this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2025
418 points (98.4% liked)
World News
33451 readers
572 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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".
Are you implying tobacco is less bad for your brain than amphetamines?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Erd%C5%91s#Personality
Not that I'm recommending this.
Ok, peace, tell us more about Hitchens :)