
    - Volundr 4y ago
      I have my doubts. Alcohol requires fermentation. Many of the traditional hallucinogenics just require munching the right leaf, fungus, etc.
      - red-iron-pine 4y ago
        Fermentation is natural and common. Your liver can process fermented products because yeast is everywhere -- including in your gut, and will ferment carbs in tiny quantities as they move through you; your body is processing tiny quantities of alcohol all the time. Plenty of examples of bears, pigs, birds, etc. getting drunk off of fruit that's gone a little off.
    - boppo1 4y ago
      Yeah definitely. There are some people who are real passionate about the magic-mushrooms-caused-cognitive-evolution theory because it validates their lifestyle choices.
ipaddr 4y ago
How long until we move past the plastic leeching into food era? Or lets burn gas and put it in the air and let's ignore cancer effects era?
- barbazoo 4y ago
  It'll happen.
  - izzydata 4y ago
    Once the planet runs our of such resources to consume and we are forced to stop.
    - barbazoo 4y ago
      Has been done before that for countless other substances.
- red-iron-pine 4y ago
  There is already a lot of alarm over PFAS and plastics. It's likely to be the lead paint or asbestos of our generation.
LatteLazy 4y ago
The difference is that alcohol is quite fun...
- SonicScrub 4y ago
  Smoking was popularly seen as quite fun as well. Less so now. It's role in culture shifted.
  - LatteLazy 4y ago
    But it was never actually fun though. Maybe it was advertised that way. But there was no positive effect from it. Drinking on the other hand DOES effect peoples mood, behaviour, confidence etc. This is what always mystified me about smoking: at least other drugs have some effect, nicotine just gets you addicted. Edit: To be clear: smoking has no meaningful affect unless you're already addicted. A non smoker who tries their first cigarette is no more relaxed or confident or calm than they were before. The same is not true for alcohol or marijuana or basically any other drug people use recreationally...
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Smoking has a calming effect.
      - timeon 4y ago
        How is that fun?
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        Smoking also helps with weight loss.
    - SonicScrub 4y ago
      No positive effect from it? I take it you haven't been a smoker yourself. You being mystified about why smoking was seen as a desirable drug by many is evidence of the massive culture shift that occured surrounding that particular drug.
pessimizer 4y ago
> We agree that glorifying tobacco consumption was bad. You're using "we" very expansively here. All of the things that we've agreed on in your comment are objectionable to many. From what I can tell, "we" removes the "stupid" and only includes the "smarter and more enlightened" who will become stupid over time if they fail to apply the same "critical lens" to alcohol as they applied to cigarettes.
cwkoss 4y ago
I think one key difference between tobacco and alcohol is that tobacco doesn't really have a 'safe' level of usage: every cigarette is bad for you. However (from my understanding, could be wrong) alcohol isn't bad for you until your BAC exceeds a certain concentration, so 1-2 drinks is benign, but the 3rd one starts doing damage and damage increases in a dose dependent manner. Most fruit juices and breads contain small amounts of ethanol - and I don't think there is any suggestion that those quantities could have significant deleterious effects. I think it makes sense to have a different regulatory regime and societal perception for drugs that can have theoretically 'safe' recreational usage. Would love if there were biomarkers of alcohol doing damage that could be measured with a urine test strip or something like that at home: would acetaldehyde in urine be a good proxy of how much damage alcohol has done to the body? Regardless, warning labels make a lot of sense - the way many people use alcohol is carcinogenic, and drinkers should be aware of that risk.
- chimineycricket 4y ago
  You think one drink of alcohol doesn't have a negative effect on your liver?
  - cwkoss 4y ago
    From my (albeit limited understanding) the damage from alcohol primarily lies in the 'backup' metabolic pathways getting used when the liver is saturated and cannot keep up with the primary pathway. The backup metabolic pathways produce acutely toxic byproducts - acetaldehyde most significantly - which are significantly more harmful than ethanol itself. Some people may generate significant amounts of acetaldehyde from a single drink, but I don't think that's the case for the majority of healthy people.
    - ender341341 4y ago
      My also limited understanding is that research seems to be converging on any amount isn't good for you and that a lot of the "one glass of wine is healthy" seem to be more finding out that people who are good at self moderation tend to be healthier because they self moderate on other things too.
drcongo 4y ago
I'd like to see gambling given the same scrutiny too. We have endless ads running during sporting events in the UK these days with betting companies boasting about how many of their users are using features like bet limits and it boggles my mind. If your entire advertising budget is being spent trying to persuade people that you're not evil, then maybe you're evil.
- collyw 4y ago
  What a bunch of killjoys on here today. Most people are happy to accept the small harms from moderate consumption.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    Those small harms aren't the problem it's the massive harms these industries generate most of their profit from. Nobody cares about moderate consumption, but they do care when corporations manipulate children and adults into destructive behavior that has resulted in significant harm. That's why the article isn't saying "ban all alcohol forever!" but is saying "lets make sure people are aware of the risks". Same with gambling, which can be lots of fun, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing things like limiting and policing the ads or keeping exploitative and additive forms of gambling out of video games marketed to children.
rafaelero 4y ago
Well, meat is also not good for health (it was defined as likely carcinogen by WHO) and it is consumed pretty much everywhere and every day. Alcohol at least is fun and people consume it more sparsely.
- zackees 4y ago
  [dead]
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Don't the WHO also list cellphones as a likely carcinogen despite repeated studies showing no link? That list is hyper-conservative I think, as designed.
- procinct 4y ago
  I’ve never heard of meats like Chicken being carcinogenic, usually only red meats and pork… does anyone have any references to read more on this?
drewcoo 4y ago
The wedge used against tobacco was second hand smoke. Unless someone can show some kind of second-hand imbibing, alcohol is really not the same. Automotive pollution, on the other hand . . . there's a parallel.
- djkivi 4y ago
  Well, drunk driving is a serious problem that can affect others.
Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
There are limits to what can be done to ban alcohol. Prohibition was not a success. Bright side is that trends look like younger generations are already drinking less than older ones. They just aren't that into it.
- red-iron-pine 4y ago
  My $0.02 is legal weed. Most of the states that have the bulk of the population have recreational or medicinal marijuana. Booze is nice, but when they legalized it here I mostly gave up drinking in lieu of edibles. No hangover, no throat-burn, similar cost.
HKH2 4y ago
It's 'a rite of passage', or is 'a right of passage' an American thing?
- red-iron-pine 4y ago
  Have you spent anytime outside of the US?
  - HKH2 4y ago
    I've never spent any time in the US.
wizofaus 4y ago
How many first world countries have banned/restricted alcohol advertising already? It's already pretty heavily restricted in Australia for instance (you are still allowed to broadcast TV commercials for alcohol, but because of the limitations around when you can do it and what you can show in such commercials, they're actually relatively rare, certainly compared to what I remember in the past). What I don't know if there's been much research into how effective the restrictions have been - it's true we seem have a younger generation now that drinks less than their parents, but I believe that phenomenon has been observed in countries that haven't significant restricted alcohol advertising either. We don't have cancer warnings, though it's certainly been discussed (and appears to have broad public support). There are typically pregnancy warnings ("Alcohol can cause lifelong harm to your baby"), which have been mandatory since 2020.
ansraliant 4y ago
[dead]

tptacek 4y ago

It probably has something to do with the near-universal consumption of alcohol stretching back to (check notes) the dawn of human history.

SonicScrub 4y ago
Doing something since the dawn of human history is a poor metric of whether something should be in a glorified position in our modern society.
- VoodooJuJu 4y ago
  It's a great metric in determining whether something is Good, per the Lindy effect.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    violence also is as old as humanity, so…
    - whythre 4y ago
      It also seems fairly popular, solves the pesky problem of presides/rivals horning in on your resources. It is a good option if your metric is ‘helps you survive’ for most of our history.
testbjjl 4y ago
Same with hallucinogenics. Sexy media didn’t create demand for these products/resources.
- pgwhalen 4y ago
  I’m no drug historian, but isn’t it safe to say that alcohol consumption is far more universal than hallucinogenic consumption, across time and space?
  - Volundr 4y ago
    I have my doubts. Alcohol requires fermentation. Many of the traditional hallucinogenics just require munching the right leaf, fungus, etc.
    - red-iron-pine 4y ago
      Fermentation is natural and common. Your liver can process fermented products because yeast is everywhere -- including in your gut, and will ferment carbs in tiny quantities as they move through you; your body is processing tiny quantities of alcohol all the time. Plenty of examples of bears, pigs, birds, etc. getting drunk off of fruit that's gone a little off.
  - boppo1 4y ago
    Yeah definitely. There are some people who are real passionate about the magic-mushrooms-caused-cognitive-evolution theory because it validates their lifestyle choices.

ipaddr 4y ago

How long until we move past the plastic leeching into food era? Or lets burn gas and put it in the air and let's ignore cancer effects era?

barbazoo 4y ago
It'll happen.
- izzydata 4y ago
  Once the planet runs our of such resources to consume and we are forced to stop.
  - barbazoo 4y ago
    Has been done before that for countless other substances.
red-iron-pine 4y ago
There is already a lot of alarm over PFAS and plastics. It's likely to be the lead paint or asbestos of our generation.

LatteLazy 4y ago

The difference is that alcohol is quite fun...

SonicScrub 4y ago
Smoking was popularly seen as quite fun as well. Less so now. It's role in culture shifted.
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  But it was never actually fun though. Maybe it was advertised that way. But there was no positive effect from it. Drinking on the other hand DOES effect peoples mood, behaviour, confidence etc. This is what always mystified me about smoking: at least other drugs have some effect, nicotine just gets you addicted. Edit: To be clear: smoking has no meaningful affect unless you're already addicted. A non smoker who tries their first cigarette is no more relaxed or confident or calm than they were before. The same is not true for alcohol or marijuana or basically any other drug people use recreationally...
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Smoking has a calming effect.
    - timeon 4y ago
      How is that fun?
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Smoking also helps with weight loss.
  - SonicScrub 4y ago
    No positive effect from it? I take it you haven't been a smoker yourself. You being mystified about why smoking was seen as a desirable drug by many is evidence of the massive culture shift that occured surrounding that particular drug.

pessimizer 4y ago

> We agree that glorifying tobacco consumption was bad. You're using "we" very expansively here. All of the things that we've agreed on in your comment are objectionable to many. From what I can tell, "we" removes the "stupid" and only includes the "smarter and more enlightened" who will become stupid over time if they fail to apply the same "critical lens" to alcohol as they applied to cigarettes.

cwkoss 4y ago

I think one key difference between tobacco and alcohol is that tobacco doesn't really have a 'safe' level of usage: every cigarette is bad for you. However (from my understanding, could be wrong) alcohol isn't bad for you until your BAC exceeds a certain concentration, so 1-2 drinks is benign, but the 3rd one starts doing damage and damage increases in a dose dependent manner. Most fruit juices and breads contain small amounts of ethanol - and I don't think there is any suggestion that those quantities could have significant deleterious effects. I think it makes sense to have a different regulatory regime and societal perception for drugs that can have theoretically 'safe' recreational usage. Would love if there were biomarkers of alcohol doing damage that could be measured with a urine test strip or something like that at home: would acetaldehyde in urine be a good proxy of how much damage alcohol has done to the body? Regardless, warning labels make a lot of sense - the way many people use alcohol is carcinogenic, and drinkers should be aware of that risk.

chimineycricket 4y ago
You think one drink of alcohol doesn't have a negative effect on your liver?
- cwkoss 4y ago
  From my (albeit limited understanding) the damage from alcohol primarily lies in the 'backup' metabolic pathways getting used when the liver is saturated and cannot keep up with the primary pathway. The backup metabolic pathways produce acutely toxic byproducts - acetaldehyde most significantly - which are significantly more harmful than ethanol itself. Some people may generate significant amounts of acetaldehyde from a single drink, but I don't think that's the case for the majority of healthy people.
  - ender341341 4y ago
    My also limited understanding is that research seems to be converging on any amount isn't good for you and that a lot of the "one glass of wine is healthy" seem to be more finding out that people who are good at self moderation tend to be healthier because they self moderate on other things too.

drcongo 4y ago

I'd like to see gambling given the same scrutiny too. We have endless ads running during sporting events in the UK these days with betting companies boasting about how many of their users are using features like bet limits and it boggles my mind. If your entire advertising budget is being spent trying to persuade people that you're not evil, then maybe you're evil.

collyw 4y ago
What a bunch of killjoys on here today. Most people are happy to accept the small harms from moderate consumption.
- autoexec 4y ago
  Those small harms aren't the problem it's the massive harms these industries generate most of their profit from. Nobody cares about moderate consumption, but they do care when corporations manipulate children and adults into destructive behavior that has resulted in significant harm. That's why the article isn't saying "ban all alcohol forever!" but is saying "lets make sure people are aware of the risks". Same with gambling, which can be lots of fun, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing things like limiting and policing the ads or keeping exploitative and additive forms of gambling out of video games marketed to children.

rafaelero 4y ago

Well, meat is also not good for health (it was defined as likely carcinogen by WHO) and it is consumed pretty much everywhere and every day. Alcohol at least is fun and people consume it more sparsely.

zackees 4y ago
[dead]
mrguyorama 4y ago
Don't the WHO also list cellphones as a likely carcinogen despite repeated studies showing no link? That list is hyper-conservative I think, as designed.
procinct 4y ago
I’ve never heard of meats like Chicken being carcinogenic, usually only red meats and pork… does anyone have any references to read more on this?

drewcoo 4y ago

The wedge used against tobacco was second hand smoke. Unless someone can show some kind of second-hand imbibing, alcohol is really not the same. Automotive pollution, on the other hand . . . there's a parallel.

djkivi 4y ago
Well, drunk driving is a serious problem that can affect others.

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago

There are limits to what can be done to ban alcohol. Prohibition was not a success. Bright side is that trends look like younger generations are already drinking less than older ones. They just aren't that into it.

red-iron-pine 4y ago
My $0.02 is legal weed. Most of the states that have the bulk of the population have recreational or medicinal marijuana. Booze is nice, but when they legalized it here I mostly gave up drinking in lieu of edibles. No hangover, no throat-burn, similar cost.

HKH2 4y ago

It's 'a rite of passage', or is 'a right of passage' an American thing?

red-iron-pine 4y ago
Have you spent anytime outside of the US?
- HKH2 4y ago
  I've never spent any time in the US.

wizofaus 4y ago

How many first world countries have banned/restricted alcohol advertising already? It's already pretty heavily restricted in Australia for instance (you are still allowed to broadcast TV commercials for alcohol, but because of the limitations around when you can do it and what you can show in such commercials, they're actually relatively rare, certainly compared to what I remember in the past). What I don't know if there's been much research into how effective the restrictions have been - it's true we seem have a younger generation now that drinks less than their parents, but I believe that phenomenon has been observed in countries that haven't significant restricted alcohol advertising either. We don't have cancer warnings, though it's certainly been discussed (and appears to have broad public support). There are typically pregnancy warnings ("Alcohol can cause lifelong harm to your baby"), which have been mandatory since 2020.

ansraliant 4y ago

[dead]