I realize this is poor timing to express this opinion since most of America is going to intentionally watch high-production-value advertisements glorifying alcohol in a few hours from now...
The necessary "institution" is called science. And even with bought/fake science science does have quite a good track record regarding things like these.
But I am actually not advocating bans on these things. Every grown up should be allowed to be irrationally dumb and destroy themselves.
But, why not tax them. Tax them so that externalities are being compensated. Make these things unattractive. Also work on changing the culture of it being cool to drink till you pass out or even the obligatory social drinking. It doesn't have to be cool.
And if anyone wants to kill themselves with substances that is OK. I don't have to like it, but I think it is their right.
But don't make me pay for their medical bills (an example) by covering it from their insurance (that becomes more expensive for me).
Disclosure: I say that as a person who lost his father prematurely because he drank too much. Way too much. My appetite for alcohol wasn't too high before, but is not existing any more since then. Still I wouldn't want to forbid it for others.
But at least the scientists I know would wait for the level of evidence to be high.
But as policies would be made by politicians I doubt it would work without populistic influences.
(It already kind of happens in the more liberal states of the USA, where Californians are much better fit than Texans).
However I was allowed to serve in a different service: civil protection [1]. In case of war I would have gone outside and done measurements for radioactivity, chemical and biological warfare agents. My departement was called ABC (atomic, biological and chemical). I am happy and lucky that the war-games never got real.
Later people with disabilities were exempt from the tax. But then I was thirty and already discharged.
Links are to French text, sorry, no English text available.
[0]: https://www.vtg.admin.ch/fr/mon-service-militaire/generalite...
I don't think "science" can really help all that much here, because a lot aspects surrounding this aren't really scientific questions. Yes, you can be informed by science to answer questions like "how addictive is this?" and "how harmful is this in what dosages?", but that doesn't really answer the question of who should pay for what, what is "fair", or what should or should not be allowed.
(and the answers to these questions aren't always clear either: is cycling a net-negative or net-positive? Health benefits from exercise, but higher risk of injuries – and why should we tax alcohol to account for all external costs but not cycling or other activities where risk is higher than some others?)
> Also work on changing the culture of it being cool to drink till you pass out or even the obligatory social drinking.
Definitely agree with this. If I say "no" then I mean "no", and trying to "oh come, just have a drink"-me is a very quick way to end up on my shit list. I've seen people do this even with people who never drink alcohol even when they know this.
They're basically the equivalent to getting a lower health insurance premium if you keep your blood pressure low or sign up for a gym for example.
"On a yearly basis smokers have higher health care costs (€3.5 billion) and use more caregivers. Over the complete life-span non-smokers use more health care, especially elderly care (€8.6 billion) and care givers (€1.4 billion). This is because life expectancy is longer. In a smoke-free society health care costs will be higher per capita"
The overall gist of the article is still that smoking is bad and that a smoke-free society would be good (I agree), but health care costs don't actually seem a strong argument, in the Netherlands at least. And aside from lower health care costs, there are also less pensions to give, which saves money.
The costs of alcohol were estimated to be "€2.3 tot 4.2 billion"/year[2] (2013), which also includes police, damage, loss of productivity, etc. Health care specifically is about €450 million. The income from alcohol tax was about €1 billion, which certainly covers the health care costs, though not all of them. I'm not sure if they should: that a small group of people destroy things when drinking doesn't really need to be paid by other alcohol consumers, IMHO.
Anyway, turns out it's not as simple as "smoking = costs society money". Details may differ per country; I just looked at the Netherlands because that's where I'm from.
> They're basically the equivalent to getting a lower health insurance premium if you keep your blood pressure low or sign up for a gym for example.
I'm not sure we have this kind of thing here. Besides, what if I stay healthy by running or cycling? What if you're genetically pre-disposed to high blood pressure? You can market it as a "discount", but it's really a "premium" for people who don't do this IMHO (reminds me of getting a "discount" at some camping sites if you arrive by foot, which isn't really a "discount" but just a way of packaging "you pay for parking").
[1]: https://www.ntvg.nl/artikelen/de-rekening-van-roken#lb-3
[2]: https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/2018-0146.pdf
I could not agree more.
"I've seen people do this even with people who never drink alcohol even when they know this."
I habe been on the receiving side of this more often than I like.
How would a government pay for protection, infrastructure, education, and a lot of other things governments provide to their citizens?
Libertarians are funny people. It boggles my mind how anyone can be clueless or compassionless enough to be one.
And yes, I believe everyone will be better off with free markets, otherwise i’d be a commie too. It’s not that I don’t care about others. I care more than most do. I see they working jobs that are not necessary, or governments destroying their purchasing power.
Fortunately I am doing pretty well, even with after the money government takes, and if I was evil or not compassionate I wouldn’t advocate for change, but rather take advantage of current system and move to the side that benefits from peoples diminished value of work. It would be way easier for me.
That's a very wild claim, unsubstantiated by anything. The history of industrial revolution shows otherwise ( regular people are exploited to death until some regulations come to stop the most rampant abuses). Do you have anything to support your case?
> And yes, I believe everyone will be better off with free markets, otherwise i’d be a commie too.
So for you there's only communism and absolute free markets? So you're in the clueless libertarian case. Considering the freeish markets available today fail miserably at correcting for externalities such as pollution and climate change, how do you imagine absolutely free ones would do so?
Say someone bans advertisements for social media sites - how is that detrimental to society? People who don’t believe social media sites are a problem can still find and use them.
If you cannot get the majority to support your censorship, and still believe it is good for a lot of people, you have to create standards and create programs that adhere to such standards that people can subscribe to voluntarily.
I don't think cigarette advertising is worse than either cigarette selling or cigarette smoking. Under the rubric of "this is currently a bad thing, lets address it now" there's actually no escaping a slippery slope.
And "We cannot ban anything because someone people might eventually ban the wrong thing" is a strawman. The people doing the banning will think it's the right thing.
I'll use this conversation as an example to demonstrate the absurdity. If you accept someone's argument on one topic then you may find yourself agreeing with other things they say including some terrible conclusions. Therefore, it's better to never accept anyone's argument. There are much better ways to discern whether to accept or reject an argument.
PS we should ban the Wikipedia article on market failures though, can't have people reading that.
I kinda feel this is the kind of escalation that also paralyses discourse when dealing with corporate behavior that affects society as a whole. We would really benefit a from "nudge"/"don't promote" approach to first limit impacts, without bringing all the ban and censorship drama in it as long as the option is not on the table.
Even if the "wrong thing" is banned, this is a ban on certain types of advertising, not something that restricts your ability to buy (or sell) these things.
As far as controlling sales, i think a regulated market for drugs is required. So am happy to see both the Swiss initiative and also the German initiative for legalising Cannabis:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_Germany
As for Superbowl, there really hasn't been that many iconic ads for alcohol, but I'm sure Budweiser will be represented this year.
https://www.vogue.com/article/best-super-bowl-ads-of-all-tim...
Depending on what you mean by addiction that would include a lot of normal food as well. High sugar, sugar + fat, MSG, etc.
So which is the tail and which the dog?
I agree packaging should be wayyyy more standardised (and more ecological). But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be only 2 types of yogurt.
FWIW I have a feeling when you buy food manufacturing and transport is the smallest parts of cost. Packaging and shelving are major ones. Kinda why you don't see large packaging, especially in Europe. Why does all toothpaste runs out in a month? I don't change my favourite brand for years..?
The "no" campaign said "Next they will come for your cervelas" (cervela = the Swiss version of a hot dog, highly processed meat which is considered a sacred cultural icon).
After the vote, the Young Greens were all like, "ok, next we will go for the cervela advertising!!1!"
Trolling boomers never gets old. :)
Also arguably what some people see as a sugar crisis has more to do with the food industry landscape than the food components themselves. TBF finding a scapegoat is easier than dealing with complex root problems.
> marijuana > addictive chemicals
is one claim I am not familiar with (usually I hear “psychologically addictive”, like any pleasurable activity), but maybe I am out of date on the latest research. Anyways, swap coffee/caffeine for marijuana and this makes a bit more sense to me.
That's because there is a lot of misinformation spread by stoner types that try to rationalize cannabis usage as "non-addictive". Speaking as a former stoner myself (with nothing against smoking, I just don't partake anymore).
Cannabis use can absolutely cause physical dependence. It can absolutely "cause" (be part of) psychological dependence. It can absolutely be part of a pattern of addiction. The idea that weed is "not addictive" is simply propaganda.
Now, it is true that when compared to drugs like benzodiazapenes, alcohol, and opioids, that cessation of long-term cannabis consumption causes much less severe side effects. You don't get seizures from stopping weed abruptly. But there are absolutely still withdrawal symptoms.
TL;DR: It's a myth that cannabis is a magic plant that one can't get addicted to. It's basically a cope put forward primarily by internet stoners.
Gambling can ruin people's lives. The government shouldn't support it being easily accessible. It should be reserved for a desert city almost no one lives in on vacation.
For instance mobile game gambling could have been way more rampant and destructive, but we have a decent set of rules and laws to limit the impact.
I can't imagine our society with 0 gambling happening, so if people will find a way anyway, I'd personally prefer it to be on the open, in a mainstream way. Blocking marketing wouldn't work when there are so many different forms of gambling, and obviously it also plays a social stabilizer role so I don't see any serious move to effectively stop people from gambling succeeding.